Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 93 references

Dark matter does not always shrink neutron stars: light particles make halos that raise tidal deformability, heavy ones make cores that lower it, bounding the dark fraction to about 11 percent for light dark matter.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 23:35 UTC pith:LRGSMQX5

load-bearing objection Clean first agnostic two-fluid treatment of both nuclear and dark EoSs; the core/halo dichotomy and f_DM ≲ 0.11 bound for light DM are solid within the stated premises. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03840 v1 pith:LRGSMQX5 submitted 2026-07-04 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Neutron stars with an agnostic Dark sector: Core and Halo configurations from a two-fluid approach

Asit karan , Asim Kumar Saha , Tuhin Malik , Constan\c{c}a Provid\^encia , Ritam Mallick This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE hep-ph
keywords dark-matter-admixed neutron starstwo-fluid TOVspeed-of-sound interpolationtidal deformabilityNICER mass-radiuscore-halo configurationsagnostic equation of state
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper builds dark-matter-admixed neutron stars with almost no commitment to the particle nature of the dark sector. Both nuclear matter and dark matter equations of state are generated by the same speed-of-sound interpolation: nuclear matter is fixed at low density by chiral effective field theory and at high density by perturbative QCD, while dark matter is fixed only at low density as a free Fermi gas of given particle mass and is free thereafter. Solving the two-fluid stellar-structure equations for roughly 100,000 sequences shows that light dark matter tends to form extended halos that increase the star’s tidal deformability, whereas heavy dark matter forms compact cores that decrease it. As a result the strongest observational bound flips: gravitational-wave tidal data limit light (halo) models, while NICER mass–radius data limit heavy (core) models. Current 1-sigma data already restrict the dark-matter mass fraction to less than or equal to about 0.11 for light dark matter. The framework therefore supplies conservative, microphysics-independent upper limits and points to a possible smoking-gun signature—neutron stars of similar mass but very different tidal deformabilities.

Core claim

Within a fully agnostic two-fluid construction, dark matter does not generically compactify a neutron star. Light dark-matter particles (masses around or below a few hundred MeV) form extended halos that raise the tidal deformability, while heavier particles form dense cores that lower it. Consequently the dominant observational constraint shifts from GW170817 tidal deformability for halo-dominated models to NICER mass–radius measurements for core-dominated models, yielding the bound f_DM ≲ 0.11 for light dark matter at the 1-sigma level.

What carries the argument

A single multi-segment speed-of-sound interpolation applied to both sectors: nuclear matter is doubly anchored (CET at low density, pQCD at high density), dark matter is singly anchored (free Fermi gas of bare mass m_D below 0.1 n_0) and otherwise free subject only to thermodynamic consistency and causality; the resulting EoSs enter the two-fluid TOV and tidal equations.

Load-bearing premise

Dark matter at low density is treated as a free Fermi gas of fixed particle mass, the two fluids interact only through gravity, and the dark equation of state has no high-density theoretical anchor.

What would settle it

A pair of neutron stars with nearly identical gravitational masses but tidal deformabilities that differ by an amount far larger than the pure-hadronic scatter would support the halo scenario; conversely, a high-mass star whose radius is smaller than any pure-hadronic model consistent with the same mass would support the core scenario. Either observation, or a future tightening of the 1.4-solar-mass tidal bound below the values allowed by the surviving halo models, would test the claimed bounds.

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

If this is right

  • Light dark-matter fractions above roughly 11 percent are already disfavored by existing GW170817 data under the agnostic construction.
  • For heavy dark matter the NICER mass–radius windows become the leading constraint, so future radius measurements of massive pulsars will tighten the allowed core fraction.
  • Detection of two neutron stars with similar masses but markedly different tidal deformabilities would be a direct signature of a dark-matter halo in one of them.
  • The same framework can be re-run with any new multi-messenger data set without re-committing to a specific dark-matter particle model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the dark equation of state is deliberately free of high-density anchors, the quoted bounds are intentionally conservative; any realistic self-interaction or high-density stiffening would only strengthen the exclusion of large dark fractions.
  • The transition mass between core and halo configurations (shown for 0.3 GeV and 1.0 GeV particles) suggests that a modest population of low-mass neutron stars with unexpectedly large tidal deformabilities would be the cleanest place to look for light dark matter.
  • If future X-ray missions deliver sub-kilometer radius uncertainties at 2 solar masses, the core-dominated models will be tested more stringently than the halo models, reversing the present hierarchy of constraints.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs dark-matter-admixed neutron stars in a two-fluid TOV formalism in which both the nuclear and dark equations of state are generated by the same multi-segment speed-of-sound interpolation. Nuclear matter is anchored by CET at low density and pQCD at high density; dark matter is a free Fermi gas of bare mass m_D below 0.1 n_0 and is thereafter unconstrained except by causality and thermodynamic consistency. Large ensembles (~10^5 sequences per m_D) spanning m_D = 0.2–1.1 GeV and f_DM = 0.01–0.15 are filtered against NICER mass–radius posteriors, the GW170817 tidal bound, and a 2.01 M_⊙ maximum-mass requirement. The central results are that light DM forms extended halos that raise tidal deformability while heavy DM forms compact cores that lower it, that the dominant observational constraint therefore shifts from GW to NICER with increasing m_D, and that current 1σ data limit f_DM ≲ 0.11 for light DM. Neutron stars of similar mass but very different Λ are proposed as a smoking-gun signature.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies the first fully agnostic, two-fluid survey of both nuclear and dark EoSs and cleanly separates the generic structural imprint of a dark component from model-specific microphysics. The core/halo dichotomy, the associated shift in dominant constraint, and the conservative f_DM bound are falsifiable with existing and forthcoming multi-messenger data and therefore constitute a useful benchmark for the field. The large, systematically sampled ensembles and the explicit classification of Core, Halo, Core–Halo and Halo–Core sequences (Figs. 5–8) are genuine strengths that go beyond most earlier single-model studies.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. III.A and the abstract state the f_DM ≲ 0.11 bound using 1σ NICER windows (and the corresponding GW+2.01 cut). Appendix B shows that relaxing to broader windows still excludes high f_DM, but the quantitative 0.11 figure is tied to the 1σ choice. The abstract and conclusions should either restate the bound as “at 1σ” with a clear 2σ counterpart, or demonstrate that the same numerical limit survives the broader cuts of Appendix B; otherwise the headline number overstates the robustness of the constraint.
  2. Sec. II.A.2 anchors the DM EoS to a free Fermi gas at n < 0.1 n_0 with no high-density asymptotic condition. The authors correctly flag this for future work, yet the entire core/halo classification and the f_DM limit rest on that choice. A short sensitivity test (varying the anchor density by a factor of a few, or replacing the free-gas segment by a polytrope of comparable stiffness) would show whether the qualitative dichotomy and the 0.11 bound are stable; without it the claim of “almost model-independent” bounds remains provisional.
minor comments (4)
  1. Fig. 3 colour bars and contour labels are dense; a clearer legend distinguishing “Total” from “NICER 1σ” / “GW+2.01” would improve readability.
  2. Eq. (17) for C_eff^{2} is standard but the notation mixes C^{2}_s,NM with C^{2}_eff; a brief clarifying sentence would help non-specialists.
  3. The abstract ends with “Neutron stars” capitalised mid-sentence; trivial typographical fix.
  4. Data-availability statement says “no data”; releasing the sampled (m_D, f_DM, configuration-type) tables would make the survival fractions fully reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: agnostic ensembles are filtered by external multi-messenger data; claimed bounds and core/halo dichotomy are not recovered by construction from fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) construct NM EoS via CET low-density + pQCD high-density anchors plus randomized multi-segment c_s^2 interpolation (Sec. II.A.1, Eqs. 1-4, following external Ref. [7]); (ii) construct DM EoS as free Fermi gas of bare mass m_D below 0.1 n_0 (Eqs. 5-7) plus the same randomized c_s^2 interpolation with only thermodynamic consistency (Sec. II.A.2); (iii) solve the standard two-fluid TOV + tidal equations (Eqs. 8-17) for ~10^5 random (NM, DM, f_DM) sequences; (iv) retain only those sequences that simultaneously satisfy external NICER 1σ mass-radius posteriors, GW170817 70 ≤ Λ_1.4 ≤ 580, and M_max ≥ 2.01 M_⊙. The reported f_DM ≲ 0.11 limit for light DM and the light-halo / heavy-core dichotomy are simply the measured survival fractions and configuration counts after these external cuts (Figs. 3-8). No parameter is fitted to the target observables and then re-used as a “prediction”; the low-density Fermi-gas choice and purely gravitational coupling are stated assumptions (flagged by the authors for future checks), not self-definitions of the final bounds. Self-citations are limited to standard methods already in the literature and are not load-bearing uniqueness claims. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard multi-messenger data and the two-fluid TOV formalism, plus a small set of modeling choices for the dark sector that the authors themselves flag as provisional. No new particles or forces are invented; free parameters are sampling ranges rather than fitted constants that force the result.

free parameters (5)
  • DM particle mass m_D = 0.2–1.1 GeV (scanned)
    Scanned over 0.2–1.1 GeV; the core/halo transition and the numerical value of the f_DM bound depend on this choice.
  • DM mass fraction f_DM = 0.01–0.15 (scanned)
    Uniformly sampled 0.01–0.15; the survival curves and the quoted upper limit are functions of this range.
  • DM low-density anchor density = 0.1 n_0
    Fixed by hand at 0.1 n_0; authors note it will be varied in future work.
  • Number and placement of c_s^2 segments = 5 segments
    Five randomized segments with µ_i drawn up to 2.6 GeV and c_s^2 ∈ [0,1]; controls the flexibility of both NM and DM EoSs.
  • pQCD renormalization-scale parameter X = [1,4]
    Sampled in [1,4] for the high-density NM anchor.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Nuclear and dark matter interact only gravitationally (two-fluid TOV equations).
    Stated in Sec. II.B; standard for non-interacting dark sectors but excludes portal or self-interacting models.
  • ad hoc to paper Dark matter below 0.1 n_0 is a free Fermi gas of bare mass m_D.
    Sec. II.A.2; authors plan to test bosonic alternatives and different anchor densities.
  • domain assumption Speed-of-sound interpolation between CET and pQCD (NM) or above the Fermi-gas anchor (DM) is thermodynamically consistent and causal.
    Standard agnostic technique of Ref. [7]; used for both sectors.
  • domain assumption Observable radius is the nuclear-matter radius R_NM even when a dark-matter halo is present.
    Sec. II.B; electromagnetic observations see only the baryonic surface.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 30607 in / 3069 out tokens · 34281 ms · 2026-07-11T23:35:05.573901+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The study of dark matter admixed neutron stars has the potential to advance our understanding of dark matter particle candidates. However, the large parameter space of dark matter particle masses restricts a systematic, model-independent study. In this analysis, we employ agnostic hadronic and dark matter equations of state to construct dark-matter-admixed neutron stars within a two-fluid formalism. Dark matter is characterised solely by its low-density equation of state and mass, and is modelled as a Fermi gas, while hadronic matter is anchored at low and high densities by chiral effective field theory and perturbative quantum chromodynamics calculations. A speed-of-sound parametrisation covers the intermediate density region for hadronic matter and the high-density region for dark matter, so the dark matter equation of state is constrained only by thermodynamic consistency, free from bias toward a softer or stiffer equation of state. Within this agnostic framework, we find that dark matter does not generically compactify the star: light dark matter forms extended halos that raise the tidal deformability, while heavy dark matter forms compact cores that lower it. Consequently, the dominant observational constraint shifts from gravitational-wave tidal deformability for light, halo-dominated models to NICER mass--radius data for heavy, core-dominated models. Using current data at $1\sigma$, we constrain the dark matter fraction to $f_{\mathrm{DM}} \lesssim 0.11$ for light dark matter. Being almost independent of any assumed dark-sector microphysics, our framework yields conservative, broadly applicable bounds on the dark-matter content of neutron stars. Neutron stars with similar masses but very different tidal deformabilities could be a smoking-gun signature of dark matter in Neutron stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03840 by Asim Kumar Saha, Asit Karan, Constan\c{c}a Provid\^encia, Ritam Mallick, Tuhin Malik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic diagram highlighting the differences in how the parameters for the nuclear-matter and dark-matter EoS are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Equations of state (pressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Mass–radius ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Normalised survival fraction of M–R sequences, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Four possible mass–radius configuration types for DMANS as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: for this light mass model, the dark matter tends to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Statistical distribution of the number of M–R relations belonging to four different configuration categories: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Distribution of dark-matter-admixed neutron star configurations in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Distribution of the core–halo transition mass, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Normalised survival fraction, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Same as Fig. 4, but including the broader GW170817 tidal deformability constraint, GW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Nuclear matter EoS We construct our high-density NM EoS following the formalism of Ref. [7]. Up to the subnuclear density∼ 0.5n 0 we use the tabulated BPS EoS [11]. Continuing up to a density of∼1.1n 0, we use polytropes of the formP=Kn Γ, with Γ∈[1.77,3.23] chosen to span the CET band [39]. Above this density, we implement a five- segment speed-of-sound ...

  2. [2]

    NICER 1σ

    Dark matter EoS Various dark matter models, including fermionic and bosonic scenarios, have already been extensively stud- ied [21, 22, 33, 43, 44, 67, 68, 72, 91]. In the present work, however, we do not attempt to favour or priori- tise any specific microscopic dark matter model. Instead, we adopt an agnostic approach for constructing the dark matter Eo...

    doi:10.54499/uidb/04564/2020 2000

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Gw170817: Observation of gravita- tional waves from a binary neutron star inspiral. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119(16):161101, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Gw170817: Measurements of neu- tron star radii and equation of state. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(16):161101, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Properties of the binary neutron star merger gw170817. Phys. Rev. X, 9(1):011001, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    Altiparmak, C

    S. Altiparmak, C. Ecker, and L. Rezzolla. On the sound speed in neutron stars. Astrophys. J. Lett., 939(2):L34, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, J. Hirvonen, O. Komoltsev, A. Kurkela, J. N¨ attil¨ a, and A. Vuorinen. Strongly in- teracting matter exhibits deconfined behavior in massive neutron stars. Nature Commun., 14:8451, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, E. Katerini, A. Kurkela, J. N¨ attil¨ a, V. Paschalidis, and A. Vuorinen. Multimessenger constraints for ultradense matter. Phys. Rev. X, 12(1):011058, 2022

    2022

  9. [9]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. N¨ attil¨ a, and A. Vuorinen. Evidence for quark-matter cores in mas- sive neutron stars. Nature Phys., 16(9):907, 2020

    2020

  10. [10]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuori- nen. Gravitational-wave constraints on the neutron- star-matter equation of state. Phys. Rev. Lett., 120(17):172703, 2018

    2018

  11. [11]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. A massive pulsar in a compact rela- tivistic binary. Science, 340:1233232, 2013

    2013

  12. [12]

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka. From hadrons to quarks in neutron stars: a review. Rept. Prog. Phys., 81(5):056902, 2018

    2018

  13. [13]

    G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland. The ground state of matter at high densities: Equation of state and stellar models. Astrophys. J., 170:299, 1971

    1971

  14. [14]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, S. Robles, and M. Virgato. Im- proved treatment of dark matter capture in neutron stars. JCAP, 09:028, 2020

    2020

  15. [15]

    Bertone and M

    G. Bertone and M. Fairbairn. Compact stars as dark matter probes. Phys. Rev. D, 77:043515, 2008

    2008

  16. [16]

    Brandes, W

    L. Brandes, W. Weise, and N. Kaiser. Inference of the sound speed and related properties of neutron stars. Phys. Rev. D, 107(1):014011, 2023

    2023

  17. [17]

    G. F. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, I. Vida˜ na, and J.-B. Wei. Neutron stars and the nuclear equation of state. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 120:103879, 2021

    2021

  18. [18]

    Choudhury et al

    D. Choudhury et al. A nicer view of the nearest and brightest millisecond pulsar: Psr j0437-4715. Astrophys. J. Lett., 971(1):L20, 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    Ciarcelluti and F

    P. Ciarcelluti and F. Sandin. Have neutron stars a dark matter core? Phys. Lett. B, 695:19, 2011

    2011

  20. [20]

    Collier, D

    M. Collier, D. Croon, and R. K. Leane. Tidal love num- bers of novel and admixed celestial objects. Phys. Rev. D, 106(12):123027, 2022

    2022

  21. [21]

    H. T. Cromartie et al. Relativistic shapiro delay mea- surements of an extremely massive millisecond pulsar. Nature Astron., 4(1):72, 2020

    2020

  22. [22]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar. Relativistic tidal properties of neutron stars. Phys. Rev. D, 80:084035, 2009

    2009

  23. [23]

    A. Das, T. Malik, and A. C. Nayak. Confronting nu- clear equation of state in the presence of dark matter us- 15 ing gw170817 observation in relativistic mean field theory approach. Phys. Rev. D, 99(4):043016, 2019

    2019

  24. [24]

    A. Das, T. Malik, and A. C. Nayak. Dark matter ad- mixed neutron star properties in light of gravitational wave observations: A two fluid approach. Phys. Rev. D, 105(12):123034, 2022

    2022

  25. [25]

    de Lavallaz and M

    A. de Lavallaz and M. Fairbairn. Neutron stars as dark matter probes. Phys. Rev. D, 81:123521, 2010

    2010

  26. [26]

    P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts, and J. W. T. Hessels. A two-solar-mass neu- tron star measured using shapiro delay.Nature, 467:1081, 2010

    2010

  27. [27]

    R. F. Diedrichs, N. Becker, C. J¨ ockel, J.-E. Christian, L. Sagunski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich. Tidal deformability of fermion-boson stars: Neutron stars admixed with ul- tralight dark matter. Phys. Rev. D, 108(6):064009, 2023

    2023

  28. [28]

    A. J. Dittmann et al. A more precise measurement of the radius of psr j0740+6620 using updated nicer data. Astrophys. J., 974(2):295, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    Doroshenko, V

    V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. P¨ uhlhofer, and A. Santangelo. A strangely light neutron star within a su- pernova remnant. Nature Astronomy, 6:1444–1451, Dec. 2022

    2022

  30. [30]

    Drischler, K

    C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk. Chiral interac- tions up to next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order and nu- clear saturation. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(4):042501, 2019

    2019

  31. [31]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. W. Holt, and C. Wellenhofer. Chiral ef- fective field theory and the high-density nuclear equation of state. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 71:403, 2021

    2021

  32. [32]

    Essick, P

    R. Essick, P. Landry, and D. E. Holz. Nonparamet- ric inference of neutron star composition, equation of state, and maximum mass with gw170817. Phys. Rev. D, 101(6):063007, 2020

    2020

  33. [33]

    Fonseca et al

    E. Fonseca et al. Refined mass and geometric measure- ments of the high-mass psr j0740+6620. Astrophys. J. Lett., 915(1):L12, 2021

    2021

  34. [34]

    E. S. Fraga, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuorinen. Interact- ing quark matter equation of state for compact stars. Astrophys. J. Lett., 781(2):L25, 2014

    2014

  35. [35]

    Giangrandi, V

    E. Giangrandi, V. Sagun, O. Ivanytskyi, C. Providˆ encia, and T. Dietrich. The effects of self-interacting bosonic dark matter on neutron star properties. Astrophys. J., 953(1):115, 2023

    2023

  36. [36]

    Goldman, R

    I. Goldman, R. N. Mohapatra, S. Nussinov, D. Rosen- baum, and V. Teplitz. Possible implications of asymmet- ric fermionic dark matter for neutron stars. Phys. Lett. B, 725:200, 2013

    2013

  37. [37]

    Goldman and S

    I. Goldman and S. Nussinov. Weakly interacting massive particles and neutron stars. Phys. Rev. D, 40:3221, 1989

    1989

  38. [38]

    Gorda, O

    T. Gorda, O. Komoltsev, and A. Kurkela. Ab-initio qcd calculations impact the inference of the neutron-star- matter equation of state. Astrophys. J., 950(2):107, 2023

    2023

  39. [39]

    Gorda, A

    T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, S. S¨ appi, and A. Vuorinen. Next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order pres- sure of cold quark matter: Leading logarithm. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(20):202701, 2018

    2018

  40. [40]

    S. K. Greif, G. Raaijmakers, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, and A. L. Watts. Equation of state sensitivities when inferring neutron star and dense matter properties. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 485:5363, 2019

    2019

  41. [41]

    Hebeler, J

    K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk. Equation of state and neutron star prop- erties constrained by nuclear physics and observation. Astrophys. J., 773:11, 2013

    2013

  42. [42]

    Hebeler and A

    K. Hebeler and A. Schwenk. Chiral three-nucleon forces and neutron matter. Phys. Rev. C, 82:014314, 2010

    2010

  43. [43]

    Hinderer

    T. Hinderer. Tidal love numbers of neutron stars. Astrophys. J., 677:1216, 2008

    2008

  44. [44]

    Hinderer, B

    T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, and J. S. Read. Tidal deformability of neutron stars with realistic equa- tions of state and their gravitational wave signatures in binary inspiral. Phys. Rev. D, 81:123016, 2010

    2010

  45. [45]

    Ivanytskyi, V

    O. Ivanytskyi, V. Sagun, and I. Lopes. Neutron stars: New constraints on asymmetric dark matter. Phys. Rev. D, 102(6):063028, 2020

    2020

  46. [46]

    D. R. Karkevandi, S. Shakeri, V. Sagun, and O. Ivanyt- skyi. Bosonic dark matter in neutron stars and its effect on gravitational wave signal. Phys. Rev. D, 105(2):023001, 2022

    2022

  47. [47]

    Komoltsev and A

    O. Komoltsev and A. Kurkela. How perturbative qcd constrains the equation of state at neutron-star densities. Phys. Rev. Lett., 128(20):202701, 2022

    2022

  48. [48]

    Kouvaris

    C. Kouvaris. Wimp annihilation and cooling of neutron stars. Phys. Rev. D, 77:023006, 2008

    2008

  49. [49]

    Kouvaris and P

    C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov. Excluding light asymmet- ric bosonic dark matter. Phys. Rev. Lett., 107:091301, 2011

    2011

  50. [50]

    Kurkela, E

    A. Kurkela, E. S. Fraga, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and A. Vuorinen. Constraining neutron star matter with quantum chromodynamics. Astrophys. J., 789:127, 2014

    2014

  51. [51]

    Kurkela, P

    A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, and A. Vuorinen. Cold quark matter. Phys. Rev. D, 81:105021, 2010

    2010

  52. [52]

    Landry and R

    P. Landry and R. Essick. Nonparametric inference of the neutron star equation of state from gravitational wave observations. Phys. Rev. D, 99(8):084049, 2019

    2019

  53. [53]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash. The physics of neutron stars. Science, 304:536, 2004

    2004

  54. [54]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash. Neutron star observa- tions: Prognosis for equation of state constraints. Phys. Rept., 442:109, 2007

    2007

  55. [55]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash. The equation of state of hot, dense matter and neutron stars. Phys. Rept., 621:127, 2016

    2016

  56. [56]

    Legred, K

    I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, R. Essick, S. Han, and P. Landry. Impact of the psr j0740+6620 radius con- straint on the properties of high-density matter. Phys. Rev. D, 104(6):063003, 2021

    2021

  57. [57]

    C. H. Lenzi, M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, L. L. Lopes, and D. P. Menezes. Dark matter effects on hybrid star prop- erties. Eur. Phys. J. C, 83(3):266, 2023

    2023

  58. [58]

    Leung, M.-c

    K.-L. Leung, M.-c. Chu, and L.-M. Lin. Tidal deforma- bility of dark matter admixed neutron stars. Phys. Rev. D, 105(12):123010, 2022

    2022

  59. [59]

    Leung, M.-C

    S.-C. Leung, M.-C. Chu, and L.-M. Lin. Dark-matter admixed neutron stars. Phys. Rev. D, 84:107301, 2011

    2011

  60. [60]

    Louren¸ co, C

    O. Louren¸ co, C. H. Lenzi, T. Frederico, and M. Dutra. Dark particle mass effects on neutron star properties from a short-range correlated hadronic model. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 517:4265, 2022

    2022

  61. [61]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli. Equation of state for dense nucleonic matter from metamodeling. i. foundational aspects. Phys. Rev. C, 97(2):025805, 2018

    2018

  62. [62]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli. Equation of state for dense nucleonic matter from meta- modeling. ii. predictions for neutron star properties. Phys. Rev. C, 97(2):025806, 2018

    2018

  63. [63]

    Mariani, C

    M. Mariani, C. Albertus, M. d. R. Alessandroni, M. G. 16 Orsaria, M. ´A. P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, and I. F. Ranea-Sandoval. Constraining self-interacting fermionic dark matter in admixed neutron stars using multimessenger astronomy. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 527(3):6795, 2024

    2024

  64. [64]

    Mauviard, S

    L. Mauviard, S. Guillot, et al. A nicer view of the 1.4 solar-mass edge-on pulsar psr j0614-3329. Astrophys. J., 995:60, 2025

    2025

  65. [65]

    M. C. Miller et al. Psr j0030+0451 mass and radius from nicer data and implications for the properties of neutron star matter. Astrophys. J. Lett., 887(1):L24, 2019

    2019

  66. [66]

    M. C. Miller et al. The radius of psr j0740+6620 from nicer and xmm-newton data. Astrophys. J. Lett., 918(1):L28, 2021

    2021

  67. [67]

    E. R. Most, L. R. Weih, L. Rezzolla, and J. Schaffner- Bielich. New constraints on radii and tidal deformabil- ities of neutron stars from gw170817. Phys. Rev. Lett., 120(26):261103, 2018

    2018

  68. [68]

    Mukhopadhyay and J

    P. Mukhopadhyay and J. Schaffner-Bielich. Quark stars admixed with dark matter. Phys. Rev. D, 93(8):083009, 2016

    2016

  69. [69]

    Narain, J

    G. Narain, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and I. N. Mishustin. Compact stars made of fermionic dark matter. Phys. Rev. D, 74:063003, 2006

    2006

  70. [70]

    A. E. Nelson, S. Reddy, and D. Zhou. Dark halos around neutron stars and gravitational waves. JCAP, 07:012, 2019

    2019

  71. [71]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel. Equa- tions of state for supernovae and compact stars. Rev. Mod. Phys., 89(1):015007, 2017

    2017

  72. [72]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff. On massive neu- tron cores. Phys. Rev., 55:374, 1939

    1939

  73. [73]

    ¨Ozel and P

    F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire. Masses, radii, and the equation of state of neutron stars. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 54:401, 2016

    2016

  74. [74]

    Panotopoulos and I

    G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes. Dark matter effect on realistic equation of state in neutron stars. Phys. Rev. D, 96(8):083004, 2017

    2017

  75. [75]

    Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results. vi. cosmolog- ical parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6, 2020

    2018

  76. [76]

    Postnikov, M

    S. Postnikov, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer. Tidal love numbers of neutron and self-bound quark stars. Phys. Rev. D, 82:024016, 2010

    2010

  77. [77]

    W. H. Press and D. N. Spergel. Capture by the sun of a galactic population of weakly interacting massive particles. Astrophys. J., 296:679, 1985

    1985

  78. [78]

    C. A. Raithel, F. ¨Ozel, and D. Psaltis. From neutron star observables to the equation of state. i. an optimal parametrization. Astrophys. J., 831:44, 2016

    2016

  79. [79]

    J. S. Read, B. D. Lackey, B. J. Owen, and J. L. Fried- man. Constraints on a phenomenologically parametrized neutron-star equation of state. Phys. Rev. D, 79:124032, 2009

    2009

  80. [80]

    T. E. Riley et al. A nicer view of psr j0030+0451: Millisecond pulsar parameter estimation. Astrophys. J. Lett., 887(1):L21, 2019

    2019

Showing first 80 references.