Can Orbital Decay of Accreting Binary Pulsars Probe Dark Matter?

Arvind Kumar Mishra

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 98 references

Can Orbital Decay of Accreting Binary Pulsars Probe Dark Matter?

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dark matter accretion shifts binary pulsar periods by at least fifteen orders of magnitude less than gravitational waves, so current timing data cannot constrain dark matter.

desk verdict Solid null result for DM accretion in binary pulsars; a sign wording fix and an explicit accretion assumption are needed before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06178 v1 pith:L7JJQ6CE submitted 2025-07-08 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Arvind Kumar Mishra This is my paper

classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

keywords darkmattercapturebinarypulsarsorbitalperioddecaypulsartimingmultiscattervelocity-dependentcrosssectionsgalacticcenterspikeneutronstars

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 asks whether the rate at which binary pulsar orbits shrink can reveal dark matter. It derives how dark-matter accretion onto each neutron star enters the orbital period derivative, computes the accretion rate with multiscatter capture, and compares the result with four precisely timed binary pulsars near Earth. The answer is that the dark-matter term is at least fifteen orders of magnitude smaller than the gravitational-wave term, so existing observations cannot place meaningful constraints on dark-matter particle properties. The paper argues that a binary pulsar merging inside a high-density dark-matter spike near the galactic center could bring the effect into view, though such systems have not yet been found.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the logarithmic derivative of the Kepler period formula, giving $\dot P/P = -\tfrac{3}{2}\dot E/E + (1+\tfrac{M_2}{2M})\dot M_1/M_1 + (1+\tfrac{M_1}{2M})\dot M_2/M_2$, which converts two competing effects—energy loss to gravitational waves and mass gain from dark-matter capture—into a single period-change ratio. The paper feeds this formula with the standard quadrupole gravitational-wave energy-loss rate and a multiscatter dark-matter capture rate built from a Maxwellian halo velocity distribution, Poisson-distributed scattering probabilities, and optical-depth-dependent approximations, extended to velocity-dependent cross-sections $\sigma\propto v^{2\alpha}$ with $\alpha=1,2$. That machinery produces the numerical dark-matter entries that are compared with observed pulsar timing data.

What would settle it

Recompute the dark-matter term for the Table I pulsars under the paper's geometric-limit maximum capture rate and $\rho_\chi=0.4$ GeV cm$^{-3}$: if the result came out within even a few orders of magnitude of the gravitational-wave term rather than fifteen below it, the no-constraint conclusion would be falsified. Observationally, a binary pulsar whose residual $\dot P/P$ after subtracting the gravitational-wave prediction grows with ambient dark-matter density at a level near $10^{-19}$ s$^{-1}$ or above would contradict the paper's claim that the effect is unobservably small.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for the four binary pulsars with precise timing—B1534+12, B1913+16, J0737-3039, and J1757-1854—the contribution of dark-matter accretion to the normalized orbital period derivative is about $1.8\times10^{-33}$ s$^{-1}$, while the gravitational-wave contribution is roughly $1\times10^{-16}$ s$^{-1}$, a gap of at least fifteen orders of magnitude. Even at the geometric-limit maximum capture rate, and even with velocity-dependent cross-sections that enhance capture at low dark-matter mass and large cross-section, the dark-matter term remains far below the timing residuals. The paper concludes that current pulsar timing data cannot constrain dark-matter microphysics through this mechanism, but that a binary pulsar near the galactic center, where dark-matter density could reach $10^{18}$ GeV cm$^{-3}$, could in principle make the effect detectable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that accreted dark matter changes only the neutron-star masses in the Kepler formula and contributes nothing to the binary's orbital energy or angular momentum; if captured dark matter carried non-negligible orbital angular momentum, the derived dark-matter contribution to $\dot P/P$ would differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the four nearby binary pulsars, the dark-matter accretion contribution to $\dot P/P$ is at least fifteen orders of magnitude below the gravitational-wave contribution, so current timing residuals cannot resolve it even at the geometric-limit capture rate.
Positive velocity dependence of the dark-matter-baryon cross-section boosts capture at low dark-matter mass and large cross-section, but not enough to close the gap at the local dark-matter density $\rho_\chi=0.4$ GeV cm$^{-3}$.
Because the capture rate scales linearly with dark-matter density, placing the same binary in a galactic-center spike with $\rho_\chi\sim10^{18}$ GeV cm$^{-3}$ lifts the dark-matter term by roughly the same factor, potentially making it comparable to the gravitational-wave term.
For cross-sections above the geometric limit $\sigma_{\rm geo}\simeq2\times10^{-45}$ cm$^2$, the single-scatter capture description breaks down, so constraints derived from single-scatter scaling should be treated as unreliable.
The observed orbital decay of the four binaries is consistent with gravitational-wave emission alone; the dark-matter term is far too small to be extracted from the difference between the measured and predicted period derivatives.

Reading between the lines

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

The same logarithmic-derivative formula could in principle be applied to white-dwarf or black-hole binaries, where capture rates and dark-matter densities differ, a step the paper does not take.
The galactic-center projection assumes that the linear scaling of capture rate with dark-matter density holds at spike densities; if the velocity dispersion there differs from the local Maxwellian assumed, the enhancement could be larger or smaller than quoted.
If a binary pulsar is eventually found near the galactic center, the so-called missing pulsar problem means its absence or presence will be as informative about dark-matter spikes as the period-derivative measurement itself.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a solid negative-result paper. The central calculation says that for the four binary pulsars with measured Pdot, even the geometric upper bound on DM accretion contributes |Pdot/P| ~ 10^-33 s^-1, fifteen orders of magnitude below the observed ~10^-17 to 10^-16 s^-1. That conclusion is robust, and the paper deserves serious consideration.

What is genuinely new is the combination of multiscatter capture with the orbital-period derivative, together with the explicit contrast to the single-scatter work of [97]. The note added is candid and correct: single-scatter capture grows with sigma, so it can produce apparent constraints that disappear once you treat large cross-sections properly.

The paper does several things well. It uses published timing data for four well-measured pulsars, tabulates the contributions, and is explicit that the geometric limit is a safe upper bound. The limitations section lists the main simplifications: non-rotating neutron star, constant geometric cross-section, DM rest frame. Using the Asteria package is a plus for reproducibility.

Now the soft spots, in proportion.

First, the prose has a sign error that should not survive review. The abstract and Section II say DM accretion 'enhances the orbital decay rate,' but Eq (2) gives the DM term a positive sign: accretion increases M, which for fixed E increases P, i.e., it slows the GW-driven decay. The same verbal error appears in the discussion of torque balance. The equations themselves appear consistently positive on the DM terms, so this is a wording/interpretation issue, not a computational one, but it is confusing and needs fixing.

Second, and more substantive, the derivation of Eq (2) is the one-parameter mass-growth formula: it takes P(E, M1, M2), differentiates, and inserts only the GW energy loss for dE/dt. This silently assumes each captured DM particle contributes zero orbital energy and zero angular momentum to the binary. The stress-test note is right that this is unstated. For the local pulsars it does not matter: a factor of a few or even an order of magnitude leaves the 15-order gap intact. But the galactic-center projection uses the same formula at rho ~ 10^18 GeV/cm^3, where the DM term becomes comparable to the GW term. There, the sign and magnitude of the missing energy/angular-momentum terms could qualitatively change the projected signal. The paper should either include those terms or explicitly state the assumption and justify it (e.g., isotropy of the DM halo, spherical capture).

Third, the GC projection is explicitly speculative and depends on DM spikes and on pulsars existing there; the paper acknowledges the missing-pulsar problem. That is fine, but it should be labeled as an order-of-magnitude illustration rather than a prediction.

Who should read this: the compact-object DM community and anyone comparing single- vs multi-scatter capture in binaries. It is not a breakthrough, but it is a useful boundary on a proposed channel. I would send it to a serious referee; with the sign wording fixed and the accretion assumption stated, it can be published.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether dark matter (DM) accretion onto the neutron stars of a binary pulsar can measurably change the orbital period derivative. It derives an expression for Pdot/P from the Kepler relation, Eq. (1), adding a DM mass-accretion term to the Peters-Mathews gravitational-wave (GW) term, Eq. (6). Using the multiscatter DM capture formalism of Bramante et al. and the Asteria package, it computes the DM contribution for constant and velocity-dependent cross-sections. Comparing with four known binary pulsars, the paper finds the DM contribution is at least fifteen orders of magnitude below the GW contribution (Table II) and concludes that current pulsar timing data cannot constrain DM particle properties. It then suggests that binary pulsars near the galactic center, where the DM density is much higher, could probe DM in the future.

Significance. If the central result is correct, the paper provides a robust negative result: DM accretion onto the neutron stars of known binary pulsars is far too slow to affect the orbital decay rate, even when the capture rate is artificially pushed to the geometric limit. This is a useful null result because it shows that multiscatter capture saturates and does not yield the large effects one might guess from single-scatter capture. The paper also correctly emphasizes that the four pulsars studied are relatively far from the galactic center. The forward-looking galactic-center projection, however, is not yet firmly grounded because the orbital evolution formula used for the projection omits the energy and angular momentum carried by the accreted DM particles; the assumptions behind that omission are not stated or justified. With that caveat, the numerical null result for local pulsars is well supported.

major comments (3)

[II, Eqs. (2) and (5)] The derivation of Eq. (2) sets dE/dt equal to the Peters-Mathews GW loss only, without stating the assumption that the accreted DM contributes zero orbital energy and zero orbital angular momentum. This assumption is not benign: for mχ = 10^5 GeV and u0 = 270 km/s, each captured DM particle carries kinetic energy about 0.04 GeV, so the associated injection rate dE/dt leads to a Pdot/P correction |(3/2) dE/dt / |E|| that is comparable to the quoted DM mass term (both of order 10^-33 s^-1 for the local pulsars). At the galactic-center density ρχ = 10^18 GeV/cm^3 used in Sec. IV C, the same correction becomes of order 10^-15 s^-1, comparable to the projected DM signal. The galactic-center projection is therefore not robust until the full energy and angular-momentum accounting is performed, or until the zero-injection assumption is explicitly stated and defended. The text in Sec. II even contradicts the assumption by claiming that DM accretion 'increases the orbital decay rate by transferring angular momentum to the binary,' although no angular-momentum term appears in Eq. (2).
[Abstract and II] The abstract says DM accretion 'may also modify the orbital evolution by enhancing the orbital decay rate,' and Sec. II says DM accretion 'increases the orbital decay rate.' This is the opposite of the sign in Eq. (2): the DM mass term is positive, while the observed and GW terms are negative, so DM accretion makes Pdot less negative, i.e., it slows the orbital decay rather than enhancing it. The wording should be corrected to say that accretion opposes the GW-driven decay, or reduces the magnitude of the decay rate.
[IV C] The galactic-center projection is presented as a quantitative statement ('DM accretion will influence the rate of orbital period'), but it uses Eq. (5), which is derived under the same unstated zero-energy/zero-angular-momentum assumption as Eq. (2). In addition, the projection assumes ρχ = 10^18 GeV/cm^3 without discussing whether such a spike density is compatible with the 'missing pulsar problem' that the paper itself mentions in Sec. V. The projection should be framed as a speculative order-of-magnitude illustration, not as a firm prediction, until the accretion-injection terms are included.

minor comments (7)

[Table I] The distance listed for PSR B1913+16 is 0.34 kpc, while the published value is about 3.4 kpc (Weisberg & Huang 2016). The distance is not used in the calculation, but the entry should be corrected.
[IV A] The text says 'σχN = 10−48 cm^2 for α = 1, and σχN = 10−48 cm^2 for α = 2 model', but Fig. 1 and the surrounding discussion indicate the quartic model uses σχN = 10−52 cm^2. One of these is a typo.
[IV A] The sentence 'for lower cross sections, the capture rate saturates to a geometrical rate and is reduced for higher DM masses' is unclear; saturation occurs at high cross-section, not low cross-section. Please rephrase.
[II] The sentence 'From Eq. (6), we find that gravitational wave emission decreases the orbital decay rate' is imprecise: GW emission makes Pdot more negative, i.e., it accelerates the decay. The intended meaning is that GW emission decreases the orbital period.
[III] The notation 'N = (10, eτ)' in the restriction of the sum limit is ambiguous; please specify whether the maximum N is max(10, e^τ) or min(10, e^τ), and cite the corresponding comment [84] precisely.
[III] The approximation σ(vrel) ≈ σχN (w0/uref)^{2α} with w0 = sqrt(u0^2+v_esc^2) replaces a velocity-dependent integrand with a fixed value and discards the velocity distribution f(u). Since the paper's claims about positive velocity dependence rest on this approximation, a validation against the full integration, or at least a statement of whether the approximation over- or under-estimates the capture rate, should be included.
[V, Note added] The note added states that the expression for Pdot/P differs from that of Ref. [97], but the difference is not shown. A brief comparison would help readers understand the distinction between the single-scatter and multiscatter treatments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the orbital-decay calculation is a self-contained Kepler/GW/capture application with no fitted target observable.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is Eq. (1) -> Eq. (2) -> Eq. (5), where P is written as a function of total energy E and masses M1, M2, and the time derivative is taken algebraically. The energy-loss piece uses the standard Peters-Mathews quadrupole formula, and the mass-accretion pieces use the published multiscatter capture formalism. No parameter is fitted to the observed Pdot/P values in Table I or II; instead the DM contribution is computed from assumed DM mass, cross-section, and density, and compared with data. The main conclusion is a null result that is robust even at the geometric capture limit, so it is not a prediction forced by construction. The author's prior works [81,82] are cited only to motivate considering positive velocity-dependent cross-sections, and the enhancement is also directly visible from the power-law parametrization used in the calculation, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The skeptic's concern about Eq. (2) silently neglecting orbital energy or angular momentum carried by captured DM is a modeling approximation rather than a circular reduction: it could shift the projected numerical values but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. The paper is self-contained against external benchmark data and known formulas, so no circularity is identified.

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

The calculations rely on standard celestial mechanics, the Peters-Mathews gravitational wave energy loss formula, and the multiscatter capture formalism from the literature. Free parameters are scan or assumption values (DM mass, cross-section, velocity dependence index, local DM density, NS mass and radius) rather than fitted parameters. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (6)

mχ (DM mass)
Scanned over roughly 10 to 10^16 GeV; benchmark value 10^5 GeV used in Table II; not fitted to data.
σχN (DM-nucleon cross-section) = 10^-46, 10^-48, 10^-52 cm^2
Chosen benchmark values for constant, v^2, and v^4 velocity-dependent models.
α (velocity dependence index) = 1, 2
Sets σ ∝ v^{2α}; chosen to represent p-wave and d-wave scattering models.
ρχ (local DM density) = 0.4 GeV cm^-3
Standard near-Earth value; assumed for all four pulsars in Table I.
u0 and uref (DM velocity) = 270 km/s
Assumed Maxwellian dispersion and reference velocity for the velocity-dependent cross-section.
M_NS and R_NS (neutron star mass and radius) = 1.4 M_sun, 10 km
Used to compute the geometric cross-section and the capture rate.

assumptions (6)

standard math Kepler two-body orbital mechanics with P = 2πGMμ^{3/2}(-2E)^{-3/2}
Used to derive Eq (1) and Eq (2) in Sec II.
standard math Peters-Mathews gravitational radiation formula for average energy loss
Eq (6) gives the GW contribution to the orbital decay rate.
domain assumption Multiscatter capture formalism from Bramante et al. and Leane & Smirnov
Sec III uses Eq (7)-(10) to compute the DM mass accretion rate onto neutron stars.
domain assumption Maxwellian DM velocity distribution and neglect of evaporation for mχ > GeV
Sec III assumes the distribution in Eq (9) and focuses on DM masses above a GeV where evaporation is negligible.
domain assumption Non-rotating neutron star, constant geometric cross-section, and simplified velocity-dependent cross-section approximation σ(vrel) ≈ σχN (w0/uref)^{2α}
Sec III-IV; the authors acknowledge these approximations in the conclusion.
ad hoc to paper DM accretion affects orbital evolution only through mass derivatives; accreted DM carries negligible orbital energy and angular momentum
The derivation of Eq (2) in Sec II ignores E and L changes from accretion; this assumption is not stated explicitly.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can Orbital Decay of Accreting Binary Pulsars Probe Dark Matter?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L7JJQ6CE

@misc{pith2026250706178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can Orbital Decay of Accreting Binary Pulsars Probe Dark Matter?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L7JJQ6CE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06178}
}

read the original abstract

The merger of binary pulsars in dark matter (DM)-rich environments can result in DM particle accretion, leading to an increase in the individual pulsar masses. In this work, we investigate the effects of DM accretion on the change in orbital period rate of binary pulsars. Our analysis reveals that while DM accretion increases the system's mass, it may also modify the orbital evolution by enhancing the orbital decay rate. By comparing our results with existing binary pulsar data near Earth's location, we report that the current DM accretion rate is insufficient to place meaningful constraints on DM particle properties. However, we demonstrate that future observations of pulsar mergers in the high DM-density environment of the galactic center could offer a unique opportunity to probe DM microphysics through this mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06178 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The normalized decay rate of orbital period, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[97]

Constrains on dark matter cross section with standard model particles from the orbital period decay of binary pulsars

G. A. Lucero, A. Bernal, J. Barranco, and A. Ace˜ na, “Constrains on dark matter cross section with standard model particles from the orbital period decay of binary pulsars,” arXiv:2410.14559 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv
[1]

Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,

G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, “Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,” Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279–390, arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

arXiv 2005
[2]

Indirect and direct search for dark matter,

M. Klasen, M. Pohl, and G. Sigl, “Indirect and direct search for dark matter,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.85 (2015) 1–32, arXiv:1507.03800 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2015
[3]

Current status of direct dark matter detection experiments,

J. Liu, X. Chen, and X. Ji, “Current status of direct dark matter detection experiments,” Nature Phys. 13 no. 3, (2017) 212–216, arXiv:1709.00688 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2017
[4]

Status, Challenges and Directions in Indirect Dark Matter Searches,

C. P´ erez de los Heros, “Status, Challenges and Directions in Indirect Dark Matter Searches,” Symmetry 12 no. 10, (2020) 1648, arXiv:2008.11561 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2020
[5]

Dark matter in compact stars,

J. Bramante and N. Raj, “Dark matter in compact stars,” Phys. Rept. 1052 (2024) 1–48, arXiv:2307.14435 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024
[6]

Rotochemical Heating of Neutron Stars: Rigorous Formalism with Electrostatic Potential Perturbations,

A. Reisenegger, P. Jofre, R. Fernandez, and E. Kantor, “Rotochemical Heating of Neutron Stars: Rigorous Formalism with Electrostatic Potential Perturbations,” Astrophys. J. 653 (2006) 568–572, arXiv:astro-ph/0606322

arXiv 2006
[7]

WIMP Annihilation and Cooling of Neutron Stars,

C. Kouvaris, “WIMP Annihilation and Cooling of Neutron Stars,” Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 023006, arXiv:0708.2362 [astro-ph]

arXiv 2008

Show all 98 references

[8]

Neutron stars at the dark matter direct detection frontier,

N. Raj, P. Tanedo, and H.-B. Yu, “Neutron stars at the dark matter direct detection frontier,” Phys. Rev. D97 no. 4, (2018) 043006, arXiv:1707.09442 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[9]

Heating up Neutron Stars with Inelastic Dark Matter,

N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, and S. Robles, “Heating up Neutron Stars with Inelastic Dark Matter,” JCAP 09 (2018) 018, arXiv:1807.02840 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[10]

Cooling Theory Faced with Old Warm Neutron Stars: Role of Non-Equilibrium Processes with Proton and Neutron Gaps,

K. Yanagi, N. Nagata, and K. Hamaguchi, “Cooling Theory Faced with Old Warm Neutron Stars: Role of Non-Equilibrium Processes with Proton and Neutron Gaps,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.492 no. 4, (2020) 5508–5523, arXiv:1904.04667 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[11]

Dark Matter Heating vs. Rotochemical Heating in Old Neutron Stars,

K. Hamaguchi, N. Nagata, and K. Yanagi, “Dark Matter Heating vs. Rotochemical Heating in Old Neutron Stars,” Phys. Lett. B795 (2019) 484–489, arXiv:1905.02991 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[12]

Improved Treatment of Dark Matter Capture in Neutron Stars II: Leptonic Targets,

N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, S. Robles, and M. Virgato, “Improved Treatment of Dark Matter Capture in Neutron Stars II: Leptonic Targets,” JCAP 03 (2021) 086, arXiv:2010.13257 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[13]

Observing the thermalization of dark matter in neutron stars,

R. Garani, A. Gupta, and N. Raj, “Observing the thermalization of dark matter in neutron stars,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 4, (2021) 043019, arXiv:2009.10728 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[14]

Dark kinetic heating of neutron stars from contact interactions with relativistic targets,

A. Joglekar, N. Raj, P. Tanedo, and H.-B. Yu, “Dark kinetic heating of neutron stars from contact interactions with relativistic targets,” Phys. Rev. D102 no. 12, (2020) 123002, arXiv:2004.09539 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[15]

Capture of electroweak multiplet dark matter in neutron stars,

M. Fujiwara, K. Hamaguchi, N. Nagata, and J. Zheng, “Capture of electroweak multiplet dark matter in neutron stars,” Phys. Rev. D106 no. 5, (2022) 055031, arXiv:2204.02238 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[16]

Dark Kinetic Heating of Neutron Stars and An Infrared Window On WIMPs, SIMPs, and Pure Higgsinos,

M. Baryakhtar, J. Bramante, S. W. Li, T. Linden, and N. Raj, “Dark Kinetic Heating of Neutron Stars and An Infrared Window On WIMPs, SIMPs, and Pure Higgsinos,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119 no. 13, (2017) 131801, arXiv:1704.01577 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[17]

Dark Matter Catalyzed Baryon Destruction,

Y. Ema, R. McGehee, M. Pospelov, and A. Ray, “Dark Matter Catalyzed Baryon Destruction,” arXiv:2405.18472 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[18]

Indirect Searches for Dark Photon-Photon Tridents in Celestial Objects,

T. Linden, T. T. Q. Nguyen, and T. M. P. Tait, “Indirect Searches for Dark Photon-Photon Tridents in Celestial Objects,” arXiv:2402.01839 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[19]

Weakly Interacting Massive Particles and Neutron Stars,

I. Goldman and S. Nussinov, “Weakly Interacting Massive Particles and Neutron Stars,” Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 3221–3230

1989
[20]

Neutron stars: Graveyard of charged dark matter,

A. Gould, B. T. Draine, R. W. Romani, and S. Nussinov, “Neutron stars: Graveyard of charged dark matter,” Physics Letters B238 no. 2-4, (Apr., 1990) 337–343

1990
[21]

Can Neutron stars constrain Dark Matter?,

C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, “Can Neutron stars constrain Dark Matter?,” Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 063531, arXiv:1004.0586 [astro-ph.GA]

2010 arXiv
[22]

Neutron Stars as Dark Matter Probes,

A. de Lavallaz and M. Fairbairn, “Neutron Stars as Dark Matter Probes,” Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 123521, arXiv:1004.0629 [astro-ph.GA]

2010 arXiv
[23]

Constraints on Scalar Asymmetric Dark Matter from Black Hole Formation in Neutron Stars,

S. D. McDermott, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, “Constraints on Scalar Asymmetric Dark Matter from Black Hole Formation in Neutron Stars,” Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 023519, arXiv:1103.5472 [hep-ph]. 7

2012 arXiv
[24]

Detecting Dark Matter with Imploding Pulsars in the Galactic Center,

J. Bramante and T. Linden, “Detecting Dark Matter with Imploding Pulsars in the Galactic Center,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113 no. 19, (2014) 191301, arXiv:1405.1031 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[25]

New Analysis of Neutron Star Constraints on Asymmetric Dark Matter,

R. Garani, Y. Genolini, and T. Hambye, “New Analysis of Neutron Star Constraints on Asymmetric Dark Matter,” JCAP 05 (2019) 035, arXiv:1812.08773 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[26]

Bounds on self-interacting fermion dark matter from observations of old neutron stars,

J. Bramante, K. Fukushima, J. Kumar, and E. Stopnitzky, “Bounds on self-interacting fermion dark matter from observations of old neutron stars,” Phys. Rev. D 89 no. 1, (2014) 015010, arXiv:1310.3509 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[27]

Constraints on bosonic dark matter from observation of old neutron stars,

J. Bramante, K. Fukushima, and J. Kumar, “Constraints on bosonic dark matter from observation of old neutron stars,” Phys. Rev. D87 no. 5, (2013) 055012, arXiv:1301.0036 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[28]

Realistic neutron star constraints on bosonic asymmetric dark matter,

N. F. Bell, A. Melatos, and K. Petraki, “Realistic neutron star constraints on bosonic asymmetric dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D87 no. 12, (2013) 123507, arXiv:1301.6811 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[29]

On the capture of dark matter by neutron stars,

T. G¨ uver, A. E. Erkoca, M. Hall Reno, and I. Sarcevic, “On the capture of dark matter by neutron stars,” JCAP 05 (2014) 013, arXiv:1201.2400 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[30]

NonPrimordial Solar Mass Black Holes,

C. Kouvaris, P. Tinyakov, and M. H. G. Tytgat, “NonPrimordial Solar Mass Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 no. 22, (2018) 221102, arXiv:1804.06740 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[31]

Analysis on the black hole formations inside old neutron stars by isospin-violating dark matter with self-interaction,

G.-L. Lin and Y.-H. Lin, “Analysis on the black hole formations inside old neutron stars by isospin-violating dark matter with self-interaction,” JCAP 08 (2020) 022, arXiv:2004.05312 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[32]

Solar mass black holes from neutron stars and bosonic dark matter,

R. Garani, D. Levkov, and P. Tinyakov, “Solar mass black holes from neutron stars and bosonic dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D105 no. 6, (2022) 063019, arXiv:2112.09716 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[33]

Constraining properties of asymmetric dark matter candidates from gravitational-wave observations,

D. Singh, A. Gupta, E. Berti, S. Reddy, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Constraining properties of asymmetric dark matter candidates from gravitational-wave observations,” Phys. Rev. D107 no. 8, (2023) 083037, arXiv:2210.15739 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[34]

Radio Signals from Axion Dark Matter Conversion in Neutron Star Magnetospheres,

A. Hook, Y. Kahn, B. R. Safdi, and Z. Sun, “Radio Signals from Axion Dark Matter Conversion in Neutron Star Magnetospheres,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121 no. 24, (2018) 241102, arXiv:1804.03145 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[35]

Polarization signals from axion-photon resonant conversion in a neutron star magnetosphere,

N. Song, L. Su, and L. Wu, “Polarization signals from axion-photon resonant conversion in a neutron star magnetosphere,” Phys. Rev. D111 no. 4, (2025) 043025, arXiv:2402.15144 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[36]

Axion astrophysics,

P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, J. Isern, A. Mirizzi, and O. Straniero, “Axion astrophysics,” Phys. Rept. 1117 (2025) 1–102, arXiv:2411.02492 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[37]

Astrophysical Axion Bounds: The 2024 Edition,

A. Caputo and G. Raffelt, “Astrophysical Axion Bounds: The 2024 Edition,” PoS COSMICWISPers (2024) 041, arXiv:2401.13728 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[38]

Searching for Axion Dark Matter Near Relaxing Magnetars,

S. Roy, A. Prabhu, C. Thompson, S. J. Witte, C. Blanco, and J. Zhang, “Searching for Axion Dark Matter Near Relaxing Magnetars,” arXiv:2505.20450 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[39]

Dark photon limits from magnetic fields and astrophysical plasmas,

G. Marocco, “Dark photon limits from magnetic fields and astrophysical plasmas,” arXiv:2110.02875 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[40]

Constraints on photon mass and dark photon from the Jovian magnetic field,

S. Yan, L. Li, and J. Fan, “Constraints on photon mass and dark photon from the Jovian magnetic field,” JHEP 06 (2024) 028, arXiv:2312.06746 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[41]

Hunt for magnetic signatures of hidden-photon and axion dark matter in the wilderness,

I. A. Sulai et al., “Hunt for magnetic signatures of hidden-photon and axion dark matter in the wilderness,” Phys. Rev. D108 no. 9, (2023) 096026, arXiv:2306.11575 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[42]

Probing Millicharged Dark Matter with Magnetometer Coupled to Circuit,

Y. Gong, H. Tian, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, “Probing Millicharged Dark Matter with Magnetometer Coupled to Circuit,” arXiv:2504.09630 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[43]

Geomagnetic Signal of Millicharged Dark Matter,

A. Arza, Y. Gong, J. Shu, L. Wu, Q. Yuan, and B. Zhu, “Geomagnetic Signal of Millicharged Dark Matter,” arXiv:2501.14949 [hep-ph]
[44]

Compact Stars as Dark Matter Probes,

G. Bertone and M. Fairbairn, “Compact Stars as Dark Matter Probes,” Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 043515, arXiv:0709.1485 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[45]

Constraining Asymmetric Dark Matter through observations of compact stars,

C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, “Constraining Asymmetric Dark Matter through observations of compact stars,” Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 083512, arXiv:1012.2039 [astro-ph.HE]

2011 arXiv
[46]

Dark-matter admixed neutron stars,

S. C. Leung, M. C. Chu, and L. M. Lin, “Dark-matter admixed neutron stars,” Phys. Rev. D84 no. 10, (Nov.,
[47]

Asymmetric Dark Stars and Neutron Star Stability,

M. I. Gresham and K. M. Zurek, “Asymmetric Dark Stars and Neutron Star Stability,” Phys. Rev. D99 no. 8, (2019) 083008, arXiv:1809.08254 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[48]

Dark compact objects: an extensive overview,

M. Deliyergiyev, A. Del Popolo, L. Tolos, M. Le Delliou, X. Lee, and F. Burgio, “Dark compact objects: an extensive overview,” Phys. Rev. D99 no. 6, (2019) 063015, arXiv:1903.01183 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[49]

Supernovae Sparked By Dark Matter in White Dwarfs,

J. F. Acevedo and J. Bramante, “Supernovae Sparked By Dark Matter in White Dwarfs,” Phys. Rev. D100 no. 4, (2019) 043020, arXiv:1904.11993 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[50]

Low Mass Black Holes from Dark Core Collapse,

B. Dasgupta, R. Laha, and A. Ray, “Low Mass Black Holes from Dark Core Collapse,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126 no. 14, (2021) 141105, arXiv:2009.01825 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[51]

Dark matter capture in celestial objects: light mediators, self-interactions, and complementarity with direct detection,

B. Dasgupta, A. Gupta, and A. Ray, “Dark matter capture in celestial objects: light mediators, self-interactions, and complementarity with direct detection,” JCAP 10 (2020) 023, arXiv:2006.10773 [hep-ph]

2020
[52]

Dark matter admixed neutron stars,

B. Kain, “Dark matter admixed neutron stars,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 4, (2021) 043009, arXiv:2102.08257 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[53]

Light dark matter accumulating in planets: Nuclear scattering,

J. Bramante, J. Kumar, G. Mohlabeng, N. Raj, and N. Song, “Light dark matter accumulating in planets: Nuclear scattering,” Phys. Rev. D108 no. 6, (2023) 063022, arXiv:2210.01812 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[54]

Bounds on long-lived dark matter mediators from neutron stars,

T. T. Q. Nguyen and T. M. P. Tait, “Bounds on long-lived dark matter mediators from neutron stars,” Phys. Rev. D107 no. 11, (2023) 115016, arXiv:2212.12547 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[55]

Neutron star observations of pseudoscalar-mediated dark matter,

J. Coffey, D. McKeen, D. E. Morrissey, and N. Raj, “Neutron star observations of pseudoscalar-mediated dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D106 no. 11, (2022) 115019, arXiv:2207.02221 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[56]

Celestial objects as strongly-interacting nonannihilating dark matter detectors,

A. Ray, “Celestial objects as strongly-interacting nonannihilating dark matter detectors,” Phys. Rev. D 107 no. 8, (2023) 083012, arXiv:2301.03625 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[57]

Can LIGO Detect Nonannihilating Dark Matter?,

S. Bhattacharya, B. Dasgupta, R. Laha, and A. Ray, “Can LIGO Detect Nonannihilating Dark Matter?,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131 no. 9, (2023) 091401, arXiv:2302.07898 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[58]

Possible Dark Matter Signals 8 from White Dwarfs,

J.-S. Niu and H.-F. Xue, “Possible Dark Matter Signals 8 from White Dwarfs,” arXiv:2401.04931 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[59]

Dark photon superradiance: Electrodynamics and multimessenger signals,

N. Siemonsen, C. Mondino, D. Egana-Ugrinovic, J. Huang, M. Baryakhtar, and W. E. East, “Dark photon superradiance: Electrodynamics and multimessenger signals,” Phys. Rev. D107 no. 7, (2023) 075025, arXiv:2212.09772 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[60]

Probing Self-Interacting Dark Matter via Gravitational-Wave Background from Eccentric Supermassive Black Hole Mergers,

M.-C. Chen and Y. Tang, “Probing Self-Interacting Dark Matter via Gravitational-Wave Background from Eccentric Supermassive Black Hole Mergers,” arXiv:2505.09219 [astro-ph.GA]

arXiv
[61]

Self-Interacting Dark Matter Solves the Final Parsec Problem of Supermassive Black Hole Mergers,

G. Alonso- ´Alvarez, J. M. Cline, and C. Dewar, “Self-Interacting Dark Matter Solves the Final Parsec Problem of Supermassive Black Hole Mergers,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133 no. 2, (2024) 021401, arXiv:2401.14450 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[62]

Superradiant Bosons Driving Supermassive Black Hole Mergers,

Q. Ding, M. He, V. Takhistov, and H.-Y. Zhu, “Superradiant Bosons Driving Supermassive Black Hole Mergers,” arXiv:2505.09696 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[63]

Probing Boson Clouds with Supermassive Black Hole Binaries,

X. Li, J. Ren, and X.-L. Zhang, “Probing Boson Clouds with Supermassive Black Hole Binaries,” arXiv:2505.02866 [hep-ph]
[64]

A dark matter probe in accreting pulsar-black hole binaries,

A. Akil and Q. Ding, “A dark matter probe in accreting pulsar-black hole binaries,” JCAP 09 (2023) 011, arXiv:2304.08824 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[65]

Constraining light fermionic dark matter with binary pulsars,

L. G. G´ omez, “Constraining light fermionic dark matter with binary pulsars,” Phys. Dark Univ.26 (2019) 100343, arXiv:1906.10316 [astro-ph.GA]

2019 arXiv
[66]

Gravitational radiation from point masses in a Keplerian orbit,

P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, “Gravitational radiation from point masses in a Keplerian orbit,” Phys. Rev.131 (1963) 435–439

1963
[67]

Gravitational Radiation and the Motion of Two Point Masses,

P. C. Peters, “Gravitational Radiation and the Motion of Two Point Masses,” Phys. Rev. 136 (1964) B1224–B1232

1964
[68]

Higher order gravitational radiation losses in binary systems,

L. Blanchet and G. Sch¨ afer, “Higher order gravitational radiation losses in binary systems,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.239 no. 3, (1989) 845–867

1989
[69]

Maggiore, Gravitational Waves

M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments. Oxford University Press, 2007

2007
[70]

Discovery of a pulsar in a binary system,

R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor, “Discovery of a pulsar in a binary system,” Astrophys. J. Lett.195 (1975) L51–L53

1975
[71]

Gravitational radiation and rotation of accreting neutron stars,

L. Bildsten, “Gravitational radiation and rotation of accreting neutron stars,” Astrophys. J. Lett.501 (1998) L89, arXiv:astro-ph/9804325

1998 arXiv
[72]

Capture by the sun of a galactic population of weakly interacting, massive particles,

W. H. Press and D. N. Spergel, “Capture by the sun of a galactic population of weakly interacting, massive particles,” Astrophys. J. 296 (Sept., 1985) 679–684

1985
[73]

Resonant Enhancements in Weakly Interacting Massive Particle Capture by the Earth,

A. Gould, “Resonant Enhancements in Weakly Interacting Massive Particle Capture by the Earth,” Astrophys. J. 321 (Oct., 1987) 571

1987
[74]

Nucleon Structure and Strong Interactions in Dark Matter Capture in Neutron Stars,

N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, T. F. Motta, S. Robles, A. W. Thomas, and M. Virgato, “Nucleon Structure and Strong Interactions in Dark Matter Capture in Neutron Stars,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127 no. 11, (2021) 111803, arXiv:2012.08918 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[75]

Improved treatment of dark matter capture in compact stars,

S. Robles, “Improved treatment of dark matter capture in compact stars,” SciPost Phys. Proc.12 (2023) 057, arXiv:2212.08478 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[76]

Thermalization and Annihilation of Dark Matter in Neutron Stars,

N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, S. Robles, and M. Virgato, “Thermalization and Annihilation of Dark Matter in Neutron Stars,” arXiv:2312.11892 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[77]

Multiscatter stellar capture of dark matter,

J. Bramante, A. Delgado, and A. Martin, “Multiscatter stellar capture of dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 6, (2017) 063002, arXiv:1703.04043 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[78]

Revisiting constraints on asymmetric dark matter from collapse in white dwarf stars,

H. Steigerwald, V. Marra, and S. Profumo, “Revisiting constraints on asymmetric dark matter from collapse in white dwarf stars,” Phys. Rev. D105 no. 8, (2022) 083507, arXiv:2203.09054 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[79]

Dark matter capture in celestial objects: treatment across kinematic and interaction regimes,

R. K. Leane and J. Smirnov, “Dark matter capture in celestial objects: treatment across kinematic and interaction regimes,” JCAP 12 (2023) 040, arXiv:2309.00669 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[80]

Generalised form factor dark matter in the Sun,

A. C. Vincent, A. Serenelli, and P. Scott, “Generalised form factor dark matter in the Sun,” JCAP 08 (2015) 040, arXiv:1504.04378 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[81]

Constraining Bosonic Dark Matter-Baryon Interactions from Neutron Star Collapse,

C.-T. Lu, A. K. Mishra, and L. Wu, “Constraining Bosonic Dark Matter-Baryon Interactions from Neutron Star Collapse,” arXiv:2404.07187 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[82]

Neutron star collapse from accretion: A probe of massive dark matter particles,

N. Liu and A. K. Mishra, “Neutron star collapse from accretion: A probe of massive dark matter particles,” Phys. Dark Univ.47 (2025) 101740, arXiv:2408.00594 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[83]

Matrix element analyses of dark matter scattering and annihilation,

J. Kumar and D. Marfatia, “Matrix element analyses of dark matter scattering and annihilation,” Phys. Rev. D 88 no. 1, (2013) 014035, arXiv:1305.1611 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[84]

Comment on “Multiscatter stellar capture of dark matter

C. Ilie, J. Pilawa, and S. Zhang, “Comment on “Multiscatter stellar capture of dark matter”,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 4, (2020) 048301, arXiv:2005.05946 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[85]

A Comprehensive Study of Relativistic Gravity using PSR B1534+12,

E. Fonseca, I. H. Stairs, and S. E. Thorsett, “A Comprehensive Study of Relativistic Gravity using PSR B1534+12,” Astrophys. J. 787 (2014) 82, arXiv:1402.4836 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[86]

Relativistic Measurements from Timing the Binary Pulsar PSR B1913+16,

J. M. Weisberg and Y. Huang, “Relativistic Measurements from Timing the Binary Pulsar PSR B1913+16,” Astrophys. J. 829 no. 1, (2016) 55, arXiv:1606.02744 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[87]

Tests of general relativity from timing the double pulsar,

M. Kramer et al., “Tests of general relativity from timing the double pulsar,” Science 314 (2006) 97–102, arXiv:astro-ph/0609417

2006 arXiv
[88]

The High Time Resolution Universe Pulsar Survey – XIII. PSR J1757 −1854, the most accelerated binary pulsar,

A. D. Cameron et al., “The High Time Resolution Universe Pulsar Survey – XIII. PSR J1757 −1854, the most accelerated binary pulsar,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475 no. 1, (2018) L57–L61, arXiv:1711.07697 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[89]

Probing light dark matter through cosmic-ray cooling in active galactic nuclei,

G. Herrera and K. Murase, “Probing light dark matter through cosmic-ray cooling in active galactic nuclei,” Phys. Rev. D110 no. 1, (2024) L011701, arXiv:2307.09460 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[90]

Probing Gauged U (1) Sub-GeV Dark Matter via Cosmic Ray Cooling in Active Galactic Nuclei,

A. K. Mishra, N. Liu, and C.-T. Lu, “Probing Gauged U (1) Sub-GeV Dark Matter via Cosmic Ray Cooling in Active Galactic Nuclei,” arXiv:2504.03409 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[91]

Dark Matter-induced Collapse of Neutron Stars: A Possible Link Between Fast Radio Bursts and the Missing Pulsar Problem,

J. Fuller and C. Ott, “Dark Matter-induced Collapse of Neutron Stars: A Possible Link Between Fast Radio Bursts and the Missing Pulsar Problem,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.450 no. 1, (2015) L71–L75, arXiv:1412.6119 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[92]

Revisiting primordial black hole capture by neutron stars,

R. Caiozzo, G. Bertone, and F. K¨ uhnel, “Revisiting primordial black hole capture by neutron stars,” JCAP 07 (2024) 091, arXiv:2404.08057 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[93]

Axion-polaritons in quark stars: a possible solution to the missing pulsar problem,

E. J. Ferrer and V. de la Incera, “Axion-polaritons in quark stars: a possible solution to the missing pulsar problem,” Eur. Phys. J. C84 no. 2, (2024) 133, arXiv:2403.17035 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[94]

Models of Galaxies with Central Black Holes: Adiabatic Growth in Spherical Galaxies,

G. D. Quinlan, L. Hernquist, and S. Sigurdsson, “Models of Galaxies with Central Black Holes: Adiabatic Growth in Spherical Galaxies,” Astrophys. J. 9 440 (1995) 554–564, arXiv:astro-ph/9407005

1995 arXiv
[95]

Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center,

P. Gondolo and J. Silk, “Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center,” Phys. Rev. Lett.83 (1999) 1719–1722, arXiv:astro-ph/9906391

1999 arXiv
[96]

A Dark matter spike at the galactic center?,

P. Ullio, H. Zhao, and M. Kamionkowski, “A Dark matter spike at the galactic center?,” Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 043504, arXiv:astro-ph/0101481

2001 arXiv
[2011]

107301, arXiv:1111.1787 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [97]

Constrains on dark matter cross section with standard model particles from the orbital period decay of binary pulsars

G. A. Lucero, A. Bernal, J. Barranco, and A. Ace˜ na, “Constrains on dark matter cross section with standard model particles from the orbital period decay of binary pulsars,” arXiv:2410.14559 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv

[2] [1]

Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,

G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, “Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,” Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279–390, arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

arXiv 2005

[3] [2]

Indirect and direct search for dark matter,

M. Klasen, M. Pohl, and G. Sigl, “Indirect and direct search for dark matter,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.85 (2015) 1–32, arXiv:1507.03800 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2015

[4] [3]

Current status of direct dark matter detection experiments,

J. Liu, X. Chen, and X. Ji, “Current status of direct dark matter detection experiments,” Nature Phys. 13 no. 3, (2017) 212–216, arXiv:1709.00688 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2017

[5] [4]

Status, Challenges and Directions in Indirect Dark Matter Searches,

C. P´ erez de los Heros, “Status, Challenges and Directions in Indirect Dark Matter Searches,” Symmetry 12 no. 10, (2020) 1648, arXiv:2008.11561 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2020

[6] [5]

Dark matter in compact stars,

J. Bramante and N. Raj, “Dark matter in compact stars,” Phys. Rept. 1052 (2024) 1–48, arXiv:2307.14435 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024

[7] [6]

Rotochemical Heating of Neutron Stars: Rigorous Formalism with Electrostatic Potential Perturbations,

A. Reisenegger, P. Jofre, R. Fernandez, and E. Kantor, “Rotochemical Heating of Neutron Stars: Rigorous Formalism with Electrostatic Potential Perturbations,” Astrophys. J. 653 (2006) 568–572, arXiv:astro-ph/0606322

arXiv 2006

[8] [7]

WIMP Annihilation and Cooling of Neutron Stars,

C. Kouvaris, “WIMP Annihilation and Cooling of Neutron Stars,” Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 023006, arXiv:0708.2362 [astro-ph]

arXiv 2008