Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Core or Halo? Two-Fluid Analysis of Dark Matter-Admixed Quarkyonic Stars in the Multi-Messenger Era

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dark-matter admixture lets quarkyonic stars reach the GW190814 mass range and can produce either a dark-matter core or halo.

desk verdict Reasonable two-fluid parameter study undermined by an internal inconsistency: the halo candidates it touts are the ones its own constraints exclude. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06684 v1 pith:H6AUJAAA submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.HE hep-phhep-thnucl-th

Jeet Amrit Pattnaik , D. Dey , M. Bhuyan , R. N. Panda , S. K. Patra This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-phhep-thnucl-th
keywords quarkyonicstarsdarkmatteradmixedneutrontwo-fluidTOVGW190814tidaldeformabilitymomentofinertiaE-RMFequationstateNICERconstraints
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 tries to show that adding a gravitationally coupled dark-matter component to a quarkyonic star—matter where nucleons form a shell around a quark sea—can make the star heavy enough to be the roughly 2.6-solar-mass companion seen in GW190814, while still satisfying the radius and tidal constraints from GW170817 and NICER. It solves two-fluid Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations in which visible and dark matter are separately conserved and interact only through gravity, scanning dark-matter particle mass, self-interaction type, and the ratio of central dark-matter to normal-matter energy density. The central payoff is a classification: depending on parameters, the same GW190814 mass can be reached by stars with compact dark-matter cores or by stars wrapped in extended dark-matter halos, and the two morphologies leave different fingerprints in tidal deformability and moment of inertia. If the paper is right, multi-messenger measurements could someday tell whether the heavy object in GW190814 was a dark-matter-halo star, a dark-matter-core star, or neither.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-fluid TOV system: the total stress-energy tensor is the sum of separate normal-matter and dark-matter tensors, with each fluid conserved independently and coupled only through gravity. The visible sector uses a quarkyonic EOS (nucleonic shell plus quark Fermi sea) from E-RMF parameterizations G3 and IOPB-I, set by transition density n_t = 0.3 fm^-3 and confinement scale Lambda_cs = 800 MeV. The dark sector is a degenerate fermion gas with attractive scalar and repulsive vector self-interaction couplings C_DS and C_DV. The control parameter that carries the argument is the central energy-density ratio epsilon_D,c / epsilon_N,c, scanned from 0 to 2, along wit

What would settle it

Measure the moment of inertia of a compact object near 2.5-2.67 solar masses, for example through pulsar timing of a binary companion or spin precession in a gravitational-wave signal. Halo models DAQS2 and DAQS6 predict I around 8-15 x 10^45 g cm^2, while core models and ordinary neutron-star equations of state predict roughly 0.4-6 x 10^45 g cm^2; a measurement below about 6 would rule out the halo interpretation. Alternatively, a precise determination that the GW190814 secondary is a black hole would falsify the central conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dark-matter-admixed quarkyonic stars (DAQSs), built from a quarkyonic equation of state in the E-RMF framework and a self-interacting degenerate fermionic dark-matter gas, can reach total masses in the GW190814 secondary range (2.50-2.67 solar masses) for six representative parameter sets. Of these, two (DAQS2 and DAQS6, both with 0.7 GeV dark matter and mixed attractive-plus-repulsive interaction) develop extended dark-matter halos: their dark radius exceeds the normal-matter radius across the mass range, the total tidal deformability stays nearly constant with mass instead of falling, and the moment of inertia is anomalously large (8-15 x 10^45 g cm^2), outside th

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on treating the central dark-matter energy-density fraction (scanned from 0 to 2 times the normal-matter central density) as a free input, with no model of how that much dark matter gets captured or accumulated; if astrophysical dark-matter fractions cannot reach these values, the six candidate stars are not realizable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the GW190814 secondary does not force a black-hole interpretation: quarkyonic matter with a gravitationally coupled dark sector can supply the required 2.50-2.67 solar masses.
  • Dark-matter halos leave a recognizable signature—almost flat tidal deformability versus mass and moments of inertia near 8-15 x 10^45 g cm^2—so a future precise measurement of moment of inertia could identify or exclude halo morphologies.
  • Consistency with GW170817 and NICER is not automatic; only subsets of the six candidates pass those bounds, which means multi-messenger data already prune the dark-matter parameter space.
  • The two morphologies correlate with dark fraction: halo cases need larger dark-matter fractions and lower dark-matter mass (0.7 GeV), while core cases prefer 1-2 GeV with attractive or no interaction.
  • The same framework predicts how stellar radius and maximum mass respond to the dark-matter fraction, providing concrete targets for follow-up observation of compact objects near 2.5-2.67 solar masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the central dark-matter fraction is imposed as a boundary condition rather than derived from capture or accumulation, the paper demonstrates parameter-space viability, not a formation history; a realistic accumulation model could restrict the allowed range of epsilon_D,c / epsilon_N,c and eliminate some of the six cases, with the ratio-2 DAQS4 the most exposed.
  • Editorial inference: the same two-fluid machinery, with the same halo/core classification, should apply to ordinary hadronic neutron stars admixed with light fermionic dark matter; if so, GW170817-like tidal measurements could in principle set upper limits on the dark fraction of any neutron star, not only quarkyonic ones.
  • Editorial inference: the near-flat Lambda(M) relation for halo models is a distinctive prediction that could be checked with a population of binary inspirals at different masses; if future event catalogs show no such flat trend, halo-dominated DAQSs of this type would be disfavored.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies dark matter-admixed quarkyonic stars (DAQSs) in a two-fluid Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff framework, combining a quarkyonic E-RMF normal-matter sector with a self-interacting fermionic dark matter sector. It computes mass-radius relations, tidal deformability, moment of inertia, and morphology diagnostics (radius ratio, halo thickness, density profiles) for six selected EOS configurations, DAQS1-DAQS6. The central claims are that dark matter enables stars to reach the GW190814 secondary mass range and that this object could plausibly be either a DM-core or a DM-halo quarkyonic star, while remaining consistent with NICER and GW170817 constraints.

Significance. If the central claims held, the paper would provide a useful systematic survey of two-fluid DM-admixed quarkyonic stars, with clean morphology diagnostics and a multi-messenger comparison. The two-fluid TOV integrations and the EOS construction are standard and reproducible in principle. The paper explicitly identifies the free parameters and the interaction channels, which is a strength. However, the observational conclusion is weakened by post hoc selection of the EOSs and by the fact that the two halo configurations fail the paper's own NICER and moment-of-inertia constraints. The work is therefore more compelling as an existence study of possible DAQS configurations than as evidence that GW190814 is a DM-admixed quarkyonic star.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 4, and Conclusions] The concluding claim that the GW190814 secondary 'could plausibly be interpreted as either a DM core or a DM halo quarkyonic star' is not supported by the paper's own results. The text states that DAQS2 and DAQS6, the only two halo configurations, have total moments of inertia I ~ 8-15 x 10^45 g cm^2, 'well above the typical interval' of 0.4-6 x 10^45 g cm^2, are the only EOSs outside the DNS/MSP/LMXB observational bands in Fig. 4, and 'place these models outside the NICER observational bounds' (Sec. 3, Fig. 2 discussion). By the paper's own observational criteria, the halo branch is excluded. The 'either/or' conclusion should be removed or rephrased: at most the DM-core branch is viable, and even that branch requires the selection issues below to be addressed.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 3, Table 1] The selection of DAQS1-DAQS6 is post hoc with respect to the GW190814 mass. The paper states that the six cases are identified because they 'fall within the secondary mass range of GW190814,' and DAQS4 is obtained by scanning the ratio parameter epsilon_D,c/epsilon_N,c from 0.0 to 2.0 and choosing 2.0. Since the same observable is used for both selection and validation, the agreement with the GW190814 mass is built in rather than predicted. To make the central claim that 'the inclusion of DM enables stellar configurations to reach the mass range compatible with GW190814' meaningful, the paper should report the full scan including the excluded variants, define the selection criteria using independent observables (e.g., NICER/GW170817 constraints) before checking GW190814, or use a leave-one-out-style demonstration.
  3. [Sections 2 and 3, ratio parameter] The central dark matter fraction is imposed as a free boundary condition, epsilon_D,c/epsilon_N,c in [0,2], with no model for dark matter capture, accumulation, or formation history. The two fluids are described as separately conserved and coupled only gravitationally, but no argument is given that the selected central fractions are astrophysically realizable. The claim that the paper 'constrains the possible dark matter fractions' is therefore partly a re-expression of the input ratio parameter. This should be stated as a limitation: the calculations are existence examples for specified central DM fractions, not predictions for realistic DM-admixed stars. A concrete improvement would be to compare the selected fractions with bounds from DM capture and self-interaction constraints, or to marginalize over the ratio with a physical prior.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References, Ref. [2]] Reference [2] appears to be a JGR Space Physics paper on E-region irregularities, which is unrelated to the dark matter evidence discussed in the Introduction. A standard cosmology/dark matter review should be cited instead.
  2. [Eqs. (1)-(2)] The symbol rho_D is described as the number density of dark matter, but the standard notation rho usually denotes mass density. Consider using n_D for number density to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'For the first time' should be justified relative to the existing two-fluid dark matter-admixed neutron star literature (Refs. [14-17]) and the authors' own prior quarkyonic-DM papers (Refs. [1,12,13]). If the novelty is specifically the combination of quarkyonic matter with a two-fluid DM treatment, state that explicitly.
  4. [Figures 2 and 3] The colorbars and data series are difficult to distinguish in grayscale. Please add distinct point styles or line styles and a legend with the interaction types, so that the DAQS candidates can be identified without color.
  5. [Section 3, text near Fig. 2] There is a typo: 'several kms beyond' should be 'several km beyond.' Also, 'NICER observational bounds' is used informally; specify which NICER measurement is meant (e.g., PSR J0030+0451 or PSR J0740+6620 radius bounds).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

GW190814 mass used to select DAQS candidates; the claim that DAQS can explain GW190814 is partly self-definitional, and the halo cases are excluded by the paper's own constraints.

  1. self definitional [Section 3 (Table 1) and Section 4 (Summary and Conclusions)]
    "After constraining the EOSs with the GW190814 secondary mass, we label them as DAQS1-DAQS6. ... A particularly intriguing outcome is that both halo-dominated and core-dominated configurations can reproduce the GW190814 secondary mass"

    DAQS1-DAQS6 are defined by selecting EOSs whose M-R curves fall within the GW190814 secondary mass range (e.g., 'Among these, five suitable cases are identified that fall within the secondary mass range of GW190814'). The conclusion that these configurations 'can reproduce the GW190814 secondary mass' is therefore a restatement of the selection criterion, not an independently derived result. The ratio parameter is likewise chosen (e.g., ratio=2.0 for DAQS4) precisely to achieve that mass. Thus the paper's central interpretive claim—that GW190814 could be a DM core or DM halo quarkyonic star—rests on models constructed to match the target observable, making the support partly tautological. The independent content (NICER, tidal deformability) actually excludes the halo cases (DAQS2, DAQS6),

full rationale

The paper's two-fluid TOV machinery and DM EOS are standard and externally referenced; the quarkyonic formalism is traced to McLerran-Reddy and Zhao-Lattimer, not solely to the authors' prior work. The main circularity is that the candidate EOSs are selected by the GW190814 mass itself, so the statement that they can reach that mass is true by construction. The paper is transparent about this ('After constraining the EOSs with the GW190814 secondary mass...'), but the abstract and conclusion present the mass overlap as a finding that supports the GW190814 interpretation. The later comparisons with GW170817 and NICER are independent, yet the two halo configurations (DAQS2, DAQS6) are explicitly found to violate the paper's own NICER and moment-of-inertia constraints, contradicting the concluding 'either a DM core or a DM halo' claim. Therefore, the central interpretive claim is partially circular and partially unsupported, but the underlying computations are not fabricated and retain some independent value. Score 4 reflects this partial circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results depend on a handful of unconstrained dark sector parameters, two fixed quarkyonic model parameters, and the central DM fraction ratio, plus the assumption that the two fluids are separately conserved and coupled only gravitationally. The paper introduces no fundamentally new particle, but the DM mediator fields and couplings are unverified model inputs.

free parameters (6)
  • Dark matter particle mass MDM = 0.7, 1.0, 2.0 GeV
    Scanned as discrete values; no particle physics motivation or external constraint; stiffness and morphology depend strongly on it.
  • Dark scalar coupling CDS = gDS/mDS = 0 or 4 GeV^-1
    Ad hoc choice for the attractive interaction channel; no direct detection or relic density constraint.
  • Dark vector coupling CDV = gDV/mDV = 0 or 10 GeV^-1
    Ad hoc choice for the repulsive channel; not derived from any specific particle model.
  • Central DM to NM energy density ratio epsilon_D,c / epsilon_N,c = 0.0 to 2.0; DAQS4 uses 2.0, others use 1.0
    Introduced in Section 3 as a scan parameter; DAQS4 is selected at ratio 2.0 specifically to obtain a GW190814 mass candidate, making this a tuning knob for the DM fraction.
  • Quarkyonic transition density nt = 0.3 fm^-3
    Held fixed in this study; controls the onset of quark degrees of freedom and is taken from prior quarkyonic model work.
  • QCD confinement scale Lambda_cs = 800 MeV
    Held fixed together with nt; sets the nucleonic shell width in the quarkyonic model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dark matter and normal matter are separately conserved and interact only gravitationally; the total stress energy tensor is the sum of the two components.
    Section 2, Two-Fluid Approach. This excludes non-gravitational DM baryon interactions of the kind used in single-fluid models in references 9 to 13.
  • domain assumption The quarkyonic model applies: above the transition density nt, quarks fill the Fermi sea while nucleons occupy a thin shell, with beta equilibrium and charge neutrality imposed.
    Section 2 and references 28 and 29; this is central to the stiffness and mass radius behavior of the visible sector.
  • domain assumption The E-RMF parameter sets G3 and IOPB-I describe the baryonic sector.
    Section 2 and references 26 and 27; these are fits to nuclear data from the prior literature and are treated as inputs.
  • standard math Spherical hydrostatic equilibrium holds and is described by the two-fluid TOV equations, with moment of inertia from the slow rotation formalism.
    Section 2 and references 15 and 30.
  • ad hoc to paper The central dark matter fraction can be freely specified at r equals 0 and the star is a static two-fluid TOV solution; no formation or capture history is modeled.
    Section 3 introduces epsilon_D,c / epsilon_N,c as an input parameter; the physical realizability of arbitrary central DM fractions is not justified.
  • domain assumption The GW190814 secondary is a compact star whose mass can be directly compared with static TOV masses.
    The paper assumes the mass range is a meaningful target for neutron star like solutions even though the secondary may be a black hole; reference 24 is cited.
invented entities (1)
  • Dark scalar field phi_D and dark vector field V_D for DM self-interactions
    purpose: Generate the attractive and repulsive self-interactions that set the dark matter equation of state stiffness and morphology.
    These mediator fields and their couplings CDS and CDV are model inputs from prior DM equation of state literature; the chosen coupling values have no direct detection or collider handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Core or Halo? Two-Fluid Analysis of Dark Matter-Admixed Quarkyonic Stars in the Multi-Messenger Era." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H6AUJAAA

@misc{pith2026250906684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Core or Halo? Two-Fluid Analysis of Dark Matter-Admixed Quarkyonic Stars in the Multi-Messenger Era},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H6AUJAAA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06684}
}
abstract

For the first time, we explore dark matter (DM) admixed quarkyonic stars (DAQSs) within a two-fluid formalism, where the normal/visible sector is modeled by a quarkyonic equation of state (EOS) in the Effective Relativistic Mean Field (E-RMF) framework and the DM component is treated as a degenerate fermionic gas with scalar and vector self-interactions. Our analysis begins with the mass-radius (M-R) relation, showing that the inclusion of DM enables stellar configurations to reach the mass range compatible with the GW190814 event. We identify both DM core and DM halo morphologies among the viable EOSs, with core dominated and halo dominated cases exhibiting distinct signatures. By fixing the stellar mass within the GW190814 range, we constrain the possible dark matter fractions and explore the role of different interaction channels. Using the EOSs consistent with these constraints, we further investigate the tidal deformability ($\Lambda$), moment of inertia (MOI), and stellar radius, finding broad agreement with constraints from GW170817, GW190814, and NICER. Finally, we compile the characteristic properties of DAQSs, including EOS type, DM fractions, morphology (core vs halo), and macroscopic observables in a comparative summary. This study provides a unified two-fluid framework to explore dense QCD matter and dark matter in the multi-messenger era, suggesting that the GW190814 secondary object could plausibly be interpreted as either a DM core or a DM halo quarkyonic star.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: The EOS for normal/visible matter such as baryonic and quarkyonic matter (nt= 0.3 f m−3 , Λcs = 800 MeV) for G3 force and DM EOS with N I → No interaction (CDV=0, CDS =0), A → Attraction (CDV=0, CDS =4 GeV−1 ), R → Repulsion (CDV=10 GeV−1 , CDS =0), M → Mixed (CDV=10 GeV−1 , CDS =4 GeV−1 ) at DM mass MDM = 1.0 GeV. Right panel: Same as left panel, but for IOPB-I force (normal/visible matter) and for vari… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The total M-R relation for pure quarkyonic ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. The dark to normal matter radius ratio, χR = RDM/RNM and the halo thickness ∆R = RDM − RNM as function of total mass for DAQS1-DAQS6. The dashed line at χR = 1 and ∆R = 0 separates DM core (χR < 1, ∆R < 0 ) (blue band) and DM halo (χR > 1, ∆R > 0) (orange band) morphologies. The vertical line highlights the canonical 1.4 M⊙ configuration. The color shading encodes the DM mass fraction fDM where available. attractive… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Number density (n) (fm−3 ) profiles of maximum mass dark matter￾admixed quarkyonic stars for EOS DAQS1-DAQS6. The shaded regions repre￾sents the DM core and halo configurations. that the halo-dominated cases (DAQS2 and DAQS6) are asso￾ciated with larger fDM values, ind…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    M. F. Ivarsen, A. Lozinsky, J.-P. St-Maurice, A. Spicher, D. Huyghebaert, G. C. Hussey, D. Galeschuk, B. Pitzel, J. Vierinen, The distribution of small-scale irregularities in the e-region, and its tendency to match the spectrum of field-aligned current structures in the f-region, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 128 (5) (2023) e2022JA031233...

    work page doi:10.1029/2022ja031233 2023

  2. [1]

    D. Dey, J. A. Pattnaik, H. Das, A. Kumar, R. Panda, S. Patra, Dark matter influence on quarkyonic stars: a relativistic mean field analysis, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025 (01) (2025) 056. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/056. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/056

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/056 2025

  3. [3]

    Bergstr ¨om, Non-baryonic dark matter: observational evidence and detection methods, Reports on Progress in Physics 63 (5) (2000) 793

    L. Bergstr ¨om, Non-baryonic dark matter: observational evidence and detection methods, Reports on Progress in Physics 63 (5) (2000) 793. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/63/5/2r3. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/63/5/2r3

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/63/5/2r3 2000

  4. [4]

    Kouvaris, Wimp annihilation and cooling of neutron stars, Phys

    C. Kouvaris, Wimp annihilation and cooling of neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 023006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.023006. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.77. 023006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.023006 2008

  5. [5]

    Kouvaris, P

    C. Kouvaris, P. Tinyakov, Can neutron stars constrain dark matter?, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 063531. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.063531. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.82. 063531

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.063531 2010

  6. [6]

    Goldman, S

    I. Goldman, S. Nussinov, Weakly interacting massive particles and neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 3221–3230. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.40.3221. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.40.3221

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.40.3221 1989

  7. [7]

    G ¨uver, A

    T. G ¨uver, A. E. Erkoca, M. H. Reno, I. Sarcevic, On the capture of dark matter by neutron stars, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014 (05) (2014) 013–013. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/05/013. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1475-7516%2F2014%2F05% 2F013

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/05/013 2014

  8. [8]

    N. Raj, P. Tanedo, H.-B. Yu, Neutron stars at the dark mat- ter direct detection frontier, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 043006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.043006. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.97. 043006 5

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.043006 2018

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    A. Das, T. Malik, A. C. Nayak, Confronting nuclear equation of state in the presence of dark matter using gw170817 observation in rela- tivistic mean field theory approach, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 043016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.043016. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/Phys...

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    H. Das, A. Kumar, B. Kumar, S. Biswal, S. Patra, Impacts of dark matter on the curvature of the neutron star, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics 2021 (01) (2021) 007. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/ 01/007. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/01/007

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Panotopoulos, I

    G. Panotopoulos, I. Lopes, Dark matter e ffect on realistic equa- tion of state in neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 083004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.083004. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.96. 083004

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    D. Dey, J. A. Pattnaik, M. Bhuyan, R. Panda, S. Patra, f-mode oscilla- tions of dark matter admixed quarkyonic neutron star, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics 2025 (08) (2025) 003. doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2025/08/003. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/003

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    J. A. Pattnaik, D. Dey, R. N. Panda, M. Bhuyan, S. K. Patra, Dark matter effects on the curvature of neutron stars within the new quarkyonic model coupled with relativistic mean field theory (2025). arXiv:2501.11435. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.11435

    2025 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Xiang, W.-Z

    Q.-F. Xiang, W.-Z. Jiang, D.-R. Zhang, R.-Y . Yang, Effects of fermionic dark matter on properties of neutron stars, Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) 025803. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.89.025803. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.89. 025803

    2014 doi

  7. [16]

    A. Das, T. Malik, A. C. Nayak, Dark matter admixed neu- tron star properties in light of gravitational wave observa- tions: A two fluid approach, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 123034. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.123034. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.105. 123034

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    Routaray, V

    P. Routaray, V . Parmar, H. C. Das, B. Kumar, G. F. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, E ffects of asymmetric dark matter on a magnetized neu- tron star: A two-fluid approach, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 103045. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103045. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.11...

    2025 doi

  9. [18]

    H. T. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest, Z. Arzou- manian, et al., Relativistic shapiro delay measurements of an extremely massive millisecond pulsar, Nature Astronomy 4 (1) (2020) 72–76. doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2 . URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-0...

    2020 doi

  10. [19]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V . Filippenko, T. G. Brink, W. Zheng, Psr j0952-0607: The fastest and heaviest known galactic neutron star, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 934 (2) (2022) L17. doi:10.3847/ 2041-8213/ac8007. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac8007

    2022 doi

  11. [20]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, et al., Gw170817: Observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 161101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119. 161101

    2017 doi

  12. [21]

    S. De, D. Finstad, J. M. Lattimer, D. A. Brown, E. Berger, C. M. Biwer, Tidal deformabilities and radii of neutron stars from the observation of gw170817, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 091102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.091102. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.1...

    2018 doi

  13. [22]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, et al., A NICER View of PSR J0030+0451: Millisecond Pulsar Parameter Estimation, APJL 887 (1) (2019) L21. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c

    2019 doi

  14. [23]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, other, Psr j0030 +0451 mass and radius from nicer data and implications for the properties of neutron star matter, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 887 (1) (2019) L24. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041...

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, C. A ffeldt, M. Agathos, all, Gw190814: Gravitational waves from the coalescence of a 23 solar mass black hole with a 2.6 solar mass compact object, The Astrophysical Journal Le...

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    I. A. Rather, A. A. Usmani, S. K. Patra, Hadron–quark phase transition in the context of gw190814, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 48 (8) (2021) 085201. doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ac0129. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/ac0129

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    Kumar, S

    B. Kumar, S. Singh, B. Agrawal, S. Patra, New parameterization of the effective field theory motivated relativistic mean field model, Nuclear Physics A 966 (2017) 197–207. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nuclphysa.2017.07.001. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/p...

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    Kumar, S

    B. Kumar, S. K. Patra, B. K. Agrawal, New relativistic e ffective interac- tion for finite nuclei, infinite nuclear matter, and neutron stars, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 045806. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.045806. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.97. 045806

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    McLerran, S

    L. McLerran, S. Reddy, Quarkyonic matter and neutron stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 122701. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.122701. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122. 122701

    2019 doi

  20. [29]

    T. Zhao, J. M. Lattimer, Quarkyonic matter equation of state in beta-equilibrium, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 023021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023021. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.102. 023021

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    J. B. Hartle, Slowly Rotating Relativistic Stars. I. Equations of Struc- ture, The Astrophysical Journal 150 (1967) 1005–1029. doi:10.1086/ 149400

    1967

  22. [31]

    Kumar, P

    B. Kumar, P. Landry, Inferring neutron star properties from gw170817 with universal relations, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 123026. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.123026. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.99. 123026

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    J. A. Pattnaik, manuscript under preparation (2025). 6

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.