Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

$f$-mode oscillations of dark matter admixed quarkyonic neutron star

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that dark-matter-admixed quarkyonic neutron stars obey the same f-mode universal relations as ordinary neutron stars: frequency tracks mean density and compactness.

desk verdict Useful new f-mode numbers for DM-admixed quarkyonic stars, but the universal-relation claim is a self-fit, not a test. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06739 v1 pith:FGD7WSP6 submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.HE nucl-th

D. Dey , Jeet Amrit Pattnaik , R. N. Panda , M. Bhuyan , S. K. Patra This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEnucl-th
keywords f-modeoscillationsquarkyonicneutronstarsdark-matteradmixeduniversalrelationsCowlingapproximationrelativisticmeanfieldstarequationofstate
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the low-frequency f-mode oscillations of neutron stars built from quarkyonic matter—a mixed phase where quarks fill low-momentum states and nucleons occupy a shell near the Fermi surface—still follow the same universal scaling laws when dark matter is added. Using the Cowling approximation of linearized general relativity and two relativistic mean-field parameter sets, the authors vary three model parameters: quark–hadron transition density, QCD confinement scale, and dark-matter Fermi momentum. They find that adding dark matter shifts the f-mode frequency by up to a few tenths of a kHz and lowers the maximum mass. The paper's core claim is that the universal relations survive this shift: across all 26 baryonic, quarkyonic, and dark-matter-admixed equations of state, the frequency tracks the square root of mean density with 95% correlation and the scaled frequency tracks compactness with 99% correlation. If true, gravitational-wave measurements of f-modes from such exotic stars would remain interpretable with the same simple formulas used for ordinary neutron stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Cowling approximation for $\ell=2$ f-modes: the spacetime metric is held fixed and only the fluid displacement is perturbed, which the paper notes reproduces fully relativistic frequencies to within about 20%. On top of this sits an effective relativistic mean-field (E-RMF) description of baryonic matter, a quarkyonic equation of state in which nucleons occupy a Fermi shell while quarks fill the low-momentum states, and a neutralino dark-matter component coupled through Higgs exchange with fixed couplings $y=0.07$, $f=0.35$ and a dark-matter Fermi momentum $k_f^{\rm DM}$ taken as 0, 0.03, or 0.04 GeV. The three free parameters, transition density $n_t$, QCD confinement scale $\Lambda_{\rm cs}$, and $k_f^{\rm DM}$, generate the 26 equations of state over which the two universal fits are drawn.

What would settle it

Recompute the f-mode frequencies for the same 26 equations of state with a fully general-relativistic oscillation code that includes metric perturbations; if the scatter around $f = 0.6282 + 2.0476\sqrt{\bar{M}/\bar{R}^3}$ widens beyond the claimed 95% correlation, the universal relation is an artifact of the Cowling approximation. Observationally, a future post-merger gravitational-wave signal that yields an f-mode frequency for a neutron star with independently measured mass and radius would falsify the universal behavior if it falls off the fitted line by more than the scatter quoted here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that f-mode oscillations of quarkyonic neutron stars, with and without a dark-matter admixture, obey the same approximate linear universal relations as ordinary neutron stars. From a grid of 26 equations of state spanning two nuclear parameter sets, three transition densities, two confinement scales, and three dark-matter Fermi momenta, the paper obtains $f\,(\mathrm{kHz}) = 0.6282 + 2.0476\sqrt{\bar{M}/\bar{R}^3}$ with a correlation coefficient of about 95%, where $\bar{M}$ and $\bar{R}$ are mass and radius in units of $1.4\,M_\odot$ and $10$ km, and $\omega M\,(\mathrm{kHz\,km}) = -4.665 + 199.95\,C$ with 99% correlation, where $C = M/R$ is compactness. Dark matter changes where a given star sits on these lines, raising the f-mode frequency at fixed microscopic parameters and lowering the maximum mass, but does not push stars off them. This is what the authors mean by saying the universal relations hold in the presence of dark matter.

Load-bearing premise

The dark-matter effect is sized by the assumption that the dark-matter Fermi momentum is roughly 0.03 GeV, obtained by taking the neutralino mass to be one sixth of the neutron-star mass and the nucleon number density to be 1000 times the dark-matter density; a smaller dark-matter fraction or weaker Higgs-portal couplings would shrink the frequency shifts and could remove the apparent universality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detected f-mode frequency from a post-merger remnant can be converted into a model-independent estimate of mean density or compactness using either universal fit, regardless of whether the star contains quarkyonic matter or dark matter.
  • Because raising $k_f^{\rm DM}$ increases $f_{1.4}$ while decreasing tidal deformability $\Lambda_{1.4}$, a joint measurement of f-mode frequency and tidal deformability could, in principle, separate dark-matter content from transition-density effects in this model.
  • The 99%-correlation fit $\omega M = -4.665 + 199.95 C$ ties scaled frequency to compactness tightly enough that a single f-mode detection would pin down the star's compactness to within the fit's scatter.
  • The fact that both the G3 and IOPB-I parameter sets fall on the same fits indicates that the universal relations are not an artifact of one specific nuclear parametrization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step the paper does not take is to rerun the Cowling calculation in full general relativity; if the 95% and 99% correlations survive, the fits could serve as priors for gravitational-wave template banks targeting neutron stars with exotic cores.
  • Because the dark-matter sector enters only through the single parameter $k_f^{\rm DM}$, the same calculation could be repeated for other dark-matter candidates, such as asymmetric or bosonic dark matter, without changing the formalism; whether universality holds would depend only on the resulting effective equation of state.
  • The universal fits are drawn over a deliberately sparse grid of parameter combinations; a Monte Carlo marginalization over $n_t$, $\Lambda_{\rm cs}$, and $k_f^{\rm DM}$ would test whether the correlations reflect genuine equation-of-state independence or a coincidence of the chosen grid.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper computes l=2 f-mode oscillation frequencies of non-rotating neutron stars built from quarkyonic equations of state with admixed dark matter, using the relativistic Cowling approximation. The nuclear input combines an E-RMF baryonic sector, a quarkyonic matter model with two parameters (transition density n_t and QCD confinement scale Lambda_cs), and a Higgs-portal neutralino DM component characterized by the DM Fermi momentum k_f^DM. The authors integrate the TOV equations and solve the linearized perturbation equations for two parameter sets (G3 and IOPB-I), varying the three free parameters over a small grid. They report that adding DM lowers the maximum mass and increases f-mode frequencies for a given compactness, and they claim that universal relations among f-mode frequency, average density, and compactness remain valid, fitting Eqs. (34) and (35) with correlation coefficients of 95% and 99%. The paper also presents correlations among macroscopic properties such as mass, radius, tidal deformability, and f-mode frequency.

Significance. If the universal-relation claim is robust, this work would usefully extend f-mode universality to a class of exotic compact stars, which matters for planned gravitational-wave asteroseismology analyses. The manuscript has clear strengths: it uses standard, well-defined TOV and Cowling equations; it tabulates macroscopic properties for 26 EOSs in Table I; and it provides explicit, falsifiable fitting formulas in Eqs. (34)-(35). The qualitative statement that DM shifts f-mode frequencies is supported by the tabulated values. However, the central claim of EOS independence is not yet established, because the evidence is a self-fit to the same data used to define the relation, with no residual analysis, no out-of-sample test, and no comparison against the established Andersson-Kokkotas relation. The Cowling systematic error is acknowledged but not propagated. These are load-bearing gaps rather than presentation issues.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (34), Fig. 3] The claim that f-mode universal relations hold across baryonic, quarkyonic, and DM-admixed EOSs is supported only by linear least-squares fits to the same 26 EOSs used to define the fit. No out-of-sample validation, residual plot, or comparison with the Andersson-Kokkotas relation (cited in the Introduction) is provided. If the DM-admixed models systematically deviate from the relation defined by the non-DM models, the combined fit could absorb a DM-induced offset and masquerade as universality. Please fit Eq. (34) to the non-DM subsample and report residuals of the DM-admixed models, or provide an equivalent out-of-sample test.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Figs. 3-4] The reported correlation coefficients are not a sufficient statistical basis for universality. For Eq. (34), r = 95% corresponds to R^2 ~ 0.90, implying roughly 10% unexplained scatter; asteroseismology applications typically require residuals at the few-percent level. Additionally, the plotted points are not independent: each EOS produces a continuous M-R sequence, so the effective number of independent constraints is 26 rather than the total number of plotted stars. Please report the RMS fractional residual around each fit and account for the non-independence of points when assessing the significance of the correlation.
  3. [Sec. II.E and Sec. III.B] The text states that the Cowling approximation error is less than 20% relative to full general-relativistic results, but this systematic uncertainty is not propagated into the fitted universal relations. A frequency error of this size could be comparable to or larger than the scatter around Eqs. (34) and (35), and if the error is density-dependent it could bias the fitted slope. Please quantify the impact of the Cowling approximation on the universal relations, or add an explicit qualification that the reported correlations are within the Cowling approximation only.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] Typos: "Mclerran" should be "McLerran", and "Jhao and Lattimer" should be "Zhao and Lattimer".
  2. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (5)] The transition Fermi momentum is introduced as k_Ft but appears as kt in Eq. (5); please define kt explicitly and use consistent notation.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption says "the numbers show the corresponding p-values," but the displayed numbers are correlation coefficients, not p-values; please correct the caption.
  4. [Sec. III.B] There is a typo: "dimesionless" should be "dimensionless".
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] Typo: "steller" should be "stellar".
  6. [Fig. 6 caption] The phrase "higher lower tidal deformability region" is confusing; please rephrase to state whether the region has higher or lower tidal deformability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Universal-relations claim is validated by the same least-squares fit used to define it; no out-of-sample or external test is provided.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III.B (Universal relations), Eqs. (34)-(35); abstract]
    "We see a linear relationship between f mode frequency and the average density of the star, the linear fitting will lead to an approximate relation f (kHz) = 0.6282 + 2.0476 q M¯ R¯3 , which has a correlation coefficient of about ∼ 95%. ... the fitting gives an approximate relation as: ωM (kHzkm) = −4.665 + 199.95C. ... Despite these changes, several universal relations among the oscillation properties are found to hold, demonstrating their robustness in the presence of dark matter."

    Eqs. (34) and (35) are obtained by least-squares fitting the same 26 EOS models that appear in Figs. 3 and 4, including the baryonic, quarkyonic, and DM-admixed cases. The paper explicitly says it will 'derive the empirical relation across the full range' of the parameter space and then reports the correlation coefficients of that fit. The conclusion that the universal relations 'hold' and are 'robust' to dark matter is then supported only by these same in-sample correlation coefficients (95% and 99%). A linear fit to a dataset cannot by itself validate universality: the high correlation is a property of the fitted curve, not an independent test. No residual scatter, out-of-sample EOS, or comparison with the published Andersson-Kokkotas relation is shown.

full rationale

The f-mode frequencies themselves are computed, not fitted: they are obtained by solving the Cowling-approximation perturbation equations, Eqs. (28)-(31), for EOSs built from the RMF, quarkyonic, and DM models. That core calculation is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The circularity is localized to the universal-relations section: the paper defines the empirical relations by fitting to all of its models and then presents the same fit as evidence that the relations are robust. This is a fitted input called a prediction, because the 'robustness' claim is statistically forced by the fitting procedure rather than by an independent test. The self-citations to related work by the same authors (e.g., Ref. [14], [91], [92]) are not load-bearing here: the RMF parameter sets and DM interaction model are standard inputs, and the f-mode calculation is independent of those citations. Overall score 6 reflects one central claim that partially reduces to a self-fit, while the underlying oscillation calculation retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The computed f-mode frequencies rest entirely on the adopted quarkyonic EOS, the assumed neutralino DM model and abundance, the RMF parameter sets, and the Cowling approximation. None of these is independently validated in this paper.

free parameters (3)
  • transition density nt = 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 fm^-3
    In the quarkyonic model, sets the density at which quarks populate low-momentum states; varied by hand across three values; directly affects quark fraction and EOS stiffness.
  • QCD confinement scale Lambda_cs = 800, 1400 MeV
    Appears in Eq. (5) for the minimum nucleon Fermi momentum; varied by hand; controls the momentum shell structure of quarkyonic matter.
  • dark matter Fermi momentum kf^DM = 0.00, 0.03, 0.04 GeV
    Sets the DM abundance inside the star; the baseline 0.03 GeV is justified by the M_chi/M_NS=1/6 assumption in Sec. II.C and then varied; it is the key control for DM effects on f-modes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Quarkyonic matter model of McLerran-Reddy and Zhao-Lattimer: baryon conservation, charge neutrality, beta equilibrium, and chemical equilibrium between nucleons and quarks (Eqs. 3-9).
    This is the dense-matter model used to build the EOS; if the quarkyonic phase transition does not occur, the central frequencies shift or vanish.
  • domain assumption DM is a 200 GeV neutralino interacting with nucleons and quarks via Higgs exchange with couplings y=0.07, f=0.35, and a DM Fermi momentum near 0.03 GeV.
    Adopted from Refs. [16,23,40] in Sec. II.C; no direct evidence for this specific DM realization in neutron stars is provided here.
  • domain assumption Cowling approximation: background metric perturbations are neglected, with stated error below 20% for f-modes.
    Invoked in Sec. II.E to compute oscillation frequencies; the 20% systematic uncertainty is not propagated into reported frequencies.
  • domain assumption RMF/E-RMF parameter sets G3 and IOPB-I describe nuclear matter and were calibrated in prior work.
    Used as the baryonic baseline in Sec. II.A and Table I; the results depend on these calibrations.
  • standard math TOV equations and the Cowling-approximation oscillation equations (Eqs. 19-31) correctly describe non-rotating stellar structure and l=2 f-modes.
    These are the governing equations; the paper cites them but does not derive them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $f$-mode oscillations of dark matter admixed quarkyonic neutron star." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FGD7WSP6

@misc{pith2026241206739,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $f$-mode oscillations of dark matter admixed quarkyonic neutron star},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FGD7WSP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06739}
}
abstract

We systematically investigate $f-$mode oscillations ($\ell$ = 2) in quarkyonic neutron stars with dark matter, employing the Cowling approximation within the framework of linearized general relativity. The relativistic mean-field approach is used to compute various macroscopic properties of neutron stars. The analysis focuses on three key free parameters in the model: transition density, QCD confinement scale, and dark matter (DM) Fermi momentum, all of which significantly affect the properties of $f-$mode oscillations. The inclusion of dark matter in quarkyonic equations of state leads to notable variations in $f-$mode frequencies. Despite these changes, several universal relations among the oscillation properties are found to hold, demonstrating their robustness in the presence of dark matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06739 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. f-mode frequency as a function of average density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Scaled f-mode frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Correlation heat map of the various macroscopic properties [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Left: Correlation between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Non-Radial Oscillation Modes in Hybrid Stars with Hyperons and Delta Baryons

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using full general relativity, the authors compute f-mode oscillation frequencies for neutron stars with hyperons, delta baryons, and quark-matter cores, and find composition-dependent shifts in universal asteroseismo...

  2. Role of density profile of sub-GeV dark matter in the properties of dark matter admixed quark stars with Bayesian analysis of dark-NJL model

    hep-ph 2025-09 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A model of quark stars with a variable dark matter density profile claims sub-GeV dark matter can satisfy all current compact star constraints.

  3. Exploring Fermionic Dark Matter Admixed Neutron Stars in the Light of Astrophysical Observations

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A Bayesian analysis of dark matter admixed neutron stars finds that astrophysical data constrain only the dark matter fraction, which is governed by the hadronic equation of state stiffness.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [65]

    Zhao and J

    T. Zhao and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Science 304, 536 (2004)

    2004

  3. [2]

    Burrows, Nature 403, 727 (2000)

    A. Burrows, Nature 403, 727 (2000)

    2000

  4. [3]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  5. [4]

    S. De, D. Finstad, J. M. Lattimer, D. A. Brown, E. Berger, and C. M. Biwer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 091102 (2018)

    2018

  6. [5]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, et al. (The LIGO Sci- entific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

  7. [6]

    C. D. Capano, I. Tews, S. M. Brown, B. Margalit, S. De, S. Ku- mar, D. A. Brown, B. Krishnan, and S. Reddy, Nature Astron- omy 4, 625 (2020)

    2020

  8. [7]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, et al., APJL 887, L21 (2019)

    2019

Show all 94 references
  1. [8]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, and other, The Astro- physical Journal Letters 887, L24 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    J. M. Lattimer, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 62, 485 (2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    ¨Ozel and P

    F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, araa 54, 401 (2016), arXiv:1603.02698

    2016 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Burgio, M

    G. Burgio, M. Baldo, P. Sahu, A. Santra, and H.-J. Schulze, Physics Letters B 526, 19 (2002)

    2002

  5. [12]

    Schertler, S

    K. Schertler, S. Leupold, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. C 60, 025801 (1999)

    1999

  6. [13]

    Zhao and J

    T. Zhao and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023021 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    D. Dey, J. A. Pattnaik, H. C. Das, A. Kumar, R. N. Panda, and S. K. Patra, Dark matter influence on quarkyonic stars: A rel- ativistic mean field analysis (2024), arXiv:2401.02190 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Kouvaris and P

    C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D83, 083512 (2011)

    2011

  9. [16]

    Quddus, G

    A. Quddus, G. Panotopoulos, B. Kumar, S. Ahmad, and S. K. Patra, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 47, 095202 (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    Bernal, M

    N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuominen, and V . Vaskonen, International Journal of Modern Physics A 32, 1730023-274 (2017)

    2017

  11. [18]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, Jour- nal of High Energy Physics 2010, 80 (2010)

    2010

  12. [19]

    Hooper and L.-T

    D. Hooper and L.-T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 69, 035001 (2004)

    2004

  13. [20]

    T. Han, Z. Liu, and S. Su, Journal of High Energy Physics2014, 93 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    L. D. Duffy and K. van Bibber, New Journal of Physics 11, 105008 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    J. M. Cline, P. Scott, K. Kainulainen, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. D 88, 055025 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Bertone and M

    G. Bertone and M. Fairbairn, Phys. Rev. D 77, 043515 (2008)

    2008

  17. [25]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, T. F. Motta, S. Robles, A. W. Thomas, and M. Virgato, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 111803 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Kain, Phys

    B. Kain, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043009 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Rafiei Karkevandi, S

    D. Rafiei Karkevandi, S. Shakeri, V . Sagun, and O. Ivanytskyi, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023001 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    S. P. MARTIN, A supersymmetry primer (WORLD SCIEN- TIFIC, 1998) pp. 1–98, 0

    1998

  21. [29]

    H. C. Das, A. Kumar, and S. K. Patra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 507, 4053 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    H. C. Das, A. Kumar, B. Kumar, and S. K. Patra, Galaxies 10, 10.3390/galaxies10010014 (2022). 11

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    H. C. Das, A. Kumar, S. K. Biswal, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123006 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Routaray, H

    P. Routaray, H. C. Das, S. Sen, B. Kumar, G. Panotopoulos, and T. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D107, 103039 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Busoni, Moscow University Physics Bulletin77, 301 (2022)

    G. Busoni, Moscow University Physics Bulletin77, 301 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    N. Raj, P. Tanedo, and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 97, 043006 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Bernabei, P

    R. Bernabei, P. Belli, F. Cappella, et al., The European Physical Journal C 56, 333 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Bernabei, P

    R. Bernabei, P. Belli, F. Cappella, et al., The European Physical Journal C 67, 39 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Angle, E

    J. Angle, E. Aprile, F. Arneodo, et al. (XENON10 Collabora- tion), Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 091301 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    T. C. I. Collaboration, Science 327, 1619 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Conrad, Indirect detection of wimp dark matter: a compact review (2014), arXiv:1411.1925 [hep-ph]

    J. Conrad, Indirect detection of wimp dark matter: a compact review (2014), arXiv:1411.1925 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Panotopoulos and I

    G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 96, 083004 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, The Philosophical Magazine: A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Applied Physics 1, 1043 (1956)

    1956

  34. [42]

    Skyrme, Nuclear Physics 9, 615 (1958)

    T. Skyrme, Nuclear Physics 9, 615 (1958)

    1958

  35. [43]

    Vautherin and D

    D. Vautherin and D. M. Brink, Phys. Rev. C 5, 626 (1972)

    1972

  36. [44]

    Chabanat, P

    E. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R. Schaeffer, Nuclear Physics A 635, 231 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    Alex Brown, Phys

    B. Alex Brown, Phys. Rev. C 58, 220 (1998)

    1998

  38. [46]

    Stone and P.-G

    J. Stone and P.-G. Reinhard, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 58, 587 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Lourenc ¸o, J. S. S´a Martins, A. Delfino, J. R. Stone, and P. D. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. C85, 035201 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Decharg ´e and D

    J. Decharg ´e and D. Gogny, Phys. Rev. C21, 1568 (1980)

    1980

  41. [49]

    Rashdan, Phys

    M. Rashdan, Phys. Rev. C 63, 044303 (2001)

    2001

  42. [51]

    J. A. Pattnaik, M. Bhuyan, R. N. Panda, and S. K. Patra, Physica Scripta 96, 125319 (2021)

    2021

  43. [52]

    J. A. Pattnaik, J. T. Majekodunmi, A. Kumar, M. Bhuyan, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014318 (2022)

    2022

  44. [53]

    J. A. Pattnaik, R. N. Panda, M. Bhuyan, and S. K. Patra, Chi- nese Physics C 46, 094103 (2022)

    2022

  45. [54]

    J. A. Pattnaik, K. C. Naik, R. N. Panda, M. Bhuyan, and S. K. Patra, Pramana 97, 136 (2023)

    2023

  46. [55]

    J. A. Pattnaik, M. Bhuyan, R. Panda, and S. Patra, Inter- national Journal of Modern Physics E 33, 2450040 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1142/S021830132450040X

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Afrough, B. Agarwal, and M. a. Agathos (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  48. [57]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adams, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agarwal, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, N. Aggarwal, O. D. Aguiar, L. Aiello, A. Ain, P. Ajith, T. Akutsu, and K. M. A. and, The Astrophysical Journal Letters...

    2021

  49. [58]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Rel.2, 2 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9909058

    1999 arXiv

  50. [60]

    S. Y . Lau and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D103, 063015 (2021)

    2021

  51. [61]

    Reisenegger and P

    A. Reisenegger and P. Goldreich, The Astrophysical Journal 395 (1992)

    1992

  52. [62]

    Andersson and K

    N. Andersson and K. D. Kokkotas, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 299, 1059 (1998), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/299/4/1059/3869494/299-4-1059.pdf

    1998

  53. [63]

    T. G. Cowling, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety 101, 367 (1941), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/101/8/367/8071901/mnras101-0367.pdf

    1941

  54. [64]

    P. N. McDermott, H. M. van Horn, and C. J. Hansen, The As- trophysical Journal 325, 725 (1988)

    1988

  55. [66]

    G. A. Lalazissis, J. K ¨onig, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 55, 540 (1997)

    1997

  56. [67]

    Sulaksono and T

    A. Sulaksono and T. Mart, Phys. Rev. C 74, 045806 (2006)

    2006

  57. [68]

    D. P. Menezes and C. Provid ˆencia, Phys. Rev. C 70, 058801 (2004)

    2004

  58. [69]

    Lalazissis, S

    G. Lalazissis, S. Karatzikos, R. Fossion, D. P. Arteaga, A. Afanasjev, and P. Ring, Physics Letters B671, 36 (2009)

    2009

  59. [70]

    F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz, and G. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 82, 055803 (2010)

    2010

  60. [71]

    A. b. A. Dadi, Phys. Rev. C 82, 025203 (2010)

    2010

  61. [72]

    Roca-Maza, X

    X. Roca-Maza, X. Vi ˜nas, M. Centelles, P. Ring, and P. Schuck, Phys. Rev. C 84, 054309 (2011)

    2011

  62. [73]

    Cai and L.-W

    B.-J. Cai and L.-W. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024302 (2012)

    2012

  63. [74]

    F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz, and B. Reed, Phys. Rev. C 102, 065805 (2020)

    2020

  64. [75]

    H. Das, A. Kumar, B. Kumar, S. Biswal, and S. Patra, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (01), 007

    2021

  65. [76]

    S. K. Patra, M. Centelles, X. Vi ˜nas, and M. Del Estal, Phys. Rev. C 65, 044304 (2002)

    2002

  66. [77]

    M ¨uller and B

    H. M ¨uller and B. D. Serot, Nuclear Physics A 606, 508 (1996)

    1996

  67. [78]

    Wang, Phys

    P. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 61, 054904 (2000)

    2000

  68. [79]

    Kumar, H

    A. Kumar, H. C. Das, S. K. Biswal, B. Kumar, and S. K. Patra, The European Physical Journal C 80, 775 (2020)

    2020

  69. [80]

    L. D. Miller and A. E. S. Green, Phys. Rev. C 5, 241 (1972)

    1972

  70. [81]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Relativistic nuclear many-body theory, in Recent Progress in Many-Body Theories: V olume 3, edited by T. L. Ainsworth, C. E. Campbell, B. E. Clements, and E. Krotscheck (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1992) pp. 49–92

    1992

  71. [82]

    R. J. Furnstahl, C. E. Price, and G. E. Walker, Phys. Rev. C 36, 2590 (1987)

    1987

  72. [83]

    Reinhard, Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik A Atomic Nuclei 329, 257 (1988)

    P.-G. Reinhard, Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik A Atomic Nuclei 329, 257 (1988)

    1988

  73. [84]

    Furnstahl, B

    R. Furnstahl, B. D. Serot, and H.-B. Tang, Nuclear Physics A 615, 441 (1997)

    1997

  74. [85]

    They took into account the conditions for beta- equilibrium and charge neutrality within quarkyonic matter

    was further extended and refined by Zhao and Lat- timer [13]. They took into account the conditions for beta- equilibrium and charge neutrality within quarkyonic matter. Nucleons interact through a potential energy dependent on nu- cleon density, calibrated to match specific p...

  75. [86]

    McLerran and S

    L. McLerran and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 122701 (2019)

    2019

  76. [87]

    N. K. Glendenning, Compact stars (1997)

    1997

  77. [88]

    A. Das, T. Malik, and A. C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. D 99, 043016 (2019)

    2019

  78. [89]

    H. C. Das, A. Kumar, B. Kumar, S. K. Biswal, T. Nakatsukasa, A. Li, and S. K. Patra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society 495, 4893 (2020)

    2020

  79. [90]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  80. [91]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. V olkoff, Phys. Rev. 55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  81. [92]

    Kumar, S

    B. Kumar, S. Singh, B. Agrawal, and S. Patra, Nuclear Physics A 966, 197 (2017)

    2017

  82. [93]

    Kumar, S

    B. Kumar, S. K. Patra, and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C 97, 045806 (2018)

    2018

  83. [94]

    Lindblom and S

    L. Lindblom and S. L. Detweiler, apjs 53, 73 (1983)

    1983

  84. [95]

    Sotani, N

    H. Sotani, N. Yasutake, T. Maruyama, and T. Tatsumi, Phys. Rev. D 83, 024014 (2011)

    2011

  85. [96]

    J. L. Bl ´azquez-Salcedo, L. M. Gonz ´alez-Romero, and F. Navarro-L´erida, Phys. Rev. D 89, 044006 (2014)

    2014

  86. [97]

    Wen, B.-A

    D.-H. Wen, B.-A. Li, H.-Y . Chen, and N.-B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 99, 045806 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.