Exploring Fermionic Dark Matter Admixed Neutron Stars in the Light of Astrophysical Observations

2); 3); Anagh Venneti (2); BITS-Pilani Hyderabad Campus; Chandigarh; Hyderabad; India); India (2) Department of Physics; India (3) Department of Physics; Nagpur

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Exploring Fermionic Dark Matter Admixed Neutron Stars in the Light of Astrophysical Observations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Current neutron-star observations constrain the dark-matter mass fraction inside the star's core, but they leave the dark-matter particle mass and its vector coupling essentially unconstrained.

desk verdict Plausible, competent, and incremental DMANS constraints on the authors' own EoSs; the central claim holds for core-confined DM but the abstract overstates the scope. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20736 v1 pith:CML6BSAC submitted 2025-06-25 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COhep-ph

Payaswinee Arvikar (1 , 2) , Sakshi Gautam (2 , 3) , Anagh Venneti (2) , Sarmistha Banik (2) ((1) Dharampeth M. P. Deo Memorial Science College , Nagpur , India (2) Department of Physics

show 6 more authors

BITS-Pilani Hyderabad Campus Hyderabad India (3) Department of Physics Panjab University Chandigarh India)

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COhep-ph

keywords darkmatteradmixedneutronstarsfermionictwo-fluidTOVequationsrelativisticmean-fieldequationofstateBayesianinferenceNICERmass-radiusconstraintstidaldeformabilitymassfraction

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 current neutron-star observations can reveal anything about dark matter that has accreted into a star and settled in its core. The authors model the star as two fluids—hadronic matter and fermionic dark matter—that interact only through gravity, and they fit the dark sector's particle mass, vector coupling, and mass fraction to pulsar mass–radius data, NICER posterior distributions, and the GW170817 tidal-deformability constraint. Their central finding is that these observations constrain the dark-matter mass fraction but leave the particle mass and coupling essentially undetermined. They also find that the inferred fraction is controlled mainly by the stiffness of the hadronic equation of state at high densities, with stiffer hadronic models allowing larger dark-matter fractions, while the way observations are included and the high-density hadronic uncertainty play a secondary role. As a result, the dark-matter mass fraction is the one dark-sector quantity that current neutron-star observations can meaningfully constrain.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-fluid Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff system, in which hadronic matter and dark matter each have their own conserved energy-momentum tensor and pressure gradient but share the same metric, so their only interaction is gravitational. Each fluid is described by a relativistic mean-field equation of state: the hadronic side by the BITSH-E and BITSH-I parametrizations, calibrated to finite-nuclei, heavy-ion, and neutron-star data, and the dark side by a Fermi gas of mass $M_D$ with a repulsive dark-vector coupling $C_{\rm vd}=g_{\rm vd}/m_{\rm vd}$. Varying the ratio of central energy densities fixes the dark-matter mass fraction $f_{\rm DM}$, and the two-fluid TOV solution yields mass–radius curves and tidal deformabilities that are compared with NICER and GW170817 data through a Bayesian likelihood. A speed-of-sound parametrization above $2\rho_0$ supplies the high-density hadronic uncertainty used in a second set of fits.

What would settle it

Measure the mass, radius, and tidal deformability of a neutron star whose hadronic EoS is already constrained (for example, a future NICER radius measurement of a ~1.4 $M_\odot$ pulsar matched to a gravitational-wave event). If the measured radius falls outside the 95% band that the paper's core-confined two-fluid model predicts for the posterior $f_{\rm DM}$ values, the claimed constraint would be contradicted; conversely, a radius that cannot be reproduced without dark matter would support it. A more direct test is to fit the same data with and without a halo component: if a halo model and a core-confined model fit the NICER and GW170817 data equally well, the paper's core-confined fraction is not uniquely determined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in its own terms, is that a core-confined fermionic dark-matter component in a neutron star is currently constrained only through its mass fraction $f_{\rm DM}$, not through the particle mass $M_D$ or the dark-vector coupling ratio $C_{\rm vd}$. Bayesian fits with the realistic BITSH-E and BITSH-I hadronic EoSs yield median $f_{\rm DM}$ values around 2–4% (1.7–3.4% depending on likelihood case), with 2σ upper limits near 10–14%, while $M_D$ and $C_{\rm vd}$ posteriors remain nearly flat over their priors. The authors also claim that the preferred DM fraction is set by the stiffness of the hadronic equation of state at high densities: removing the vector-meson self-interaction makes the EoS stiffer and raises median $f_{\rm DM}$ to 4–8% for BITSH-E, and the very stiff NL3 model gives a median of about 15%, whereas the softer models stay below 5%. The way astrophysical data are inserted (mass-cut plus radii, full NICER KDE posteriors, or mock future measurements) changes $f_{\rm DM}$ little, and the high-density speed-of-sound uncertainty has only a weak effect.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that all dark matter is confined to the neutron star core, whereas the paper itself notes that sufficiently light dark-matter particles would instead form an extended halo, so a halo configuration would invalidate the core-confined fraction constraints.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The median dark-matter mass fraction for the realistic BITSH-E and BITSH-I hadronic EoSs sits near 2–4%, with 2σ upper limits around 10–14%, while the fermion mass $M_D$ and coupling ratio $C_{\rm vd}$ remain essentially unconstrained.
Switching between likelihood treatments (mass-cut plus radii, full NICER KDE posteriors, or mock future precision data) changes the inferred $f_{\rm DM}$ only mildly, so current data are already close to what these observations can say about the dark-matter fraction.
Removing the vector-meson self-interaction makes the hadronic EoS stiffer and raises the preferred $f_{\rm DM}$, and the very stiff NL3 model pushes the median fraction to roughly 15%, so the allowed dark-matter fraction is tied to the high-density hadronic stiffness.
Including high-density hadronic uncertainties through the speed-of-sound parametrization has a weak effect on $f_{\rm DM}$, indicating that the fraction constraint is not driven by the high-density part of the hadronic EoS.
The star's maximum mass, canonical radius, and tidal deformability correlate mainly with $f_{\rm DM}$, not with $M_D$ or $C_{\rm vd}$, so the mass fraction is the dark-sector input that shapes observable properties of dark-matter admixed neutron stars.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: If the true dark-matter particle is light enough to form a halo rather than a core component, the core-confined fractions reported here should be read as upper limits on core dark matter; the same two-fluid machinery would need an extended component to capture the actual signature.
Inference: Because the preferred $f_{\rm DM}$ moves with the assumed hadronic stiffness, dark-matter constraints from neutron stars should be reported jointly with the high-density hadronic EoS; a fully simultaneous Bayesian marginalization over both sectors would likely widen the $f_{\rm DM}$ intervals beyond those in Tables II and III.
Inference: A multi-messenger test is possible: across several binary neutron-star events, the model predicts a correlation between the inferred dark-matter fraction and the tidal deformability that is different from what pure hadronic EoS variation would produce, so a gravitational-wave catalog could distinguish the two.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this paper is a standard Bayesian two-fluid TOV analysis of fermionic DM-admixed neutron stars, using the authors' own RMF EoSs (BITSH-E and BITSH-I). The main message—that current astrophysical data constrain only the DM mass fraction, not the particle mass or coupling, and that the fraction tracks hadronic EoS stiffness—is consistent with prior work (Refs. [24] and [32]) and is probably right. The paper is honest about citing those antecedents, so the novelty is incremental: new EoSs, a systematic comparison of three likelihood treatments (including a mock future dataset), and a useful scan over several other RMF EoSs in Table III. What the paper does well: the Bayesian machinery is standard but applied carefully, and the demonstration that fDM is insensitive to how the observational likelihood is constructed while sensitive to hadronic stiffness is a clean, believable result. The authors also correctly note that their conclusion is about which fitted parameter is best constrained, not a prediction. The soft spots, in order of importance. First, the core-confinement assumption is load-bearing. The paper states that DM particles with masses of a few hundred MeV form an extended halo, yet the prior on MD runs from 500 MeV up to 3000 MeV. So a non-negligible part of the prior overlaps the halo regime, and the transition also depends on Cvd and fDM. The posteriors—and the claim that only fDM is constrained—are conditional on one branch of the two-fluid solution space. This is a scope limitation rather than an internal inconsistency, but the abstract states the conclusion without that caveat, which overstates the generality. Second, the language "well constrained" for fDM goes beyond what the numbers support: medians like 2.46(+1.49/-1.65)% have relative uncertainties of order 50–100%. "Least poorly constrained" would be accurate. Third, reproducibility: no code or data are released, and the speed-of-sound priors are only referenced to [61], not listed. The Gaussian symmetrization of clearly asymmetric NICER errors is a minor issue I would not press hard. Who this is for: people working on DMANS constraints, especially those wondering how the BITSH EoSs behave in this context. It is not a breakthrough, but it is a useful data point. I would send it to peer review rather than desk-reject it, but the authors should be asked to state the core-confined scope in the abstract, temper the "well constrained" language, and provide either code/data or at least a complete list of priors.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies dark matter admixed neutron stars (DMANS) with fermionic dark matter interacting only gravitationally with hadronic matter. Using RMF equations of state for both sectors and the two-fluid TOV equations, the authors perform a Bayesian analysis to constrain the dark matter particle mass MD, the vector coupling-to-mass ratio Cvd, and the dark matter mass fraction fDM. Three treatments of astrophysical data are considered: Case I uses a maximum-mass cut plus radii from PSR J0030+0451 and GW170817 tidal deformability; Case II uses full NICER mass-radius posteriors for PSR J0740+6620 and PSR J0030+0451 through KDEs; Case III uses mock data with reduced uncertainties. The analysis is repeated for two realistic EoSs (BITSH-E and BITSH-I), with and without high-density speed-of-sound uncertainties, and for stiffer EoSs obtained by setting the vector self-interaction term to zero. The central claim is that current observations mainly constrain fDM, while MD and Cvd remain poorly constrained, and that fDM is largely insensitive to the likelihood treatment and high-density EoS uncertainties, being instead determined primarily by the stiffness of the hadronic EoS.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a useful, observationally grounded statement about what current neutron-star data can tell us about fermionic dark matter: essentially only the DM mass fraction, not the particle mass or coupling, and with a strong degeneracy with the hadronic EoS stiffness. The study's strengths include the use of recently developed nuclear EoSs constrained by finite nuclei, heavy-ion collisions, and astrophysical data; a nested-sampling Bayesian framework; and a systematic comparison of three likelihood constructions, multiple EoSs, and high-density uncertainty treatments. The result that fDM below roughly 5% is favored for realistic EoSs is a falsifiable statement relevant to future NICER and gravitational-wave observations. The main caveat, discussed in the report, is that the analysis is restricted to core-confined dark matter configurations, so the quantitative posteriors apply only to that branch of the model space.

major comments (4)

[Sections I and III] The manuscript explicitly assumes that DM is entirely confined to the neutron star core (Section I), but the Bayesian prior on MD is 500-3000 MeV, and the text states that particles of order a few hundred MeV form an extended halo, with the core/halo transition depending on MD, Cvd, and fDM (Refs. [19,39,55]). Because the lower part of the MD prior lies in or near the halo regime, the two-fluid TOV solutions (Eq. 5) and the resulting posteriors in Tables II and III are conditional on one branch of the configuration space. The conclusion that current observations constrain only fDM, and that fDM is set primarily by hadronic stiffness, is therefore not established over the full model class; I request either a restriction of the prior to the core-confined regime or an explicit treatment or discussion of the halo branch.
[Section III, Eq. (13)] The likelihood in Eq. (13) is written as a symmetric Gaussian, and the text states that all data are assumed to follow a symmetric Gaussian distribution, despite the reported measurements being asymmetric: R1.34=12.71+1.14-1.19 km, R1.44=13.02+1.24-1.06 km, and Lambda_1.4=190+390-120. The paper does not specify how the sigma in Eq. (13) is chosen from these asymmetric errors. Since Case I is one of the three observational treatments used to support the claim that the DM fraction is insensitive to the treatment of observations, this misspecification should be corrected by using an asymmetric likelihood or by convolving with the actual posterior/KDE samples.
[Section III, Case I] The maximum-mass constraint from PSR J0740+6620 is described as a 'stringent cut' at 2.073 +/- 0.069 M_sun, but no explicit likelihood or prior term is given for it. A hard cut with no uncertainty, a cut using only the lower bound, or a Gaussian term with the quoted 1-sigma error would lead to different accepted parameter regions, and the current text does not allow the reader to reproduce this part of the analysis. Please state explicitly how the Mmax constraint enters the likelihood or posterior.
[Section IV.A and Table II] The statement that 'the DM fraction is largely insensitive to how astrophysical observations are integrated' is stronger than Table II supports. For example, for BITSH-E with C=0 and HDU, the median fDM changes from 8.12% in Case I to 4.82% in Case II and 3.58% in Case III, a factor of about 2.3 between Cases I and III; for BITSH-I with C not equal 0 and HDU, the ordering of BITSH-E and BITSH-I reverses between Case I and Case II. These median shifts are within the broad 1-sigma intervals, so the qualitative conclusion may survive, but the wording should be qualified by the actual numerical spread rather than presented as a strong insensitivity.

minor comments (5)

[Title] The title contains a typo: 'th e' should be 'the'.
[Section II.A] In the text describing the finite-nuclei constraints, 'chare radii' should be 'charge radii'.
[Section IV.A, Case III] In the description of Case III, 'PSR J740+6620' should be 'PSR J0740+6620'.
[Section III, Eqs. (14)-(15)] The definition of P(m|Theta) appears after Eq. (15) although it is used in Eq. (14); it should be introduced before Eq. (14).
[References] Several references have incomplete bibliographic information, for example Refs. [7] and [30] lack publication years; please standardize the reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Bayesian inference is self-contained, and the main conclusions follow from posterior parameter identifiability rather than from definitions, fits disguised as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that astrophysical data primarily constrain the dark-matter mass fraction fDM, while the particle mass MD and coupling-to-mass ratio Cvd remain poorly constrained, and that the inferred fDM scales with hadronic EoS stiffness. This is a posterior-identifiability result obtained by solving the two-fluid TOV equations (Eq. 5) and comparing the resulting M-R and Lambda-M relations with independent astrophysical likelihoods (GW170817, NICER mass-radius data, mass measurements). The DM EoS is stated explicitly (Eq. 4), and the parameters Cvd, MD, and fDM are free parameters with stated uniform priors; the finding that only fDM is constrained is an output of the analysis, not a restatement of the prior or a definition. The hadronic EoSs BITSH-E and BITSH-I are taken from the authors' prior work [53,54], but those EoSs are calibrated to external finite-nuclei, heavy-ion, and neutron-star data, and the stiffness-dependence conclusion is also checked against independent EoSs (NL3, GM1, MS1, TM1) in Table III, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The paper explicitly acknowledges the core-confinement assumption and the existence of halo configurations for lower DM masses; this is a genuine scope limitation, since the lower end of the MD prior may overlap the halo regime, but it is not a circular derivation. The posterior M-R and Lambda-M curves are model checks against observations, not quantities that are fitted into the likelihood and then relabeled as predictions. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-via-citation, or renaming of known results is used to force the conclusions. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained, and no circular step can be exhibited. Score 0 reflects the absence of circularity; the practical caveat about halo configurations is a physical modeling limitation, not a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on general relativity, two-fluid TOV equations, the RMF descriptions of both hadronic and dark matter, and the core-confinement assumption. The paper does not introduce any fundamentally new particles or forces; the dark vector meson is adopted from prior modeling work. The free parameters are the three DM parameters and, in some analyses, the high-density speed-of-sound parameters. The core-confinement assumption is the most significant modeling choice, and it is not relaxed in the analysis.

free parameters (4)

Cvd = posterior median around 0.015 MeV^-1, with broad 1-sigma interval (e.g., 1.52 +1.04 -1.03 times 10^-2 MeV^-1)
Ratio of dark vector meson coupling to its mass. It is a free parameter in the DM EoS and is fitted in the Bayesian analysis with a uniform prior of 0.0005-0.030 MeV^-1.
MD = posterior median roughly 1700-2100 MeV, poorly constrained (e.g., 1739 +980 -862 MeV)
Dark matter particle mass. It is a free parameter fitted with a uniform prior of 500-3000 MeV. The posterior is nearly as broad as the prior.
fDM = posterior median varies from about 1.7% to 8.1% depending on EoS and case, with asymmetric 1-sigma errors typically a…
Dark matter mass fraction, defined as MDM/M_total. It is a free parameter fitted with a uniform prior of 0-20% and is the only parameter that is moderately constrained.
High-density speed-of-sound parameters (hp, np, wp, nbl, sp) = not reported individually; varied within priors from Ref [61]
When the analysis includes high-density EoS uncertainty, these five parameters in Eq. (10) are treated as free parameters within the Bayesian fit.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption General relativity and the two-fluid Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations correctly describe the equilibrium structure of a star containing two non-interacting fluids.
The TOV system in Eq. (5) is the foundation for computing mass and radius. The paper assumes this two-fluid generalization holds for DMANS.
domain assumption The hadronic matter is described by the RMF Lagrangian in Eq. (1) with the BITSH-E and BITSH-I parameter sets, which are calibrated to nuclear data.
The hadronic EoS enters all calculations. The calibration is external, but the model space is limited to the RMF approach and these specific parameter sets.
domain assumption The dark matter is a fermion field with a dark vector meson mediator, and its EoS is given by Eq. (4).
The DM EoS is taken from prior work (Refs [14, 60]) and is not derived in this paper. The fermionic DM and dark vector meson are model ingredients rather than new proposals.
domain assumption Dark matter and hadronic matter interact only gravitationally, so their energy-momentum tensors are separately conserved.
This justifies the two-fluid TOV equations and the separate pressure gradients in Eq. (5). The paper explicitly assumes no non-gravitational interaction.
ad hoc to paper Dark matter is entirely confined to the stellar core.
This is a modeling choice stated in the introduction and used throughout. The authors acknowledge that lighter DM particles would form an extended halo, but they do not model that case.
domain assumption The high-density EoS uncertainty is captured by the speed-of-sound parametrization of Eq. (10) when included.
This is a standard parametrization from Ref [61], but it restricts the possible EoS forms. The paper uses it to represent unknown physics above 2 rho0.
ad hoc to paper The uniform priors for Cvd, MD and fDM are appropriate.
The prior ranges (Cvd: 0.0005-0.03 MeV^-1, MD: 500-3000 MeV, fDM: 0-20%) are chosen from prior literature. The MD lower bound of 500 MeV excludes light DM masses that would form halos, which is consistent with the core-confinement assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Fermionic Dark Matter Admixed Neutron Stars in the Light of Astrophysical Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CML6BSAC

@misc{pith2026250620736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Fermionic Dark Matter Admixed Neutron Stars in the Light of Astrophysical Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CML6BSAC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20736}
}

read the original abstract

We studied the properties of dark matter admixed-neutron stars (DMANS), considering fermionic dark matter (DM) that interacts gravitationally with hadronic matter (HM). Using relativistic mean-field equations of state (EoSs) for both components, we solved the two-fluid Tolman Oppenheimer Volkoff (TOV) equations to determine neutron star (NS) properties assuming that DM is confined within the stellar core. For hadronic matter, we employed realistic EoSs derived from low energy nuclear physics experiments, heavy-ion collision data, and NS observations. To constrain key dark matter parameters such as particle mass, mass fraction, and the coupling to mass ratio, we applied Bayesian inference, incorporating various astrophysical data including mass, radii, and NICER mass-radius distributions for PSR J0740+6620 and PSR J0030+0451. Additionally, we explored the influence of high-density HM EoSs and examined the impact of stiffer hadronic EoSs, excluding the vector meson self-interaction term. Our findings indicate that current astrophysical observations primarily constrain the dark matter fraction, while providing limited constraints on the particle mass or coupling. However, the dark matter fraction is largely insensitive to how astrophysical observations or uncertainties in the high-density EoS are incorporated. Instead, it is predominantly determined by the stiffness of the hadronic EoS at high densities, with stiffer hadronic EoSs yielding a higher dark matter mass fraction. Therefore, we conclude that the dark matter fraction plays a crucial role in shaping the properties of DMANS. Future investigations incorporating more realistic EoSs and astrophysical observations of other compact objects may provide deeper insights into dark matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20736 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Similar to Fig. 1, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Similar to Fig. 1, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig. 4, for models with C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

[24]

Buras-Stubbs and I

Z. Buras-Stubbs and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043043 (2024)

work page 2024
[32]

Biondini, J

S. Biondini, J. Bollig, and S. Vogl, JHEP 04, 050

work page
[61]

Malik, K

T. Malik, K. Banerjee, T. K. Jha, and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C 96, 035803 (2017)

work page 2017
[1]

Golovko, Results in Physics 44, 106164 (2023)

V. Golovko, Results in Physics 44, 106164 (2023)

work page 2023
[2]

36+1. 38 − 1. 52 1. 48+0. 97 − 0. 96 2099. 68+935. 17 − 986. 67 3. 65+2. 22 − 2. 28 Case II 1. 50+0. 95 − 0. 94 1706. 20+836. 3 − 740. 55 3. 36+3. 37 − 2. 19 1. 48+0. 97 − 0. 99 1832. 88+767. 58 − 836. 21 2. 85+3. 11 − 1. 91 Case III 1. 49+0. 94 − 1. 00 1849. 82+774. 37 − 888. 29 2. 40+2. 73 − 1. 57 1. 43+1. 06 − 0. 95 1818. 82+779. 63 − 846. 20 2. 28+2. ...

work page 1936
[3]

M. S. Turner, Phys. Scr. 2000, 210 (2000)

work page 2000
[4]

Ludwig, Euro

G. Ludwig, Euro. Phys. J. C 81, 186 (2021)

work page 2021
[5]

Kouvaris and P

C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D 83, 083512 (2011)

work page 2011

Show all 77 references

[6]

Del Popolo, Astronomy Reports 51, 169 (2007)

A. Del Popolo, Astronomy Reports 51, 169 (2007)

2007
[7]

L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, JHEP 03, 080
[8]

Bertone and T

G. Bertone and T. M. P. Tait, Nature 562, 51 (2018)

2018
[9]

Sen and A

D. Sen and A. Guha, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 3354 (2021)

2021
[10]

Bernal, M

N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuomi- nen, and V. Vaskonen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 1730023 (2017)

2017
[11]

Bertone and D

G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045002 (2018)

2018
[12]

L. D. Duﬀy and K. v. Bibber, New J. Phys. 11, 105008 (2009)

2009
[13]

Ivanytskyi, V

O. Ivanytskyi, V. Sagun, and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063028 (2020)

2020
[14]

Q. F. Xiang, W. Z. Jiang, D. R. Zhang, and R. Y. Yang, Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014)

2014
[15]

Panotopoulos and I

G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 96, 083004 (2017)

2017
[16]

Thakur, T

P. Thakur, T. Malik, and T. K. Jha, Particles 7, 80 (2024)

2024
[17]

Sagun, E

V. Sagun, E. Giangrandi, O. Ivanytskyi, C. Providˆ encia, and T. Dietrich, EPJ Web of Conferences 274, 07009 (2022)

2022
[18]

A. Das, T. Malik, and A. C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. D 99, 043016 (2019)

2019
[19]

Kumar and H

A. Kumar and H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063001 (2024)

2024
[20]

HM EoS with HDU

favored a sub-GeV DM particle with a DM mass fraction of around 5%, based on the observation of 2.0M⊙ NS and constraints of tidal deformability from the LIGO/Virgo collaboration. Similarly, Ref. [18] es- tablished an upper limit of approximately 10% mass frac- tion for DM in N...

1941
[21]

Routaray, S

P. Routaray, S. R. Mohanty, H. Das, S. Ghosh, P. Kalita, V. Parmar, and B. Kumar, JCAP 2023 (10), 073

2023
[22]

D. R. Karkevandi, S. Shakeri, V. Sagun, and O. Ivanyt- skyi, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023001 (2022)

2022
[23]

Konstantinou, Astrophys

A. Konstantinou, Astrophys. J. 968, 83 (2024)

2024
[25]

A. Li, F. Huang, and R. X. Xu, Astropart. Phys. 37, 70 (2012)

2012
[26]

Thakur, T

P. Thakur, T. Malik, A. Das, T. K. Jha, and C. m. c. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D109, 043030 (2024)

2024
[27]

Aprile et al

E. Aprile et al. (Xenon100 Collaboration), Astroparticle Physics 35, 573 (2012)

2012
[28]

Wang et al

Q. Wang et al. , Chin. Phys. C 44, 125001 (2020)

2020
[29]

Janish and E

R. Janish and E. Pinetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 071002 (2025)

2025
[30]

Donato, Phys

F. Donato, Phys. Dark Universe 4, 41 (2014)

2014
[31]

P´ erez de los Heros, Symmetry 12, 1648 (2020)

C. P´ erez de los Heros, Symmetry 12, 1648 (2020)

2020
[33]

Del Popolo, M

A. Del Popolo, M. Deliyergiyev, M. Le Delliou, L. To- los, and F. Burgio, Phys. Dark Univ. 28, 100484 (2020), arXiv:1904.13060 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[34]

Rutherford, G

N. Rutherford, G. Raaijmakers, C. Prescod-Weinstein, and A. Watts, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103051 (2023)

2023
[35]

Deliyergiyev, A

M. Deliyergiyev, A. Del Popolo, and M. L. Delliou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527, 4483 (2023), [Erra- tum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 531, 4263–4274 (2024)], arXiv:2311.00113 [astro-ph.GA]

2023 arXiv
[36]

Kouvaris and P

C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D 82, 063531 (2010)

2010
[37]

´Avila, E

A. ´Avila, E. Giangrandi, V. Sagun, O. Ivanytskyi, and C. Providˆ encia, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 528, 6319 (2024)

2024
[38]

Giangrandi, A

E. Giangrandi, A. ´Avila, V. Sagun, O. Ivanytskyi, and C. Providˆ encia, Particles7, 179 (2024)

2024
[39]

de Lavallaz and M

A. de Lavallaz and M. Fairbairn, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123521 (2010)

2010
[40]

A. E. Nelson, S. Reddy, and D. Zhou, JCAP 2019, 012

2019
[41]

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

2022
[42]

H. C. Das, A. Kumar, B. Kumar, and S. K. Patra, Galax- ies 10, 14 (2022)

2022
[43]

Collier, D

M. Collier, D. Croon, and R. K. Leane, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123027 (2022)

2022
[44]

Leung, M.-c

K.-L. Leung, M.-c. Chu, and L.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123010 (2022)

2022
[45]

Guha and D

A. Guha and D. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043038 (2024)

2024
[46]

Ellis, G

J. Ellis, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and V. Vaskonen, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123007 (2018)

2018
[47]

Kain, Phys

B. Kain, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043009 (2021)

2021
[48]

Guha and D

A. Guha and D. Sen, JCAP 2021, 027

2021
[49]

Husain and A

W. Husain and A. W. Thomas, JCAP 2021, 086

2021
[50]

Shirke, S

S. Shirke, S. Ghosh, D. Chatterjee, L. Sagunski, and J. Schaﬀner-Bielich, JCAP 12, 008
[51]

H. C. Das, ”Impacts of dark matter interaction on nuclear and neutron star matter within the relativistic mean-ﬁeld model”, Phd thesis, Insititute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India (2023)

2023
[52]

C. V. Flores, C. H. Lenzi, M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, and J. D. V. Arba˜ nil, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083021 (2024)

2024
[53]

D. Dey, J. A. Pattnaik, R. N. Panda, M. Bhuyan, and S. K. Patra, (2024), arXiv:2412.06739 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[54]

Thakur, A

P. Thakur, A. Kumar, V. B. Thapa, V. Parmar, and M. Sinha, JCAP 12, 042
[55]

Venneti, S

A. Venneti, S. Gautam, S. Banik, and B. Agrawal, Phys. Lett. B 854, 138756 (2024)

2024
[56]

Gautam, A

S. Gautam, A. Venneti, S. Banik, and B. Agrawal, Nucl. Phys. A 1043, 122832 (2024). 15

2024
[57]

Shawqi and S

S. Shawqi and S. M. Morsink, Astrophys. J. 975, 123 (2024), arXiv:2406.03332 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[58]

Dutra et al

M. Dutra et al. , Phy. Rev. C 90, 055203 (2014)

2014
[59]

C. Y. Tsang et al. , Nature Astronomy 8, 328 (2024)

2024
[60]

G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 170, 299 (1971)

1971
[62]

A. Das, T. Malik, and A. C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123034 (2022)

2022
[63]

I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolﬁ, and S. Reddy, Astrophys. J. 860, 149 (2018)

2018
[64]

Stuart and J

A. Stuart and J. Ord, ”Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics. Volume 1. Distribution Theory” , sixth ed. (Ed- ward Arnold, London, 1994)

1994
[65]

B. P. Abbott et al. (The LIGO Scientiﬁc and the Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)

2018
[66]

Salmi et al

T. Salmi et al. , Astrophys. J. 974, 294 (2024)

2024
[67]

T. E. Riley et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019)

2019
[68]

M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019)

2019
[69]

T. E. Riley et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L27 (2021)

2021
[70]

M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L28 (2021)

2021
[71]

Evans et al

M. Evans et al. , (2023), arXiv:2306.13745

2023 arXiv
[72]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientiﬁc), Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 044001 (2017)

2017
[73]

Punturo et al., Class

M. Punturo et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 084007 (2010)

2010
[74]

Maggiore et al

M. Maggiore et al. (ET), JCAP 03, 050
[75]

Buchner et al

J. Buchner et al. , A&A 564, A125 (2014)

2014
[76]

Choudhury et al., Astrophys

D. Choudhury et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 971, L20 (2024)

2024
[77]

B. Sun, S. Bhattiprolu, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. C 109, 055801 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

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

[1] [24]

Buras-Stubbs and I

Z. Buras-Stubbs and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043043 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [32]

Biondini, J

S. Biondini, J. Bollig, and S. Vogl, JHEP 04, 050

work page

[3] [61]

Malik, K

T. Malik, K. Banerjee, T. K. Jha, and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C 96, 035803 (2017)

work page 2017

[4] [1]

Golovko, Results in Physics 44, 106164 (2023)

V. Golovko, Results in Physics 44, 106164 (2023)

work page 2023

[5] [2]

36+1. 38 − 1. 52 1. 48+0. 97 − 0. 96 2099. 68+935. 17 − 986. 67 3. 65+2. 22 − 2. 28 Case II 1. 50+0. 95 − 0. 94 1706. 20+836. 3 − 740. 55 3. 36+3. 37 − 2. 19 1. 48+0. 97 − 0. 99 1832. 88+767. 58 − 836. 21 2. 85+3. 11 − 1. 91 Case III 1. 49+0. 94 − 1. 00 1849. 82+774. 37 − 888. 29 2. 40+2. 73 − 1. 57 1. 43+1. 06 − 0. 95 1818. 82+779. 63 − 846. 20 2. 28+2. ...

work page 1936

[6] [3]

M. S. Turner, Phys. Scr. 2000, 210 (2000)

work page 2000

[7] [4]

Ludwig, Euro

G. Ludwig, Euro. Phys. J. C 81, 186 (2021)

work page 2021

[8] [5]

Kouvaris and P

C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D 83, 083512 (2011)

work page 2011