Effects of Mirror Dark Matter on Neutron-Star Structure and Tidal Deformability

Cheng-Ming Li; Jin-Cheng Jiao

arxiv: 2606.28934 · v1 · pith:Z7XXTABXnew · submitted 2026-06-27 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.HE· nucl-th

Effects of Mirror Dark Matter on Neutron-Star Structure and Tidal Deformability

Jin-Cheng Jiao , Cheng-Ming Li This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 09:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.HEnucl-th

keywords mirror dark matterneutron star structuretidal deformabilityequation of stateGW170817quark matterhadronic matterMaxwell construction

0 comments

The pith

Mirror dark matter reduces the visible radius of neutron stars and alters their tidal deformability even without a macroscopic quark core.

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

The paper constructs an ordinary-matter equation of state by combining the NL3ωρ relativistic mean-field model for hadronic matter with the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model for quark matter, joined by a Maxwell construction. Mirror dark matter is added through gravitational coupling alone, and its mass fraction f_D is varied to compute the resulting stellar radius and tidal Love number. For the scanned parameter sets, m_u greater than 5.2 MeV produces stable configurations without a resolved quark core, yet the visible radius still drops and the tidal response changes with increasing f_D. The GW170817 tidal interval maps directly onto the range 0.12 to 0.88 in f_D, and the same fraction range also accommodates the small-radius inferences reported for PSR J0437-4715 and XTE J1814-338.

Core claim

Mirror dark matter modifies neutron-star structure solely through gravity. For the NL3ωρ and NJL parameter sets examined, stable configurations with m_u greater than 5.2 MeV lack a macroscopic quark core yet still exhibit reduced visible radii and altered tidal deformability when a nonzero mirror-dark-matter fraction is present. The GW170817 interval 70 ≲ Λ_{1.4} ≲ 580 maps to 0.12 ≲ f_D ≲ 0.88.

What carries the argument

The mirror-dark-matter mass fraction f_D, which enters the stellar structure equations through gravitational coupling and thereby maps the ordinary-matter equation of state onto the observable radius and tidal deformability Λ.

If this is right

Small-radius inferences for PSR J0437-4715 and XTE J1814-338 become sensitive to the value of f_D.
The GW170817 tidal-deformability constraint corresponds approximately to the interval 0.12 ≲ f_D ≲ 0.88.
Stable neutron-star configurations exist for m_u > 5.2 MeV without a resolved macroscopic quark core.
MDM supplies a radius-reduction mechanism that operates independently of whether a visible-matter quark core forms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If mirror dark matter is present at these fractions, some neutron-star radius discrepancies could be reinterpreted as signatures of an invisible component rather than adjustments to visible-matter physics.
Multi-messenger catalogs could be reanalyzed to extract joint bounds on ordinary-matter equations of state and mirror-dark-matter fractions.
The same gravitational-coupling treatment could be applied to other self-gravitating systems that might contain both ordinary and mirror matter.
Standard neutron-star modeling pipelines might need to include an optional mirror-dark-matter fraction when fitting radius and tidal data.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen NL3ωρ and NJL parameter sets together with the Maxwell construction accurately capture the phase structure and pressure balance inside a neutron star that also contains mirror dark matter.

What would settle it

A precise radius or tidal-deformability measurement for a 1.4-solar-mass neutron star that lies outside the interval spanned by any f_D between 0 and 1 in this model would falsify the claim that mirror dark matter accounts for the observed compactness.

read the original abstract

Mirror dark matter (MDM) can modify neutron-star structure and tidal response through gravitational coupling. In this work, we construct an ordinary-matter equation of state (EOS) by comparing hadronic matter described by the relativistic mean-field NL3\(\omega\rho\) model, and quark matter in the framework of the Nambu--Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model. The stable branch is determined through a Maxwell construction, which serves to connect distinct phases of matter. For the parameter sets considered here, \(m_u=5.2~{\rm MeV}\) is the lowest light current-quark mass in the scanned range that satisfies the \(2M_\odot\) maximum-mass requirement, while \(m_u>5.2~{\rm MeV}\) all yield stable neutron-star configurations without a resolved macroscopic quark core. The small-radius inferences for PSR J0437--4715 and XTE J1814--338, together with the tidal-deformability constraint from GW170817, are sensitive to the dark-matter mass fraction \(f_D\). The commonly used GW170817 interval \(70\lesssim\Lambda_{1.4}\lesssim580\) corresponds approximately to \(0.12\lesssim f_D\lesssim0.88\) in the present model. These results indicate that, even without a macroscopic quark core, MDM can provide an important mechanism for reducing the visible radius and modifying the tidal response of neutron stars.

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

Mirror dark matter fractions are mapped to GW170817 tidal values in a standard two-phase EOS setup, but the interval comes directly from fitting the input data.

read the letter

The paper's central result is that a mirror dark matter mass fraction f_D between 0.12 and 0.88 brings the 1.4 solar mass tidal deformability into the GW170817 window while the maximum mass stays above 2 solar masses. For their chosen parameters with m_u above 5.2 MeV there is no macroscopic quark core, yet the visible radius and Lambda still drop as f_D rises.

They take the NL3ωρ relativistic mean-field model for ordinary hadronic matter, the NJL model for quark matter, and connect the phases with a Maxwell construction. A gravitationally coupled mirror component is then added as a second fluid whose density fraction is treated as a free parameter. The two-fluid structure equations are solved for a range of f_D, and the output Lambda and radius are compared to the pulsar and gravitational-wave constraints.

This is a straightforward parameter scan that quantifies how much MDM is needed to match the data in this specific EOS family. The numbers are concrete and the maximum-mass condition is satisfied across the quoted range.

The soft spot is that the reported f_D interval is obtained by matching the input GW170817 Lambda bounds, so the constraint is circular by design. The outcome also depends on the NL3ωρ and NJL parameter choices plus the Maxwell construction; different EOS families or a Gibbs construction would likely move the numbers. No sensitivity checks to temperature, rotation, or other modeling details appear in the abstract.

The work is aimed at people already running neutron-star EOS calculations that include dark-matter components. A reader who needs a quick numerical example for mirror dark matter effects might find the f_D range useful, but the paper does not introduce new methods or resolve open questions in the field.

I would send it to peer review. The setup is standard, the claim is limited to the chosen models, and referees can verify the numerics without major effort.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that mirror dark matter (MDM), gravitationally coupled to ordinary matter, can reduce the visible radius of neutron stars and modify their tidal deformability even without a macroscopic quark core. Using the NL3ωρ relativistic mean-field model for hadronic matter and the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model for quark matter connected by a Maxwell construction, the authors find that m_u > 5.2 MeV yields stable configurations without a resolved quark core; the dark-matter mass fraction f_D then controls the radius and Λ, with the GW170817 interval 70 ≲ Λ_{1.4} ≲ 580 mapping approximately to 0.12 ≲ f_D ≲ 0.88.

Significance. If the two-fluid structure solutions hold for the chosen parameter sets, the work supplies a concrete, model-dependent demonstration that MDM constitutes a viable mechanism for explaining small-radius inferences (PSR J0437–4715, XTE J1814–338) and GW170817 tidal data without requiring a quark core. The explicit numerical mapping from f_D to observable Λ provides a quantitative benchmark for this class of two-fluid models and can be tested against future radius or waveform measurements.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the statement that m_u = 5.2 MeV is the lowest value satisfying the 2 M_⊙ limit should clarify whether this threshold is evaluated at f_D = 0 or across the scanned f_D range, since the additional gravitational contribution from MDM can alter the maximum mass.
[Abstract] Abstract: the references to small-radius inferences for PSR J0437–4715 and XTE J1814–338 would benefit from explicit citations to the observational papers so that readers can directly compare the reported radii with the model predictions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and positive assessment of our manuscript, including the recognition that our two-fluid MDM model provides a quantitative mapping from f_D to the GW170817 tidal constraint. No major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper constructs the EOS from standard NL3ωρ (hadronic) and NJL (quark) models with a Maxwell construction, then introduces f_D as an explicit free parameter in the two-fluid TOV equations. The reported mapping 0.12 ≲ f_D ≲ 0.88 is presented as the range of that free parameter that reproduces the external GW170817 Lambda interval; this is an application of an independent observational constraint rather than a derivation or prediction that reduces to the model's own fitted inputs. No self-citations, self-definitional steps, or uniqueness theorems appear in the text. The central claim remains explicitly model-dependent on the chosen parameter sets and construction method.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard EOS constructions and introduces f_D as the main free parameter; m_u is scanned to meet the mass constraint.

free parameters (2)

f_D = 0.12-0.88
Dark-matter mass fraction adjusted to reproduce the GW170817 tidal-deformability interval.
m_u = 5.2 MeV
Light current-quark mass scanned; lowest value meeting 2 solar-mass requirement.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Maxwell construction connects hadronic and quark phases with continuous pressure and determines the stable branch.
Used to join NL3ωρ hadronic matter and NJL quark matter.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6604 in / 1445 out tokens · 60705 ms · 2026-06-30T09:23:13.416792+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Oertel, M

M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015007 (2017)

2017
[2]

Sun, S.-S

T.-T. Sun, S.-S. Zhang, Q.-L. Zhang, and C.-J. Xia, Phys. Rev. D99, 023004 (2019)

2019
[3]

Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, Nature443, 675 (2006)

2006
[4]

Borsanyi, Z

S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, R. Kara, S. D. Katz, P. Parotto, A. Pasztor, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 052001 (2020)

2020
[5]

Nagata, Prog

K. Nagata, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127, 103991 (2022)

2022
[6]

Buballa, Phys

M. Buballa, Phys. Rep.407, 205 (2005)

2005
[7]

M. G. Alford, S. Han, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D88, 083013 (2013). 11

2013
[8]

M. G. Alford and A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161104 (2017)

2017
[9]

Masuda, T

K. Masuda, T. Hatsuda, and T. Takatsuka, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2013, 073D01 (2013)

2013
[10]

S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys.64, 649 (1992)

1992
[11]

Hatsuda and T

T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rep.247, 221 (1994)

1994
[12]

Zhang, C.-M

J.-L. Zhang, C.-M. Li, and H.-S. Zong, Chin. Phys. C 42, 123105 (2018)

2018
[13]

Li, P.-L

C.-M. Li, P.-L. Yin, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D99, 076006 (2019)

2019
[14]

Zhao, S.-Y

Y.-P. Zhao, S.-Y. Zuo, and C.-M. Li, Chin. Phys. C45, 073105 (2021)

2021
[15]

Zhao, C.-Y

Y.-P. Zhao, C.-Y. Wang, S.-Y. Zuo, and C.-M. Li, Chin. Phys. C47, 053103 (2023)

2023
[16]

Yang, D.-S

L.-K. Yang, D.-S. Fan, C.-M. Li, and Y.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D112, 094042 (2025)

2025
[17]

J. Pang, H. Shen, and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. C113, 025806 (2026)

2026
[18]

Xia, W.-J

C.-J. Xia, W.-J. Xie, and M. Bakhiet, Phys. Rev. D110, 114009 (2024)

2024
[19]

Li, J.-L

C.-M. Li, J.-L. Zhang, Y. Yan, Y.-F. Huang, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D97, 103013 (2018)

2018
[20]

Zhang, Y

C. Zhang, Y. Gao, C.-J. Xia, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123031 (2023)

2023
[21]

W.-L. Yuan, B. Gao, Y. Yan, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023019 (2025)

2025
[22]

Zhang, J

C. Zhang, J. M. Z. Pretel, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D113, 043006 (2026)

2026
[23]

Li, S.-Y

C.-M. Li, S.-Y. Zuo, Y.-P. Zhao, H.-J. Mu, and Y.-F. Huang, Phys. Rev. D106, 116009 (2022)

2022
[24]

L.-Q. Su, C. Shi, Y.-F. Huang, Y. Yan, C.-M. Li, W.- L. Yuan, and H.-S. Zong, Astrophys. Space Sci.369, 29 (2024)

2024
[25]

Li, S.-Y

C.-M. Li, S.-Y. Zuo, Y. Yan, Y.-P. Zhao, F. Wang, Y.- F. Huang, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D101, 063023 (2020)

2020
[26]

Li, H.-R

C.-M. Li, H.-R. Zheng, S.-Y. Zuo, Y.-P. Zhao, F. Wang, and Y.-F. Huang, Astrophys. J.980, 231 (2025)

2025
[27]

Leung, M.-C

S.-C. Leung, M.-C. Chu, and L.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 84, 107301 (2011)

2011
[28]

Kain, Phys

B. Kain, Phys. Rev. D103, 043009 (2021)

2021
[29]

Leung, M.-C

K.-L. Leung, M.-C. Chu, and L.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123010 (2022)

2022
[30]

Liu, J.-B

H.-M. Liu, J.-B. Wei, Z.-H. Li, G. F. Burgio, H. C. Das, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D110, 023024 (2024)

2024
[31]

Foot, Int

R. Foot, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D13, 2161 (2004)

2004
[32]

Berezhiani, Int

Z. Berezhiani, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19, 3775 (2004)

2004
[33]

Sandin and P

F. Sandin and P. Ciarcelluti, Astropart. Phys.32, 278 (2009)

2009
[34]

Ciarcelluti and F

P. Ciarcelluti and F. Sandin, Phys. Lett. B695, 19 (2011)

2011
[35]

Yang, C.-M

S.-H. Yang, C.-M. Pi, and X.-P. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083016 (2021)

2021
[36]

Hippert, J

M. Hippert, J. Setford, H. Tan, J. Curtin, J. Noronha- Hostler, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D106, 035025 (2022)

2022
[37]

Yang, C.-M

S.-H. Yang, C.-M. Pi, and F. Weber, Phys. Rev. D111, 043037 (2025)

2025
[38]

H. T. Cromartieet al., Nat. Astron.4, 72 (2020)

2020
[39]

Fonsecaet al., Astrophys

E. Fonsecaet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L12 (2021)

2021
[40]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

2017
[41]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018)

2018
[42]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X9, 011001 (2019)

2019
[43]

T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L21 (2019)

2019
[44]

M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L24 (2019)

2019
[45]

T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L27 (2021)

2021
[46]

M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L28 (2021)

2021
[47]

Choudhuryet al., Astrophys

D. Choudhuryet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L20 (2024)

2024
[48]

Kiniet al., Mon

Y. Kiniet al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.535, 1507 (2024)

2024
[49]

Laskos-Patkos and Ch

P. Laskos-Patkos and Ch. C. Moustakidis, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063058 (2025)

2025
[50]

L. L. Lopes and A. Issifu, Phys. Dark Universe48, 101922 (2025)

2025
[51]

G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 170, 299 (1971)

1971
[52]

J. D. Walecka, Ann. Phys.83, 491 (1974)

1974
[53]

G. A. Lalazissis, J. K¨ onig, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C55, 540 (1997)

1997
[54]

C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5647 (2001)

2001
[55]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.122, 345 (1961)

1961
[56]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.124, 246 (1961)

1961
[57]

Rehberg, S

P. Rehberg, S. P. Klevansky, and J. H¨ ufner, Phys. Rev. C53, 410 (1996)

1996
[58]

Q. Wang, C. Shi, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D100, 123003 (2019)

2019
[59]

QCD vacuum pressure and its influence on the equation of state of non-strange quark stars

C.-M. Li, G.-H. Yu, Y.-P. Zhao, Z. Li, J.-L. Zhang, Y.-L. Ma, and Y.-F. Huang, arXiv:2604.22382

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[60]

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

1939
[61]

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

1939
[62]

Hinderer, Astrophys

T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J.677, 1216 (2008)

2008
[63]

Damour and A

T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D80, 084035 (2009)

2009
[64]

Binnington and E

T. Binnington and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D80, 084018 (2009)

2009
[65]

Postnikov, M

S. Postnikov, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D82, 024016 (2010)

2010
[66]

Li, J.-L

C.-M. Li, J.-L. Zhang, T. Zhao, Y.-P. Zhao, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D95, 056018 (2017)

2017
[67]

C.-M. Li, Y. Yan, J.-J. Geng, Y.-F. Huang, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D98, 083013 (2018). 12

2018

[1] [1]

Oertel, M

M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015007 (2017)

2017

[2] [2]

Sun, S.-S

T.-T. Sun, S.-S. Zhang, Q.-L. Zhang, and C.-J. Xia, Phys. Rev. D99, 023004 (2019)

2019

[3] [3]

Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, Nature443, 675 (2006)

2006

[4] [4]

Borsanyi, Z

S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, R. Kara, S. D. Katz, P. Parotto, A. Pasztor, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 052001 (2020)

2020

[5] [5]

Nagata, Prog

K. Nagata, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127, 103991 (2022)

2022

[6] [6]

Buballa, Phys

M. Buballa, Phys. Rep.407, 205 (2005)

2005

[7] [7]

M. G. Alford, S. Han, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D88, 083013 (2013). 11

2013

[8] [8]

M. G. Alford and A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161104 (2017)

2017

[9] [9]

Masuda, T

K. Masuda, T. Hatsuda, and T. Takatsuka, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2013, 073D01 (2013)

2013

[10] [10]

S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys.64, 649 (1992)

1992

[11] [11]

Hatsuda and T

T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rep.247, 221 (1994)

1994

[12] [12]

Zhang, C.-M

J.-L. Zhang, C.-M. Li, and H.-S. Zong, Chin. Phys. C 42, 123105 (2018)

2018

[13] [13]

Li, P.-L

C.-M. Li, P.-L. Yin, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D99, 076006 (2019)

2019

[14] [14]

Zhao, S.-Y

Y.-P. Zhao, S.-Y. Zuo, and C.-M. Li, Chin. Phys. C45, 073105 (2021)

2021

[15] [15]

Zhao, C.-Y

Y.-P. Zhao, C.-Y. Wang, S.-Y. Zuo, and C.-M. Li, Chin. Phys. C47, 053103 (2023)

2023

[16] [16]

Yang, D.-S

L.-K. Yang, D.-S. Fan, C.-M. Li, and Y.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D112, 094042 (2025)

2025

[17] [17]

J. Pang, H. Shen, and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. C113, 025806 (2026)

2026

[18] [18]

Xia, W.-J

C.-J. Xia, W.-J. Xie, and M. Bakhiet, Phys. Rev. D110, 114009 (2024)

2024

[19] [19]

Li, J.-L

C.-M. Li, J.-L. Zhang, Y. Yan, Y.-F. Huang, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D97, 103013 (2018)

2018

[20] [20]

Zhang, Y

C. Zhang, Y. Gao, C.-J. Xia, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123031 (2023)

2023

[21] [21]

W.-L. Yuan, B. Gao, Y. Yan, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023019 (2025)

2025

[22] [22]

Zhang, J

C. Zhang, J. M. Z. Pretel, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D113, 043006 (2026)

2026

[23] [23]

Li, S.-Y

C.-M. Li, S.-Y. Zuo, Y.-P. Zhao, H.-J. Mu, and Y.-F. Huang, Phys. Rev. D106, 116009 (2022)

2022

[24] [24]

L.-Q. Su, C. Shi, Y.-F. Huang, Y. Yan, C.-M. Li, W.- L. Yuan, and H.-S. Zong, Astrophys. Space Sci.369, 29 (2024)

2024

[25] [25]

Li, S.-Y

C.-M. Li, S.-Y. Zuo, Y. Yan, Y.-P. Zhao, F. Wang, Y.- F. Huang, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D101, 063023 (2020)

2020

[26] [26]

Li, H.-R

C.-M. Li, H.-R. Zheng, S.-Y. Zuo, Y.-P. Zhao, F. Wang, and Y.-F. Huang, Astrophys. J.980, 231 (2025)

2025

[27] [27]

Leung, M.-C

S.-C. Leung, M.-C. Chu, and L.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 84, 107301 (2011)

2011

[28] [28]

Kain, Phys

B. Kain, Phys. Rev. D103, 043009 (2021)

2021

[29] [29]

Leung, M.-C

K.-L. Leung, M.-C. Chu, and L.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123010 (2022)

2022

[30] [30]

Liu, J.-B

H.-M. Liu, J.-B. Wei, Z.-H. Li, G. F. Burgio, H. C. Das, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D110, 023024 (2024)

2024

[31] [31]

Foot, Int

R. Foot, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D13, 2161 (2004)

2004

[32] [32]

Berezhiani, Int

Z. Berezhiani, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19, 3775 (2004)

2004

[33] [33]

Sandin and P

F. Sandin and P. Ciarcelluti, Astropart. Phys.32, 278 (2009)

2009

[34] [34]

Ciarcelluti and F

P. Ciarcelluti and F. Sandin, Phys. Lett. B695, 19 (2011)

2011

[35] [35]

Yang, C.-M

S.-H. Yang, C.-M. Pi, and X.-P. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083016 (2021)

2021

[36] [36]

Hippert, J

M. Hippert, J. Setford, H. Tan, J. Curtin, J. Noronha- Hostler, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D106, 035025 (2022)

2022

[37] [37]

Yang, C.-M

S.-H. Yang, C.-M. Pi, and F. Weber, Phys. Rev. D111, 043037 (2025)

2025

[38] [38]

H. T. Cromartieet al., Nat. Astron.4, 72 (2020)

2020

[39] [39]

Fonsecaet al., Astrophys

E. Fonsecaet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L12 (2021)

2021

[40] [40]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

2017

[41] [41]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018)

2018

[42] [42]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X9, 011001 (2019)

2019

[43] [43]

T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L21 (2019)

2019

[44] [44]

M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L24 (2019)

2019

[45] [45]

T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L27 (2021)

2021

[46] [46]

M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L28 (2021)

2021

[47] [47]

Choudhuryet al., Astrophys

D. Choudhuryet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L20 (2024)

2024

[48] [48]

Kiniet al., Mon

Y. Kiniet al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.535, 1507 (2024)

2024

[49] [49]

Laskos-Patkos and Ch

P. Laskos-Patkos and Ch. C. Moustakidis, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063058 (2025)

2025

[50] [50]

L. L. Lopes and A. Issifu, Phys. Dark Universe48, 101922 (2025)

2025

[51] [51]

G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 170, 299 (1971)

1971

[52] [52]

J. D. Walecka, Ann. Phys.83, 491 (1974)

1974

[53] [53]

G. A. Lalazissis, J. K¨ onig, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C55, 540 (1997)

1997

[54] [54]

C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5647 (2001)

2001

[55] [55]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.122, 345 (1961)

1961

[56] [56]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.124, 246 (1961)

1961

[57] [57]

Rehberg, S

P. Rehberg, S. P. Klevansky, and J. H¨ ufner, Phys. Rev. C53, 410 (1996)

1996

[58] [58]

Q. Wang, C. Shi, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D100, 123003 (2019)

2019

[59] [59]

QCD vacuum pressure and its influence on the equation of state of non-strange quark stars

C.-M. Li, G.-H. Yu, Y.-P. Zhao, Z. Li, J.-L. Zhang, Y.-L. Ma, and Y.-F. Huang, arXiv:2604.22382

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

[60] [60]

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

1939

[61] [61]

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

1939

[62] [62]

Hinderer, Astrophys

T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J.677, 1216 (2008)

2008

[63] [63]

Damour and A

T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D80, 084035 (2009)

2009

[64] [64]

Binnington and E

T. Binnington and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D80, 084018 (2009)

2009

[65] [65]

Postnikov, M

S. Postnikov, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D82, 024016 (2010)

2010

[66] [66]

Li, J.-L

C.-M. Li, J.-L. Zhang, T. Zhao, Y.-P. Zhao, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D95, 056018 (2017)

2017

[67] [67]

C.-M. Li, Y. Yan, J.-J. Geng, Y.-F. Huang, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D98, 083013 (2018). 12

2018