Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Effects of asymmetric dark matter on a magnetized neutron star: A two-fluid approach

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic fields change dark-matter-admixed neutron stars only slightly, even at magnetar strength.

desk verdict Competent extension of a known two-fluid ADM-NS framework to magnetized stars, with a useful few-percent result but a real unvalidated assumption at the highest field strength. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.21097 v2 pith:EHS2XEKS submitted 2024-12-30 nucl-th astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-ph

Pinku Routaray , Vishal Parmar , H. C. Das , Bharat Kumar , G. F. Burgio , H.-J. Schulze This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HEgr-qchep-ph
keywords asymmetricdarkmattermagnetizedneutronstarstwo-fluidTOVequationsQMC-RMF4equationofstatetidaldeformabilityhaloNICERconstraintsGW170817
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

This paper asks whether magnetic fields of magnetar size meaningfully change what dark matter does to a neutron star. It models a neutron star as two fluids—ordinary baryonic matter described by the QMC-RMF4 equation of state, and self-interacting, nonannihilating asymmetric fermionic dark matter that interacts only gravitationally—and solves the two-fluid Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations with a density-dependent magnetic field. The central finding is that the magnetic field's influence is small: even at core fields up to $3 \times 10^{18}$ G it softens the equation of state, lowers the maximum mass by a few percent, and slightly reduces the dark mass a core can hold before turning into a dark-matter halo. Because the paper also compares with NICER and GW170817 data, it gives the still-permitted range of dark-matter particle masses and fractions, showing that the magnetic field shifts those limits only slightly. A sympathetic reader cares because magnetars could plausibly accumulate dark matter, and this work says the two effects can be separated in principle but will be hard to disentangle observationally.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the two-fluid TOV equations (29)–(31), one fluid for baryonic matter and one for dark matter, coupled only through gravity, and the magnetized hadronic equation of state built from the QMC-RMF4 model with Landau quantization. The key identity that carries the argument is the chaotic-magnetic-field pressure average $p = (2 p_{\perp} + p_{\parallel})/3 + B^2/6$, Eq. (16), which converts the anisotropic pressure of magnetized matter into one isotropic pressure so the spherical TOV equations can be used. The dark-matter side is a self-interacting fermion gas whose equation of state depends on the particle mass $m_\chi$ through a dimensionless interaction parameter $y$ fixed by the observed self-interaction cross-section constraint $\sigma_\chi/m_\chi = 1\,\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}$. Together these determine whether a given dark-matter mass and fraction yields a dark core or a dark halo, and hence the mass–radius relation and tidal deformability.

What would settle it

Compute axisymmetric general-relativistic equilibrium models with the same QMC-RMF4 magnetized equation of state at $B_c=3\times10^{18}$ G and compare their maximum mass, radius, and tidal deformability with the spherical TOV results; if the differences exceed a few percent, the chaotic-averaging assumption—and with it the paper's central conclusion that magnetic fields barely matter—would fail at the highest fields.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that in the two-fluid picture, the qualitative behaviour of dark-matter-admixed neutron stars is set by the dark-matter particle mass and mass fraction, while the magnetic field is a minor correction. Light dark-matter particles (about 100–200 MeV) form an extended halo around the star and raise the maximum mass; heavier ones (about 600–1000 MeV) sit in a central dark core and lower the maximum mass. A magnetic field, modelled with the chaotic-field averaging $p = (2 p_{\perp} + p_{\parallel})/3 + B^2/6$ and a density profile $B(\rho)=B_{\rm surf}+B_c(1-\exp(-\beta(\rho/\rho_0)^\gamma))$, softens the equation of state and therefore slightly reduces the maximum mass and the stability of the star; it also lowers the critical dark fraction at which a core gives way to a halo. The paper reports that the field's effect is generally very small, even at $B_c = 3 \times 10^{18}$ G, and that current NICER and GW170817 constraints leave a wide region of $(m_\chi, f_\chi)$ compatible with pure neutron stars, with the magnetic field mainly shifting the maximum-mass boundary.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the chaotic-field pressure average $p=(2p_\perp+p_\parallel)/3+B^2/6$ renders the magnetized pressure isotropic enough for the spherical TOV equations to hold at core fields up to $3\times10^{18}$ G, even though the spherical-symmetry checks the paper cites were only tested up to $10^{18}$ G.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For dark-matter masses around 100–200 MeV, increasing the dark-matter fraction produces DM-halo stars with larger radii and higher maximum masses; for masses around 600–1000 MeV it produces dark-core stars with lower maximum masses.
  • A magnetic field up to $B_c = 3\times10^{18}$ G lowers the maximum mass by a few percent and reduces the critical dark-matter fraction at which a core becomes a halo, because the reduction of the matter pressures is not compensated by the $B^2/6$ field contribution.
  • The GW170817 constraint $70<\Lambda_{1.4}<580$ excludes DM-halo configurations with large fractions of light dark matter, since their huge radii produce enormous tidal deformabilities.
  • NICER radius measurements for PSR J0030+0451 and PSR J0740+6620 still permit a wide range of dark-matter parameters; a strong magnetic field mainly restricts the allowed region through the maximum mass.
  • Because a small change in the dark-matter fraction mimics the magnetic field's effect on mass and radius, the magnetic-field influence would be very hard to extract from observations of real magnetars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the chaotic-averaging approximation is pushed beyond the $10^{18}$ G checks to $3\times10^{18}$ G, the predicted few-percent softening could be an artifact; a direct comparison with axisymmetric equilibrium models would settle whether the conclusion survives at the highest fields.
  • The same two-fluid framework could be applied to bosonic or charged dark matter; the magnetic insensitivity found here is not expected to persist if the dark fluid couples to the magnetic field.
  • Since tidal deformability scales as $R^5$, the magnetic field's small radius shift could show up more strongly in $\Lambda$ than in mass or radius alone; computing $\Lambda$ in full 3D would test this.
  • A precise simultaneous mass-radius measurement of a magnetar whose surface field is independently known could be compared with the $B_c=0$ and $B_c=3\times10^{18}$ G predictions; current NICER and GW170817 error bars are too wide to see the effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies nonannihilating self-interacting asymmetric fermionic dark matter (ADM) admixed with highly magnetized neutron stars. The authors combine the QMC-RMF4 hadronic equation of state with density-dependent magnetic fields and a self-interacting DM equation of state, then solve the two-fluid TOV equations to compute mass-radius relations, maximum masses, tidal deformabilities, and the transition between DM-core and DM-halo configurations. The DM self-interaction is fixed to sigma/m_chi = 1 cm^2/g, leaving the DM particle mass and mass fraction as parameters; the magnetic field is incorporated through the chaotic-field isotropic average of the anisotropic pressure. The central quantitative claim is that magnetic fields up to B_c = 3 x 10^18 G change the maximum mass, radius, and tidal deformability by only a few percent relative to the effects of the DM fraction, and that the allowed (m_chi, f_chi) region inferred from NICER and GW170817 is only slightly restricted by the magnetic field.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a useful systematic survey of the combined effects of DM and magnetic fields on neutron star observables, and it correctly highlights a degeneracy: the magnetic-field-induced changes are similar in size to changes produced by a small variation of the DM fraction, so disentangling the two effects observationally is difficult. The two-fluid TOV framework is standard, and the thermodynamic signs in the DM equations of state (Eqs. 20-21) are consistent; the paper is also honest in stating that current observations do not impose global constraints on DM models. The main risk is the isotropic closure used at B_c > 10^18 G, so the quantitative few-percent statement is not yet fully supported by the evidence presented.

major comments (2)
  1. [III.A, Eq. (16), Fig. 1] The central claim that magnetic field effects are very small even at B_c = 3 x 10^18 G rests on the chaotic-field isotropic average p = (2 p_perp + p_par)/3 + B^2/6 and on solving spherical TOV equations with this averaged pressure. The citations given to justify deviations from spherical symmetry below 1% (refs. [72,91,105]) are for fields up to about 10^18 G, while the paper applies the same treatment at 2 and 3 x 10^18 G. At B_c = 3 x 10^18 G the magnetic contribution B^2/6 is approximately 70 MeV/fm^3, which is comparable to the core hadronic pressure displayed in Fig. 1(a); the isotropic closure is therefore not trivially safe at the highest fields. The authors should provide a dedicated validation at B_c = 3 x 10^18 G, for example by estimating the deformation using the anisotropic TOV equations, or by explicitly restricting the quantitative conclusions to fields at which the closure has been tested.
  2. [II.B, Eqs. (24)-(28), Fig. 8] The DM self-interaction cross section is computed with the Born approximation sigma/m = y^4/(pi m_chi^3). The text states that this approximation is very accurate for m_chi <~ 1 GeV and that it remains valid in the limit y -> 0 for larger masses. However, with the fixed constraint sigma/m = 1 cm^2/g, Eq. (28) gives y = 10.94 m_1^(3/4), which is not small for m_chi > 1 GeV (y ~ 25 at m_chi = 3 GeV). The paper nevertheless shows results up to m_chi = 3 GeV in Fig. 8 and concludes that a wide range of DM masses is compatible with observations. Since the DM equation of state and hence the mass-radius and tidal-deformability curves depend on y, the constraints at m_chi > 1 GeV are not justified by the stated validity of Eq. (25). The authors should restrict the plotted range to m_chi <= 1 GeV, use a non-Born cross section for larger masses, or otherwise quantify the error introduced by the Born approximation in this region.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'Neutro Star Interior Composition Explorer' should read 'Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer'.
  2. [II.C] In Sec. II.C, 'Tolman-Oppenheimer-V olkoff' contains a spacing error in 'Volkoff'; please correct this.
  3. [Data Availability] The data availability statement says 'No data were created or analyzed in this study,' but the paper presents many numerical results derived from the models described. Please clarify the intended meaning, for example by stating that no observational data were released but that numerical results are available on request.
  4. [Fig. 8] In Fig. 8, the red, green, and blue regions are described in Sec. III.G, but the figure itself does not label the three regions; adding labels or a legend would make the figure self-contained.
  5. [III.G] The caveat that for low m_chi and high f_chi the normal-matter fraction and density are quite small and the low-density NS EOS is questionable is important; this limitation should be stated in the caption of Fig. 8 as well, and its impact on the corresponding allowed regions should be discussed explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DM parameters are scanned, not fitted, and the high-field averaging is a stated modeling assumption rather than a reduction to the paper's own outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the constraints it uses. The QMC-RMF4 hadronic EOS is stated to be derived by fitting to the chiral-effective-field-theory neutron-matter EOS [65], not to the NICER or GW170817 data that are later used for comparison; the tidal deformability Lambda=454 in Table I is an output of that EOS, so the phrase 'fulfills (by construction)' refers to the model's prediction falling inside the observed range, not to a fit. The DM self-interaction is fixed by the galaxy-cluster cross-section constraint sigma/m_chi=1 cm^2/g, Eq. (26), with the particle mass m_chi and mass fraction f_chi scanned as free parameters; the two-fluid TOV equations (29-31) are solved directly for these inputs and the results are compared with, not fitted to, PSR J0030+0451, PSR J0740+6620, and GW170817. The paper explicitly disclaims that current data impose global DM constraints ('current observational data do not impose any constraints on models of DM'), and labels the Fig. 8 contours as object-specific. Self-citations, in particular [46] for the DM-halo/core classification, are used for extended discussion of a behavior that is reproduced by the paper's own Figs. 3-5, so they are not load-bearing. The chaotic-magnetic-field averaging, Eq. (16), and the density-dependent field profile, Eq. (18), are stated modeling assumptions adopted from the literature rather than results derived from the paper's outputs; whether they are valid at B_c=3e18 G is a scientific-risk/correctness question, not a circularity. No quantity that is predicted is a fitted or self-defined function of the data it is compared against.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's results rest on scanned parameters (m_chi, f_chi, B_c) and on a fixed choice of the self-interaction cross section sigma/m = 1 cm^2/g. The main unproven assumptions are the chaotic-field isotropic averaging at fields up to 3 x 10^18 G, the density-dependent B profile, and the Born approximation for the DM cross section. The QMC-RMF4 nuclear EOS and the two-fluid TOV scheme are imported from prior work. No new particles or forces are introduced by this paper beyond the standard self-interacting DM model.

free parameters (6)
  • DM particle mass m_chi = 0.1, 0.2, 0.6, 1.0 GeV (scanned)
    The DM mass is a free parameter of the asymmetric fermionic DM model; it sets the DM EOS stiffness through the Fermi momentum and, via Eq. (28), the self-interaction coupling y.
  • DM mass fraction f_chi = 0% to 30% (scanned)
    The ratio of dark matter mass to total gravitational mass; varied to study DM core and halo configurations and the resulting maximum mass and tidal deformability.
  • Core magnetic field B_c = 0, 1, 2, 3 x 10^18 G (scanned)
    The central value of the magnetic field in the density-dependent profile Eq. (18); controls the softness of the magnetized hadronic EOS.
  • DM self-interaction cross section sigma/m_chi = 1 cm^2/g = 4560/GeV^3 (fixed)
    Chosen from the observationally allowed range 0.1 to 10 cm^2/g (Eq. 24) to fix y through Eq. (28); this choice sets the interaction strength but is not varied.
  • Magnetic field profile exponent beta = 0.01
    Parameter in Eq. (18) selected by hand to reproduce decaying magnetic field profiles from the literature [88]; not fitted to observed stars.
  • Magnetic field profile exponent gamma = 3
    Parameter in Eq. (18) selected by hand to reproduce standard density-dependent field decay profiles from the literature [88]; not fitted to observed stars.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math General relativistic hydrostatic equilibrium described by the two-fluid Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations (Eqs. 29-31).
    The coupling of the two fluids through the metric potential nu is standard for non-interacting fluids in spherical symmetry.
  • domain assumption Dark matter couples to ordinary matter only gravitationally; no direct interactions enter the EOS.
    Stated in Sec. II.B: DM does not interact directly with ordinary matter and is not involved in chemical equilibrium equations. This is a model choice motivated by asymmetric dark matter scenarios.
  • domain assumption The chaotic magnetic field allows an isotropic average pressure p = (2 p_perp + p_par)/3 + B^2/6 (Eq. 16) and spherical TOV.
    Adopted in Sec. II.A to use standard TOV. The paper cites refs [72,91,105] for deviations below 1 percent, but applies the assumption to 3 x 10^18 G without a dedicated check.
  • domain assumption The density-dependent magnetic field profile Eq. (18) with beta = 0.01 and gamma = 3 describes the field inside the star.
    Assumed in Sec. II.A based on prior parametrizations [88-91]; no first-principles derivation is provided.
  • domain assumption The Born approximation sigma/m = y^4/(pi m_chi^3) (Eq. 25) is valid for the chosen DM masses and couplings.
    Used to fix y from the observed cross section constraint; the paper states it is accurate for m_chi below about 1 GeV, though y ~ 10 at 1 GeV may be in a nonperturbative regime.
  • domain assumption The QMC-RMF4 hadronic EOS from ref [65] is a valid nuclear matter EOS and its parameters are not re-derived in this paper.
    The EOS is taken from prior work; Table I compares its predictions with observations but the model is not derived here.
  • standard math Landau level quantization for charged particles in a uniform magnetic field (Eqs. 4-7) and neglect of the anomalous magnetic moment.
    Standard treatment of magnetized matter in the mean-field approximation; the anomalous magnetic moment is dropped with justification from ref [82].
  • domain assumption Beta equilibrium and charge neutrality (Eq. 17) determine the composition of baryonic matter.
    Standard conditions for cold catalyzed neutron star matter; DM does not participate in these conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of asymmetric dark matter on a magnetized neutron star: A two-fluid approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EHS2XEKS

@misc{pith2026241221097,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of asymmetric dark matter on a magnetized neutron star: A two-fluid approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EHS2XEKS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.21097}
}
read the original abstract

We study the interaction between dark matter (DM) and highly magnetized neutron stars (NSs), focusing on how DM particle mass, mass fraction, and magnetic field (MF) strength affect NS structure and stability. We consider self-interacting, nonannihilating, asymmetric fermionic DM that couples to NSs only through gravitational interaction. Using the Quantum Monte Carlo Relativistic Mean Field (QMC-RMF4) model with density-dependent magnetic fields, we investigate the magnetized equation of state and examine the accumulation of DM under various conditions. Our results show that as the DM fraction increases, the maximum gravitational mass of the NS decreases, especially for heavier DM particles, while lighter DM particles can induce a transition from a dark core to a halo structure, increasing the maximum mass. Strong MFs soften the equation of state and reduce the dark mass a NS core can retain before transitioning to a halo. By comparing our results with observations from Neutro Star Interior Composition Explorer and GW170817, we identify the possible range of DM parameters for these objects. We find that the magnetic field slightly changes these limits, mainly affecting the maximum NS mass and tidal deformability. These findings provide key insights into how DM and MF jointly shape the mass-radius relation and the stability of DM-admixed magnetized NSs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.21097 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Upper panel (a): QMC-RMF4 EOS for magnetized NS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Pure DM EOS with different masses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The radial energy-density profiles of magnetized DNSs for the DM EOSs shown in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. At different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The maximum gravitational mass as a function of DM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The mass and radius constraints from NICER measurements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Effects of dark matter and magnetic field on neutron star properties in relativistic mean-field theory: A single-fluid approach

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Fermionic dark matter and strong central magnetic fields both reduce neutron-star maximum mass and radius and lower tidal deformability in single-fluid RMF models, remaining compatible with GW/NICER constraints over t...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C97, 025805 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Li and X

    B.-A. Li and X. Han, Phys. Lett. B727, 276 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Klähn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015007 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Shlomo, V

    S. Shlomo, V . M. Kolomietz, and G. Colò, Eur. Phys. J. A30, 23 (2006)

    2006

  5. [5]

    Piekarewicz, J

    J. Piekarewicz, J. Phys. G37, 064038 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

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

    2022

  7. [7]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann,et al., APJ918, L28 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rep.405, 279 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    V . C. Rubin and J. Ford, W. Kent, Astrophys. J.159, 379 (1970)

    1970

  3. [11]

    V . C. Rubin, J. Ford, W. K., and N. Thonnard, Astrophys. J. 238, 471 (1980)

    1980

  4. [12]

    Clowe, M

    D. Clowe, M. Brada ˇc, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky, Astrophys. J.648, L109 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    Komatsuet al., Astrophys

    E. Komatsuet al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.192, 18 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Bertone and M

    G. Bertone and M. Fairbairn, Phys. Rev. D77, 043515 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, T. F. Motta, S. Robles, A. W. Thomas, and M. Virgato, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 111803 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Kain, Phys

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

    2021

  9. [18]

    Goldman and S

    I. Goldman and S. Nussinov, Phys. Rev. D40, 3221 (1989)

    1989

  10. [19]

    Narain, J

    G. Narain, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and I. N. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. D74, 063003 (2006)

    2006

  11. [20]

    Kouvaris, Phys

    C. Kouvaris, Phys. Rev. D77, 023006 (2008)

    2008

  12. [21]

    Kouvaris and P

    C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D82, 063531 (2010)

    2010

  13. [22]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell,et al., JHEP2010, 80 (2010)

    2010

  14. [23]

    Kouvaris and P

    C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D83, 083512 (2011)

    2011

  15. [24]

    Kouvaris, Phys

    C. Kouvaris, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 191301 (2012)

    2012

  16. [25]

    Goldman, R

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

    2013

  17. [26]

    T. Han, Z. Liu, and S. Su, JHEP2014, 93 (2014)

    2014

  18. [27]

    Panotopoulos and I

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

    2017

  19. [28]

    Bernal, M

    N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen,et al., IJMP A32, 1730023 (2017)

    2017

  20. [29]

    A. E. Nelson, S. Reddy, and D. Zhou, JCAP2019, 012 (2019)

    2019

  21. [30]

    M. I. Gresham and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D99, 083008 (2019)

    2019

  22. [31]

    H. C. Das, A. Kumar, B. Kumar, S. K. Biswal, T. Nakatsukasa, A. Li, and S. K. Patra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.495, 4893 (2020)

    2020

  23. [32]

    Ivanytskyi, V

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

    2020

  24. [33]

    A. Das, T. Malik, and A. C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. D105, 123034 (2022)

    2022

  25. [34]

    Rafiei Karkevandi, S

    D. Rafiei Karkevandi, S. Shakeri, V . Sagun, and O. Ivanytskyi, Phys. Rev. D105, 023001 (2022)

    2022

  26. [35]

    Leung, M.-C

    K.-L. Leung, M.-C. Chu, and L.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D105, 123010 (2022)

    2022

  27. [36]

    Collier, D

    M. Collier, D. Croon, and R. K. Leane, Phys. Rev. D106, 123027 (2022)

    2022

  28. [37]

    Z. Miao, Y . Zhu, A. Li, and F. Huang, Astrophys. J.936, 69 (2022). 10

    2022

  29. [38]

    Routaray, H

    P. Routaray, H. C. Das, S. Sen, B. Kumar, G. Panotopoulos, and T. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D107, 103039 (2023)

    2023

  30. [39]

    Rutherford, G

    N. Rutherford, G. Raaijmakers, C. Prescod-Weinstein, and A. Watts, Phys. Rev. D107, 103051 (2023)

    2023

  31. [40]

    Mariani, C

    M. Mariani, C. Albertus, M. d. R. Alessandroni, M. G. Or- saria, M. A. Pérez-García, and I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.527, 6795 (2023)

    2023

  32. [41]

    Routaray, A

    P. Routaray, A. Quddus, K. Chakravarti, and B. Kumar, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.525, 5492 (2023)

    2023

  33. [42]

    Routaray, S

    P. Routaray, S. R. Mohanty, H. Das, S. Ghosh, P. Kalita, V . Par- mar, and B. Kumar, JCAP2023, 073 (2023)

    2023

  34. [43]

    Liu, J.-B

    H.-M. Liu, J.-B. Wei, Z.-H. Li, G. F. Burgio, and H.-J. Schulze, Physics of the Dark Universe42, 101338 (2023)

    2023

  35. [44]

    Rafiei Karkevandi, M

    D. Rafiei Karkevandi, M. Shahrbaf, S. Shakeri, and S. Typel, Particles7, 201 (2024)

    2024

  36. [45]

    Shakeri and D

    S. Shakeri and D. R. Karkevandi, Phys. Rev. D109, 043029 (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    Liu, J.-B

    H.-M. Liu, J.-B. Wei, Z.-H. Li, G. F. Burgio, H. C. Das, and H.-J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D110, 023024 (2024)

    2024

  38. [47]

    Routaray, H

    P. Routaray, H. Das, J. A. Pattnaik, and B. Kumar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2450052 (2024)

    2024

  39. [48]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex,et al., Science340, 1233232 (2013)

    2013

  40. [49]

    Fonseca, H

    E. Fonseca, H. T. Cromartie, T. T. Pennucci,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L12 (2021)

    2021

  41. [50]

    V . M. Kaspi, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences107, 7147 (2010)

    2010

  42. [51]

    V . M. Kaspi and A. M. Beloborodov, Annu. Rev. Astron. As- trophys.55, 261 (2017)

    2017

  43. [52]

    Makishima, T

    K. Makishima, T. Enoto, J. S. Hiraga, T. Nakano, K. Nakazawa, S. Sakurai, M. Sasano, and H. Murakami, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 171102 (2014)

    2014

  44. [53]

    Chandrasekhar and E

    S. Chandrasekhar and E. Fermi, Astrophys. J.118, 116 (1953)

    1953

  45. [54]

    Lai and S

    D. Lai and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J.383, 745 (1991)

    1991

  46. [55]

    E. J. Ferrer, V . de la Incera, J. P. Keith, I. Portillo, and P. L. Springsteen, Phys. Rev. C82, 065802 (2010)

    2010

  47. [56]

    A. A. Isayev and J. Yang, J. Phys. G40, 035105 (2013)

    2013

  48. [57]

    S. K. Lander, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett.507, L36 (2021)

    2021

  49. [58]

    Masada, T

    Y . Masada, T. Takiwaki, and K. Kotake, Astrophys. J.924, 75 (2022)

    2022

  50. [59]

    Glampedakis, N

    K. Glampedakis, N. Andersson, and L. Samuelsson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.410, 805 (2010)

    2010

  51. [60]

    S. K. Lander, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 071101 (2013)

    2013

  52. [61]

    Kern and C

    B. Kern and C. Martin, Nature417, 527 (2002)

    2002

  53. [62]

    Hurley, Advances in Space Research47, 1326 (2011)

    K. Hurley, Advances in Space Research47, 1326 (2011)

    2011

  54. [63]

    Lattimer, Ann

    J. Lattimer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sc.71, 433 (2021)

    2021

  55. [64]

    Y . Gao, L. Shao, G. Desvignes, D. I. Jones, M. Kramer, and G. Yim, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.519, 1080 (2022)

    2022

  56. [65]

    M. G. Alford, L. Brodie, A. Haber, and I. Tews, Phys. Rev. C 106, 055804 (2022)

    2022

  57. [66]

    Broderick, M

    A. Broderick, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, Astrophys. J. 537, 351 (2000)

    2000

  58. [67]

    Strickland, V

    M. Strickland, V . Dexheimer, and D. P. Menezes, Phys. Rev. D86, 125032 (2012)

    2012

  59. [68]

    Parmar, H

    V . Parmar, H. C. Das, M. K. Sharma, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D107, 043022 (2023)

    2023

  60. [69]

    Parmar, H

    V . Parmar, H. C. Das, A. Kumar, M. K. Sharma , and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D105, 043017 (2022)

    2022

  61. [70]

    J. Fang, H. Pais, S. Pratapsi,et al., Phys. Rev. C95, 062801 (2017)

    2017

  62. [71]

    Goyal, V

    A. Goyal, V . K. Gupta, K. Goswami, and V . Tuli, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16, 347 (2001)

    2001

  63. [72]

    N. K. Patra, T. Malik, D. Sen,et al., Astrophys. J.900, 49 (2020)

    2020

  64. [73]

    Müller and B

    H. Müller and B. D. Serot, Nucl. Phys. A606, 508 (1996)

    1996

  65. [74]

    Wang, Phys

    P. Wang, Phys. Rev. C61, 054904 (2000)

    2000

  66. [75]

    S. K. Patra, M. Centelles, X. Viñas,et al., Phys. Rev. C65, 044304 (2002)

    2002

  67. [76]

    Kumar, H

    A. Kumar, H. C. Das, S. K. Biswal,et al., Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020)

    2020

  68. [77]

    H. C. Das, A. Kumar, B. Kumar,et al., JCAP2021, 007 (2021)

    2021

  69. [78]

    Kumar, S

    B. Kumar, S. K. Patra, and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C97, 045806 (2018)

    2018

  70. [79]

    Parmar, H

    V . Parmar, H. C. Das, M. K. Sharma,et al., Phys. Rev. D107, 043022 (2023)

    2023

  71. [80]

    Chakrabarty, Phys

    S. Chakrabarty, Phys. Rev. D54, 1306 (1996)

    1996

  72. [81]

    Mariani, M

    M. Mariani, M. G. Orsaria, I. F. Ranea-Sandoval,et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.489, 4261 (2019)

    2019

  73. [82]

    Mariani, L

    M. Mariani, L. Tonetto, M. C. Rodríguez, M. O. Celi, I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, M. G. Orsaria, and A. Pérez Martínez, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.512, 517 (2022)

    2022

  74. [83]

    Chatterjee, J

    D. Chatterjee, J. Novak, and M. Oertel, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 249 (2021)

    2021

  75. [84]

    Bednarek, A

    I. Bednarek, A. Brzezina, R. Ma ´nka, and M. Zastawny- Kubica, Nucl. Phys. A716, 245 (2003)

    2003

  76. [85]

    Lopes and D

    L. Lopes and D. Menezes, JCAP2015, 002 (2015)

    2015

  77. [86]

    C. V . Flores, L. B. Castro, and G. Lugones, Phys. Rev. C94, 015807 (2016)

    2016

  78. [87]

    Parmar, H

    V . Parmar, H. C. Das, M. K. Sharma, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D108, 083003 (2023)

    2023

  79. [88]

    Bandyopadhyay, S

    D. Bandyopadhyay, S. Chakrabarty, and S. Pal, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 2176 (1997)

    1997

  80. [89]

    Rabhi, H

    A. Rabhi, H. Pais, P. K. Panda, and C. Providência, J. Phys. G 36, 115204 (2009)

    2009

  81. [90]

    Mallick and S

    R. Mallick and S. Schramm, Phys. Rev. C89, 045805 (2014)

    2014

  82. [91]

    G. H. Bordbar and M. Karami, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 74 (2022)

    2022

  83. [92]

    Güver, E

    T. Güver, E. Gö ˘gü¸ s, and F. Özel, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 418, 2773 (2011)

    2011

  84. [93]

    R. H. Casali, L. B. Castro, and D. P. Menezes, Phys. Rev. C 89, 015805 (2014)

    2014

  85. [94]

    M. F. Barbat, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and L. Tolos, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023013 (2024)

    2024

  86. [95]

    Markevitch, A

    M. Markevitch, A. H. Gonzalez, D. Clowe, A. Vikhlinin, W. Forman, C. Jones, S. Murray, and W. Tucker, Astrophys. J.606, 819 (2004)

    2004

  87. [96]

    Kaplinghat, S

    M. Kaplinghat, S. Tulin, and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 041302 (2016)

    2016

  88. [97]

    Sagunski, S

    L. Sagunski, S. Gad-Nasr, B. Colquhoun, A. Robertson, and S. Tulin, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2021, 024 (2021)

    2021

  89. [98]

    Loeb, Astrophys

    A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. Lett.929, L24 (2022)

    2022

  90. [99]

    Tulin, H.-B

    S. Tulin, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D87, 115007 (2013)

    2013

  91. [100]

    K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rep.537, 91 (2014)

    2014

  92. [101]

    Kouvaris and N

    C. Kouvaris and N. G. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. D92, 063526 (2015)

    2015

  93. [102]

    Maselli, P

    A. Maselli, P. Pnigouras, N. G. Nielsen, C. Kouvaris, and K. D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. D96, 023005 (2017)

    2017

  94. [103]

    Salmiet al., Astrophys

    T. Salmiet al., Astrophys. J.974, 294 (2024)

    2024

  95. [104]

    Vinciguerraet al., Astrophys

    S. Vinciguerraet al., Astrophys. J.961, 62 (2024)

    2024

  96. [105]

    P.-C. Chu, X. Wang, L.-W. Chen, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D91, 023003 (2015)

    2015

  97. [106]

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

    2017

  98. [107]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J.677, 1216 (2008)

    2008

  99. [108]

    Kumar, S

    B. Kumar, S. K. Biswal, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. C95, 015801 (2017). 11

    2017

  100. [109]

    I. A. Rather, U. Rahaman, V . Dexheimer, A. A. Usmani, and S. K. Patra, Astrophys. J.917, 46 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.