Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 99 references

Two fundamental oscillation modes in mirror-dark-matter neutron stars can jointly pin down the dark-matter mass fraction even when the nuclear equation of state is unknown.

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 ↗

In two-fluid mirror-dark-matter neutron stars, outer-fluid f-modes obey a known compactness universal relation and inner-fluid f-modes obey a fixed-DM-fraction compactness relation, offering a path to constrain dark-matter content.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-30 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid incremental two-fluid f-mode paper: new fixed-MDM/M inner-fluid fits are real, but the dual-mode DM-fraction claim still rests on Cowling and nonstandard macroscopic DM fractions. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27005 v1 pith:MRLZMVMK submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Universality of dual mass-scaled fundamental modes in two-fluid neutron stars with mirror dark matter

Hajime Sotani , Ankit Kumar This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords neutron starsmirror dark mattertwo-fluid oscillationsf-mode universalitystellar compactnessCowling approximationgravitational-wave asteroseismologydark matter mass fraction
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

Neutron stars that contain a macroscopic share of mirror dark matter behave as two fluids sharing one gravity field, so they support two distinct fundamental oscillation frequencies—one led by the outer fluid and one by the inner fluid. This paper shows that the outer-fluid frequency, scaled by total mass, still tracks stellar compactness in a nearly equation-of-state-independent way, extending a relation previously found for self-interacting dark matter. For any fixed dark-matter mass fraction, the inner-fluid mass-scaled frequency also collapses onto a compactness relation that barely depends on which nuclear equation of state is used. Detecting both frequencies at once could therefore constrain how much dark matter the star holds without first knowing the dense-matter equation of state. The work also quantifies how well the simpler Cowling approximation recovers those frequencies compared with calculations that include metric perturbations.

Core claim

In mirror dark matter admixed neutron stars treated as two non-interacting fluids, the mass-scaled outer-fluid fundamental mode obeys the same compactness universal relation found earlier for self-interacting dark matter (though the relation weakens once metric perturbations are kept), while the mass-scaled inner-fluid fundamental mode follows its own compactness fit that is largely independent of the normal-matter equation of state once the dark-matter mass fraction is held fixed. Simultaneous measurement of the two modes could therefore constrain that mass fraction even when the nuclear equation of state remains uncertain.

What carries the argument

Dual mass-scaled fundamental (f-) modes in the two-fluid Cowling (and partially full) formalism: outer-fluid f_f^(out) M versus compactness is nearly universal across EOS and DM fraction; inner-fluid f_f^(in) M versus compactness is fit by a cubic in normalized compactness whose coefficients depend only on the fixed dark-matter mass fraction MDM/M.

Load-bearing premise

The stars must actually carry a large dark-matter mass fraction (tens of percent); ordinary capture from the galactic halo produces far too little dark matter to change the bulk structure or produce two usable modes.

What would settle it

Compute the same inner-fluid mass-scaled frequencies including full metric perturbations across several nuclear EOS at fixed MDM/M; if the points no longer collapse onto a single compactness curve, or if next-generation gravitational-wave searches never find a second kHz-scale fluid f-mode in candidate objects, the dual-mode diagnostic fails.

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

If this is right

  • Simultaneous detection of two f-mode frequencies could yield MDM/M without first fixing the nuclear EOS.
  • The outer-fluid mass–compactness universal relation survives the switch from self-interacting to mirror dark matter, at least in the Cowling approximation.
  • Cowling recovers outer-fluid f-modes to roughly the same ~30% accuracy as ordinary neutron stars, and inner-fluid modes to within ~10%.
  • Exchange symmetry of the mirror model maps MDM/M = χ sequences onto MDM/M = 1−χ, so only χ ≤ 0.5 needs separate fitting tables.
  • Next-generation detectors (Einstein Telescope, Cosmic Explorer) are the realistic instruments for these multi-kHz modes if enough energy is radiated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the fixed-MDM/M inner-mode universality survives full GR, a two-frequency measurement plus an independent mass could become a practical DM-fraction estimator complementary to mass–radius and tidal constraints.
  • The same dual-mode logic may apply to other two-fluid dark-matter models once their EOS pairs are scanned at fixed mass fraction.
  • Non-detection of a second f-mode in a large sample of canonical-mass neutron stars would tighten upper bounds on macroscopic MDM/M under the two-fluid assumption.
  • Because standard capture cannot build MDM/M ∼ 0.1–0.5, any confirmed dual-mode signal would point to nonstandard formation (co-collapse, dissipative dark sector, or conversion) rather than ordinary halo accretion.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies nonradial f-mode oscillations of mirror-dark-matter admixed neutron stars in a two-fluid TOV framework, treating normal matter and mirror DM as separately conserved perfect fluids coupled only by gravity. Using the Cowling approximation and seven nuclear EOS, the authors confirm that the mass-scaled outer-fluid f-mode frequency obeys the same compactness universal relation previously found for self-interacting fermionic DM. They further show that, at fixed dark-matter mass fraction MDM/M, the mass-scaled inner-fluid f-mode frequency is largely independent of the normal-matter EOS and can be fit by a cubic polynomial in normalized compactness (Eq. 10, Table II, Fig. 5). They argue that simultaneous detection of the two f-modes could therefore constrain MDM/M even when the nuclear EOS is uncertain. A limited comparison with full metric perturbations (one EOS) indicates that Cowling errors for the outer-fluid mode are comparable to ordinary neutron stars (~30%), while errors for the inner-fluid mode are smaller (~10%). The paper notes that the outer-fluid universality weakens once metric perturbations are included and that the inner-fluid fixed-MDM/M relation still needs full-GR multi-EOS verification.

Significance. If the dual mass-scaled relations survive beyond the Cowling approximation with enough mutual separation, they would give a concrete asteroseismic handle on the dark-matter mass fraction in two-fluid compact stars, independent of the uncertain nuclear EOS—an observationally valuable target for next-generation gravitational-wave detectors. The work is a careful, multi-EOS extension of the authors’ prior self-interacting-DM and single-EOS full-GR studies; the exchange symmetry of the mirror model is used cleanly, the empirical fits and residual plots are transparent, and the manuscript is appropriately cautious about standard halo-capture rates and about the need for full metric perturbations. Even as a Cowling-level result, the fixed-MDM/M inner-fluid family of relations is a new and useful benchmark for two-fluid asteroseismology.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eq. (10), Table II, Fig. 5; abstract; §V] The central application claim—that simultaneous detection of the two f-modes can constrain MDM/M when the NM EOS is uncertain—requires both mass-scaled relations to remain tight and mutually distinguishable under full metric perturbations. The outer-fluid relation is already reported to weaken once metric perturbations are included (abstract; §III, citing the prior full-GR mirror-DM calculation). The novel inner-fluid result (Eq. 10, Table II, Fig. 5) is established exclusively in Cowling. The paper itself flags the gap in §III. Either a multi-EOS full-GR check of the inner-fluid family, or a substantially more explicit qualification in the abstract and §V that the dual-frequency inversion is provisional on the persistence of fixed-MDM/M universality beyond Cowling, is needed so that the load-bearing claim matches what is actually demonstrated.
  2. [§III, Fig. 5, Table II] Fig. 5 and Table II show that neighboring MDM/M curves are visually separated, but the manuscript does not quantify the separation relative to residual EOS scatter (bottom panels of Fig. 5) or to the expected size of full-GR shifts suggested by the outer-fluid degradation. Without that metric—e.g., the minimum gap in f_f^(in) M between adjacent MDM/M fits versus the max EOS residual and a plausible full-GR bias—the discriminatory power of the dual-mode diagnostic remains unassessed even at the Cowling level. A short quantitative discussion (or an additional panel) would make the inversion claim falsifiable.
  3. [§IV, Fig. 6; abstract; §V] §IV and Fig. 6 assess Cowling accuracy for only the QHC21-BT EOS. The abstract and conclusion state that Cowling performs comparably to ordinary NS for the outer fluid and better for the inner fluid. That generalization should either be supported by at least one additional EOS or explicitly restricted to the single EOS tested, especially since the paper’s own multi-EOS emphasis is what underwrites the universality claims elsewhere.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II–III, Figs. 4–5] In §II the stellar radius R is defined as the outer radius of the two-fluid configuration; it would help the reader if this definition were restated briefly when compactness M/R is introduced in §III and in the figure captions of Figs. 4–5, since dark-core and dark-halo models swap which fluid sets R.
  2. [Table I] Table I lists η = (K0 L^2)^{1/3} but η is not used in the oscillation analysis. Either drop it or add one sentence explaining why it is tabulated (e.g., for continuity with prior low-mass NS work).
  3. [§III, Eq. (9)] The normalization Ĉ ≡ (M/R)/0.172 is introduced via Eq. (9) without a brief reminder that 0.172 is the compactness of a 1.4 M⊙, 12 km star; a parenthetical would improve readability for non-specialists.
  4. [Fig. 2, §III] Fig. 2 labels both f and p1 modes but the rest of the paper focuses only on f-modes; a sentence stating that p1 modes are shown only for context would avoid the impression that universality is claimed for p1 as well.
  5. [§II; figure captions] Minor typographical inconsistencies: “V olkoff” and “T ¨ubingen” spacing/encoding; “w/o DM” in figures could be spelled out once in the caption for archival clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: dual-mode universality claims rest on independent two-fluid TOV and linear-perturbation numerics, with polynomial fits as post-hoc descriptions of computed spectra.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing chain is: (i) integrate two-fluid TOV equilibria for mirror DM at fixed MDM/M across seven nuclear EOS; (ii) solve the linearized two-fluid conservation laws (Cowling) for ℓ=2 f-modes of the outer and inner fluids; (iii) plot mass-scaled frequencies against compactness and observe EOS-insensitivity; (iv) fit cubic polynomials (Eqs. 9–10, Table II) to those computed points. The outer-fluid relation is confirmed by new mirror-DM runs against a template previously obtained for self-interacting DM; the inner-fluid fixed-MDM/M family and the Cowling-vs-full comparison (one EOS) are new calculations. Fit coefficients a_i(MDM/M) are descriptive summaries of the spectra, not inputs that force the claimed universality. Self-citations supply methods and the prior outer-fluid template but are not uniqueness theorems or tautological redefinitions of the target observables. Equality of MDM/M=0.5 coefficients with the no-DM fit is a model consistency check (identical fluids), not a circular derivation. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its own fitted input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on the two-fluid gravity-only coupling, the mirror identification of DM and NM EOS, treating MDM/M as a free phenomenological parameter over 0.05–0.8, and primary reliance on the Cowling approximation for the inner-mode universality used in the dual-frequency diagnostic. Fit coefficients are descriptive outputs, not physical inputs. No new particles beyond the pre-existing mirror-DM framework.

free parameters (4)
  • MDM/M (dark matter mass fraction) = scanned; key values 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5
    Treated as a free phenomenological parameter scanned from ~0.05 to 0.8; not predicted by the model. All inner-fluid universal fits and the dual-mode diagnostic are conditioned on fixing this value.
  • Inner-fluid fit coefficients a0,a1,a2,a3 per MDM/M = e.g. MDM/M=0.1: 0.1075, 2.350, 3.104, -1.3282
    Four polynomial coefficients fitted separately for each fixed MDM/M to the computed mass-scaled inner f-mode vs compactness (Eq. 10, Table II). Descriptive of the numerical spectra.
  • Outer-fluid universal fit coefficients (Eq. 9) = -0.01932, 2.115, 1.731, -0.5720
    Cubic polynomial in normalized compactness taken from prior Cowling work and re-confirmed; coefficients are empirical fits to spectra, not derived constants.
  • Normalization compactness scale 0.172 = 0.172
    C̃ ≡ (M/R)/0.172 chosen to match a canonical 1.4 M⊙, 12 km star; a conventional scale that enters the fit form.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Normal matter and mirror dark matter interact only gravitationally; each fluid’s energy-momentum tensor is separately conserved.
    Stated in §II; underpins the entire two-fluid TOV and perturbation system.
  • domain assumption Mirror dark matter has an equation of state identical to the chosen normal-matter EOS.
    Defining assumption of the mirror DM model (§II); produces the exchange symmetry used throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper Cowling approximation (frozen metric) is adequate to establish EOS-insensitive relations for mass-scaled f-modes, especially inner-fluid modes.
    Main multi-EOS universality results (§III, Figs. 4–5, Table II) are Cowling-only; paper notes outer universality weakens with metric perturbations and defers full check of inner universality.
  • ad hoc to paper Macroscopic MDM/M up to O(0.5) is allowed as a systematic exploration even though standard capture cannot produce it.
    Explicitly discussed in §II; required for the dual-mode diagnostic to be observationally interesting.
  • domain assumption ℓ=2 fluid f-modes dominate the gravitational-wave relevant spectrum; damping rates may be neglected relative to real frequencies.
    §III focus on ℓ=2; §IV cites justification from ordinary NS f/p1 modes when comparing to Ref. [63].
  • standard math Static, spherically symmetric perfect-fluid equilibria described by the two-fluid TOV system.
    Standard GR stellar structure extended to two fluids (§II, Eqs. 6–8).

reviewed 2026-07-30 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universality of dual mass-scaled fundamental modes in two-fluid neutron stars with mirror dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MRLZMVMK

@misc{pith2026260727005,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universality of dual mass-scaled fundamental modes in two-fluid neutron stars with mirror dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MRLZMVMK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27005}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Universal relations provide a particularly useful way to extract physical information from neutron star observables in the presence of various uncertainties by reducing the dependence on uncertain model parameters and microphysical inputs. In this study, we examine the oscillation frequencies of mirror dark matter admixed neutron stars using a two-fluid description, where the outer and inner fluids give rise to two distinct fundamental frequencies. We confirm that the universal relation between the mass-scaled fundamental frequency of the outer-fluid-led mode and the stellar compactness, established previously for self-interacting dark matter admixed neutron stars, also holds in the mirror dark matter scenario. However, this universal relation becomes less robust when metric perturbations are included, compared with the corresponding results in the Cowling approximation. We further find that the inner-fluid-led fundamental frequency can also be expressed as a compactness-dependent relation that is largely independent of the normal matter equation of state, provided that the dark matter mass fraction is fixed. These results suggest that the simultaneous detection of the two fundamental frequencies could provide a way to constrain the dark matter mass fraction, even when the equation of state of normal matter remains uncertain. Finally, we find that the Cowling approximation estimates the fundamental frequency associated with the outer fluid with an accuracy comparable to that found for standard neutron stars without dark matter, while it performs even better for the frequency associated with the inner fluid.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27005 by Ankit Kumar, Hajime Sotani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Mass-radius relations of dark matter admixed neutron stars in the mirror dark matter model, constructed with the Togashi equation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The mass-scaled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Relative deviation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky,Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects(Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1983). 10

    1983

  2. [2]

    Demorest, T

    P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature467, 1081 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Antoniadiset al., Science340, 6131 (2013)

    J. Antoniadiset al., Science340, 6131 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    H. T. Cromartieet al., Nature Astronomy4, 72 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Fonsecaet al., Astrophys

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

    2021

  6. [6]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V . Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J.934, L17 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

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

    2017

  8. [8]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 172703 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    K. R. Pechenick, C. Ftaclas, and J. M. Cohen, Astrophys. J.274, 846 (1983)

    1983

  10. [10]

    D. A. Leahy and L. Li, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.277, 1177 (1995)

    1995

  11. [11]

    Poutanen and M

    J. Poutanen and M. Gierlinski, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.343, 1301 (2003)

    2003

  12. [12]

    Psaltis and F

    D. Psaltis and F. ¨Ozel, Astrophys. J.792, 87 (2014)

    2014

  13. [13]

    Sotani and U

    H. Sotani and U. Miyamoto, Phys. Rev. D98, 044017 (2018);98, 103019 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    Sotani, Phys

    H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D101, 063013 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

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

    2019

  16. [16]

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

    2019

  17. [17]

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

    2021

  18. [18]

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

    2021

  19. [19]

    Sotani, N

    H. Sotani, N. Nishimura, and T. Naito, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2022, 041D01 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Sotani and S

    H. Sotani and S. Ota, Phys. Rev. D106, 103005 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Naito, Phys. Rev. C107, 035802 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    Andersson and K

    N. Andersson and K. D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 4134 (1996)

    1996

  23. [23]

    Andersson and K

    N. Andersson and K. D. Kokkotas, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.299, 1059 (1998)

    1998

  24. [24]

    Gearheart, W

    M. Gearheart, W. G. Newton, J. Hooker, and B. -A. Li, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.418, 2343 (2011)

    2011

  25. [25]

    Sotani, K

    H. Sotani, K. Nakazato, K. Iida, and K. Oyamatsu, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 201101 (2012); Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.428, L21 (2013);434, 2060 (2013)

    2012

  26. [26]

    Sotani, K

    H. Sotani, K. Iida, and K. Oyamatsu, New Astron.43, 80 (2016); Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.464, 3101 (2017);479, 4735 (2018);489, 3022 (2019)

    2016

  27. [27]

    Sotani, K

    H. Sotani, K. D. Kokkotas, and N. Stergioulas, Astron. Astrophys.676, A65 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    Sotani, Universe10, 231 (2024)

    H. Sotani, Universe10, 231 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Sotani, K

    H. Sotani, K. Tominaga, and K. I. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D65, 024010 (2001)

    2001

  30. [30]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Harada, Phys. Rev. D68, 024019 (2003); H. Sotani, K. Kohri, and T. Harada,ibid.69, 084008 (2004)

    2003

  31. [31]

    L. K. Tsui and P. T. Leung, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.357, 1029 (2005)

    2005

  32. [32]

    Sotani, N

    H. Sotani, N. Yasutake, T. Maruyama, and T. Tatsumi, Phys. Rev. D83024014 (2011)

    2011

  33. [33]

    Passamonti and N

    A. Passamonti and N. Andersson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.419, 638 (2012)

    2012

  34. [34]

    D. D. Doneva, E. Gaertig, K. D. Kokkotas, and C. Kr ¨uger, Phys. Rev. D88, 044052 (2013)

    2013

  35. [35]

    Sotani, Phys

    H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D102, 063023 (2020); 103021 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    Sotani, Phys

    H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D103, 123015 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    Ferrari, G

    V . Ferrari, G. Miniutti, and J. A. Pons, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.342, 629 (2003)

    2003

  38. [38]

    Fuller, H

    J. Fuller, H. Klion, E. Abdikamalov, and C. D. Ott, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.450, 414 (2015)

    2015

  39. [39]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Takiwaki, Phys. Rev. D94, 044043 (2016);102, 023028 (2020)

    2016

  40. [40]

    Sotani, T

    H. Sotani, T. Kuroda, T. Takiwaki, and K. Kotake, Phys. Rev. D96, 063005 (2017);99, 123024 (2019)

    2017

  41. [41]

    Morozova, D

    V . Morozova, D. Radice, A. Burrows, and D. Vartanyan, Astrophys. J.861, 10 (2018)

    2018

  42. [42]

    Torres-Forn ´e, P

    A. Torres-Forn ´e, P. Cerd´a-Dur´an, A. Passamonti, M. Obergaulinger, and J. A. Font, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.482, 3967 (2019)

    2019

  43. [43]

    Sotani and K

    H. Sotani and K. Sumiyoshi, Phys. Rev. D100, 083008 (2019); Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.507, 2766 (2021)

    2019

  44. [44]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Takiwaki, Phys. Rev. D102, 063025 (2020)

    2020

  45. [45]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Takiwaki, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.498, 3503 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    Sotani, T

    H. Sotani, T. Takiwaki, and H. Togashi, Phys. Rev. D104, 123009 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    Sotani, B

    H. Sotani, B. M ¨uller, and T. Takiwaki, Phys. Rev. D109, 123021 (2024);112, 083018 (2025)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Sotani, Class

    H. Sotani, Class. Quantum Gravity43, 093001 (2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    T. K. Chan, Y .-H. Sham, P. T. Leung, L.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D90, 124023 (2014)

    2014

  50. [50]

    Sotani and B

    H. Sotani and B. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D104, 123002 (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    Sotani, Phys

    H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D113, 023017 (2026)

    2026

  52. [52]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  53. [53]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  54. [54]

    A. E. Nelson, S. Reddy, and D. Zhou, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.07012 (2019)

    2019

  55. [55]

    Ivanytskyi, V

    O. Ivanytskyi, V . Sagun, and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D102, 063028 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    Shawqi and S

    S. Shawqi and S. M. Morsink, Astrophys. J. 975, 123 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    Rutherford, C

    N. Rutherford, C. Prescod-Weinstein, and A. Watts, Phys. Rev. D111, 123034 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    Kumar, S

    A. Kumar, S. Girmohanta, and H. Sotani, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1109, (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    Sotani and A

    H. Sotani and A. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123013 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    Kain, Phys

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

    2021

  61. [61]

    Berezhiani, R

    Z. Berezhiani, R. Biondi, M. Mannarelli, and F. Tonelli, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1036 (2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    M. Emma, F. Schianchi, F. Pannarale, V . Sagun, T. Dietrich, Particles5, 273 (2022)

    2022

  63. [63]

    Kumar, D

    A. Kumar, D. A. Caballero, H. Sotani, N. Yunes, arXiv:2605.03305 [gr-qc]. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  64. [64]

    Panotopoulos and I

    G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D96, 083004 (2017)

    2017

  65. [65]

    H. C. Das, A. Kumar, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D104, 063028 (2021)

    2021

  66. [66]

    Lourenc ¸o, C

    O. Lourenc ¸o, C. H. Lenzi, T. Frederico, and M. Dutra, Phys. Rev. D106, 043010 (2022)

    2022

  67. [67]

    Kumar and H

    A. Kumar and H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063001 (2024)

    2024

  68. [68]

    Kumar and H

    A. Kumar and H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D111, 123028 (2025)

    2025

  69. [69]

    Ellis, A

    J. Ellis, A. Hektor, G. H ¨utsi, K. Kannike, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, V . Vaskonen, Phys. Lett. B781, 607 (2018)

    2018

  70. [70]

    C. V . Flores, C. H. Lenzi, M. Dutra, O. Lourenc ¸o, and J. D. V . Arba˜nil, Phys. Rev. D109, 083021 (2024)

    2024

  71. [71]

    Comer, D

    G. Comer, D. Langlois, and L. M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D60, 104025 (1999)

    1999

  72. [72]

    G. L. Comer, Found. Phys.32, 1903 (2002)

    1903

  73. [73]

    Andersson, G

    N. Andersson, G. L. Comer, and D. Langlois, Phys. Rev. D66, 104002 (2002)

    2002

  74. [74]

    G. L. Comer and R. Joynt, Phys. Rev. D68, 023002 (2003)

    2003

  75. [75]

    Comer, Phys

    G. Comer, Phys. Rev. D69, 123009 (2004)

    2004

  76. [76]

    Sotani and A

    H. Sotani and A. Kumar, Eur. Phys. J. C,85, 1438 (2025)

    2025

  77. [77]

    Goldman, R

    I. Goldman, R. Mohapatra, S. Nussinov, D. Rosenbaum, and V . Teplitz, Phys. Lett. B725, 200 (2013)

    2013

  78. [78]

    Sagun, E

    V . Sagun, E. Giangrandi, T. Dietrich, O. Ivanytskyi, R. Negreiros, and C. Providˆencia, Astrophys. J.958, 49 (2023)

    2023

  79. [79]

    Typel, Phys

    S. Typel, Phys. Rev. C89, 064321 (2014)

    2014

  80. [80]

    M. G. Alford, L. Brodie, A. Haber, and I. Tews, Phys. Rev. C106, 055804 (2022)

    2022

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 30, 2026.