pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.14447 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-14 · ⚛️ nucl-th · hep-ph· hep-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Bayesian analysis of density profile of light dark matter elucidating the properties of dark matter admixed neutron stars in the presence of hyperons

Debashree Sen , Atanu Guha , Chang Ho Hyun
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 01:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th hep-phhep-th
keywords dark matterneutron starsBayesian inferencehyperonssymmetry energyoscillation modeslight dark matterequation of state
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bayesian inference shows that the mass and density-profile parameter of sub-GeV dark matter in neutron stars are nearly independent of the hadronic model for moderate symmetry-energy slopes.

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

The paper examines how light dark matter fermions, interacting weakly with nuclear matter through scalar and vector mediators, alter the structure and oscillation modes of neutron stars that also contain hyperons. Using fifteen relativistic mean-field models spanning a wide range of symmetry-energy slopes and imposing an exponential parametrization of the dark-matter density, the authors apply Bayesian analysis to models that satisfy multiple astrophysical constraints. They conclude that the posterior ranges for the dark-matter particle mass and the single free parameter controlling its density distribution stay consistent across different nuclear equations of state, provided the symmetry-energy slope lies between roughly 40 and 58 MeV. The constraints from GW170817 and HESS J1731-347 play a decisive role in permitting a moderate dark-matter fraction below 10 percent. The work additionally reports the resulting f- and p1-mode frequencies for the most probable parameter values.

Core claim

The central claim is that Bayesian inference applied to dark-matter-admixed neutron-star models satisfying current observational bounds yields likely ranges for the light dark-matter fermion mass m_χ and the exponential density-profile parameter α that are almost independent of the underlying hadronic equation of state whenever the symmetry-energy slope satisfies 40 MeV ≲ L0 < 58 MeV. The dark-matter density is modelled as an exponential function of baryon density controlled by α, with m_χ kept below 1 GeV so that dark matter contributes less than 10 percent of the total stellar mass; self-interaction couplings are fixed by relic-density and bullet-cluster constraints. The analysis finds HGW

What carries the argument

Exponential parametrization of dark-matter density as a function of baryon density controlled by a single free parameter α, used inside Bayesian inference to extract posterior ranges for m_χ and α.

If this is right

  • HESS J1731-347 and GW170817 data are required to allow moderate amounts of light dark matter in neutron stars with L0 below 58 MeV.
  • The most probable values of m_χ and α produce definite predictions for non-radial f- and p1-mode frequencies of the admixed stars.
  • The inferred ranges remain stable across fifteen different relativistic mean-field models inside the stated L0 interval.
  • Absence of dark matter or use of the Bayesian best-fit parameters still yields consistent oscillation frequencies once hyperons are included.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Neutron-star observations could provide nuclear-physics-independent bounds on sub-GeV dark matter if the exponential-profile assumption holds.
  • Future high-precision radius or tidal-deformability measurements could shrink the allowed (m_χ, α) region further.
  • The same Bayesian framework might be applied to other compact objects or to different functional forms of the dark-matter density profile.

Load-bearing premise

The dark-matter density profile inside the star can be written as an exponential function of baryon density controlled by a single free parameter α, with dark matter contributing less than 10 percent to the total mass.

What would settle it

An observation that the dark-matter mass fraction in a neutron star exceeds 10 percent, or that the posterior ranges for m_χ and α change substantially when different hadronic models are used outside the 40–58 MeV L0 window, would falsify the claimed independence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14447 by Atanu Guha, Chang Ho Hyun, Debashree Sen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (a) Dark matter particle fraction and (b) variation of mass with radius of dark matter admixed neutron stars for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Variation of (a) mass with radius in static condition, (b) corresponding tidal deformability with mass and (c) mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Variation of (a) mass with radius in static condition, (b) corresponding tidal deformability with mass and (c) mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Variation of (a) mass with radius in static condition, (b) corresponding tidal deformability with mass and (c) mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Variation of (a) mass with radius in static condition, (b) corresponding tidal deformability with mass and (c) mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Dependence of mass on radius in static condition of dark matter admixed neutron stars for variation of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Dependence of mass on radius in static condition of dark matter admixed neutron stars for variation of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Posterior distribution of the free parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (b) also suggests that the presence of DM increases the value of fp1 with respect to the ‘no-DM’ scenario. For example, in the DDME1 model fp11.4=5.807 kHz without DM but for DMANS fp11.4=6.07 kHz. The measurement of these oscillation frequencies by the upcoming GW detectors will enrich our understanding in this context. Further, simultaneous detection of tidal waves and non-radial modes of oscillation fro… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the impact of symmetry energy ($S$), hyperons, and dark matter (DM) on structural and oscillatory properties of neutron stars (NSs). Uncertainty from hadronic equation of state for NSs is considered with 15 relativistic mean field models having slope parameter ($L_0$) of $S$ in range $40-120$ MeV. DM admixed NSs (DMANSs) are described with feeble interaction between light DM fermions ($\chi$) with hadronic matter in the presence of hyperons via scalar ($\eta$) and vector ($\xi$) dark mediators. The masses $m_{\chi}$, $m_{\eta}$ and $m_{\xi}$ are related by self-interaction constraints from bullet cluster. DM self-interaction couplings are related to $m_{\chi}$ by relic density constraint. The DM density is taken as an exponential function of baryon density with a free parameter $\alpha$. Uncertainty from DM model is incorporated by exploring the dependence on $m_{\chi}$ and $\alpha$. Several DM search experiments have almost ruled out the existence of massive DM ($\gtrsim$ GeV). Lately, pursuit for sub-GeV DM has attracted significant attention. Therefore, we consider $m_{\chi}<$ 1 GeV and $\alpha \leq$ 0.1 such that the contribution of DM to the total mass of the DMANSs is $<10\%$. Comparing our results with various astrophysical constraints, we find that the HESS J1731-347 and GW170817 data are very important in determining the presence of light DM in NSs in moderate amount, relevant in the range $L_0\lesssim$ 58 MeV. Employing models of DMANSs that satisfy several observational data, we infer with Bayesian analysis, the likely ranges of $m_{\chi}$ and $\alpha$ are almost independent of the underlying hadronic model within 40 MeV $\lesssim$ $L_0$ $<$ 58 MeV. In the absence of DM and with the most probable values of $m_{\chi}$ and $\alpha$ obtained from the Bayesian inference, we calculate the frequencies of non-radial $f$- and $p_1$-modes oscillation of NSs/DMANSs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs a Bayesian analysis of light fermionic dark matter admixed neutron stars (DMANS) that include hyperons. Fifteen relativistic mean-field hadronic models spanning L0 = 40–120 MeV are combined with an exponential DM density profile ρ_DM(ρ_B) controlled by a single free parameter α (α ≤ 0.1 so that DM contributes <10 % to total mass). DM self-interaction couplings and mediator masses are fixed by external relic-density and bullet-cluster constraints. Using mass-radius and tidal-deformability data from HESS J1731-347 and GW170817, the authors conclude that the posterior ranges for the DM fermion mass m_χ and α are essentially independent of the underlying hadronic model inside the window 40 MeV ≲ L0 < 58 MeV. Non-radial f- and p1-mode frequencies are also computed for the most probable parameter values.

Significance. If the central result survives a self-consistent treatment, the near-independence of the DM-parameter posteriors on hadronic uncertainties within a restricted L0 interval would be a useful finding for multimessenger constraints on sub-GeV dark matter. The systematic scan across fifteen RMF parametrizations and the explicit anchoring to HESS J1731-347 and GW170817 data are positive features. The significance is reduced, however, by the reliance on an ad-hoc density profile rather than a coupled two-fluid solution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and model description] Abstract and model description: the DM density is prescribed as an exponential function of baryon density controlled by a single free parameter α (with α ≤ 0.1 enforcing <10 % DM mass fraction). In a consistent two-fluid treatment the DM fermions obey their own EOS (fixed by m_χ and the mediator masses) and must be integrated simultaneously with the hadronic fluid through the shared metric in the TOV equations. The exponential ansatz bypasses this equilibrium condition, so the radii and Love numbers fed into the Bayesian likelihood are not guaranteed to correspond to stationary solutions. Because the reported near-independence of the m_χ–α ranges on the hadronic model (for 40 MeV ≲ L0 < 58 MeV) is obtained inside this framework, any systematic shift in the M–R relation that depends on the underlying RMF parameters would directly undermine the independence result.
  2. [Bayesian analysis] Bayesian analysis: the relic-density and bullet-cluster constraints on the DM couplings and mediator masses are imported from external literature without independent re-derivation or sensitivity tests inside the present models. These external priors are load-bearing for the posterior ranges of m_χ and α that are claimed to be independent of the hadronic model.
minor comments (2)
  1. The explicit functional form adopted for the exponential DM density profile should be written as a numbered equation in the main text, with all symbols (including any normalization density) clearly defined.
  2. Minor typographical inconsistencies appear in the abstract (spacing around inequalities and the title phrasing); these should be corrected in the revised manuscript.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript arXiv:2605.14447. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and model description] Abstract and model description: the DM density is prescribed as an exponential function of baryon density controlled by a single free parameter α (with α ≤ 0.1 enforcing <10 % DM mass fraction). In a consistent two-fluid treatment the DM fermions obey their own EOS (fixed by m_χ and the mediator masses) and must be integrated simultaneously with the hadronic fluid through the shared metric in the TOV equations. The exponential ansatz bypasses this equilibrium condition, so the radii and Love numbers fed into the Bayesian likelihood are not guaranteed to correspond to stationary solutions. Because the reported near-independence of the m_χ–α ranges on the hadronic model (for 40 MeV ≲ L0 < 58 MeV) is obtained inside this framework, any systematic shift in the M–R relation that depends on the underlying RMF parameters would directly undermine the independence

    Authors: We acknowledge that the exponential density profile constitutes an approximation rather than a fully self-consistent two-fluid integration of the DM and hadronic EOS through the shared metric. This choice is motivated by the feeble DM-hadron interaction and the explicit constraint α ≤ 0.1 that keeps the DM mass fraction below 10 %, regimes in which prior literature has shown that the ansatz reproduces M–R and tidal-deformability relations to within a few percent of self-consistent solutions. The reported near-independence of the m_χ–α posteriors on the hadronic model is obtained by systematically varying fifteen RMF parametrizations while anchoring the likelihood to the same observational data sets (HESS J1731-347 and GW170817); any residual model-dependent shift in the M–R curve is therefore already sampled in the Bayesian analysis. In the revised manuscript we will expand the model-description section with an explicit justification of the ansatz, references to comparable approximations in the sub-GeV DM literature, and a quantitative estimate of the expected deviation from a full two-fluid treatment. These additions will not modify the numerical results but will clarify the domain of validity. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Bayesian analysis] Bayesian analysis: the relic-density and bullet-cluster constraints on the DM couplings and mediator masses are imported from external literature without independent re-derivation or sensitivity tests inside the present models. These external priors are load-bearing for the posterior ranges of m_χ and α that are claimed to be independent of the hadronic model.

    Authors: The relic-density and bullet-cluster constraints are standard external inputs that fix the DM self-interaction couplings and mediator masses in terms of m_χ, thereby reducing the parameter space to the astrophysically relevant quantities m_χ and α. Re-deriving these cosmological constraints within the present neutron-star framework would require an entirely separate simulation pipeline outside the scope of the current work. Nevertheless, we agree that a sensitivity check is desirable. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that varies the mediator masses within the ranges still compatible with the bullet-cluster bound, recomputes the Bayesian posteriors for a representative subset of the fifteen RMF models, and demonstrates that the m_χ–α credible intervals remain essentially unchanged. This test will directly support the claim of independence from hadronic-model uncertainties inside the 40 MeV ≲ L0 < 58 MeV window. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; ansatz and inference are explicit and data-driven

full rationale

The paper explicitly adopts an exponential DM density profile ρ_χ(ρ_b) controlled by free parameter α (with α ≤ 0.1) as a modeling choice, then performs Bayesian inference of m_χ and α posteriors from mass-radius and tidal data across 15 RMF hadronic models. The reported near-independence of the m_χ–α ranges on the hadronic EOS (for 40 MeV ≲ L0 < 58 MeV) is an output of that multi-model comparison, not presupposed by definition or by a self-citation chain. No equation reduces to its input by construction, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled via self-citation. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on an assumed exponential DM density profile, imported bullet-cluster and relic-density constraints, and the requirement that DM contributes less than 10 percent of the total mass; these are not derived from first principles within the paper.

free parameters (1)
  • α
    Free parameter controlling the exponential DM density profile; upper limit α ≤ 0.1 chosen so DM mass fraction remains below 10 percent.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption DM self-interaction couplings are related to m_χ by relic-density constraint
    Invoked to link mediator masses to the DM fermion mass without re-derivation in the paper.
  • domain assumption Masses m_χ, m_η, m_ξ satisfy self-interaction constraints from bullet cluster
    Used to reduce the parameter space before Bayesian inference.
invented entities (2)
  • light DM fermion χ no independent evidence
    purpose: Constituent of dark matter admixed with neutron-star matter
    Postulated new particle with mass <1 GeV; no independent collider evidence supplied in the abstract.
  • scalar mediator η and vector mediator ξ no independent evidence
    purpose: Mediators of feeble DM-hadron interaction
    Introduced to allow interaction while keeping DM contribution small; no direct detection signature provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5746 in / 1767 out tokens · 37335 ms · 2026-05-15T01:42:53.572215+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 140 canonical work pages · 32 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Heavy-mass stars are relevant to the effect of exotic degrees of freedom like hyperons and quark matter

    and PSR J1231-1411 [27], by HESS and NICER Collaborations, respectively, provide more stringent constraints to the EoS at low as well as high densities. Heavy-mass stars are relevant to the effect of exotic degrees of freedom like hyperons and quark matter. For small-mass stars, uncertainties are mostly relevant with the nucleonic EoS, so the data in a br...

    work page 1940

  2. [2]

    = X B=N,Y gωB ρB,(20) m2 ρρ03 + 2Λωρ(g2 ωN ω2 0)(g2 ρN ρ03) = X B=N,Y gρB 2 τ3BρB,(21) and m2 ϕϕ0 +d 3ϕ3 0 + 2Λϕρ(g2 ϕN ϕ2 0)(g2 ρN ρ2

    work page

  3. [3]

    (11) and (18), respectively, except for the fact that the couplings are density independent and Σ R=0 in Eq

    = X B=N,Y gϕBρB.(22) The EoM of the baryonsψ B andσ ∗ mesons for the NL models remain the same as those for the DD models given by Eqs. (11) and (18), respectively, except for the fact that the couplings are density independent and Σ R=0 in Eq. (11). The dark bosonsηandξinteract with the baryonsψ B with a very feeble coupling strength. In case of nucleons...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The permitted values ofm η andm ξ corresponding to the range ofm χ are already shown in our previous works [37, 38, 48]

    + Λϕρ(g2 ϕN ω2 0)(g2 ρN ρ2 03) + X B=N,Y γB 6π2 Z kF B 0 k4 Bdkq k2 B +m ⋆ B 2 + X l=e,µ γl 6π2 Z kl 0 k4 l dklp k2 l +m 2 l − 1 2 m2 ηη2 0 + 1 2 m2 ξξ2 0 + γχ 6π2 Z kχ F 0 k4 χdkχ q k2χ +m ⋆χ 2 .(36) Following our previous works [37–39, 48], in the present work the values ofmχ,m η andm ξ are consistently related with the self-interaction constraints from...

    work page

  5. [5]

    and corresponding radius [25] are also indicated. The constraints onM−Rplane prescribed from GW170817 [21], the NICER experiment for PSR J0030+0451 [22], HESS J1731-347 [26], PSR J0437-4715 [23], and PSR J1231-1411 [27] are also compared. FIG. 1: (a) Dark matter particle fraction and (b) variation of mass with radius of dark matter admixed neutron stars f...

    work page

  6. [6]

    For PSR J0030+0451M= 1.40 +0.13 −0.12 M⊙ andR= 11.71 +0.88 −0.83 km reported by Vinciguerraet al.[22]

    work page

  7. [7]

    For PSR J0740+6620M= 2.08 +0.07 −0.07 M⊙ andR= 12.92 +2.09 −1.13 km reported by Dittmannet al.[115]

    work page

  8. [8]

    For PSR J0437-4715M= 1.418 +0.037 −0.037 M⊙ andR= 11.36 +0.95 −0.63 km reported by Choudhuryet al.[23]

    work page

  9. [9]

    For PSR J1231-1411M= 1.04 +0.05 −0.03 M⊙ andR= 12.6 +0.3 −0.3 km reported by Salmiet al.[27]

    work page

  10. [10]

    For PSR J0614-3329M= 1.44 +0.06 −0.07 M⊙ andR= 10.29 +1.01 −0.86 km reported by Mauviardet al.[116]

    work page

  11. [11]

    For HESS J1731-347M= 0.77 +0.20 −0.17 M⊙ andR= 10.04 +0.86 −0.78 km reported by Doroshenkoet al.[26]

    work page

  12. [12]

    We infer the posterior distribution of the free parameters (αandm χ), defining the EoS, in the light of the observational data listed above

    For GW170817 Λ 1.4 = 190+390 −120 reported by Abbottet al.[21]. We infer the posterior distribution of the free parameters (αandm χ), defining the EoS, in the light of the observational data listed above. Consequently, we constrain the EoS to satisfy the observations. Bayes’ theorem describes the posterior distribution of the parameters (αandm χ) for give...

    work page

  13. [13]

    The constraints on Λ 1.4 from GW170817 [21] is also shown

    With BigApple model 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 GW170817 PSR J1231-1411 PSR J0030+0451 mχ =1 GeV ,ρsc=5ρ0 Mass (M⊙) Radius (kms) BigAppleN BigAppleY (ZV =0.2, αV =1) BigAppleYDM (α =0.1) BigAppleYDM (α =0.05) BigAppleYDM (α =0.01) PSR J0740+6620 HESS J1731-347 PSR J0437-4715 (a) Mass vs radius in static condition 0 100 200 300 400 500...

    work page

  14. [14]

    is also compared. FIG. 2: Variation of (a) mass with radius in static condition, (b) corresponding tidal deformability with mass and (c) mass with radius in rotating condition (rotational frequencyν=707 Hz) of dark matter admixed neutron stars for variation ofαand fixed values ofρ sc andm χ with BigApple model. We start with the BigApple model, which has ...

    work page

  15. [15]

    It can be seen from Fig

    With DD2 model Subsequently, we consider the DD2 model which has an intermediate value ofL0=54.95 MeV among all the hadronic models chosen for the present work. It can be seen from Fig. 4(a) that similar to the BigApple model, the maximum mass of NS is 2.42M ⊙ in the absence of hyperons while it is 2.27M ⊙ in its presence in the case of the DD2 model. 14 ...

    work page

  16. [16]

    With NL3ωρ6and GM1 models Finally, we examine the structural properties of the DMANSs with the NL3ωρ6 and GM1 models. Ref. [82] has shown that the constraints from PREX and CREX experiments, GW170817 and other astrophysical observations, are satisfied within the rangeL 0 = 53±13 MeV. The lower limit ofL 0 from this range is considered in the present 16 TA...

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Hyperons and massive neutron stars: vector repulsion and SU(3) symmetry

    S. Weissenborn, D. Chatterjee, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. C85, 065802 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 90, 019904 (2014)], 1112.0234

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  18. [18]

    Equation of state for neutron stars in SU(3) flavor symmetry

    T. Miyatsu, M.-K. Cheoun, and K. Saito, Phys. Rev. C88, 015802 (2013), 1304.2121

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  19. [19]

    Miyatsu, M.-K

    T. Miyatsu, M.-K. Cheoun, K. Kim, and K. Saito, Symmetry17, 1872 (2025), 2509.16559

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Sedrakian, J.-J

    A. Sedrakian, J.-J. Li, and F. Weber, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.131, 104041 (2023), 2212.01086

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Huang, J

    K. Huang, J. Hu, Y. Zhang, and H. Shen, Nucl. Phys. Rev.39, 135 (2022), 2203.12357

    work page arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Tanimura, C

    Y. Tanimura, C. H. Hyun, and M.-K. Cheoun (2026), 2602.18356

    work page arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Parmar, V

    V. Parmar, V. B. Thapa, M. Sinha, and I. Bombaci, Phys. Rev. D112, 023016 (2025), 2503.07256

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    K. D. Marquez, D. P. Menezes, H. Pais, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. C106, 055801 (2022), 2206.02935

    work page arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Deconfinement of non-strange hadronic matter with nucleons and $\Delta$ baryons to quark matter in neutron stars

    D. Sen and T. K. Jha, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28, 1950040 (2018), 1811.07227. 20

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Effects of hadron-quark phase transition on properties of Neutron Stars

    D. Sen and T. K. Jha, J. Phys. G46, 015202 (2019), 1811.07434

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Sen, Phys

    D. Sen, Phys. Rev. C103, 045804 (2021), 2103.14136

    work page arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    D. Sen, N. Alam, and G. Chaudhuri, J. Phys. G48, 105201 (2021), 2107.08971

    work page arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    D. Sen, K. Banerjee, and T. K. Jha, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E27, 1850097 (2019), 1812.03529

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Sen, Int

    D. Sen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28, 1950122 (2019), 2008.06753

    work page arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    A. E. R. Concepci´ on and G. Q. Angulo, Astron. Nachr.345, e240009 (2024), 2507.08988

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. N¨ attil¨ a, and A. Vuorinen, Nature Phys.16, 907 (2020), 1903.09121

    work page arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, V. Dexheimer, M. Hanauske, S. Schramm, H. St¨ ocker, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 061101 (2019), 1807.03684

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    D. Sen, H. Gil, and C. H. Hyun, Front. Astron. Space Sci.11, 1421839 (2024), 2402.18912

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    S. Pal, S. Podder, D. Sen, and G. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D107, 063019 (2023), 2303.04653

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    D. Sen, N. Alam, and G. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D106, 083008 (2022), 2209.13890

    work page arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018), 1805.11581

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Vinciguerra et al., Astrophys

    S. Vinciguerra et al., Astrophys. J.961, 62 (2024), 2308.09469

    work page arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Choudhury et al., Astrophys

    D. Choudhury et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L20 (2024), 2407.06789

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Fonseca et al., Astrophys

    E. Fonseca et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L12 (2021), 2104.00880

    work page arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Salmi et al., Astrophys

    T. Salmi et al., Astrophys. J.974, 294 (2024), 2406.14466

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Doroshenko, V

    V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. P¨ uhlhofer, and A. Santangelo, Nature Astronomy6, 1444 (2022), 2303.10264

    work page arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Salmi et al., Astrophys

    T. Salmi et al., Astrophys. J.976, 58 (2024), 2409.14923

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Qi et al., Astrophys

    L. Qi et al., Astrophys. J.981, 99 (2025), 2502.09147

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    J. W. T. Hessels, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, P. C. C. Freire, V. M. Kaspi, and F. Camilo, Science311, 1901 (2006), astro-ph/0601337

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1901

  46. [46]

    C. G. Bassa et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.846, L20 (2017), 1709.01453

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L17 (2022), 2207.05124

    work page arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    H. C. Das, A. Kumar, S. K. Biswal, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D104, 123006 (2021), 2109.01851

    work page arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    L. L. Lopes and A. Issifu, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101922 (2025), 2411.17105

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    X. Mu, B. Hong, X. Zhou, and Z. Feng, Astrophys. Space Sci.368, 67 (2023)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Shahrbaf, P

    M. Shahrbaf, P. Thakur, and D. Rafiei Karkevandi, JCAP03, 017 (2026), 2510.08115

    work page arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Del Popolo, M

    A. Del Popolo, M. Deliyergiyev, and M. Le Delliou, Phys. Dark Univ.30, 100622 (2020), 2011.00984

    work page arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Sen and A

    D. Sen and A. Guha, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.504, 3354 (2021), 2104.06141

    work page arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Guha and D

    A. Guha and D. Sen, JCAP09, 027 (2021), 2106.10353

    work page arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Guha and D

    A. Guha and D. Sen, Phys. Rev. D109, 043038 (2024), 2401.14419

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    S. W. Randall, M. Markevitch, D. Clowe, A. H. Gonzalez, and M. Bradac, Astrophys. J.679, 1173 (2008), 0704.0261

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  57. [57]

    Strong and weak lensing united III: Measuring the mass distribution of the merging galaxy cluster 1E0657-56

    M. Bradac, D. Clowe, A. H. Gonzalez, P. Marshall, W. Forman, C. Jones, M. Markevitch, S. Randall, T. Schrabback, and D. Zaritsky, Astrophys. J.652, 937 (2006), astro-ph/0608408

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  58. [58]

    Beyond Collisionless Dark Matter: Particle Physics Dynamics for Dark Matter Halo Structure

    S. Tulin, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D87, 115007 (2013), 1302.3898

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  59. [59]

    Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rept.730, 1 (2018), 1705.02358

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    Hambye and L

    T. Hambye and L. Vanderheyden, JCAP05, 001 (2020), 1912.11708

    work page arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    micrOMEGAs3.1 : a program for calculating dark matter observables

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 960 (2014), 1305.0237

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  62. [62]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B360, 145 (1991)

    work page 1991

  63. [63]

    A. Guha, P. S. B. Dev, and P. K. Das, JCAP02, 032 (2019), 1810.00399

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  64. [64]

    Sen and A

    D. Sen and A. Guha, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 518 (2022), 2209.09021

    work page arXiv 2022

  65. [65]

    Sen and A

    D. Sen and A. Guha, Phys. Rev. D110, 103013 (2024), 2409.18890

    work page arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    O. P. Jyothilakshmi, L. J. Naik, D. Sen, A. Guha, and V. Sreekanth, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 461 (2025), 2410.20923

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    The dark matter effect on realistic equation of state in neutron stars

    G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D96, 083004 (2017), 1709.06312

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    Kumar and H

    A. Kumar and H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D111, 043016 (2025), 2501.07052

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Hajkarim, J

    F. Hajkarim, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and L. Tolos, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 070 (2025), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/070

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/070 2025

  70. [70]

    G. Baym, D. H. Beck, P. Geltenbort, and J. Shelton, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 061801 (2018), 1802.08282

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    Husain and A

    W. Husain and A. W. Thomas, J. Phys. G50, 015202 (2023), 2206.11262

    work page arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Zhang, B.-A

    N.-B. Zhang, B.-A. Li, J.-Y. Zhang, W.-N. Shen, and H. Zhang, Symmetry17, 1669 (2025), 2509.07767

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Sagun, E

    V. Sagun, E. Giangrandi, O. Ivanytskyi, I. Lopes, and K. A. Bugaev, PoSP ANIC2021, 313 (2022), 2111.13289

    work page arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    D. R. Karkevandi, M. Shahrbaf, S. Shakeri, and S. Typel, Particles7, 201 (2024), 2402.18696

    work page arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Dark compact objects: an extensive overview

    M. Deliyergiyev, A. Del Popolo, L. Tolos, M. Le Delliou, X. Lee, and F. Burgio, Phys. Rev. D99, 063015 (2019), 1903.01183

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    Aalbers, D

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041002 (2023), 2207.03764

    work page arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    Constraining the Spin-Dependent WIMP-Nucleon Cross Sections with XENON1T

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 141301 (2019), 1902.03234

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    Low-Mass Dark Matter Search with the DarkSide-50 Experiment

    P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 081307 (2018), 1802.06994

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    A. H. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST), Phys. Rev. D100, 102002 (2019), 1904.00498

    work page arXiv 2019

  80. [80]

    A. Roy, B. Dasgupta, and M. Guchait, JHEP08, 095 (2024), 2402.17265

    work page arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.