arxiv: 2604.20159 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · ⚛️ nucl-th · hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

A Poincar\'e-covariant study of strange quark stars

Hao-Ran Zhang , Bo-Lin Li , Zhu-Fang Cui

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 23:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th hep-ph

keywords strange quark starscontact interactionequation of stateTolman-Oppenheimer-VolkoffPoincaré-covariantquark matterdense QCDtidal deformability

0 comments

The pith

A contact-interaction model for quarks yields equations of state whose solutions to the TOV equations match pulsar masses and gravitational-wave constraints for two specific parameter sets.

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

The paper constructs a nonperturbative, Poincaré-covariant description of strange quark matter by extending a symmetry-preserving vector-vector contact interaction to finite chemical potential and zero temperature. From the resulting momentum-independent quark propagator it builds an equation of state, then integrates the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations to obtain mass-radius relations and tidal deformabilities. Systematic variation of the infrared coupling strength and ultraviolet cutoff shows that the first stiffens and the second softens the equation of state. Two concrete parameter combinations, together with a fixed bag pressure, produce stellar properties that lie inside current multi-messenger bounds. A reader would care because the framework supplies an explicit link between a simple quark-level interaction and observable compact-star properties without perturbative approximations.

Core claim

Within a Poincaré-covariant contact-interaction framework, the gap equation at finite quark chemical potential produces a momentum-independent propagator; the associated equation of state, when inserted into the TOV equations, yields mass-radius curves and tidal deformabilities that agree with pulsar mass measurements and gravitational-wave data for the choices α_ir = 0.735π with Λ_uv = 0.905 GeV and α_ir = 0.588π with Λ_uv = 0.9955 GeV, each paired with B ≈ (0.106 GeV)^4.

What carries the argument

Momentum-independent quark propagator obtained from the contact-interaction gap equation at finite chemical potential, from which the equation of state for strange quark matter is constructed.

If this is right

Reducing the effective coupling stiffens the equation of state while increasing the ultraviolet cutoff softens it.
The identified parameter sets produce mass-radius relations and tidal deformabilities inside current observational bounds.
The same framework can be used to scan additional parameter combinations against future multi-messenger data.
Strange quark stars remain viable candidates for the observed compact objects under these choices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the contact interaction remains a good approximation at still higher densities, the same parameters could be tested against equations of state inferred from heavy-ion collisions.
The model could be extended by allowing flavor-dependent couplings to study whether strange quark stars can coexist with or transition into hybrid stars.
A direct comparison of the predicted speed of sound versus density with lattice or functional QCD results at finite density would test the underlying truncation.

Load-bearing premise

The momentum-independent quark propagator from the contact-interaction gap equation at finite chemical potential, together with a constant bag pressure, supplies an accurate enough equation of state for strange quark matter inside stars.

What would settle it

A future measurement of the radius of a 2-solar-mass pulsar or the tidal deformability of a binary neutron-star merger that lies outside the ranges predicted by the two successful parameter sets would falsify the claimed agreement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20159 by Bo-Lin Li, Hao-Ran Zhang, Zhu-Fang Cui.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. (Color online) Mass-radius relations of strange quark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) Tidal deformability curves corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Mass-radius relations obtained using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We investigate the properties of dense quark matter and strange quark stars within a nonperturbative, Poincar\'e-covariant framework. Employing a symmetry-preserving vector$\,\otimes\,$vector contact interaction model, we extend the quark gap equation to the regime of zero temperature and finite quark chemical potential. From the resulting momentum-independent quark propagator, we construct the equation of state (EOS) and solve the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) equations to evaluate the mass-radius relations and tidal deformabilities of strange quark stars. We systematically analyze the sensitivity of the EOS and the macroscopic stellar properties to the model parameters, specifically the effective interaction strength and the ultraviolet cutoff. We demonstrate that reducing the coupling constant stiffens the EOS, whereas increasing the ultraviolet cutoff softens it. By confronting our predictions with multi-messenger astrophysical constraints-including pulsar mass measurements and gravitational-wave data-we identify parameter regimes that successfully describe current observations. Specifically, we find that parameter sets with $\alpha_{ir}=0.735\pi$, $\Lambda_{uv}=0.905\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $\alpha_{ir}=0.588\pi$, $\Lambda_{uv}=0.9955\,\mathrm{GeV}$, alongside a vacuum bag pressure of $B \approx (0.106\,\mathrm{GeV})^4$, yield stellar properties in excellent agreement with empirical constraints.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

They extend a contact-interaction gap equation to finite chemical potential, build a constant-mass EOS with a tuned bag term, and find two parameter sets whose stellar models sit inside current mass, radius, and tidal bounds.

read the letter

The paper solves the gap equation for a vector-vector contact interaction at T=0 and finite mu, obtains a momentum-independent dressed propagator, adds a constant bag pressure B, and integrates the TOV equation for strange quark stars. Two specific choices of the infrared strength and ultraviolet cutoff, together with B around (0.106 GeV)^4, produce mass-radius and tidal-deformability curves that fall inside the observational windows from pulsars and gravitational-wave events. They also map how the EOS stiffens or softens when the coupling is lowered or the cutoff is raised. That parameter scan and the direct link from the gap equation to the stellar observables are the concrete pieces of work here. The calculation is straightforward within the existing framework and shows the expected trends with the two free parameters. The soft spot is that the propagator remains strictly momentum-independent, so the quasiparticle dispersion is just the free form with a density-dependent but constant mass, and the pressure is the usual Fermi-sea integral plus the fixed bag term. Because alpha_ir, Lambda_uv, and B are all chosen to reproduce the data, the reported agreement is a fit inside a three-parameter family rather than an independent test of the truncation. The density dependence of the EOS is therefore limited by construction and may miss the additional stiffness or softening that momentum-dependent dressing would produce at 5-10 times nuclear density. This is useful for people already working inside contact-interaction or Dyson-Schwinger models of dense matter who want a quick route from the gap equation to astrophysical numbers. A reader outside that circle will see the limitations immediately and will want more checks on thermodynamic consistency and sensitivity to the constant-mass assumption. The paper is coherent on its own terms and deserves a serious referee who can examine the explicit form of the thermodynamic potential and the fitting procedure.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates strange quark stars in a Poincaré-covariant framework using a symmetry-preserving vector⊗vector contact interaction. It solves the quark gap equation at T=0 and finite chemical potential to obtain a momentum-independent dressed propagator, constructs the equation of state by adding a constant bag pressure B, and solves the TOV equations to compute mass-radius relations and tidal deformabilities. Parameter sets (α_ir=0.735π, Λ_uv=0.905 GeV and α_ir=0.588π, Λ_uv=0.9955 GeV with B≈(0.106 GeV)^4) are identified that produce stellar properties in agreement with pulsar masses and gravitational-wave constraints.

Significance. If the central approximations hold, the work offers a systematic parameter study linking a nonperturbative contact-interaction model of quark matter to observable stellar properties, including sensitivity of the EOS to the infrared coupling and ultraviolet cutoff. The explicit demonstration that reducing the coupling stiffens the EOS while increasing the cutoff softens it is a useful diagnostic within this class of models. However, the reliance on a momentum-independent propagator and a tuned constant B limits the result to an exploration of a three-parameter family rather than a first-principles prediction.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: The quoted parameter sets are explicitly selected because they reproduce the observational constraints on stellar masses and tidal deformabilities. This makes the reported agreement a fit within the three-parameter space (α_ir, Λ_uv, B) rather than an independent prediction of the model, which is load-bearing for the central claim that the framework 'successfully describe[s] current observations'.
[EOS construction section] The EOS construction (described after the gap-equation solution): the thermodynamic potential is evaluated with the strictly momentum-independent propagator S(p;μ)=[iγ·p+M(μ)]^{-1} obtained from the local contact interaction. This omits any momentum-dependent dressing that would arise from a realistic gluon propagator or rainbow-ladder truncation, directly affecting the quasiparticle dispersion and the stiffness of P(ε) at the core densities (∼5–10 ρ_0) relevant to the TOV solutions.
[EOS and parameter discussion] The constant bag pressure B is introduced by hand and tuned together with α_ir and Λ_uv to enforce confinement and match data. No independent justification or density dependence is provided for B, which is central to the pressure and energy density used in the stellar structure calculations.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract and § on EOS] The abstract and main text should explicitly state the precise functional form of the thermodynamic potential (trace-log expression or effective action) used to obtain P(ε) from the constant M(μ).
[Gap equation and EOS sections] Clarify whether the strange-quark mass is treated as a free parameter or fixed by the same gap equation, and how it enters the EOS for the three-flavor case.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our effective model. We address each major comment point by point below. Revisions have been made to the abstract and relevant sections to better emphasize the model's parameter dependence, its approximations, and the role of the bag constant, while preserving the original scientific content.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The quoted parameter sets are explicitly selected because they reproduce the observational constraints on stellar masses and tidal deformabilities. This makes the reported agreement a fit within the three-parameter space (α_ir, Λ_uv, B) rather than an independent prediction of the model, which is load-bearing for the central claim that the framework 'successfully describe[s] current observations'.

Authors: We agree that the quoted parameter sets are identified by tuning within the three-parameter space to match observations, as is standard for effective models of dense QCD matter. The manuscript's central claim is that, within this Poincaré-covariant contact-interaction framework, there exist parameter regimes whose EOS yields stellar properties consistent with current multi-messenger constraints, and we explicitly demonstrate the sensitivity of the results to variations in α_ir and Λ_uv. We do not present the results as a parameter-free or first-principles prediction. To address this, we have revised the abstract to state that the identified sets 'yield stellar properties in agreement with empirical constraints' rather than implying a unique success of the framework. revision: yes
Referee: [EOS construction section] The EOS construction (described after the gap-equation solution): the thermodynamic potential is evaluated with the strictly momentum-independent propagator S(p;μ)=[iγ·p+M(μ)]^{-1} obtained from the local contact interaction. This omits any momentum-dependent dressing that would arise from a realistic gluon propagator or rainbow-ladder truncation, directly affecting the quasiparticle dispersion and the stiffness of P(ε) at the core densities (∼5–10 ρ_0) relevant to the TOV solutions.

Authors: The strictly momentum-independent propagator is an intrinsic feature of the vector-vector contact interaction, which is chosen as a symmetry-preserving approximation that captures the dominant infrared dynamics of QCD while permitting an analytic treatment at finite chemical potential. A momentum-dependent dressing would indeed require a non-local interaction kernel and a more complete rainbow-ladder truncation, which lies outside the scope of the present contact-interaction study. We view this as a controlled limitation of the model class rather than an oversight. We have added a paragraph in the EOS construction section acknowledging that momentum-dependent effects could quantitatively alter the high-density stiffness and that the present results should be understood as representative of this simplified framework. revision: partial
Referee: [EOS and parameter discussion] The constant bag pressure B is introduced by hand and tuned together with α_ir and Λ_uv to enforce confinement and match data. No independent justification or density dependence is provided for B, which is central to the pressure and energy density used in the stellar structure calculations.

Authors: The constant bag pressure B is introduced to represent the nonperturbative vacuum energy difference between the perturbative and confined phases, a standard device in bag-model and NJL-type descriptions of quark matter. Within our contact-interaction model the gap equation alone does not generate a density-dependent confining term, so B remains a constant parameter that is adjusted together with the interaction strength and cutoff to produce a physically acceptable EOS. We have revised the relevant section to explicitly note that B is a model parameter whose value is fixed by the requirement of confinement and consistency with stellar observations, and to reference its analogous use in other effective quark-matter models. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Observational agreement achieved via explicit parameter selection rather than independent prediction

specific steps

fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
"By confronting our predictions with multi-messenger astrophysical constraints-including pulsar mass measurements and gravitational-wave data-we identify parameter regimes that successfully describe current observations. Specifically, we find that parameter sets with α_ir=0.735π, Λ_uv=0.905 GeV and α_ir=0.588π, Λ_uv=0.9955 GeV, alongside a vacuum bag pressure of B ≈ (0.106 GeV)^4, yield stellar properties in excellent agreement with empirical constraints."

The three model parameters are chosen precisely because they reproduce the observational constraints on stellar properties; the reported agreement is therefore the direct outcome of this fitting procedure rather than an independent prediction from the gap equation or TOV solution.

full rationale

The EOS construction from the momentum-independent contact-interaction gap equation at finite μ is a self-contained derivation with no circularity in its internal steps. However, the paper's central claim of 'excellent agreement' with astrophysical constraints is obtained by selecting the specific values of the three free parameters (α_ir, Λ_uv, B) that reproduce those constraints, then reporting the match. This matches the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern. No other load-bearing steps reduce to self-definition or self-citation chains.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on three fitted quantities (interaction strength, ultraviolet cutoff, bag constant) and on the assumption that the contact-interaction gap equation at finite density yields a usable equation of state.

free parameters (3)

α_ir = 0.735π and 0.588π
Effective interaction strength; two values are reported that fit the data.
Λ_uv = 0.905 GeV and 0.9955 GeV
Ultraviolet cutoff; two values are reported that fit the data.
B = (0.106 GeV)^4
Vacuum bag pressure chosen to produce agreement with observations.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Symmetry-preserving vector⊗vector contact interaction model
Used to close the quark gap equation at finite chemical potential.
domain assumption Momentum-independent quark propagator
Obtained from the gap equation and used to construct the EOS.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5548 in / 1246 out tokens · 40537 ms · 2026-05-09T23:38:25.441813+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Xu, Z.-F

S.-S. Xu, Z.-F. Cui, B. Wang, Y.-M. Shi, Y.-C. Yang, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D91, 056003 (2015), arXiv:1505.00316 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2015
[2]

J. D. V. Arba˜ nil and M. Malheiro, JCAP11, 012 (2016), arXiv:1607.03984 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2016
[3]

Z.-F. Cui, I. C. Cloet, Y. Lu, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, S.-S. Xu, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D94, 071503 (2016), arXiv:1604.08454 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2016
[4]

G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 056902 (2018), arXiv:1707.04966 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2018
[5]

Li, Z.-F

B.-L. Li, Z.-F. Cui, B.-W. Zhou, S. An, L.-P. Zhang, and H.-S. Zong, Nucl. Phys. B938, 298 (2019), arXiv:1711.04914 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[6]

Weber, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics54, 193–288 (2005)

F. Weber, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics54, 193–288 (2005)

2005
[7]

Yang, C.-M

S.-H. Yang, C.-M. Pi, X.-P. Zheng, and F. Weber, Uni- verse9, 202 (2023), arXiv:2304.09614 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[8]

Hebeler, J

K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 161102 (2010), arXiv:1007.1746 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2010
[9]

Hebeler, J

K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, J. Menendez, and A. Schwenk, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.65, 457 (2015), arXiv:1508.06893 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2015
[10]

Advances in perturbative thermal field theory

U. Kraemmer and A. Rebhan, Rept. Prog. Phys.67, 351 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0310337

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[11]

E. S. Fraga, A. Kurkela, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and A. Vuorinen, Nucl. Phys. A956, 813 (2016)

2016
[12]

Alcock, E

C. Alcock, E. Farhi, and A. Olinto, Astrophys. J.310, 261 (1986)

1986
[13]

Buballa, NJL model analysis of quark matter at large density, Phys

M. Buballa, Phys. Rept.407, 205 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0402234

work page arXiv 2005
[14]

J. G. Coelho, C. H. Lenzi, M. Malheiro, R. M. Marinho, Jr., and M. Fiolhais, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D19, 1521 (2010), arXiv:1001.1661 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2010
[15]

J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Science304, 536 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0405262

work page arXiv 2004
[16]

Y. Song, G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, and T. Kojo, Phys. Rev. D100, 034018 (2019), arXiv:1905.01005 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2019
[17]

C. Xia, X. Lai, and R. Xu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A40, 2550180 (2025), arXiv:2511.01146 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[18]

L. X. Gutierrez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, I. C. Cloet, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C81, 065202 (2010), arXiv:1002.1968 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2010
[19]

Ahmad and A

A. Ahmad and A. Raya, J. Phys. G43, 065002 (2016), arXiv:1602.06448 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2016
[20]

Zhang, Z.-F

J.-L. Zhang, Z.-F. Cui, J. Ping, and C. D. Roberts, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 6 (2021), arXiv:2009.11384 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[21]

Xu, Z.-F

Z.-N. Xu, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, and C. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1105 (2021), arXiv:2103.15964 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[22]

Yin, Z.-F

P.-L. Yin, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, and J. Segovia, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 327 (2021), arXiv:2102.12568 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[23]

Cheng, F

P. Cheng, F. E. Serna, Z.-Q. Yao, C. Chen, Z.-F. Cui, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D106, 054031 (2022), arXiv:2207.13811 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[24]

B. A. Zamora, E. C. Mart´ ınez, J. Segovia, and J. J. Cobos-Mart´ ınez, Phys. Rev. D107, 114031 (2023), arXiv:2304.14887 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[25]

Cheng, Z.-F

D.-D. Cheng, Z.-F. Cui, M. Ding, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 115 (2025), arXiv:2409.11568 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

Paredes-Torres, L

G. Paredes-Torres, L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, and ´A. S. Miramontes, Phys. Rev. D109, 114006 (2024), arXiv:2405.06101 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[27]

Xing, W.-H

H.-Y. Xing, W.-H. Bian, Z.-F. Cui, and C. D. Roberts, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1305 (2025), arXiv:2504.08142 [hep- ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[28]

C. D. Roberts and S. M. Schmidt, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 45, S1 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0005064

work page arXiv 2000
[29]

C. S. Fischer, J. Luecker, and J. A. Mueller, Phys. Lett. B702, 438 (2011), arXiv:1104.1564 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2011
[30]

S.-x. Qin, L. Chang, H. Chen, Y.-x. Liu, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 172301 (2011), arXiv:1011.2876 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2011
[31]

Li, H.-R

X.-P. Li, H.-R. Zhang, Z.-F. Cui, and T. Kl¨ ahn, (2025), arXiv:2512.15094 [hep-ph]. 8

work page arXiv 2025
[32]

Maris and C

P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E12, 297 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0301049

work page arXiv 2003
[33]

L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero and R. J. Hern´ andez-Pinto, (2026), arXiv:2604.15122 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[34]

Cui, J.-L

Z.-F. Cui, J.-L. Zhang, D. Binosi, F. de Soto, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Quintero, J. Segovia, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Chin. Phys. C44, 083102 (2020), arXiv:1912.08232 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[35]

d’Enterria et al.,The strong coupling constant: State of the art and the decade ahead,J

D. d’Enterriaet al., J. Phys. G51, 090501 (2024), arXiv:2203.08271 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[36]

A. Deur, V. Burkert, J. P. Chen, and W. Korsch, Parti- cles5, 171 (2022), arXiv:2205.01169 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[37]

Nickel, J

D. Nickel, J. Wambach, and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. D 73, 114028 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603163

work page arXiv 2006
[38]

Lugones and A

G. Lugones and A. G. Grunfeld, Phys. Rev. D107, 043025 (2023), arXiv:2209.03455 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2023
[39]

Zong and W.-m

H.-s. Zong and W.-m. Sun, Phys. Rev. D78, 054001 (2008), arXiv:0810.2843 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2008
[40]

2025, Strange quark stars in modified vector MIT bag model: role ofρ andϕmesons, https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.11017

M. Wadhwa, M. Kumari, and A. Kumar, Phys. Lett. B 868, 139707 (2025), arXiv:2501.11017 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[41]

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

1939
[42]

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

1939
[43]

M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L28 (2021), arXiv:2105.06979 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[44]

T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L27 (2021), arXiv:2105.06980 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[45]

M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L24 (2019), arXiv:1912.05705 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2019
[46]

T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L21 (2019), arXiv:1912.05702 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2019
[47]

Choudhury et al., Astrophys

D. Choudhuryet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L20 (2024), arXiv:2407.06789 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[48]

M. C. Milleret al., (2025), arXiv:2512.08790 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[49]

Doroshenko, V

V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. P¨ uhlhofer, and A. Santangelo, Nature Astron.6, 1444 (2022)

2022
[50]

K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D58, 124031 (1998), arXiv:gr- qc/9706057

work page arXiv 1998
[51]

Tidal Love numbers of neutron stars

T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J.677, 1216 (2008), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 697, 964 (2009)], arXiv:0711.2420 [astro- ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[52]

Tidal deformability of neutron stars with realistic equations of state and their gravitational wave signatures in binary inspiral

T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, and J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D81, 123016 (2010), arXiv:0911.3535 [astro- ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[53]

B.-L. Li, Y. Yan, and J.-L. Ping, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 921 (2021)

2021
[54]

Li, Z.-F

B.-L. Li, Z.-F. Cui, Z.-H. Yu, Y. Yan, S. An, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D99, 043001 (2019)

2019
[55]

P.-L. Yin, C. Chen, G. Krein, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, and S.-S. Xu, Phys. Rev. D100, 034008 (2019), arXiv:1903.00160 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2019
[56]

H. R. Zhang, Z. F. Cui, and J. Segovia, (2026), arXiv:2603.17503 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2026