Hot Holographic 2-flavor Quark Star

Hao Feng; Jing-Yi Wu; Kilar Zhang; Le-Feng Chen; Tian-Shun Chen

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Hot Holographic 2-flavor Quark Star

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The holographic two-flavor QCD equation of state yields hot quark stars of 2–17 solar masses that can mimic black holes and fill the mass gap.

desk verdict The 2–17 M⊙ mass range is an artifact of treating five ad hoc (μ,T) slices as a barotropic EoS; the paper is still a competent and useful extension of the authors' earlier holographic quark-star work. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04477 v3 pith:UTZX2RPD submitted 2025-05-07 hep-ph astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-th

Le-Feng Chen , Jing-Yi Wu , Hao Feng , Tian-Shun Chen , Kilar Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.HEgr-qchep-th PACS 04.40.Dg12.38.Mh

keywords quarkstarsholographicQCDEinstein-Maxwell-DilatonmodelequationofstateI-Love-QrelationsTolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoffequationsblackholemimickerscriticalendpoint

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 aims to establish that the holographic Einstein–Maxwell-dilaton model, with parameters fixed by two-flavor lattice QCD, can supply equations of state for quark–gluon plasma near the critical endpoint at $T=182$ MeV that behave like stellar matter. Integrated through the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equations, those equations of state produce hot quark stars with masses from about 2 to 17 solar masses and a maximum compactness around 0.22. A sympathetic reader would care because such stars would sit in the black-hole mass gap and mimic stellar-mass black holes while remaining distinguishable by nonzero tidal Love numbers. The paper also claims that the I–Love–Q relations continue to hold when hadron shells are added, as long as the energy-density jump at the quark–hadron interface is not too large.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Einstein–Maxwell-dilaton (EMD) action in five dimensions, a holographic model of strongly coupled QCD in which the scalar potential and gauge coupling are fixed by lattice data. Holographic renormalization of this action yields $\epsilon$ and $p$ as functions of temperature and chemical potential. The load-bearing mechanism for the stellar claim is the set of five fitted barotropic relations $\epsilon_i(p_i)$ in Eqs. (2.8)–(2.12), each a two-term power law, which are extrapolated to zero pressure and fed into the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equations. The I–Love–Q–C relations are computed with two-layer stellar procedures to test whether the resulting stars obey the neutron-star universal relations.

What would settle it

Compute the holographic equation of state along the actual stellar adiabat from center to surface, with temperature declining outward, and integrate the TOV equations; if the resulting maximum mass falls below about $2\,M_\odot$ or the mass–radius band no longer reaches $17\,M_\odot$, the central claim fails. A second decisive check would be a gravitational-wave detection of a mass-gap compact object whose tidal Love number is measured to be consistent with zero, which would remove the observational need for these stars as black-hole mimickers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that the two-flavor version of the holographic Einstein–Maxwell-dilaton model, with parameters matched to two-flavor lattice QCD, yields equations of state for quark–gluon plasma near the critical endpoint at $T=182$ MeV that can serve as stellar cores. Fitting five curves around the critical point (Eqs. (2.8)–(2.12)) and integrating the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equations, they obtain static hot quark stars with masses from about 2 to 17 $M_\odot$ and maximum compactness around 0.22, which they call black-hole mimickers and mass-gap candidates. Adding a hadron shell with an energy-density jump factor $m$ preserves the I–Love–Q relations for $m=1$, $1.2$, and $0.8$, while the $m=0.5$ case shows larger deviations in compactness-related relations. The paper also presents the full $\epsilon(\mu,T)$ and $p(\mu,T)$ parameter maps for the quark phase and a constant-thermal-conductivity stellar model with a central heat source, in which the equation of state depends on the central temperature.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that equations of state fitted from high-temperature quark–gluon plasma data around the critical point can be extrapolated down to zero pressure and used in the TOV equations as a barotropic stellar model, without solving the internal temperature structure and without proof that the five chosen curves bracket the true equation of state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Mass-gap events in the range $2.5$–$5\,M_\odot$ could be hot quark stars rather than black holes, so gravitational-wave catalogues should treat that mass interval as possibly populated by exotic stars.
Because black holes have zero tidal Love number in general relativity, a measured nonzero tidal deformability for a mass-gap compact object would support the quark-star interpretation.
The I–Love–Q universality extends to quark cores with hadron shells when the interface jump is small, so the relations can be used to extract quark–hadron transition parameters from observations.
The predicted minimum mass near $2\,M_\odot$ means hot quark stars occupy a separate mass band above ordinary neutron stars, consistent with quark matter being disfavored inside canonical neutron stars.
The strong flavor dependence of the predicted masses and radii offers a way to infer whether a hot quark star contains only up and down quarks or also strange quarks.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step, not carried out in the paper, is to compute the full temperature and chemical-potential profiles inside the star and evaluate the equation of state along that actual adiabat, which would test whether the five fitted curves really bracket the physical stellar equation of state.
The paper assumes the quark–hadron interface strongly reflects radiation to keep the star hot; a quantitative calculation of the interface reflectivity and resulting cooling time would turn the black-hole-mimicker scenario into a testable lifetime prediction.
The constant-thermal-conductivity model with a central heat source is treated in a simplified way; computing thermal conductivity from the same holographic model would replace the assumed Laplace profile and could change the mass–radius predictions.
If the mass-gap claim survives a full equation-of-state calculation, the same EMD framework could be used to predict the merger signatures of two such stars, extending the paper's static analysis to dynamical gravitational-wave signals.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version: the paper knows its model, but the headline mass range is not a prediction. Equations (2.8)–(2.12) are fits to five fixed slices through the (μ,T) plane near the claimed critical endpoint, and the whole stellar calculation treats each as a single barotropic EoS integrated down to p=0. There is no temperature profile for the 'hot' star—Section 3 uses an EoS whose temperature is fixed along each curve, then Section 4 admits that with a realistic thermal profile each star needs its own EoS. The assertion that the five curves 'enclose the real EoS' is just that: an assertion. So the 2–17 M⊙ envelope is the envelope of the chosen slices, not a bracketing of physically possible stars.

What is genuinely useful: the paper produces new two-flavor EMD-derived EoS fits from a model matched to lattice data, gives full ε(μ,T) and p(μ,T) heatmaps, computes M–R and I–Love–Q–C curves for simple and two-layer stars, and adds a constant-conductivity toy model. The TOV and tidal calculations are standard; nothing looks botched. The I–Love–Q universality surviving across their models is a mild, plausible finding.

The soft spots are real and load-bearing for the astrophysical claims. First, the CEP coordinates: the Introduction assigns (555,105) to 2-flavor and (219,182) to 2+1-flavor, then Section 2 says [27] obtained (219,182) for 2-flavor. That is an internal contradiction in the central anchor of the calculation. Second, the fits are stated without residuals or error bars, and they are extended to p=0 even though the authors note the quark pressure is nonzero at the phase transition; extending to zero is a modeling choice that needs physical justification. Third, the hadron shell is a single polytrope with γ=0.5 and κ chosen to cap NS mass at 2.2 M⊙, and the m parameter in Eq. (3.2) is scanned over 0.5–1.2 without a criterion. None of these are fatal to the paper as an exploratory study, but they are fatal to the abstract's claim that these are BH-mimicker candidates in the mass gap.

Who gets value: someone working on holographic QCD phenomenology or exotic compact-object signatures will want this as a reference for the 2-flavor EoS and heatmaps. I would not cite the mass-range claim in an astrophysics paper until the thermal-structure issue is addressed.

My recommendation: send it to peer review, but with a major-revision bar. The authors should resolve the CEP inconsistency, provide fit residuals and a clear statement about the p=0 extension, and either solve a temperature profile or label the 2–17 M⊙ range more cautiously as an illustration.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies a holographic Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton model for two-flavor QCD, with parameters matched to lattice data, to extract equations of state for hot quark-gluon plasma near the claimed critical endpoint. Five EoS curves are fitted for fixed values of mu/T, T, or mu (Eqs. 2.8-2.12), and these are used as barotropic inputs to the TOV equations. For the 'simple' models, the fits are extended to zero pressure; for the 'combined' models, the quark core is matched to a polytropic hadron shell through an energy-density jump parameter m. The resulting static configurations have masses from about 2 to 17 solar masses, radii around 100-275 km, and maximum compactness near 0.22, which the authors present as black-hole-mimicker and mass-gap candidates. The paper also analyzes I-Love-Q-C universal relations, presents two-dimensional (mu,T) heatmaps of energy density and pressure, and discusses a constant-thermal-conductivity temperature profile with an illustrative stellar solution.

Significance. If the EoS treatment were justified, the paper would offer a concrete holographic prediction for hot quark-star masses and a possible interpretation of mass-gap and black-hole-mimicker candidates. The full (mu,T) parameter maps in Section 4 could be a useful resource for future dense-matter studies, and the I-Love-Q-C tests extend universal-relation studies to two-layer models with phase transitions. The authors are honest about several limitations, such as the quark pressure being nonzero at the transition and the simplified nature of the analysis. However, the central astrophysical claim currently rests on unverified assumptions about how five fixed-slice fits bound the true two-dimensional EoS, so the significance is not yet established.

major comments (5)

[Section 2-3, Eqs. (2.8)-(2.12)] The central mass range of 2-17 solar masses is obtained by treating five fixed-(mu,T) fits as barotropic EoSs, but the actual energy density and pressure depend on both mu and T. The statement in Section 2 that 'the real EoS will be contained within this range' is an assertion, not a derivation: one-dimensional slices through a two-dimensional surface need not bracket the surface, and Section 4 shows explicitly that the stellar EoS depends on the central temperature T0. Please either prove the bracketing property, for example by demonstrating monotonic behavior of epsilon(p) over the enclosed (mu,T) region, or solve the TOV equations with the full two-dimensional EoS and a self-consistent thermal profile.
[Section 3, after Eqs. (2.8)-(2.12)] The fits are extrapolated to p=0 although the fitting ranges in Eqs. (2.8)-(2.12) begin at p_min around 2-3 x 10^-8 in solar units and the authors acknowledge that the quark-gluon plasma has nonzero pressure at the phase transition. The 'simple' models therefore place the stellar surface in a regime where the fitted EoS has no data and where the quark phase should already have ended. The claimed minimum mass near 2 solar masses and the low-mass parts of the mass-radius curves in Figure 2 depend on this extrapolation; please remove it or show quantitatively that the results are insensitive to the lower pressure cutoff.
[Introduction and Section 2] The location of the two-flavor critical endpoint is stated inconsistently. Section 2 states that the CEP of two-flavor QCD is at (mu,T)=(219,182) MeV, while the Introduction assigns (555,105) to the two-flavor case and (219,182) to the 2+1-flavor case. Since the five fitted slices are selected 'around the CEP,' this is not a cosmetic issue; please correct the CEP coordinates and state explicitly which reference and which flavor number give the CEP used for the fits in Figures 1-6.
[Section 3, Eq. (3.2), Figures 3-6] The combined-case predictions depend on the ad hoc energy-density jump parameter m and on the choice of the hadronic polytrope epsilon_n = kappa_n p^{0.5}. No physical or observational motivation is given for selecting m in {1, 1.2, 0.8, 0.5}, and the resulting radii differ by more than a factor of two across these choices. Since the abstract quotes a single mass range spanning the combined models, please report the mass and radius ranges separately for each m and discuss how m could be constrained by microphysics or observations.
[Section 3, Figures 2-6] The paper does not provide a quantitative stability analysis for the TOV solutions. The text cites reference [52] for stability judging methods and mentions 'unstable components' for larger phase transitions, but no radial-oscillation modes or turning-point analysis is shown. Without such an analysis, it is not established that the computed sequences correspond to stable stars rather than unstable equilibrium branches, which is especially important given the very high masses and large radii far outside the usual neutron-star range.

minor comments (5)

[Figure 1] The blue data points, especially at low pressure, are difficult to discern, and no fit residuals or uncertainties are reported for Eqs. (2.8)-(2.12); adding these would allow the reader to assess the quality of the EoS fits.
[Section 4, Eq. (4.1)] The Laplace equation for temperature assumes a flat, source-free region, while the star is relativistic and the text assumes a central heat source. Please state the approximations under which Eq. (4.2) is taken as the temperature profile.
[Section 4] The statement that substituting T(r) into p(mu,T) yields mu(p,r) assumes a unique inversion; please specify the numerical method used and how any multi-valued branches are selected.
[Figures 2-6] The quantities I, Love, Q, and C are not defined in the text or figure captions; please define them or cite the conventions of reference [38] so that the plots are self-contained.
[Figure 5 caption and References] The Figure 5 caption contains the duplicated phrase 'the the I-Love-Q-C relations,' and reference [50] is dated 2023 in the arXiv listing but labeled 2025 in the reference list; please correct these typographical errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: masses are TOV outputs of an externally calibrated holographic EoS; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations appear.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The five EoS fits (2.8)-(2.12) are obtained by fitting energy-pressure data generated from the EMD model, whose parameters are fixed by lattice QCD through external references [27] and [23]; no stellar mass, radius, or compactness value enters those fits. The 2-17 solar mass range is produced by integrating the TOV equations with these EoS, so the masses are outputs, not inputs. The hadron-shell matching condition (3.2), eps_n(pt)=m eps_q(pt), fixes kappa_n after choosing m, and m is scanned rather than fitted to a target mass. The I-Love-Q-C relations are checks against known universal behavior, not used to derive the EoS. Self-citations ([21], [50], [51]) are used for comparison, reference polytrope parameters, and two-layer integration procedures; none of these is load-bearing for the mass claim. Two passages deserve attention but are not circularity: the assertion that the five selected (mu,T) curves 'would be enough to enclose the real EoS' (Conclusions) is an unproven robustness assumption, and the CEP coordinates are inconsistent between the Introduction ((555,105) MeV for 2-flavor) and Section 2 ((219,182) MeV for 2-flavor). Both are correctness/validity concerns, not self-referential reductions. Similarly, the statement that the maximum fit pressure is 'determined by stellar stability requirements' is ambiguous, but no equation shows the maximum TOV mass being set equal to a pre-imposed input. The derivation is therefore self-contained in the circularity sense.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The central thermal core and the hot quark star are configurations, not new entities. The free parameters listed above are the ones the central claim depends on that are either fitted to holographic data or chosen by hand.

free parameters (5)

EoS fit coefficients a, b, c, d for Eqs (2.8)-(2.12) = a1=0.000501863, b1=0.315468, c1=1.15292, d1=0.89651; analogous values for curves 2-5
Fitted to holographic QCD numerical data for the five selected (T, mu) conditions; no fit residuals or uncertainties are provided.
Phase transition energy-density jump m = 1, 1.2, 0.8, 0.5
Hand-picked to model the discontinuity at the quark-hadron interface; stellar properties depend strongly on this choice.
Hadronic polytrope constant kappa_n = Determined by matching eps_n(pt) = m eps_q(pt)
The hadronic crust EoS eps_n = kappa_n p^0.5 has its coefficient set by the matching condition, so it inherits the quark EoS and the chosen m.
Central temperature and chemical potential for the example star = T0 = 200 MeV, mu0 = 500 MeV
Chosen initial conditions for the TOV integration in Section 4; the resulting star mass of 12.7 solar masses depends on this choice.
Thermal core radius Rc = 10 km (also 30 and 40 km in Fig 8)
Introduced to regularize the divergent Laplace temperature profile; the results are cutoff-dependent.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The EMD holographic model with potentials (2.2) and parameters from Ref [27] reliably describes two-flavor QCD thermodynamics across the T-mu plane.
The model is matched to lattice data at mu=0 and extrapolated to finite mu; the paper relies on this for all EoS.
domain assumption A finite-temperature EoS can be used as a barotropic relation p(epsilon) in the TOV equations without solving the stellar temperature structure.
The stars are labeled hot, yet TOV is solved with p(epsilon) only; thermal transport is ignored except in a later toy model.
ad hoc to paper The true EoS around the CEP is bracketed by the five chosen curves with mu/T = 1, 1.2033, 1.25, T = 182 MeV, and mu = 219 MeV.
No proof is given that these curves cover the entire physical EoS; stated as an assertion in Section 2.
ad hoc to paper The quark-hadron transition is a sharp interface with energy density jump m and a polytropic hadronic EoS eps_n = kappa_n p^0.5.
Used to construct the combined stars; the hadronic EoS is a single polytrope rather than a modern nuclear EoS.
ad hoc to paper The fitted EoS can be extended to p=0 for the 'simple' models, despite the data having nonzero pressure at the phase transition.
Necessary to define a stellar surface; acknowledged in Section 3 as an approximation.
ad hoc to paper Under constant thermal conductivity, the temperature profile is T=T0 for r<=Rc and T0 Rc / r for r>Rc.
Laplace equation solution with a cutoff heat source; introduced in Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hot Holographic 2-flavor Quark Star." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UTZX2RPD

@misc{pith2026250504477,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hot Holographic 2-flavor Quark Star},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UTZX2RPD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04477}
}

read the original abstract

Applying the holographic 2-flavor Einstein--Maxwell-dilaton model, the parameters of which are fixed by lattice QCD, we extract the equations of state for hot quark--gluon plasma around the critical point at T=182 MeV, and have corresponding quark star cores constructed. By further adding hadron shells, the mass range of the whole stars spans from 2 to 17 solar masses, with the maximum compactness around 0.22. This result allows them to be black hole mimickers and candidates for gap events. The I--Love--Q--C relations are also analyzed, which show consistency with the neutron star cases when the discontinuity at the quark--hadron interface is not large. Furthermore, we illustrate the full parameter maps of the energy density and pressure as functions of the temperature and chemical potential and discuss the constant thermal conductivity case supposing a heat source inside.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

[27]

Phase structure and critical phenomena in two-flavor QCD by holography.Phys

Zhao, Y.-Q.; He, S.; Hou, D.; Li, L.; Li, Z. Phase structure and critical phenomena in two-flavor QCD by holography.Phys. Rev. D 2024, 109, 086015. [CrossRef]

work page 2024
[52]

Normal Modes of Radial Pulsation of Stars at the End Point of Thermonuclear Evolution.Astrophys

Meltzer, D.W.; Thorne, K.S. Normal Modes of Radial Pulsation of Stars at the End Point of Thermonuclear Evolution.Astrophys. J. 1966, 145, 514. [CrossRef]

work page 1966
[1]

GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral.Phys

Abbott, B.P.; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adams, T.; Addesso, P.; Adhikari, R.X.; Adya, V.B.; et al. GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 119, 161101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

work page 2017
[2]

Properties of the binary neutron star merger GW170817

Abbott, B.P.; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.D.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adams, T.; Addesso, P.; Adhikari, R.X.; Adya, V.B.; et al. Properties of the binary neutron star merger GW170817. Phys. Rev. X 2019, 9, 011001. [CrossRef]

work page 2019
[3]

GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass∼ 3.4M⊙

Abbott, B.P.; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.D.; Abraham, S.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adhikari, R.X.; Adya, V.B.; Affeldt, C.; et al. GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass∼ 3.4M⊙. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2020, 892, L3. [CrossRef]

work page 2020
[4]

Tidal Love numbers of neutron stars.Astrophys

Hinderer, T. Tidal Love numbers of neutron stars.Astrophys. J. 2008, 677, 1216–1220. [CrossRef]

work page 2008
[5]

The Radius of PSR J0740+6620 from NICER and XMM-Newton Data.Astrophys

Miller, M.C.; Lamb, F.K.; Dittmann, A.J.; Bogdanov, S.; Arzoumanian, Z.; Gendreau, K.C.; Guillot, S.; Ho, W.C.G.; Lattimer, J.M.; Loewenstein, M.; et al. The Radius of PSR J0740+6620 from NICER and XMM-Newton Data.Astrophys. J. Lett. 2021, 918, L28. [CrossRef]

work page 2021
[6]

Anti-de sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories

Witten, E. Anti-de sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories. arXiv 1998, arXiv:hep-th/9803131

arXiv 1998

Show all 53 references

[7]

The String dual of a confining four-dimensional gauge theory

Polchinski, J.; Strassler, M.J. The String dual of a confining four-dimensional gauge theory. arXiv 2000, arXiv:hep-th/0003136

2000 arXiv
[8]

Black Holes and Membranes in Higher Dimensional Theories with Dilaton Fields.Nucl

Gibbons, G.W.; Maeda, K.-i. Black Holes and Membranes in Higher Dimensional Theories with Dilaton Fields.Nucl. Phys. B 1988, 298, 741–775. [CrossRef]

1988
[9]

Low energy hadron physics in holographic QCD.Prog

Sakai, T.; Sugimoto, S. Low energy hadron physics in holographic QCD.Prog. Theor. Phys. 2005, 113, 843–882. [CrossRef]

2005
[10]

More on a holographic dual of QCD.Prog

Sakai, T.; Sugimoto, S. More on a holographic dual of QCD.Prog. Theor. Phys. 2005, 114, 1083–1118. [CrossRef] – 18 –

2005
[11]

Holographic quark matter and neutron stars

Hoyos, C.; Fernández, D.R.; Jokela, N.; Vuorinen, A. Holographic quark matter and neutron stars. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 117, 032501. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2016
[12]

Breaking the sound barrier in AdS/CFT

Hoyos, C.; Jokela, N.; Rodríguez Fernández, D.; Vuorinen, A. Breaking the sound barrier in AdS/CFT. Phys. Rev. D 2016, 94, 106008. [CrossRef]

2016
[13]

Holographic compact stars meet gravitational wave constraints.J

Annala, E.; Ecker, C.; Hoyos, C.; Jokela, N.; Rodríguez Fernández, D.; Vuorinen, A. Holographic compact stars meet gravitational wave constraints.J. High Energy Phys. 2018, 12, 078. [CrossRef]

2018
[14]

Deconfined, Massive Quark Phase at High Density and Compact Stars: A Holographic Study.Phys

Fadafan, K.B.; Rojas, J.C.; Evans, N. Deconfined, Massive Quark Phase at High Density and Compact Stars: A Holographic Study.Phys. Rev. D 2020, 101, 126005. [CrossRef]

2020
[15]

Holographic cold dense matter constrained by neutron stars.Phys

Zhang, L.; Huang, M. Holographic cold dense matter constrained by neutron stars.Phys. Rev. D 2022, 106, 096028. [CrossRef]

2022
[16]

Holographic quark matter with colour superconductivity and a stiff equation of state for compact stars.Phys

Bitaghsir Fadafan, K.; Cruz Rojas, J.; Evans, N. Holographic quark matter with colour superconductivity and a stiff equation of state for compact stars.Phys. Rev. D 2021, 103, 026012. [CrossRef]

2021
[17]

Evidence for quark-matter cores in massive neutron stars.Nat

Annala, E.; Gorda, T.; Kurkela, A.; Nättilä, J.; Vuorinen, A. Evidence for quark-matter cores in massive neutron stars.Nat. Phys. 2020, 16, 907–910. [CrossRef]

2020
[18]

Plausible presence of new state in neutron stars with masses above 0.98MTOV.Sci

Han, M.-Z.; Huang, Y.-J.; Tang, S.-P.; Fan, Y.-Z. Plausible presence of new state in neutron stars with masses above 0.98MTOV.Sci. Bull. 2023, 68, 913–919. [CrossRef]

2023
[19]

Maximum gravitational mass MTOV = 2.25− 0.07 + 0.08M⊙ inferred at about 3% precision with multimessenger data of neutron stars.Phys

Fan, Y.-Z.; Han, M.-Z.; Jiang, J.-L.; Shao, D.-S.; Tang, S.-P. Maximum gravitational mass MTOV = 2.25− 0.07 + 0.08M⊙ inferred at about 3% precision with multimessenger data of neutron stars.Phys. Rev. D 2024, 109, 043052. [CrossRef]

2024
[20]

Cold Quark Matter.Phys

Kurkela, A.; Romatschke, P.; Vuorinen, A. Cold Quark Matter.Phys. Rev. D 2010, 81, 105021. [CrossRef]

2010
[21]

Observing Hot Holographic Quark Star with Gravitational Waves.arXiv 2025, arXiv:2501.17121

Chen, L.-F.; Yuan, H.-Y.; Zhou, M.-H.; Lu, K.; Wu, J.-Y.; Zhang, K. Observing Hot Holographic Quark Star with Gravitational Waves.arXiv 2025, arXiv:2501.17121

2025
[22]

Hot QCD phase diagram from holographic Einstein–Maxwell–Dilaton models.Prog

Rougemont, R.; Grefa, J.; Hippert, M.; Noronha, J.; Noronha-Hostler, J.; Portillo, I.; Ratti, C. Hot QCD phase diagram from holographic Einstein–Maxwell–Dilaton models.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 2024, 135, 104093. [CrossRef]

2024
[23]

Probing QCD critical point and induced gravitational wave by black hole physics.Phys

Cai, R.-G.; He, S.; Li, L.; Wang, Y.-X. Probing QCD critical point and induced gravitational wave by black hole physics.Phys. Rev. D 2022, 106, L121902. [CrossRef]

2022
[24]

A holographic critical point.Phys

DeWolfe, O.; Gubser, S.S.; Rosen, C. A holographic critical point.Phys. Rev. D 2011, 83, 086005. [CrossRef]

2011
[25]

Bazavov, A. et al. [HotQCD Collaboration]. Equation of state in (2+1)-flavor QCD.Phys. Rev. D 2014, 90, 094503. [CrossRef]

2014
[26]

Lattice QCD equation of state at finite chemical potential from an alternative expansion scheme.Phys

Borsányi, S.; Fodor, Z.; Guenther, J.N.; Kara, R.; Katz, S.D.; Parotto, P.; Pásztor, A.; Ratti, C.; Szabó, K.K. Lattice QCD equation of state at finite chemical potential from an alternative expansion scheme.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2021, 126, 232001. [CrossRef]

2021
[28]

Equation of state of quark-gluon matter from lattice QCD with two flavors of twisted mass Wilson fermions

Burger, F.; Ilgenfritz, E.M.; Lombardo, M.P.; Müller-Preussker, M.; [tmfT Collaboration]. Equation of state of quark-gluon matter from lattice QCD with two flavors of twisted mass Wilson fermions. Phys. Rev. D 2015, 91, 074504. [CrossRef] – 19 –

2015
[29]

Quark number susceptibilities and equation of state at finite chemical potential in staggered QCD with Nt = 8.Phys

Datta, S.; Gavai, R.V.; Gupta, S. Quark number susceptibilities and equation of state at finite chemical potential in staggered QCD with Nt = 8.Phys. Rev. D 2017, 95, 054512. [CrossRef]

2017
[30]

Cosmic Separation of Phases.Phys

Witten, E. Cosmic Separation of Phases.Phys. Rev. D 1984, 30, 272–285. [CrossRef]

1984
[31]

Quark matter may not be strange.Phys

Holdom, B.; Ren, J.; Zhang, C. Quark matter may not be strange.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 120, 222001. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2018
[32]

A Dynamical, confining model and hot quark stars.Phys

Blaschke, D.; Grigorian, H.; Poghosyan, G.S.; Roberts, C.D.; Schmidt, S.M. A Dynamical, confining model and hot quark stars.Phys. Lett. B 1999, 450, 207–214. [CrossRef]

1999
[33]

Investigating the role of nuclear parameters in Neutron Star oscillations: A model comparison.Phys

Maiti, R.; Chatterjee, D. Investigating the role of nuclear parameters in Neutron Star oscillations: A model comparison.Phys. Rev. D 2025, 111, 023017. [CrossRef]

2025
[34]

Structure and stability of strange and charm stars at finite temperatures.Phys

Kettner, C.; Weber, F.; Weigel, M.K.; Glendenning, N.K. Structure and stability of strange and charm stars at finite temperatures.Phys. Rev. D 1995, 51, 1440. [CrossRef]

1995
[35]

Effects of hyperons in binary neutron star mergers

Sekiguchi, Y.; Kiuchi, K.; Kyutoku, K.; Shibata, M. Effects of hyperons in binary neutron star mergers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 107, 211101. [CrossRef]

2011
[36]

The scenario of two families of compact stars: 2

Drago, A.; Pagliara, G. The scenario of two families of compact stars: 2. Transition from hadronic to quark matter and explosive phenomena.Eur. Phys. J. A 2016, 52, 41. [CrossRef]

2016
[37]

I-Love-Q.Science 2013, 341, 365–368

Yagi, K.; Yunes, N. I-Love-Q.Science 2013, 341, 365–368. [CrossRef]

2013
[38]

I-love-q relations in neutron stars and their applications to astrophysics, gravitational waves, and fundamental physics.Phys

Yagi, K.; Yunes, N. I-love-q relations in neutron stars and their applications to astrophysics, gravitational waves, and fundamental physics.Phys. Rev. D 2013, 88, 023009. [CrossRef]

2013
[39]

I-love-q to the extreme.Class

Silva, H.O.; Yunes, N. I-love-q to the extreme.Class. Quantum Gravity 2017, 35, 015005. [CrossRef]

2017
[40]

Quasiuniversal relations for generalized skyrme stars.Phys

Adam, C.; Martín-Caro, A.G.; Huidobro, M.; Vázquez, R.; Wereszczynski, A. Quasiuniversal relations for generalized skyrme stars.Phys. Rev. D 2021, 103, 023022. [CrossRef]

2021
[41]

Universal relations for compact stars with heavy baryons

Li, J.J.; Sedrakian, A.; Weber, F. Universal relations for compact stars with heavy baryons. Phys. Rev. C 2023, 108, 025810. [CrossRef]

2023
[42]

Universal relationships for neutron stars from perturbative approach

Atta, D.; Singh, V.; Basu, D.N. Universal relationships for neutron stars from perturbative approach. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2408.00646. [CrossRef]

2024 arXiv
[43]

Universal relations for compact stars with exotic degrees of freedom.Eur

Kumar, A.; Ghosh, M.K.; Thakur, P.; Thapa, V.B.; Nath, K.K.; Sinha, M. Universal relations for compact stars with exotic degrees of freedom.Eur. Phys. J. C 2024, 84, 692. [CrossRef]

2024
[44]

I-Love-Q relations for gravastars and the approach to the black-hole limit.Phys

Pani, P. I-Love-Q relations for gravastars and the approach to the black-hole limit.Phys. Rev. D 2015, 92, 124030. [CrossRef]

2015
[45]

Rotating protoneutron stars: Spin evolution, maximum mass, and i-love-q relations,Phys

Martinon, G.; Maselli, A.; Gualtieri, L.; Ferrari, V. Rotating protoneutron stars: Spin evolution, maximum mass, and i-love-q relations,Phys. Rev. D 2014, 90, 064026. [CrossRef]

2014
[46]

Two-layer compact stars with crystalline quark matter: Screening effect on the tidal deformability.Phys

Lau, S.; Leung, P.; Lin, L.-M. Two-layer compact stars with crystalline quark matter: Screening effect on the tidal deformability.Phys. Rev. D 2019, 99, 023018. [CrossRef]

2019
[47]

Proto-neutron stars with heavy baryons and universal relations

Raduta, A.R.; Oertel, M.; Sedrakian, A. Proto-neutron stars with heavy baryons and universal relations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2020, 499, 914–931. [CrossRef] – 20 –

2020
[48]

Slowly rotating neutron star with holographic multiquark core: I-love-q relations.Phys

Burikham, P.; Pinkanjanarod, S.; Ponglertsakul, S. Slowly rotating neutron star with holographic multiquark core: I-love-q relations.Phys. Rev. D 2022, 105, 104018. [CrossRef]

2022
[49]

I-c-q relations for rapidly rotating stable hybrid stars.Astropart

Roy, S.K.; Chaudhuri, G. I-c-q relations for rapidly rotating stable hybrid stars.Astropart. Phys. 2025, 170, 103108. [CrossRef]

2025
[50]

Dark I-Love-Q.arXiv 2025, arXiv:2309.07971

Wu, J.-Y.; Li, W.; Huang, X.-H.; Zhang, K. Dark I-Love-Q.arXiv 2025, arXiv:2309.07971. [CrossRef]

2025 arXiv
[51]

GW170817 and GW190425 as hybrid stars of dark and nuclear matter.Eur

Zhang, K.; Huang, G.-Z.; Tsao, J.-S.; Lin, F.-L. GW170817 and GW190425 as hybrid stars of dark and nuclear matter.Eur. Phys. J. C 2022, 82, 366. [CrossRef]

2022
[53]

QCD Crossover at Finite Chemical Potential from Lattice Simulations

Borsanyi, S.; Fodor, Z.; Guenther, J.N.; Kara, R.; Katz, S.D.; Parotto, P.; Pasztor, A.; Ratti, C.; Szabo, K.K. QCD Crossover at Finite Chemical Potential from Lattice Simulations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2020, 125, 052001. [CrossRef] [PubMed] – 21 –

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [27]

Phase structure and critical phenomena in two-flavor QCD by holography.Phys

Zhao, Y.-Q.; He, S.; Hou, D.; Li, L.; Li, Z. Phase structure and critical phenomena in two-flavor QCD by holography.Phys. Rev. D 2024, 109, 086015. [CrossRef]

work page 2024

[2] [52]

Normal Modes of Radial Pulsation of Stars at the End Point of Thermonuclear Evolution.Astrophys

Meltzer, D.W.; Thorne, K.S. Normal Modes of Radial Pulsation of Stars at the End Point of Thermonuclear Evolution.Astrophys. J. 1966, 145, 514. [CrossRef]

work page 1966

[3] [1]

GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral.Phys

Abbott, B.P.; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adams, T.; Addesso, P.; Adhikari, R.X.; Adya, V.B.; et al. GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 119, 161101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

work page 2017

[4] [2]

Properties of the binary neutron star merger GW170817

Abbott, B.P.; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.D.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adams, T.; Addesso, P.; Adhikari, R.X.; Adya, V.B.; et al. Properties of the binary neutron star merger GW170817. Phys. Rev. X 2019, 9, 011001. [CrossRef]

work page 2019

[5] [3]

GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass∼ 3.4M⊙

Abbott, B.P.; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.D.; Abraham, S.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adhikari, R.X.; Adya, V.B.; Affeldt, C.; et al. GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass∼ 3.4M⊙. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2020, 892, L3. [CrossRef]

work page 2020

[6] [4]

Tidal Love numbers of neutron stars.Astrophys

Hinderer, T. Tidal Love numbers of neutron stars.Astrophys. J. 2008, 677, 1216–1220. [CrossRef]

work page 2008

[7] [5]

The Radius of PSR J0740+6620 from NICER and XMM-Newton Data.Astrophys

Miller, M.C.; Lamb, F.K.; Dittmann, A.J.; Bogdanov, S.; Arzoumanian, Z.; Gendreau, K.C.; Guillot, S.; Ho, W.C.G.; Lattimer, J.M.; Loewenstein, M.; et al. The Radius of PSR J0740+6620 from NICER and XMM-Newton Data.Astrophys. J. Lett. 2021, 918, L28. [CrossRef]

work page 2021

[8] [6]

Anti-de sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories

Witten, E. Anti-de sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories. arXiv 1998, arXiv:hep-th/9803131

arXiv 1998