Evolution of Neutron Star Environment in the Galactic Halo : Implications for Dark Matter Accretion

Aseem Paranjape; Payaswinee Arvikar; Saee Dhawalikar

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Evolution of Neutron Star Environment in the Galactic Halo : Implications for Dark Matter Accretion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that the clumpy, evolving dark matter halo of the Milky Way enhances the dark matter mass a neutron star accretes by at most a factor of about two, so environmental effects cannot explain the large gap between…

desk verdict Clean null result: substructure boosts NS dark-matter exposure by at most ~2, but the factor is density-only and capture physics is left untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10781 v1 pith:MM27YC5D submitted 2026-08-11 astro-ph.CO

Payaswinee Arvikar , Aseem Paranjape , Saee Dhawalikar This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords darkmatteraccretionneutronstarsGalactichalosubstructureN-bodysimulationsVoronoitessellationMilkyWayanaloguesNFWprofile

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

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

The paper asks whether the time-varying, clumpy dark matter environment of the Milky Way's halo can raise the dark matter mass a neutron star accretes enough to explain the gap between equation-of-state predictions and simple accretion estimates. It uses a high-resolution cosmological N-body simulation of Milky Way-like halos, tracks the local dark matter density around model neutron stars via Voronoi tessellation, and integrates that density over each star's age. The 95th-percentile enhancement over the smooth Navarro-Frenk-White baseline is only a factor of about two for both stationary and orbiting neutron stars. The authors conclude that environmental effects cannot account for the orders-of-magnitude discrepancy between ~$10^{-2}\,M_\odot$ and ~$10^{-14}\,M_\odot$, so the explanation must lie elsewhere.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-averaged local dark matter density $\langle\rho_\chi\rangle = (1/t)\int_0^t dt'\,\rho_\chi(\mathbf{x}(t'),t')$ sampled along the neutron star's trajectory. The paper estimates $\rho_\chi$ in two ways: from an evolving Navarro-Frenk-White profile whose mass and scale radius come from the simulation's halo catalog, and from a Voronoi tessellation of simulation particles in a 100 $h^{-1}\,$kpc sub-box, a method that assigns each particle a cell volume and thereby yields the local density field. These densities enter Eq. (2.1), $M_{\rm acc}\approx 10^{-14}(\langle\rho_\chi\rangle/0.3\,{\rm GeV\,cm^{-3}})(\sigma_{\chi n}/10^{-45}\,{\rm cm^2})(t/{\rm Gyr})\,M_\odot$, so the entire comparison reduces to how the Voronoi density integrated over time differs from the NFW density integrated over time. Two neutron star placements are treated: stationary at 20 $h^{-1}\,$kpc, and on a circular orbit of that radius.

What would settle it

A calculation that replaces the linear $M_{\rm acc}\propto\langle\rho_\chi\rangle$ scaling in Eq. (2.1) with a velocity-dependent capture formalism applied to the simulated phase-space distribution of dark matter encounters, or an observation of a neutron star whose dark matter fraction exceeds the simulation's 95th-percentile bound for its environment, would falsify the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the dynamically evolving, spatially structured dark matter distribution in a Milky Way-like halo does not significantly change the dark matter mass accreted by a neutron star. Measured as the ratio $M_{\rm acc}^{\rm Vor}/M_{\rm acc}^{\rm NFW}$, the median is 1.14 for a stationary neutron star and 0.81 for one on a circular orbit at 20 $h^{-1}\,$kpc, with a 95th-percentile value of about 2 in both cases. A footnote reports that moving the stationary star to 10 $h^{-1}\,$kpc still yields at most a factor of about 2 enhancement. The authors therefore state that environmental effects cannot explain the discrepancy between equation-of-state estimates of ~$10^{-2}\,M_\odot$ of dark matter inside a neutron star and accretion-based estimates of ~$10^{-14}\,M_\odot$.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central estimate rests on the assumption that accreted dark matter mass is directly proportional to the time-averaged local dark matter density, so that a factor-of-two density enhancement translates one-to-one into a factor-of-two mass enhancement, with no saturation or velocity dependence in capture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the factor of about two ceiling holds, then smooth Navarro-Frenk-White accretion estimates are order-of-magnitude reliable, and the missing dark matter mass in neutron stars must come from earlier evolutionary stages or from microphysical channels like neutron-to-dark-matter conversion.
The distribution of $M_{\rm acc}^{\rm Vor}/M_{\rm acc}^{\rm NFW}$ is skewed above 1 for stationary stars and has a tail toward 2.5 for orbiting stars, so rare substructure encounters do add mass, but not enough to change the overall picture.
Because the conclusion is phrased as a 95th-percentile bound, it provides a quantitative target: any proposed environmental mechanism must produce more than a factor of about two to matter.
The analysis at 10 $h^{-1}\,$kpc extends the conclusion inward to higher densities, reinforcing that the halo environment is not the decisive factor.
The result redirects attention from the ambient dark matter density to the capture physics and to dark matter accumulation during the main-sequence and supernova phases of the neutron star's progenitor.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's linear scaling assumption in Eq. (2.1) is the main lever: if capture efficiency depends on the velocity distribution of dark matter particles in subhalo encounters, a factor of about two in time-integrated density could translate to a different factor in accreted mass; testing this with a phase-space-aware capture calculation is a natural next step.
Because the simulation resolves only halos above roughly $3.2\times10^9\,M_\odot$, the densest small subhalos are absent; a higher-resolution run could produce a longer tail of rare high-density encounters, though the paper's box-size convergence check suggests such a tail would not overturn the main conclusion.
An implication the authors leave implicit is that neutron-star dark matter searches should prioritize mechanisms that convert baryonic matter into dark matter inside the star, or accumulation during earlier stellar phases, rather than the galactic environment.

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

Here's the short version: this is a clean negative result that deserves a serious referee. The authors use time-resolved Voronoi densities from the Sahyadri cosmological simulation to ask whether Milky Way substructure can boost the DM mass accreted by a neutron star. They find the boost is at most a factor ~2 relative to an evolving NFW baseline, so environment cannot explain the 12-order-of-magnitude gap between TOV-based DM fractions and simple accretion estimates. I think the qualitative conclusion holds up.

What's genuinely new: this is the first time the time-dependent, spatially resolved density field from an MW-analog simulation is used for this question. The comparison to an evolving NFW profile is the right baseline—better than a static halo. The two NS placement cases (stationary and circular orbit) and the 10 h^-1 kpc check cover the reasonable simplifications. The writing is transparent about the pipeline and the Sahyadri method is cited properly.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The headline factor ~2 is a ratio of time-integrated DM densities, not a calculation of accreted mass. Eq. (2.1) uses a fixed linear prefactor that cancels in the ratio, so the velocity dependence of capture never enters. Standard capture physics has the rate scaling roughly as rho/v_eff; a dense, cold subhalo encounter could give an enhancement larger than the density ratio, while saturation could make it smaller. The paper doesn't test this mapping. I'd like the authors to either compute the capture integral along the trajectories or state clearly that the result is about density exposure only. That said, even a factor of 10 or 100 in capture efficiency would not close a 12-order-of-magnitude gap, so the central null conclusion is safe.

Minor: no error bars on the factor ~2, and the fixed 20 h^-1 kpc placement is a simplification; the 10 h^-1 kpc check mitigates it. The paper also overstates slightly by calling the ratio 'mass accretion' in the abstract; it's really density-weighted exposure.

Who is it for? Anyone working on DM in compact objects, and it's a useful methodological template for using cosmological simulations in this context. I'd send it to peer review—a referee can push for the capture-physics caveat and a sharper abstract. I'd likely cite it as the reference for environmental enhancement bounds.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether time-varying local dark-matter densities in the Galactic halo, caused by substructure evolution, can substantially increase the DM mass accreted by a neutron star (NS) relative to the standard smooth-NFW expectation. Using the Sahyadri N-body simulation, the authors select 255 Milky Way analog halos at z=0, follow their most massive progenitors back in time, place a NS at 20 h^-1 kpc from the halo center in either a stationary (Case 1) or circular-orbit (Case 2) configuration, and compute the local DM density at the NS position at every snapshot using both an evolving NFW profile and a Voronoi-tessellation density field. The time-integrated densities are converted to an accreted DM mass via Eq. (2.1), and the ratio M_Vor^acc/M_NFW^acc is presented as the environmental enhancement factor. The median ratios are 1.14 (Case 1) and 0.81 (Case 2), with a long tail toward higher values; the 95th percentile is about 2. The paper concludes that environmental effects enhance accreted mass by at most a factor of about two and therefore cannot explain the orders-of-magnitude discrepancy between equation-of-state-based DM fractions in NSs and smooth-accretion estimates.

Significance. If the result is robust, this is a useful negative result: it shows that dynamical halo substructure, even in a realistic cosmological simulation, does not reconcile the ~10^-14 M_sun accretion-derived DM mass with the ~10^-2 M_sun values inferred from TOV-based analyses of DM-admixed NSs. The paper's use of a high-resolution cosmological simulation and a well-defined Voronoi density estimator is a strength, as is the transparent construction of the ratio, which cancels the common prefactor in Eq. (2.1). The consistency check at 10 h^-1 kpc reported in the footnote strengthens the qualitative conclusion. However, the central quantitative claim of a factor-of-two enhancement is currently presented as a statement about accreted mass, whereas the calculation actually yields a ratio of time-integrated densities under a deliberately linear capture formula; the sensitivity of this mapping to the DM velocity distribution is not tested. This does not threaten the paper's main negative conclusion, which is robust to order-of-magnitude caveats, but it does mean the quantitative factor-of-two claim needs either reframing or additional analysis.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Figure 2] The ratio M_Vor^acc/M_NFW^acc is computed using Eq. (2.1), which assumes that the accreted mass is proportional to the time-averaged DM density times the NS age with a fixed prefactor that is identical for numerator and denominator. Consequently, the quantity plotted in Figure 2 is strictly a ratio of time-integrated local DM densities, not a ratio of actual accreted masses. Real capture rates depend on the DM–NS relative-velocity distribution (e.g., gravitational focusing at low velocities) and can in principle saturate in very dense environments. The paper does not test how such velocity-dependent effects would alter the factor-of-two estimate. The headline statement in the Abstract and Conclusion that 'mass accretion can be enhanced by a factor ~2' is therefore not yet established as a statement about accreted DM mass. The authors should either rephrase the claim as a density-exposure enhancement, or augment the analysis with a simple, physically motivated velocity-dependent capture model for substructure encounters to show that the factor of about two remains a valid proxy for the accreted-mass enhancement.
[Section 2.2 and Abstract] The quoted factor of about two at the 95th percentile is a point estimate from the distribution of ratios across 255 halos, with no propagated uncertainty. The Voronoi densities themselves are subject to shot noise, because the simulation particle mass is 8.1e7 M_sun/h and the NS is placed at 20 h^-1 kpc, only about six times the force-softening length. A portion of the width of the ratio distribution could therefore be numerical rather than physical. The authors should provide a bootstrap or jackknife error on the 95th percentile and ideally a convergence check varying the Voronoi tracer density or the simulation resolution. Without this, the quantitative claim that the enhancement is 'about a factor 2' at 95% confidence is under-supported, even though the qualitative negative conclusion would likely survive such uncertainties.
[Section 3] The Voronoi density field measures the full local density including both subhalo encounters and the aspherical, triaxial shape of the smooth halo, while the baseline is a spherical NFW profile. The ratio shown in Figure 2 is therefore a measure of total deviation from spherical symmetry, not specifically 'the dynamics of substructure' as stated in the Abstract. This conflation does not affect the paper's main conclusion that environmental effects are insufficient to close the gap, but it does affect the physical interpretation. The authors should either soften the substructure-specific language or perform a comparison between the Voronoi densities and the azimuthally averaged density of the simulated halo to isolate the substructure contribution.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3] The phrase '95% confidence' is a sample percentile of the halo distribution, not a confidence interval from a statistical inference; it should be rephrased as '95th percentile of the distribution' to avoid implying a formal confidence statement.
[Section 2.3] The sentence 'at most factor ~ 2 enhancement' is too strong, since the 95th percentile leaves a 5% tail of the distribution above that value; a safer phrasing would be 'the 95th percentile of the enhancement is a factor of about two.'
[Section 2.3] The fixed 20 h^-1 kpc radius and the circular-orbit model are simplified treatments of NS trajectories; the footnote checking 10 h^-1 kpc is reassuring, but the paper would benefit from a brief justification of why 20 h^-1 kpc is representative for NS populations, particularly because many NSs receive natal kicks and are born in the disk.
[Section 2.3] The capture formula should cite the original velocity-dependent capture-rate formalism (e.g., Gould 1987) in addition to the review reference [41], so that the limitations of the linear, density-only scaling are clear to the reader.
[Section 2.1] There are several presentation issues: the shaded 68% and 90% regions in Figure 2 are described in the text but not visible in the manuscript as provided; the reference list contains formatting anomalies (e.g., [12] shows 'JCAP 2023 ("2023") 073'); and the figure caption for Figure 1 should define the color scale and the meaning of the arrow more explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the factor-two enhancement is a direct, parameter-free ratio of Voronoi and evolving NFW density histories, with the accretion prefactor cancelling, and the self-citations are transparent and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

All load-bearing quantities are computed from the simulation rather than fitted. The ratio M_Vor_acc/M_NFW_acc is, by Eq. (2.1) with a fixed prefactor, identically equal to the ratio of time-integrated local densities, and the same prefactor cancels in the ratio. Neither density estimator is defined in terms of the other: the NFW baseline uses the analytic profile with evolving Mvir and rs from the halo catalog, while the Voronoi estimate uses the particle distribution directly. No parameter is tuned to reproduce the "about a factor 2" result, so there is no fitted input renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to the Sahyadri simulation ([32]) and the Voronoi method ([40]) overlap with the authors, but the simulation is a concrete external product with stated assumptions and the Voronoi algorithm is described in the text; the central comparison does not reduce to an assertion of those papers. The possible caveat that Eq. (2.1) assumes linear density scaling without velocity dependence would affect the physical interpretation of the factor 2 as true accreted mass, but it is a modeling limitation, not circularity. I therefore find no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three hand-chosen modeling parameters (NS radius, age distribution, orbital velocity) and five domain assumptions about density estimation, the linear capture formula, halo-center tracking, sample representativeness, and NS trajectory. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main result is an empirical ratio, so the free parameters do not fit the answer; they shape the sampled population.

free parameters (3)

NS galactocentric radius = 20 h^-1 kpc (10 h^-1 kpc in one check)
Chosen by hand as a conservative distance above the simulation resolution limit. The factor ~2 conclusion is checked at 10 h^-1 kpc but not across a continuous range of radii.
NS age draw = uniform in 0.1 to 2.5 Gyr
Chosen to span the ATNF pulsar age range. A uniform draw is not the observed pulsar age distribution and could change the tail of the ratio distribution.
Orbital velocity for Case 2 = sqrt(G M_mean / R), with M_mean averaged over time
Adopted to define the circular orbit. The orbit is not integrated from the simulation and ignores radial motion and velocity scatter.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Voronoi tessellation of N-body particles gives a faithful estimate of local DM density at the NS position on resolved scales.
Used throughout Section 2.2. Relies on the simulation resolving densities at 20 h^-1 kpc with particle mass 8.1e7 Msun and softening 3.26 h^-1 kpc, and on the Monte Carlo random-point volume estimator being unbiased.
domain assumption Eq. (2.1) correctly describes time-integrated DM accretion for non-annihilating DM with a fixed cross-section and no saturation.
Invoked in Section 2.3. The prefactor is taken constant, so the ratio of accreted masses equals the ratio of time-averaged densities, but this linear scaling is not tested for substructure encounters.
domain assumption ROCKSTAR and CONSISTENT TREES halo centers represent the physical halo center through mergers and tidal events.
Used to define NS position relative to halo center at 20 h^-1 kpc across snapshots. Halo-center jumps could bias the sampled density history.
domain assumption Selection of 255 LG analogs by mass within a factor 4 yields a statistically representative sample of MW-like environments.
Section 2.1. The sample is not validated against observed MW substructure or tested for sensitivity to the selection criteria.
ad hoc to paper A neutron star born at 20 h^-1 kpc stays at that radius (Case 1) or on a circular orbit (Case 2) throughout its life.
Imposed in Section 2.2. Real NS have birth kicks, radial migration, and eccentric orbits, and the density history depends on this trajectory.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolution of Neutron Star Environment in the Galactic Halo : Implications for Dark Matter Accretion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MM27YC5D

@misc{pith2026260810781,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolution of Neutron Star Environment in the Galactic Halo : Implications for Dark Matter Accretion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MM27YC5D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10781}
}

abstract

Neutron stars (NS) are one of the indirect detection probes for dark matter (DM). The presence of DM is known to affect the observable properties of NS. Theoretical calculations for various equations of state of a DM admixed NS lead to estimates of the DM mass in a NS of the order of $10^{-2} M_{\odot}$. On the other hand, simplistic estimates of the amount of DM that is accreted on to the NS in the Solar neighborhood, over its age, suggest that this number is of the order $10^{-14} M_{\odot}$. Various studies have addressed this non-agreement theoretically by explaining the mechanisms leading to higher fraction than expected from smooth spherically symmetric accretion. In this work, we attempt to assess the role of the dynamic DM environmental density in the Galactic halo to explain possible enhancement in DM accretion. We consider a high resolution N-body simulation and method of Voronoi tessellation to calculate local DM density around putative NS locations in a statistically representative sample of Milky Way analogues. We infer that the dynamics of substructure may enhance the DM mass in NS by about a factor 2 as compared to the baseline, spherically symmetric expectation. Environmental effects therefore cannot explain the orders of magnitude discrepancy between equation of state and accretion based estimates of DM admixed in NS.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

Xenon100 Collaboration collaboration, The XENON100 dark matter experiment , Astroparticle Physics 35 (2012) 573

work page 2012
[2]

Wang et al

Q. Wang et al. , Results of dark matter search using the full pandax-ii exposu re *, Chin. Phys. C 44 (2020) 125001

work page 2020
[3]

Janish and E

R. Janish and E. Pinetti, Hunting dark matter lines in the infrared background with the james webb space telescope , Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 071002

work page 2025
[4]

Pérez de los Heros, Status, Challenges and Directions in Indirect Dark Matter Sea rches, Symmetry 12 (2020) 1648

C. Pérez de los Heros, Status, Challenges and Directions in Indirect Dark Matter Sea rches, Symmetry 12 (2020) 1648

work page 2020
[5]

Biondini, J

S. Biondini, J. Bollig and S. Vogl, Indirect detection of dark matter with (pseudo)-scalar interactions, JHEP 04 (2024) 050

work page 2024
[6]

Riley et al

T.E. Riley et al. , A NICER View of the Massive Pulsar PSR J0740+6620 Informed by Rad io Timing and XMM-Newton Spectroscopy , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 (2021) L27

work page 2021
[7]

Miller et al

M.C. Miller et al. , The Radius of PSR J0740+6620 from NICER and XMM-Newton Data , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 (2021) L28 . 3To check the eﬀect of distance from the halo center, we repeat ed the analysis for a stationary NS at 10h−1kpc. The distribution of M V or acc /MN F W acc for this analysis also shows at most factor 2 enhancement. – 7 –

work page 2021
[8]

Choudhury et al., A NICER View of the Nearest and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PS R J0437–4715, Astrophys

D. Choudhury et al., A NICER View of the Nearest and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PS R J0437–4715, Astrophys. J. Lett. 971 (2024) L20

work page 2024

Show all 42 references

[9]

The LIGO Scientific and the Virgo Collaboration collaboration, Gw170817: Measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 161101

2018
[10]

Thakur, T

P. Thakur, T. Malik, A. Das, T.K. Jha and C.m.c. Providên cia, Exploring robust correlations between fermionic dark matter model parameters and neutron sta r properties: A two-ﬂuid perspective, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 043030

2024
[11]

Karkevandi, S

D.R. Karkevandi, S. Shakeri, V. Sagun and O. Ivanytskyi , Bosonic dark matter in neutron stars and its eﬀect on gravitational wave signal , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 023001

2022
[12]

Routaray, S.R

P. Routaray, S.R. Mohanty, H. Das, S. Ghosh, P. Kalita, V . Parmar et al., Investigating dark matter-admixed neutron stars with NITR equation of state in lig ht of psr j0952-0607 , JCAP 2023 ("2023") 073

2023
[13]

Giangrandi, A

E. Giangrandi, A. Á vila, V. Sagun, O. Ivanytskyi and C. P rovidência, The impact of asymmetric dark matter on the thermal evolution of nucleonic an d hyperonic compact stars , Particles 7 (2024) 179

2024
[14]

Ivanytskyi, V

O. Ivanytskyi, V. Sagun and I. Lopes, Neutron stars: New constraints on asymmetric dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 063028

2020
[15]

Shakeri and D.R

S. Shakeri and D.R. Karkevandi, Bosonic dark matter in light of the NICER precise mass-radius measurements, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 043029 [2210.17308]

2024 arXiv
[16]

Rutherford, C

N. Rutherford, C. Prescod-Weinstein and A. Watts, Probing fermionic asymmetric dark matter cores using global neutron star properties , Physical Review D 111 (2025)

2025
[17]

Shirke, S

S. Shirke, S. Ghosh, D. Chatterjee, L. Sagunski and J. Sc haﬀner-Bielich, R-modes as a new probe of dark matter in neutron stars , JCAP 12 ("2023") 008

2023
[18]

Rutherford, G

N. Rutherford, G. Raaijmakers, C. Prescod-Weinstein a nd A. Watts, Constraining bosonic asymmetric dark matter with neutron star mass-radius measure ments, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 103051

2023
[19]

Arvikar, S

P. Arvikar, S. Gautam, A. Venneti and S. Banik, Exploring fermionic dark matter admixed neutron stars in the light of astrophysical observations , Phys. Rev. D 112 (2025) 023021 [2506.20736]

2025 arXiv
[20]

Arvikar, S

P. Arvikar, S. Gautam, A. Venneti and S. Banik, Fermionic versus Bosonic Dark Matter in Neutron Stars: A bayesian study with multi-density constrai nts, JCAP 03 (2026) 012 [2512.13574]

2026
[21]

X.-Z. Liu, P. Mahapatra, C. Huang, A. Hazarika, C. Singh a and P.K. Das, Revealing dark matter’s role in neutron stars anisotropy: A bayesian approac h using multimessenger observations, Physical Review D 112 (2025)

2025
[22]

Kouvaris and P

C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Can neutron stars constrain dark matter? , Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 063531

2010
[23]

Kouvaris, Wimp annihilation and cooling of neutron stars , Phys

C. Kouvaris, Wimp annihilation and cooling of neutron stars , Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008)

2008
[24]

Ellis, G

J. Ellis, G. Hütsi, K. Kannike, L. Marzola, M. Raidal and V. Vaskonen, Dark matter eﬀects on neutron star properties , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 123007

2018
[25]

Del Popolo, M

A. Del Popolo, M. Deliyergiyev, M. Le Delliou, L. Tolos a nd F. Burgio, On the change of old neutron star masses with galactocentric distance , Physics of the Dark Universe 28 (2020) 100484

2020
[26]

Deliyergiyev, A

M. Deliyergiyev, A. Del Popolo and M.L. Delliou, Neutron star mass in dark matter clumps , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527 (2023) 4483 [2311.00113]. – 8 –

2023 arXiv
[27]

Güver, A.E

T. Güver, A.E. Erkoca, M.H. Reno and I. Sarcevic, On the capture of dark matter by neutron stars, JCAP 2014 (2014) 013

2014
[28]

J. Luo, D. Liang and L. Shao, Constraining fermionic dark matter with galactic neutron sta rs, Physics of the Dark Universe 50 (2025) 102163

2025
[29]

Oppenheimer and G.M

J.R. Oppenheimer and G.M. Volkoﬀ, On massive neutron cores , Physical Review 55 (1939) 374

1939
[30]

Tolman, Static solutions of einstein’s ﬁeld equations for spheres o f ﬂuid , Physical Review 55 (1939) 364

R.C. Tolman, Static solutions of einstein’s ﬁeld equations for spheres o f ﬂuid , Physical Review 55 (1939) 364

1939
[31]

Navarro, C.S

J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White, The structure of cold dark matter halos , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 275 (1995) 720 [astro-ph/9508025]

1995 arXiv
[32]

Dhawalikar, S

S. Dhawalikar, S. Alam, A. Paranjape and A. Banerjee, Sahyadri: a simulation suite for the cosmology dependence of the cosmic web , J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2026 (2026) 028 [2601.07924]

2026 arXiv
[33]

Springel, R

V. Springel, R. Pakmor, O. Zier and M. Reinecke, Simulating cosmic structure formation with the <scp>gadget</scp>-4 code , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 506 (2021) 2871–2949

2021
[34]

Behroozi, R.H

P.S. Behroozi, R.H. Wechsler and H.-Y. Wu, The rockstar phase-space temporal halo ﬁnder and the velocity oﬀsets of cluster cores , The Astrophysical Journal 762 (2012) 109

2012
[35]

Behroozi, R.H

P.S. Behroozi, R.H. Wechsler, H.-Y. Wu, M.T. Busha, A.A . Klypin and J.R. Primack, Gravitationally consistent halo catalogs and merger trees for precision cosmology, The Astrophysical Journal 763 (2012) 18

2012
[36]

Sawala, M

T. Sawala, M. Teeriaho and P.H. Johansson, The local group’s mass: probably no more than the sum of its parts , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 521 (2023) 4863–4877

2023
[37]

Makarov, D

D. Makarov, D. Makarov, K. Kozyrev and N. Libeskind, Line-of-sight mass estimator and the masses of the milky way and andromeda galaxy , Universe 11 (2025) 144

2025
[38]

Corbelli, D

E. Corbelli, D. Thilker, S. Zibetti, C. Giovanardi and P . Salucci, Dynamical signatures of a ΛCDM-halo and the distribution of the baryons in m33 , Astronomy & Astrophysics 572 (2014) A23

2014
[39]

Voronoi, Nouvelles applications des paramètres continus à la théorie des formes quadratiques

G. Voronoi, Nouvelles applications des paramètres continus à la théorie des formes quadratiques. deuxième mémoire. recherches sur les parall élloèdres primitifs., Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Jou rnal) 1908 (1908) 198

1908
[40]

Paranjape and S

A. Paranjape and S. Alam, Voronoi volume function: a new probe of cosmology and galaxy evolution, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 495 (2020) 3233–3251

2020
[41]

Kouvaris, The Dark Side of Neutron Stars , Adv

C. Kouvaris, The Dark Side of Neutron Stars , Adv. High Energy Phys. 2013 (2013) 856196 [1308.3222]

2013 arXiv
[42]

XENON collaboration, First dark matter search results from the xenon1t experiment , Physical Review Letters 119 (2017) . – 9 –

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Xenon100 Collaboration collaboration, The XENON100 dark matter experiment , Astroparticle Physics 35 (2012) 573

work page 2012

[2] [2]

Wang et al

Q. Wang et al. , Results of dark matter search using the full pandax-ii exposu re *, Chin. Phys. C 44 (2020) 125001

work page 2020

[3] [3]

Janish and E

R. Janish and E. Pinetti, Hunting dark matter lines in the infrared background with the james webb space telescope , Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 071002

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Pérez de los Heros, Status, Challenges and Directions in Indirect Dark Matter Sea rches, Symmetry 12 (2020) 1648

C. Pérez de los Heros, Status, Challenges and Directions in Indirect Dark Matter Sea rches, Symmetry 12 (2020) 1648

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Biondini, J

S. Biondini, J. Bollig and S. Vogl, Indirect detection of dark matter with (pseudo)-scalar interactions, JHEP 04 (2024) 050

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Riley et al

T.E. Riley et al. , A NICER View of the Massive Pulsar PSR J0740+6620 Informed by Rad io Timing and XMM-Newton Spectroscopy , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 (2021) L27

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Miller et al

M.C. Miller et al. , The Radius of PSR J0740+6620 from NICER and XMM-Newton Data , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 (2021) L28 . 3To check the eﬀect of distance from the halo center, we repeat ed the analysis for a stationary NS at 10h−1kpc. The distribution of M V or acc /MN F W acc for this analysis also shows at most factor 2 enhancement. – 7 –

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Choudhury et al., A NICER View of the Nearest and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PS R J0437–4715, Astrophys

D. Choudhury et al., A NICER View of the Nearest and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PS R J0437–4715, Astrophys. J. Lett. 971 (2024) L20

work page 2024