QCD Axion Conversion in Magnetospheres of Neutron Stars

Shubham Yadav

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 96 references

QCD Axion Conversion in Magnetospheres of Neutron Stars

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetar fields alter neutron-star axion cooling and conversion flux.

desk verdict Parameter application with a units error in the PBF spectrum that breaks the main flux claim; plausibly fixable, but not publishable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13310 v1 pith:GIS44H66 submitted 2025-06-16 hep-ph

Shubham Yadav This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords QCDaxionsneutronstarcoolingmagnetarsaxion-photonconversionmodifiedTOVequationsCooper-pairbreakingnucleonbremsstrahlungPSRJ1357-6429

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 argues that the extremely strong magnetic fields inside neutron stars—specifically magnetars with central fields of order $10^{17}$ gauss—significantly change how these stars cool by axion emission and how much axion-converted photon flux they produce. The author constructs a magnetized neutron star model by solving the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations with a magnetic field term, then runs the NSCool cooling code with the FPS equation of state to compare axion emission with and without the field. The result is that including the field raises the internal temperature, increases axion luminosity (especially for older stars), and changes the shape of the axion energy spectrum and the resulting axion-to-photon conversion flux. The paper concludes that modeling axion signals from magnetized neutron stars like PSR J1357-6429 requires including the magnetic field in the structure and cooling calculations. If this is right, it matters because axion-converted photons are a leading observational window for QCD axion dark matter.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the magnetized Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff system: a radial magnetic-field profile $B_0(r) = B_c[1 - 1.6 y^2 - y^4 + 4.2 y^6 - 2.4 y^8]$ with $y = r/\bar{r}$, and a corresponding Lorentz-force term $L(r) = B_c^2[-3.8 y + 8.1 y^3 - 1.6 y^5 - 2.3 y^7] \times 10^{-41}$ entering the hydrostatic equilibrium equation. These modify the mass and pressure profiles that are fed into the NSCool cooling code. On the emission side, the machinery consists of the Cooper-pair-breaking and formation (PBF) energy spectra, the nucleon-nucleon Bremsstrahlung spectrum, and an axion-to-photon conversion probability that scales as $(B_0/10^{13}\ {\rm G})^{0.4}\, (1\ {\rm keV}/\omega)^{0.8}$. The role of this machinery is to connect a magnetar-scale central field to a temperature profile, to an axion luminosity, and finally to an observable photon flux.

What would settle it

Compare the predicted 1-10 keV axion-converted photon flux for PSR J1357-6429 with X-ray observations of the pulsar: the magnetized model sits above the unmagnetized one below about 10 keV and merges with it at higher energies, so a measured spectrum that follows the unmagnetized curve across the band would rule out the magnetic-field claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working with a central magnetic field $B_c = 10^{17}$ G and an axion mass of $15$ meV, and using the FPS equation of state, the paper reports that the magnetized model keeps the star's internal temperature higher at every radius than the unmagnetized model, with the largest difference inside the first $4$ km. The axion luminosity is higher with the magnetic field at all characteristic ages from $10$ years to $7 \times 10^3$ years, and the gap widens with age. In the axion energy spectrum, the Bremsstrahlung process dominates over the PBF process at lower axion energies, while PBF shows a pronounced magnetic-field effect in the 2-4 keV range. The axion-converted-photon flux inherits these differences: the magnetic-field effect shrinks as axion energy grows and becomes negligible beyond about $10$ keV. The paper therefore asserts that the magnetic field changes the axion cooling rate and luminosity significantly and that axion-to-photon conversion studies of strongly magnetized neutron stars must include the field.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation stands on the assumption that the interior magnetic field of PSR J1357-6429 follows the polynomial profile given in Eq. (2), imported from other models rather than derived from this star's observed properties; if that profile is wrong for the star, the predicted cooling and axion-converted photon flux do not apply to it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The star's age inferred from cooling would shift if the magnetic field is included, because the magnetized model stays hotter and more luminous at a given age.
Axion energy-loss limits on dense matter change for magnetars: the reported luminosity is higher with the field, so constraints derived without it would be wrong.
X-ray and radio searches for axion-converted photons from magnetars should concentrate on the low-energy end (about 1-10 keV) where the magnetic-field effect is largest.
For PSR J1357-6429 specifically, model predictions of the axion-converted photon flux that omit the internal field are not reliable.
The PBF and Bremsstrahlung spectra respond differently to the field, so disentangling the emission mechanism requires observations across the 2-10 keV range.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the same magnetic TOV treatment would also change neutrino emission and other cooling channels, so the field's influence extends beyond axions and affects the whole thermal evolution of magnetars.
Editorial inference: because the conversion-probability formula is a simple power law rather than a full plasma calculation, the precise energy at which magnetic and unmagnetized fluxes merge could shift in a more detailed magnetosphere treatment; a full simulation would be a natural next test.
Editorial inference: the field profile is assumed time-independent; if the interior field decays over the star's life, the cooling tracks would drift from the magnetized toward the unmagnetized curve, producing observable population-level differences.
Editorial inference: the paper compares only one fixed axion mass (15 meV); scanning a range of masses would show whether the magnetic-field effect strengthens or weakens with the axion mass, and would extend the conclusion to the cosmologically allowed window.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Short version: this is a parameter application of the author's own earlier magnetized-TOV + NSCool framework to one young pulsar, PSR J1357-6429, at fixed axion mass (15 meV) and central field (10^17 G). The qualitative message—strong magnetic fields change axion emissivity and conversion—is plausible and consistent with the literature. But the paper as written has a concrete units error in the s-wave PBF spectrum and an under-specified flux normalization, so the quantitative claims don't hold up.

What's new: not much. The framework is largely from the author's previous papers [67, 96, 11], with a new target and fixed parameters. That can be a legitimate exercise, but the novelty is incremental. The heavy self-reliance is not itself a flaw, since those papers are published, but it does mean the working parts are not independently checked here.

The first and most serious issue: Eq. (8) uses ω/(2ΔT) in the s-wave PBF spectrum instead of the correct ω/(2Δ). The ratio then has units of inverse energy, the threshold sits at 2ΔT rather than 2Δ, and the low-energy shape changes. The claim that Bremsstrahlung dominates over PBF at low axion energies depends directly on that shape, so the error undermines the central comparison. The p-wave formula (9) uses the correct ratio, so this looks like a typo, but it's a typo in a key equation and no code is provided to prove the actual implementation is correct.

Second, Fig. 4 plots an axion-converted-photon flux but the text never gives g_aγγ, the source distance, or the angle θ that enter Eq. (11). The y-axis normalization is therefore not reproducible, and the reader cannot judge whether the flux is realistic.

Third, the abstract and conclusion say the magnetic field's impact is less at lower axion energies, while Fig. 3 shows large with/without-field separations at 2–4 keV and overlap only beyond 10 keV. That is the opposite of "less at lower energies."

Fourth, the magnetic field profile (Eq. 2) is an imposed polynomial from Chatterjee et al., with no justification that it represents PSR J1357-6429. The central field of 10^17 G is assumed, not derived from observations of this pulsar. No code, input files, or mass/radius values are provided, so the NSCool results cannot be checked.

On the positive side, the author uses standard tools and cites the relevant axion and cooling literature. The qualitative point about magnetic fields is fine, just not new.

This paper is not publishable as it stands, but the problems are largely fixable. If the author corrects Eq. (8), supplies the missing flux parameters, reconciles the text with the figures, and justifies the field configuration, it could become a modest contribution for readers working on axion emission from neutron stars. I would send it to peer review with a request for major revision, but I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims to compute the impact of a strong interior magnetic field on QCD axion emission from the neutron star PSR J1357-6429, using the FPS equation of state, magnetized TOV solutions with central field Bc=1e17 G, and the NSCool cooling code. It considers axion production from Cooper-pair breaking/formation (PBF) and nucleon-nucleon Bremsstrahlung, and then converts the axion spectra to photons using a magnetospheric conversion probability. The central claims are that the magnetic field significantly changes the axion cooling rate and luminosity, that the Bremsstrahlung spectrum dominates over PBF at lower axion energies, and that the magnetic-field effect on the axion-converted-photon flux becomes less important at lower axion energies, around 10 keV. The analysis is performed for a fixed axion mass of 15 meV.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the paper would provide evidence that magnetar-scale fields must be included in axion cooling and axion-to-photon conversion modeling for pulsars such as PSR J1357-6429. The manuscript has some strengths: it uses the established NSCool framework, states its fiducial axion mass and central field, and explicitly acknowledges that magnetic-field-dependent equations of state are beyond its scope. However, the quantitative predictions are not verifiable from the text: no code or input files are provided, no mass-radius outputs are reported, and no error bars are given. More importantly, the s-wave PBF spectrum in Eq. (8) contains a dimensional error that changes the threshold and low-energy slope of the spectrum, directly affecting the claimed Bremsstrahlung dominance and the magnetic-field reshaping of the flux. The converted-photon flux normalization in Fig. 4 also omits essential parameters. These issues undermine the paper's main phenomenological conclusions.

major comments (5)

[Section II, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) for the s-wave PBF axion spectrum uses the ratio ω/(2ΔT) instead of ω/(2Δ). Here ω, Δ, and T are energies, so ω/(2ΔT) has units of inverse energy and the square-root argument (ω/(2ΔT))^2 − 1 is not dimensionless; the threshold is written as 2ΔT rather than 2Δ. Equation (9), for p-wave pairing, correctly uses ω/(2Δ_P(T,θ)), and standard references (Sedrakian 2016; Buschmann et al. 2021) use ω/(2Δ). This error shifts the threshold location and changes the low-energy slope of the s-wave PBF spectrum, which directly alters the crossing point with the Bremsstrahlung spectrum in Fig. 3. Since the PBF emissivity also enters the NSCool cooling curves, the claimed significant magnetic-field effect on the luminosity is likewise called into question. The central narrative of the paper therefore rests on an incorrect formula.
[Section II, Eq. (11) and Fig. 4] The plotted axion-converted-photon flux dF/dE in Fig. 4, with units erg/sec-cm^2-keV, cannot be reproduced from the information given. Equation (11) depends on the axion-photon coupling g_aγγ, the magnetic field B0, the radius R_NS, and sin^0.4 θ, but the manuscript never states the value of g_aγγ, the angle θ, the source distance, or any averaging procedure used. It also does not specify whether the B0 in Eq. (11) is the local magnetospheric field or the central field from Eq. (2). The conversion probability is imported without derivation from the same author's previous paper [96], so the normalization of every converted-flux curve in Fig. 4 is unsupported as presented.
[Section II, Eqs. (2)-(5)] The magnetic-field profile B0(r) and the Lorentz force L(r) are fitted polynomials taken from Refs. [79,80], with coefficients imposed rather than derived from the observed properties of PSR J1357-6429. The manuscript explicitly states that a magnetic-field-dependent FPS equation of state is beyond the current work. Because the modified TOV structure, the NSCool cooling curves, and the conversion probability all depend on these fitted coefficients, the claim that the field changes the cooling rate, luminosity, and flux significantly for this particular pulsar is not established. The results are conditional on a profile that has not been validated against the target object.
[Section III and Conclusion] The conclusion states that 'the impact of the magnetic field is less at lower values of the axion energies ∼ 10 keV,' but this is internally inconsistent with the results shown in Fig. 3. The text itself reports 'a significant departure' for the PBF process in the 2-4 keV range, and the figure shows the largest with/without-field separations precisely at those lower energies. This contradiction between the stated conclusion and the displayed results makes the paper's summary of its own findings unreliable.
[Section III, Figs. 1-4] The quantitative results are not verifiable from the manuscript: no code or input files are provided, no mass, radius, or central density outputs from the magnetized TOV solutions are reported, and no error bars or uncertainty estimates are given for the luminosity or flux curves. As a computational paper whose central claim is a quantitative change in cooling and luminosity, this lack of reproducibility prevents the reader from checking the NSCool runs or the magnitude of the claimed magnetic-field effect.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] The text refers to 'Figure (III)' and 'Figure (III)' instead of the actual figure numbers 1-4, making it difficult to match the discussion to the plots.
[Abstract and Fig. 3 caption] The pulsar name is inconsistently written as PSR J1356-6429 in the abstract and Fig. 3 caption, while the rest of the text uses PSR J1357-6429.
[Section II, Eqs. (8)-(10)] The notation is unclear in several places: the text '2 y∆ T is the energy of axion' uses an undefined y, and Eq. (10) writes 'exT6' where the intended expression appears to be e^{ω_a/T} T^6. These should be clarified.
[Introduction and Conclusion] There are typographical errors such as 'Dean-Fischler-Srednitsky-Zhitnitsky' for the Dine-Fischler-Srednicki-Zhitnitsky model and 'magniﬁcient seven star (M7)', which should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: load-bearing inputs are external or independently sourced; the author's prior papers are cited as incremental background, not as the sole basis for the central result.

full rationale

The paper's chain is a forward numerical model: the magnetic-field profiles and Lorentz force (Eqs. 2 and 5) are imported from Chatterjee et al. [79,80], the FPS EoS from [76], the cooling solver from NSCool [81], the axion emissivity and spectra from Sedrakian and Buschmann et al. [86,93-95], and the conversion probability (Eq. 11) is cited jointly to Buschmann et al. [86] and the author's prior work [96]. Although refs. [11,12,67,96] are by the same author or group, none of these self-citations is load-bearing by itself: the physically decisive formulas have external anchors, and the with/without-magnetic-field comparison is produced by running the same code on the imported field profiles, not by fitting any target output. No parameter is fitted to the data subset that is later presented as a prediction, and no equation reduces to the claimed result by construction. The dimensional issue in Eq. (8), which uses omega/(2 Delta T) instead of omega/(2 Delta), is a genuine correctness risk that would alter the PBF spectrum and the reported low-energy dominance, but it is not a circularity. Therefore no circular steps are identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation depends on imported inputs rather than new derivations: the radial magnetic field profile and Lorentz force are fitted polynomials from refs [79,80], the emissivity formulas are from prior literature, and the conversion probability is from a previous paper by the same author. The two hand-set parameters (ma=15 meV, Bc=1e17 G) and the unspecified axion-photon coupling do much of the work in setting the numerical outputs.

free parameters (4)

Axion mass m_a = 15 meV
Chosen by hand; no scan over mass is performed despite the abstract claiming a possible mass range. All spectra and fluxes depend on this.
Central magnetic field B_c = 1e17 G
Assumed input for the field profile; not derived from the observed spin-down or surface field of PSR J1357-6429 and not varied.
Axion-photon coupling g_aγγ = not stated (used in Eq. 11)
Required to compute the conversion probability and flux, but its numerical value is omitted, so the flux scale in Fig. 4 is not fixed.
Magnetic field profile and Lorentz force coefficients = -1.6, -1, 4.2, -2.4 (Eq. 2); -3.8, 8.1, -1.6, -2.3 (Eq. 5)
Imported fitted coefficients that define the radial profile and Lorentz force; the field-effect results depend directly on these numbers.

assumptions (5)

standard math The TOV equations in General Relativity describe the hydrostatic structure of spherically symmetric, non-rotating neutron stars.
Used in Section II to generate mass and pressure profiles for the cooling code.
domain assumption The FPS equation of state is a valid description of the hadronic core.
Adopted in Section II; the temperature and luminosity outputs depend on this EoS.
domain assumption Cooper-pair-breaking and nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung are the only axion production mechanisms in the core, with emissivities quoted from Keller/Sedrakian and Sedrakian.
Invoked in Section II, Eqs. (7)-(10); no other axion sources are considered.
ad hoc to paper The magnetic field profile B0(r) and Lorentz force L(r) in Eqs. (2)-(5) apply to PSR J1357-6429, and the magnetic field does not change the FPS EoS.
These imported profiles drive the reported magnetic-field effects; the paper explicitly leaves a magnetic-field-dependent EoS out of scope.
ad hoc to paper The analytic conversion probability in Eq. (11) is valid for this magnetosphere without specifying angle, distance, or coupling averaging.
The converted-photon flux is obtained by multiplying the axion spectrum by this probability, but the needed numerical inputs are not given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QCD Axion Conversion in Magnetospheres of Neutron Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GIS44H66

@misc{pith2026250613310,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QCD Axion Conversion in Magnetospheres of Neutron Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GIS44H66}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13310}
}

abstract

The axion-converted-photons flux is a principal window for searching QCD axions as a dark matter (DM) candidate. In addition to solving the strong CP problem, these may explain the properties of the mysterious DM. Neutron star (NS) cooling by neutrino/axion emissions rate constrains the astrophysical properties of superdense matter. We attempt to analyse the impact of strong magnetic fields on the emission properties of NS by employing the FPS equation of State (EoS). We use the Tolman Oppenheimer Volkoff (TOV) equations by considering effects of strong fields and generating profiles. We assume Cooper-pair-breaking formation (PBF) and the Bremsstrahlung process occur in the core of NS. We adopt a polynomial fit function of radial profile to analyse the effects of strong magnetic field. Our entire analysis is at an axion mass of $15$ meV and central magnetic field $B_{c}$=$10^{17}$ G. Our work assumes the core comprises hadronic matter of the spherically symmetric magnetized NSs. We have present the results for the energy spectrum of axions and their subsequent conversion to photons. We show that the cooling rate and the luminosity of axions for NSs change significantly due to the intense magnetic field. We report that the energy spectrum of axions from the Bremsstrahlung process dominates over the PBF process at lesser axion energies, within the possible axion mass range for PSR J1356-6429 NS. Our results reveal that the impact of the magnetic field is less at lower axion energies, indicating the necessity for including a magnetic field in axion-to-photon conversion mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13310 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The variation of luminosity of axions in the (presenc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The variation of energy spectrum of axions as a functi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The variation of axion-converted-photon flux as a fun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

[96]

Yadav, M

S. Yadav, M. Mishra, and T. G. Sarkar, X-ray emis- sion spectrum for axion–photon conversion in magneto- spheres of strongly magnetized neutron stars, The Euro- pean Physical Journal C 84, 687 (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

M. S. Pshirkov and S. B. Popov, Conversion of dark mat- ter axions to photons in magnetospheres of neutron stars, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 108, 384 (2009)

2009
[2]

Buschmann, J

M. Buschmann, J. W. Foster, and B. R. Safdi, Early- Universe Simulations of the Cosmological Axion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 161103 (2020)

2020
[3]

Chadha-Day, J

F. Chadha-Day, J. Ellis, and D. J. Marsh, Axion dark matter: What is it and why now?, Science advances 8, eabj3618 (2022)

2022
[4]

Wilczek, Problem of strong p and t invariance in the presence of instantons, Phys

F. Wilczek, Problem of strong p and t invariance in the presence of instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

1978
[5]

Abbott and P

L. Abbott and P. Sikivie, A cosmological bound on the invisible axion, Physics Letters B 120, 133 (1983)

1983
[6]

Preskill, M

J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the invisible axion, Physics Letters B 120, 127 (1983)

1983
[7]

Dine and W

M. Dine and W. Fischler, The not-so-harmless axion, Physics Letters B 120, 137 (1983)

1983

Show all 96 references

[8]

R. L. Davis, Goldstone bosons in string models of galaxy formation, Phys. Rev. D 32, 3172 (1985)

1985
[9]

Iwamoto, Axion emission from neutron stars, Phys

N. Iwamoto, Axion emission from neutron stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 1198 (1984)

1984
[10]

N. Du, N. Force, R. Khatiwada, E. Lentz, R. Ottens, L. J. Rosenberg, G. Rybka, G. Carosi, N. Woollett, D. Bowring, A. S. Chou, A. Sonnenschein, W. Wester, C. Boutan, N. S. Oblath, R. Bradley, E. J. Daw, A. V. Dixit, J. Clarke, S. R. O’Kelley, N. Crisosto, J. R. Glea- son, S. J...

2018
[11]

Yadav, M

S. Yadav, M. Mishra, and T. G. Sarkar, Conversion of emitted axionic dark matter to photons for non-rotating magnetized neutron stars, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 46, 1 (2025)

2025
[12]

Yadav, M

S. Yadav, M. Mishra, and T. G. Sarkar, Emis- sion properties of non-rotating neutron stars with magnetic ﬁeld using modiﬁed tov equations, in High Energy Physics Symposium (Springer, 2022) pp. 872–874

2022
[13]

Y. Kahn, B. R. Safdi, and J. Thaler, Broadband and res- onant approaches to axion dark matter detection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 141801 (2016)

2016
[14]

J. W. Foster, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Safdi, Revealing the dark matter halo with axion direct detection, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123006 (2018)

2018
[15]

Chaudhuri, P

S. Chaudhuri, P. W. Graham, K. Irwin, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, and Y. Zhao, Radio for hidden-photon dark matter detection, Phys. Rev. D 92, 075012 (2015)

2015
[16]

Bogorad, A

Z. Bogorad, A. Hook, Y. Kahn, and Y. Soreq, Probing axionlike particles and the axiverse with superconducting radio-frequency cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 021801 (2019)

2019
[17]

M. D. Marsh, H. R. Russell, A. C. Fabian, B. R. McNa- mara, P. Nulsen, and C. S. Reynolds, A new bound on axion-like particles, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics 2017 (12), 036

2017
[18]

D. E. Morris, Axion mass limits may be improved by pulsar x-ray measurements, Phys. Rev. D 34, 843 (1986)

1986
[19]

Raﬀelt and L

G. Raﬀelt and L. Stodolsky, Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles, Phys. Rev. D 37, 1237 (1988)

1988
[20]

Dessert, A

C. Dessert, A. J. Long, and B. R. Safdi, X-ray signatures of axion conversion in magnetic white dwarf stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 061104 (2019)

2019
[21]

L. B. Leinson, Constraints on axions from neutron star i n hess j1731-347, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019 (11), 031

2019
[22]

L. D. Duﬀy and K. van Bibber, Axions as dark matter particles, New Journal of Physics 11, 105008 (2009)

2009
[23]

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Cp conservation in the presence of instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

1977
[24]

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977)

1977
[25]

J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, M. Prakash, and P. Haensel, Direct urca process in neutron stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2701 (1991)

1991
[26]

Yakovlev, D.G

A. Yakovlev, D.G. Kaminker, O. Gnedin, and P. Haensel, Neutrino emission from neutron stars, Phys. Rep. 354, 1 (2001)

2001
[27]

Leinson, Neutrino emission due to cooper pairing of protons in cooling neutron stars: Collective eﬀects, Physics Letters B 473, 318 (2000)

L. Leinson, Neutrino emission due to cooper pairing of protons in cooling neutron stars: Collective eﬀects, Physics Letters B 473, 318 (2000)

2000
[28]

M. V. Beznogov, J. Novak, D. Page, and A. R. Raduta, Standard cooling of rapidly rotating isolated neutron stars in 2d, The Astrophysical Journal 942, 72 (2023)

2023
[29]

D. Page, J. M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, and A. W. Steiner, Minimal cooling of neutron stars: A new paradigm, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 155, 623 (2004)

2004
[30]

Yakovlev, O

D. Yakovlev, O. Gnedin, M. Gusakov, A. Kaminker, K. Levenﬁsh, and A. Potekhin, Neutron star cooling, Nu- clear Physics A 752, 590 (2005)

2005
[31]

Yakovlev, O

D. Yakovlev, O. Gnedin, A. Kaminker, K. Levenﬁsh, and A. Potekhin, Neutron star cooling: theoretical as- pects and observational constraints, Advances in Space Research 33, 523 (2004)

2004
[32]

D. Page, U. Geppert, and F. Weber, The cooling of com- pact stars, Nuclear Physics A 777, 497 (2006), special Isseu on Nuclear Astrophysics

2006
[33]

G. E. Brown, K. Kubodera, D. Page, and P. Pizzochero, Strangeness condensation and cooling of neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 37, 2042 (1988)

1988
[34]

Geppert, M

U. Geppert, M. Kuker, and D. Page, Temperature distri- bution in magnetized neutron star crusts, A&A 426, 267 (2004). 7

2004
[35]

Buschmann, C

M. Buschmann, C. Dessert, J. W. Foster, A. J. Long, and B. R. Safdi, Upper Limit on the QCD Axion Mass from Isolated Neutron Star Cooling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 091102 (2022)

2022
[36]

A. D. Kaminker, D. G. Yakovlev, A. Y. Potekhin, N. Shibazaki, P. S. Shternin, and O. Y. Gnedin, Mag- netars as cooling neutron stars with internal heating, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 371, 477 (2006)

2006
[37]

Valyavin, D

G. Valyavin, D. Shulyak, G. A. Wade, K. A. Antonyuk, S. Zharikov, G. A. Galazutdinov, S. I. Plachinda, S. Bag- nulo, L. F. Machado, M. B. ’in lvarez, D. M. Clark, J. M. Lpez, D. Hiriart, I. Han, Y. B. Jeon, C. Zurita, R. Mujica, T. E. Burlakova, T. Szeifert, and A. Burenkov, S...

2014
[38]

D. Page, U. Geppert, and F. Weber, The Cooling of compact stars, Nucl. Phys. A 777, 497 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0508056

2006 arXiv
[39]

Wijnands, N

R. Wijnands, N. Degenaar, and D. Page, Cooling of accretion-heated neutron stars, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 38, 1 (2017)

2017
[40]

Prakash, Rapid cooling of neutron stars, Physics Re- ports 242, 297 (1994)

M. Prakash, Rapid cooling of neutron stars, Physics Re- ports 242, 297 (1994)

1994
[41]

D. Page, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, and A. W. Steiner, Rapid cooling of the neutron star in cassiopeia a trig- gered by neutron superﬂuidity in dense matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 081101 (2011)

2011
[42]

Prakash, I

M. Prakash, I. Bombaci, M. Prakash, P. J. Ellis, J. M. Lattimer, and R. Knorren, Composition and structure of protoneutron stars, Physics Reports 280, 1 (1997)

1997
[43]

J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Neutron star structure and the equation of state, The Astrophysical Journal 550, 426 (2001)

2001
[44]

D. Page, U. Geppert, and F. Weber, The cooling of com- pact stars, Nucl. Phys. A 777, 497 (2006)

2006
[45]

Page and S

D. Page and S. Reddy, Dense Matter in Compact Stars: Theoretical Developments and Observational Con- straints, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 56, 327 (2006)

2006
[46]

Braithwaite and H

J. Braithwaite and H. C. Spruit, A fossil origin for the magnetic ﬁeld in A stars and white dwarfs, Nature (Lon- don) 431, 819 (2004)

2004
[47]

Rathod, M

C. Rathod, M. Mishra, and P. K. Das, Cooling of neu- tron stars through emission of neutrinos and photons: Eﬀects of modiﬁed gravity and magnetic ﬁeld using tov equations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04520 (2024)

2024
[48]

Dexheimer, B

V. Dexheimer, B. Franzon, R. Gomes, R. Farias, S. Avancini, and S. Schramm, What is the magnetic ﬁeld distribution for the equation of state of magnetized neu- tron stars, Physics Letters B 773, 487 (2017)

2017
[49]

Dexheimer, B

V. Dexheimer, B. Franzon, R. O. Gomes, R. L. S. Farias, S. S. Avancini, and S. Schramm, Magnetic ﬁeld distribution in strongly magnetized neutron stars, Astron. Nachr. 338, 1052 (2017)

2017
[50]

Lopes and D

L. Lopes and D. Menezes, On magnetized neutron stars, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015 (08), 002

2015
[51]

Gomes, R

V. Gomes, R. O. Dexheimer and C. A. Z. Vasconcellos, Hyperon Stars in Strong Magnetic Fields, arXiv e-prints (2013)

2013
[52]

Braithwaite, Axisymmetric magnetic ﬁelds in stars: relative strengths of poloidal and toroidal components, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 397, 763 (2009)

J. Braithwaite, Axisymmetric magnetic ﬁelds in stars: relative strengths of poloidal and toroidal components, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 397, 763 (2009)

2009
[53]

Bocquet, S

M. Bocquet, S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon, and J. No- vak, Rotating neutron star models with a magnetic ﬁeld., aap 301, 757 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9503044 [gr-qc]

1995 arXiv
[54]

Geppert, M

U. Geppert, M. K¨ uker, and D. Page, Temperature distri- bution in magnetized neutron star crusts, Astronomy & Astrophysics 457, 937 (2006)

2006
[55]

Dexheimer, R

V. Dexheimer, R. Negreiros, and S. Schramm, Hybrid stars in a strong magnetic ﬁeld, The European Physical Journal A 48, 1 (2012)

2012
[56]

R. O. Gomes, B. Franzon, V. Dexheimer, and S. Schramm, Many-body forces in magnetic neutron stars, The Astrophysical Journal 850, 20 (2017)

2017
[57]

M. L. Pattersons and A. Sulaksono, Mass correction and deformation of slowly rotating anisotropic neutron stars based on Hartle-Thorne formalism, European Physical Journal C 81, 698 (2021)

2021
[58]

Haensel, J

P. Haensel, J. L. Zdunik, and F. Douchin, Equation of state of dense matter and the minimum mass of cold neu- tron stars, Astronomy & Astrophysics 385, 301 (2002)

2002
[59]

Sinha, B

M. Sinha, B. Mukhopadhyay, and A. Sedrakian, Hyper- nuclear matter in strong magnetic ﬁeld, Nuclear Physics A 898, 43 (2013)

2013
[60]

Sedrakian, The Physics of dense hadronic matter and compact stars, Prog

A. Sedrakian, The Physics of dense hadronic matter and compact stars, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 58, 168 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0601086

2007 arXiv
[61]

J. N. Braithwaite, Stable magnetic ﬁelds in stellar int e- riors, aap 450, 1077 (2006)

2006
[62]

M. E. Gusakov, A. D. Kaminker, D. G. Yakovlev, and O. Y. Gnedin, The cooling of akmal–pandharipande– ravenhall neutron star models, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 363, 555 (2005)

2005
[63]

A. S. Schneider, C. Constantinou, B. Muccioli, and M. Prakash, Akmal-pandharipande-ravenhall equation of state for simulations of supernovae, neutron stars, and binary mergers, Physical Review C 100 (2019)

2019
[64]

Sumiyoshi, T

K. Sumiyoshi, T. Kojo, and S. Furusawa, Equation of state in neutron stars and supernovae, (2022)

2022
[65]

Akmal, V

A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, Equation of state of nucleon matter and neutron star structure, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1804 (1998)

1998
[66]

Broderick, M

A. Broderick, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, The equa- tion of state of neutron star matter in strong magnetic ﬁelds, The Astrophysical Journal 537, 351 (2000)

2000
[67]

Yadav, M

S. Yadav, M. Mishra, T. G. Sarkar, and C. R. Singh, Thermal evolution and axion emission properties of strongly magnetized neutron stars, The European Phys- ical Journal C 84, 225 (2024)

2024
[68]

E. E. Kolomeitsev and D. N. Voskresensky, Neutrino emission due to cooper-pair recombination in neutron stars reexamined, Physical Review C 77 (2008)

2008
[69]

A. Y. Potekhin, D. A. Zyuzin, D. G. Yakovlev, M. V. Beznogov, and Y. A. Shibanov, Thermal luminosities of cooling neutron stars, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society 496, 5052 (2020)

2020
[70]

R. P. Mignani, D. V. Putte, M. Cropper, R. Turolla, S. Zane, L. J. Pellizza, L. A. Bignone, N. Sartore, and A. Treves, The birthplace and age of the isolated neu- tron star rx j1856.5-3754, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 429, 3517 (2013)

2013
[71]

Dessert, A

C. Dessert, A. J. Long, and B. R. Safdi, No evidence for axions from observation of the magnetic white dwarf re j0317-853, Physical Review Letters 128 (2022). 8

2022
[72]

Bhattacharya, B

M. Bhattacharya, B. Mukhopadhyay, and S. Muker- jee, Luminosity and cooling of highly magnetized white dwarfs: suppression of luminosity by strong magnetic ﬁelds, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety 477, 2705 (2018)

2018
[73]

D. D. Ofengeim and D. G. Yakovlev, Analytic description of neutron star cooling, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 467, 3598 (2017)

2017
[74]

A. Paul, D. Majumdar, and K. P. Modak, Neutron star cooling via axion emission by nucleon–nucleon axion bremsstrahlung, Pramana 92, 1 (2018)

2018
[75]

A. J. Millar, S. Baum, M. Lawson, and M. D. Marsh, Axion-photon conversion in strongly magnetised plas- mas, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (11), 013

2021
[76]

Flowers, M

E. Flowers, M. Ruderman, and P. Sutherland, Neutrino pair emission from ﬁnite-temperature neutron superﬂuid and the cooling of young neutron stars, Astrophys. J. 205, 541 (1976)

1976
[77]

R. C. Tolman, Static solutions of einstein’s ﬁeld equat ions for spheres of ﬂuid, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939)

1939
[78]

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

1939
[79]

Chatterjee, T

D. Chatterjee, T. Elghozi, J. Novak, and M. Oer- tel, Consistent neutron star models with magnetic-ﬁeld- dependent equations of state, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 447, 3785 (2015)

2015
[80]

Chatterjee and M

D. Chatterjee and M. Novak, Jerome Oertel, Magnetic ﬁeld distribution in magnetars, prc 99, 055811 (2019)

2019
[81]

Page, NSCool: Neutron star cooling code, , ascl:1609.009 (2016), ascl:1609.009

D. Page, NSCool: Neutron star cooling code, , ascl:1609.009 (2016), ascl:1609.009

2016
[82]

D. Page, J. M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, and A. W. Steiner, Neutrino emission from cooper pairs and minimal cooling of neutron stars, The Astrophysical Journal 707, 1131 (2009)

2009
[83]

A. Y. Potekhin, V. Urpin, and G. Chabrier, The mag- netic structure of neutron stars and their surface-to-core temperature relation, A&A 443, 1025 (2005)

2005
[84]

Potekhin, A

A. Potekhin, A. I. Chugunov, and G. Chabrier, Thermal evolution and quiescent emission of transiently accreting neutron stars, aap 629, A88 (2019)

2019
[85]

Beznogov and D

M. Beznogov and D. Yakovlev, Statistical theory of ther - mal evolution of neutron stars, mnras 447, 1598 (2015)

2015
[86]

Buschmann, R

M. Buschmann, R. T. Co, C. Dessert, and B. R. Safdi, Axion Emission Can Explain a New Hard X-Ray Excess from Nearby Isolated Neutron Stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 021102 (2021)

2021
[87]

Potekhin and G

A. Potekhin and G. Chabrier, Thermonuclear fusion in dense stars. Electron screening, conductive cooling, and magnetic ﬁeld eﬀects, aap 538, A115 (2012)

2012
[88]

A. Y. Potekhin and G. Chabrier, Magnetic neutron star cooling and microphysics, A&A 609, A74 (2018)

2018
[89]

A. Y. Potekhin and D. G. Yakovlev, Thermal structure and cooling of neutron stars with magnetized envelopes, A&A 374, 213 (2001)

2001
[90]

A. Y. Potekhin, G. Chabrier, and D. G. Yakovlev, Heat blanketing envelopes and thermal radi- ation of strongly magnetized neutron stars, Isolated Neutron Stars: From the Surface to the Interior, , 353 (2007)

2007
[91]

A. Y. Potekhin, D. G. Yakovlev, G. Chabrier, and O. Y. Gnedin, Thermal structure and cooling of super- ﬂuid neutron stars with accreted magnetized envelopes, The Astrophysical Journal 594, 404 (2003)

2003
[92]

Beznogov, A

M. Beznogov, A. Potekhin, and D. Yakovlev, Diﬀusive heat blanketing envelopes of neutron stars, mnras 459, 1569 (2016)

2016
[93]

Keller and A

J. Keller and A. Sedrakian, Axions from cooling compact stars: Pair-breaking processes, Nuclear Physics A 897, 62 (2013)

2013
[94]

Sedrakian, Axion cooling of neutron stars

A. Sedrakian, Axion cooling of neutron stars. ii. beyon d hadronic axions, Physical Review D 99 (2019)

2019
[95]

Sedrakian, Axion cooling of neutron stars, Physical Review D 93 (2016)

A. Sedrakian, Axion cooling of neutron stars, Physical Review D 93 (2016)

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [96]

Yadav, M

S. Yadav, M. Mishra, and T. G. Sarkar, X-ray emis- sion spectrum for axion–photon conversion in magneto- spheres of strongly magnetized neutron stars, The Euro- pean Physical Journal C 84, 687 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [1]

M. S. Pshirkov and S. B. Popov, Conversion of dark mat- ter axions to photons in magnetospheres of neutron stars, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 108, 384 (2009)

2009

[3] [2]

Buschmann, J

M. Buschmann, J. W. Foster, and B. R. Safdi, Early- Universe Simulations of the Cosmological Axion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 161103 (2020)

2020

[4] [3]

Chadha-Day, J

F. Chadha-Day, J. Ellis, and D. J. Marsh, Axion dark matter: What is it and why now?, Science advances 8, eabj3618 (2022)

2022

[5] [4]

Wilczek, Problem of strong p and t invariance in the presence of instantons, Phys

F. Wilczek, Problem of strong p and t invariance in the presence of instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

1978

[6] [5]

Abbott and P

L. Abbott and P. Sikivie, A cosmological bound on the invisible axion, Physics Letters B 120, 133 (1983)

1983

[7] [6]

Preskill, M

J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the invisible axion, Physics Letters B 120, 127 (1983)

1983

[8] [7]

Dine and W

M. Dine and W. Fischler, The not-so-harmless axion, Physics Letters B 120, 137 (1983)

1983