Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Sub-GeV dark matter, not heavy dark matter, may be what quark stars need to fit every astrophysical constraint.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

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

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Fresh idea for DM in quark stars, but the dark-sector EoS is undefined in the core because k_Fχ exceeds Λ_SD, which sinks the main astrophysical claim. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.02325 v1 pith:53TJF3B4 submitted 2025-09-02 hep-ph astro-ph.HEnucl-th

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

Debashree Sen , Atanu Guha , Jong-Chul Park This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.HEnucl-th
keywords dark matter admixed quark starssub-GeV dark matterNambu-Jona-Lasinio modelfour-Fermi contact interactionf-mode oscillationsgravitational wave detectabilityBayesian parameter estimationtidal deformability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that strange quark stars admixed with dark matter can satisfy the observed mass, radius, and tidal-deformability limits only if the dark matter is light, in the sub-GeV range. The authors build a dark-NJL model in which both the quark matter and the dark matter interact through contact four-Fermi operators, and they tie the dark-matter density to the baryon density via a two-parameter profile. With sub-GeV dark matter (100-150 MeV), the equation of state stiffens enough to reach the 2.08 solar-mass pulsar and pass the NICER, HESS, and GW170817 constraints; with 5 GeV dark matter it softens and fails. The paper further claims the resulting stars' f-mode oscillations obey universal relations and would be detectable by upcoming gravitational-wave observatories.

Core claim

The central claim is that in quark stars built from NJL strange quark matter with contact-type four-Fermi interactions in the dark sector, only sub-GeV dark matter masses (100-150 MeV) yield equations of state compatible with current compact-star observations. The dark-matter density is not constant but follows the parameterized profile ρχ = ρsc α (e^{ρ/ρsc} - 1), which makes the dark-matter Fermi momentum density-dependent and avoids the thermodynamic inconsistency of constant-density treatments. With the dark-sector couplings fixed by relic abundance, self-interaction bounds, and direct-detection exclusions, the authors find massive 5 GeV dark matter softens the EoS and cannot reach the ob

What carries the argument

The dark-NJL Lagrangian combines the NJL quark model with scalar and vector four-Fermi terms in the dark sector and between dark matter and quarks. The density-profile ansatz ρχ = ρsc α (e^{ρ/ρsc} − 1) is the mechanism that makes the dark-matter fraction grow toward the core and sets the density dependence of the dark-matter Fermi momentum k_Fχ = (6π² ρχ / γχ)^{1/3}. The benchmark parameters mχ, Λ_SD, Λ_VD, Λ_SqD, and Λ_VqD are fixed by relic density, self-interaction, and direct-detection constraints, and the f-mode frequencies are obtained from the Regge-Wheeler perturbed metric with both Cowling approximation and full general-relativistic treatment.

Load-bearing premise

The dark-matter self-interaction cutoff Λ_SD must stay above the dark-matter Fermi momentum k_Fχ at every density inside the star; if k_Fχ exceeds the cutoff, the integrals defining the dark-matter equation of state have a lower limit above their upper limit and are undefined.

What would settle it

Evaluate k_Fχ = (6π² ρχ / γχ)^{1/3} with ρχ from Eq. (18) using the Bayesian best-fit α ≈ 0.194 and ρsc ≈ 1.0 fm⁻³ at baryon densities of 0.5-1 fm⁻³, and compare the result with Λ_SD = 0.041 GeV for mχ = 100 MeV. If k_Fχ exceeds Λ_SD anywhere in the star, the claimed equation of state is not evaluated in its valid domain and the structural and oscillation results need to be recomputed.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, contact-interacting GeV-scale dark matter is disfavored in strange quark stars not only by direct-detection experiments but also by the observed pulsar masses, since it softens the equation of state below the 2.08 solar-mass maximum.
  • Sub-GeV dark matter with a density profile concentrated toward the core can rescue the NJL quark-star model, which alone is too soft to satisfy the maximum-mass constraint.
  • The f-mode frequency of dark-matter-admixed quark stars is tied to compactness, mean density, and tidal deformability through universal relations that are insensitive to the dark-matter mass, the coupling ratio, and the profile parameter α.
  • Gravitational waves from f-mode oscillations of such stars, powered by glitch energies of 10^42-10^44 erg at distances of 1-10 kpc, would be within reach of next-generation detectors.
  • The Bayesian posteriors constrain α ≈ 0.19-0.20, GV/GS ≈ 0.40-0.41, and ρsc ≈ 1.0 fm⁻³, with the optimized set almost independent of dark-matter mass in the 100-150 MeV window.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A quark-star candidate with mass near 2.1 solar masses and radius near 12 km would, under this model, point toward a non-negligible sub-GeV dark-matter component, since the NJL sector alone cannot reach that mass.
  • The density-profile ansatz is one of several possible accretion-motivated profiles; substituting an isothermal or diffusion-based dark-matter distribution within the same Bayesian framework would test how robust the α ≈ 0.2 and ρsc ≈ 1 fm⁻³ posteriors are.
  • The model assumes contact interactions, which correspond to heavy mediators; repeating the analysis with light-mediator or velocity-dependent self-interactions would change the momentum cutoffs and likely shift the allowed dark-matter mass window.
  • A direct validity check is to compute k_Fχ from Eq. (18) at core densities and compare it with Λ_SD from Table II; if k_Fχ exceeds Λ_SD, the integrals in Eqs. (16) and (21) are evaluated outside their stated domain, and the equation of state needs recomputation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a 'dark-NJL' model of strange quark stars admixed with self-interacting fermionic dark matter. The quark sector is described by the NJL model; the dark sector has contact four-Fermi self-interactions and DM-quark interactions, with the DM number density tied to the baryon density through an assumed exponential profile with parameters (α, ρ_sc). The authors compute the EoS, solve the TOV equations for masses and radii, calculate tidal deformability, f-mode frequencies in both Cowling approximation and full general relativity, and perform a Bayesian analysis of (α, ρ_sc, G_V/G_S) against current pulsar and GW170817 constraints. They conclude that sub-GeV DM (mχ = 100–150 MeV) admixed strange quark stars satisfy all available astrophysical constraints, that 5 GeV DM cannot, and that the associated f-mode oscillations would be detectable by future gravitational-wave detectors.

Significance. If the calculation were well defined, the paper would be a useful contribution: it is among the first to treat contact-type four-Fermi interactions between DM and strange quark matter in a combined DNJL framework, it introduces a density-dependent DM profile intended to cure thermodynamic inconsistency, and it provides full GR f-mode results together with extensive comparisons with universal relations and projected detector sensitivities. The Bayesian pipeline with KDE likelihoods from multiple NICER and GW170817 data sets is also a strength. However, the central EoS calculation is invalid for the benchmark parameters: the dark-sector momentum cutoff is smaller than the DM Fermi momentum throughout the stellar interior, so the integrals defining the DM condensate and the DNJL energy density are undefined. Since every structural and oscillation result is built on this EoS, the main claims of the paper do not follow from the model as presented.

major comments (2)
  1. [Secs. III and VII; Eqs. (16), (18), (19), (21); Table II] The dark-sector EoS is not defined for the benchmark parameters. For mχ = 100 MeV, Table II gives Λ_SD = 0.041 GeV. At the MAP values α ≈ 0.2, ρ_sc ≈ 1 fm⁻³, and already at baryon density ρ ≈ ρ₀ ≈ 0.16 fm⁻³, Eq. (18) gives ρχ ≈ 0.035 fm⁻³, and Eq. (19) gives k_Fχ ≈ 200 MeV; at ρ ≈ 1 fm⁻³, k_Fχ ≈ 428 MeV. Thus k_Fχ exceeds Λ_SD by roughly a factor of five to ten over the entire density range used to construct the star. The integrals in Eqs. (16) and (21), whose lower limit is k_Fχ and upper limit is Λ_SD, therefore have a lower limit greater than their upper limit; the DM scalar condensate and the dark contribution to the energy density are undefined. The paper states no validity condition k_Fχ ≤ Λ_SD and offers no analytic continuation or alternative cutoff prescription. Because ε_DNJL and P_DNJL feed directly into the TOV equations, the mass–radius curves, tidal deformabilities, and f-m
  2. [Secs. V, VII.B, VII.D; Eqs. (29)–(34)] The statement that sub-GeV DM 'successfully concurs' with astrophysical constraints is a post-fit statement, not an independent prediction. The same M–R and tidal-deformability data listed in Table III are used as the likelihood to determine α, ρ_sc, and G_V/G_S, and the prior ranges in Sec. VII.D are themselves informed by the preliminary comparison with these data in Sec. VII.B. The agreement is therefore a parameter-estimation/viability result. This is not by itself a fatal flaw, but the abstract and conclusions should be reframed: the data exclude some parameter choices and select others, but they do not independently validate the model. In particular, the phrase 'successfully concur' overstates the evidential weight of the Bayesian analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (7) and following text] The text says 'γq = γe = 2' after Eq. (7), but for the quark sum γq should be 6, as used in Eq. (5). This appears to be a typo, but it should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  2. [Fig. 9 and Eq. (36)] The polynomial fit coefficients for the Cowling case list a2 = 2.693 and a3 = 2.693 simultaneously; one of these is likely a typographical error. Please verify and correct.
  3. [Throughout] There are several naming/typographical issues: 'Nambu-Jona-Lasino' should be 'Nambu-Jona-Lasinio'; ''t Hooft' is typeset inconsistently; 'DMASQM' appears in Sec. III without definition. These are cosmetic but should be fixed.
  4. [Sec. III, Eq. (18)] The exponential DM density profile is introduced ad hoc. The paper should justify this functional form more explicitly and ideally compare it with profiles derived from accretion/thermalization models, and state what DM mass fraction it implies for the benchmark stars.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Sub-GeV DM 'successful concurrence' is partly an in-sample fit because the Bayesian priors were set using the same M-R/Λ data; no definitional, self-citation, or uniqueness circularity.

specific steps
  1. other [Abstract; Sec. VII B; Sec. VII D]
    "On the other hand, we find sub-GeV DM to successfully concur with such observational constraints. ... The results obtained in Sec. VII A and VII B guide us to set proper prior distributions for the three free parameters of our DNJL model, viz. GV/GS, α, and ρsc."

    In Sec. VII B the authors scan α=0.1–0.3 and identify α=0.2 as the only value satisfying the same PSR/GW170817 M-R and Λ constraints for both GV/GS values. Sec. VII D then uses those results to set the uniform priors (α in 0.1–0.3, ρ_sc=0.16–1.6 fm^-3, GV/GS=0.3–0.5). The Bayesian posterior returns MAP α≈0.20, ρ_sc≈1.0, and the abstract reports that sub-GeV DM 'successfully concurs' with the constraints. Thus the reported agreement is in-sample: the successful parameter region was selected on the basis of the very data whose agreement is then presented as a finding. This is a fitted-parameter result, not an independent prediction. The exclusion of 5 GeV DM and the f-mode calculations are not circular, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The main derivation (NJL quark EoS + four-Fermi DM sector -> TOV -> M-R/Λ -> f-mode) is self-contained and not circular: the EoS integrals, TOV equations, and oscillation codes are standard and do not encode the target constraints. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found. The only notable circularity is statistical: the priors for the Bayesian analysis are informed by the same observational constraints that are later used to claim that sub-GeV DM 'successfully concurs'. This double use of the data makes the positive sub-GeV result partly in-sample, but it does not force the massive-DM exclusion or the f-mode detection prospects. A separate validity concern (not scored as circularity) is that for mχ=100 MeV the quoted Λ_SD≈0.041 GeV is much smaller than the DM Fermi momentum reached in the core, which would make the integrals in Eqs. (16) and (21) undefined; this is a correctness issue rather than a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model relies on a specific ad hoc DM density profile, a chosen DM self-interaction cross section, and an EFT validity assumption that is violated in the core. The parameters alpha, rho_sc and G_V/G_S are fitted to the same data used to validate the model.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha = MAP 0.201 (m_chi=100 MeV), 0.212 (m_chi=150 MeV)
    Controls the amount of dark matter in Eq. (18); fitted to pulsar M-R and GW170817 data in the Bayesian analysis.
  • rho_sc = MAP 0.998 to 0.999 fm^-3
    Reference baryon density in the DM density profile; fitted.
  • G_V/G_S = MAP 0.346 to 0.351
    Ratio of vector to scalar coupling in NJL; fitted to compact star constraints. Prior range 0.3 to 0.5.
  • m_chi = 100, 125, 150 MeV
    Dark matter mass benchmark chosen from the allowed region of direct detection and relic density constraints, not fitted.
  • Lambda_SD, Lambda_VD = 0.041 to 0.045 GeV, 0.050 to 0.056 GeV
    DM self-interaction momentum cutoffs set by requiring sigma/m = 1 cm^2/g; derived from m_chi.
  • Lambda_SqD, Lambda_VqD = 3.06 to 50.5 GeV depending on m_chi and channel
    DM-quark EFT scale set by the relic density constraint via MicrOMEGAs.
axioms (5)
  • standard math NJL Lagrangian Eq. (1) with Hatsuda-Kunihiro parameters describes strange quark matter.
    Background EoS model from prior literature [21,23,24].
  • ad hoc to paper The DM density profile rho_chi = rho_sc alpha (e^{rho/rho_sc} - 1) holds inside the star.
    Introduced in Eq. (18) without derivation; affects all results.
  • domain assumption Contact four-Fermi EFT remains valid when the DM Fermi momentum is below the cutoff.
    Unstated; violated in the core as k_F much larger than Lambda_SD.
  • domain assumption DM self-interaction cross section sigma/m = 1 cm^2/g.
    Chosen from astrophysical bounds; used to set Lambda_SD and Lambda_VD.
  • domain assumption The DM-quark couplings satisfy the relic density via MicrOMEGAs.
    Used to set Lambda_SqD and Lambda_VqD.
invented entities (1)
  • Variable DM density profile rho_chi = rho_sc alpha (e^{rho/rho_sc} - 1) no independent evidence
    purpose: Makes DM density grow toward the core and avoids a constant DM Fermi momentum
    No independent evidence for this functional form; it is an ansatz chosen for convenience.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 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." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/53TJF3B4

@misc{pith2026250902325,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 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},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/53TJF3B4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02325}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We investigate the structural and oscillation properties of dark matter (DM) admixed strange quark stars (DMSQSs). The strange quark matter (SQM) is described with the well-known Nambu-Jona-Lasino (NJL) model and the self-interacting fermionic DM is included in a systematic manner. The self-interaction of DM is of four-Fermi type and the overall DM density is considered as a function of the baryon density of SQM with two free parameters ($\alpha$, $\rho_{sc}$). This work is the first to consider four-Fermi interactions between fermionic DM and SQM in DMSQSs. Certain experiments like LZ, XENON, DarkSide, CRESST, and LHC have almost ruled out the possibility of contact interaction between SQM and massive DM (in GeV order). Recently, the quest for sub-GeV DM has garnered significant attention. We show that recent astrophysical constraints on the structural properties of compact stars also do not support the presence of massive DM in DMSQSs. On the other hand, we find sub-GeV DM to successfully concur with such observational constraints. We also calculate the fundamental $f$-mode frequency ($f_f$) of the DMSQSs, which shows universality with compactness, mean density, and tidal deformability. Further, we investigate the prospect of detection of $f_f$ with respect to the projected sensitivity of upcoming gravitational wave detectors like aLIGO, A+, Cosmic Explorer, and Einstein Telescope. In our DMSQS model, the three free parameters are $\alpha$, $\rho_{sc}$, and the ratio of repulsive to attractive interaction in SQM ($G_V/G_S$), which are optimized by Bayesian analysis in light of various recent astrophysical data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02325 by Atanu Guha, Debashree Sen, Jong-Chul Park.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Variation of EFT expansion scale for quark-DM interaction with mass of dark matter. The shaded regions are ruled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Equation of state of dark matter admixed strange quark star for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Variation of (a) particle fraction and (b) dressed mass with baryon density of dark matter admixed strange quark star [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Variation of (a) mass with radius and (b) tidal deformability with mass of dark matter admixed strange quark stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Variation of (a) mass with radius and (b) tidal deformability with mass of dark matter admixed strange quark stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Variation of (a) mass with radius and (b) tidal deformability with mass of dark matter admixed strange quark stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Variation of mass-scaled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Bayesian analysis of the free parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Bayesian analysis of the free parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Bayesian analysis of density profile of light dark matter elucidating the properties of dark matter admixed neutron stars in the presence of hyperons

    nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Bayesian analysis finds that the likely ranges of light dark-matter fermion mass and exponential density-profile parameter in hyperon-containing neutron stars are nearly independent of the hadronic model for symmetry-...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 21 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Once the TOV Eqs

    Cowling approximation In order to calculate the oscillation frequencies of the non-radial oscillation of compact stars, a widely used approx- imation is known as the Cowling approximation which ignores the metric perturbations. Once the TOV Eqs. (24 -

  2. [2]

    (A5) Here, H0, H1, and K are the metric perturbation functions; ω is the complex oscillation frequency

    General relativistic approach The line element for the perturbed Regge-Wheeler metric is given as ds2 = − e2Φ(1 + rlH0Y l meiωt)dt2 − 2iωrl+1H1Y l meiωtdtdr + e2λ(1 − rlH0Y l meiωt)dr2 + r2(1 − rlKY l meiωt)(dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2). (A5) Here, H0, H1, and K are the metric perturbation functions; ω is the complex oscillation frequency. On the other hand, the pert...

  3. [3]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Fonseca et al., Astrophys

    E. Fonseca et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L12 (2021), arXiv:2104.00880 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Doroshenko, V

    V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. P¨ uhlhofer, and A. Santangelo, Nature Astronomy 6, 1444 (2022), arXiv:2303.10264 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Choudhury et al., Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Salmi et al., Astrophys

    T. Salmi et al., Astrophys. J. 976, 58 (2024), arXiv:2409.14923 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Nambu and G

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

    1961

  13. [13]

    A. V. Olinto, Phys. Lett. B 192, 71 (1987)

    1987

  14. [14]

    Nambu and G

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

    1961

  15. [15]

    Li, Z.-F

    B.-L. Li, Z.-F. Cui, Z.-H. Yu, Y. Yan, S. An, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D 99, 043001 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Chodos, R

    A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn, and V. F. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3471 (1974)

    1974

  17. [17]

    Lugones and A

    G. Lugones and A. G. Grunfeld, Phys. Rev. D 107, 043025 (2023), arXiv:2209.03455 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Hatsuda and T

    T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Lett. B 198, 126 (1987)

    1987

  19. [19]

    Z. H. Luo, J. B. Wei, G. Chen, H. Chen, and H. J. Schulze, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 34, 1950202 (2019). 25

    2019

  20. [20]

    Kumari and A

    M. Kumari and A. Kumar, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 791 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    Hatsuda and T

    T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rept. 247, 221 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9401310

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  22. [22]

    Vogl and W

    U. Vogl and W. Weise, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 27, 195 (1991)

    1991

  23. [23]

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

    1992

  24. [24]

    Masuda, T

    K. Masuda, T. Hatsuda, and T. Takatsuka, PTEP 2013, 073D01 (2013), arXiv:1212.6803 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  25. [25]

    Kitazawa, T

    M. Kitazawa, T. Koide, T. Kunihiro, and Y. Nemoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 108, 929 (2002), [Erratum: Prog.Theor.Phys. 110, 185–186 (2003)], arXiv:hep-ph/0207255

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  26. [26]

    (A2) For solving the Eqs

    are solved, we obtain the oscillation mode frequencies by solving the two following coupled differential equations: dW (r) dr = dε(r) dP (r) " ω2r2eλ(r)−2Φ(r)V (r) + dΦ(r) dr W (r) # − l(l + 1)eλ(r)V (r), (A1) dV (r) dr = 2 dΦ(r) dr V (r) − eλ(r) W (r) r2 . (A2) For solving the Eqs. (A1) and (A2), the two boundary conditions are imposed at the center ( r ...

  27. [27]

    L. L. Lopes and D. P. Menezes, Nucl. Phys. A 1009, 122171 (2021), arXiv:2004.07909 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Buballa, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  29. [29]

    A. Guha, D. Sen, and C. H. Hyun, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 442 (2025), arXiv:2412.18569 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    S. H. Yang and C. M. Pi, JCAP 09, 052 (2024), arXiv:2402.14262 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Rezaei, Mon

    Z. Rezaei, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524, 2015 (2023), arXiv:2306.17665 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Panotopoulos and I

    G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 96, 083013 (2017), arXiv:1709.06643 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Zheng and L.-W

    H. Zheng and L.-W. Chen, Astrophys. J. 831, 127 (2016), arXiv:1603.07518 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Mukhopadhyay and J

    P. Mukhopadhyay and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 93, 083009 (2016), arXiv:1511.00238 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    J. C. Jim´ enez and E. S. Fraga, Universe8, 34 (2022), arXiv:2111.00091 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Yang, C.-M

    S.-H. Yang, C.-M. Pi, and X.-P. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083016 (2021), arXiv:2103.05159 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Mafa Takisa, L

    P. Mafa Takisa, L. L. Leeuw, and S. D. Maharaj, Astrophys. Space Sci. 365, 164 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    Panotopoulos and I

    G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083001 (2018)

    2018

  39. [39]

    Panotopoulos and I

    G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27, 1850093 (2018), arXiv:1804.05023 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    Exotic Compact Objects with Two Dark Matter Fluids

    M. Cassing, A. Brisebois, M. Azeem, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Astrophys. J. 944, 130 (2023), arXiv:2210.13697 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Strange magnetars admixed with fermionic dark matter

    O. Ferreira and E. S. Fraga, JCAP 04, 012 (2023), arXiv:2209.10959 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Chanda and R

    S. Chanda and R. Sharma, (2025), arXiv:2507.16468 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Exploring the Structural Properties of Anisotropic Dark Matter-Admixed Quark Stars

    G. Panotopoulos, ´A. Rinc´ on, and I. Lopes, Phys. Dark Univ. 49, 101972 (2025), arXiv:2505.20545 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Dark matter effects on the properties of quark stars and the implications for the peculiar objects

    H.-M. Liu, P.-C. Chu, H. Liu, X.-H. Li, and Z.-H. Li, (2025), arXiv:2501.04382 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    O. P. Jyothilakshmi, L. J. Naik, D. Sen, A. Guha, and V. Sreekanth, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 461 (2025), arXiv:2410.20923 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Zhen, T.-T

    Y. Zhen, T.-T. Sun, J.-B. Wei, Z.-Y. Zheng, and H. Chen, Symmetry 16, 807 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Sen and A

    D. Sen and A. Guha, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 518 (2022), arXiv:2209.09021 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    L. L. Lopes and H. C. Das, JCAP 05, 034 (2023), arXiv:2301.00567 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    L. L. Lopes, Astrophys. Space Sci. 370, 79 (2025), arXiv:2501.06379 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Guha and D

    A. Guha and D. Sen, JCAP 09, 027 (2021), arXiv:2106.10353 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    Sen and A

    D. Sen and A. Guha, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 3354 (2021), arXiv:2104.06141 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Guha and D

    A. Guha and D. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043038 (2024), arXiv:2401.14419 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Sen and A

    D. Sen and A. Guha, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103013 (2024), arXiv:2409.18890 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Panotopoulos and I

    G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 96, 083004 (2017), arXiv:1709.06312 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [55]

    Kumar and H

    A. Kumar and H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043016 (2025), arXiv:2501.07052 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    G. Baym, D. H. Beck, P. Geltenbort, and J. Shelton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 061801 (2018), arXiv:1802.08282 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [57]

    Husain and A

    W. Husain and A. W. Thomas, J. Phys. G 50, 015202 (2023), arXiv:2206.11262 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Hajkarim, J

    F. Hajkarim, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and L. Tolos, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025, 070 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 241801 (2025), arXiv:2503.18158 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Cui et al

    X. Cui et al. (PandaX-II), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 171801 (2022), arXiv:2112.08957 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 131301 (2019), arXiv:1811.11241 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  62. [62]

    Guha and J.-C

    A. Guha and J.-C. Park, JCAP 07, 074 (2024), arXiv:2401.07750 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    R. K. Leane and J. F. Beacom, (2025), arXiv:2503.09685 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Dutta, W.-C

    B. Dutta, W.-C. Huang, D. Kim, J. L. Newstead, J.-C. Park, and I. S. Ali, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 161801 (2024), arXiv:2402.04184 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Lee et al., Commun

    D. Lee et al., Commun. Phys. 8, 135 (2025), arXiv:2409.15748 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    J. H. Kim, K. Kong, S. H. Lim, and J.-C. Park, JCAP 04, 016 (2025), arXiv:2410.05382 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Alhazmi, D

    H. Alhazmi, D. Kim, K. Kong, G. Mohlabeng, J.-C. Park, and S. Shin, (2025), arXiv:2503.13598 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    A. K. Mishra, N. Liu, and C.-T. Lu, Phys. Dark Univ. 49, 102050 (2025), arXiv:2504.03409 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 141301 (2019), arXiv:1902.03234 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  71. [71]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 081307 (2018), arXiv:1802.06994 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  72. [72]

    A. H. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST), Phys. Rev. D 100, 102002 (2019), arXiv:1904.00498 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  73. [73]

    A. Roy, B. Dasgupta, and M. Guchait, JHEP 08, 095 (2024), arXiv:2402.17265 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Tulin, H.-B

    S. Tulin, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 87, 115007 (2013), arXiv:1302.3898 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  75. [75]

    Tulin and H.-B

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rept. 730, 1 (2018), arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  76. [76]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 960 (2014), arXiv:1305.0237 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  77. [77]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  78. [78]

    T. M. Belloni, M. M´ endez, and C. Zhang, eds., Timing Neutron Stars: Pulsations, Oscillations and Explosions, Vol. 461 26 (Springer, 2020)

    2020

  79. [79]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Living Rev. Rel. 19, 1 (2016), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  80. [80]

    “A+,” https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1800042/public

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.