Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

The paper claims that a selectively enhanced QCD axion—mass 18 µeV, with clockwork-boosted photon and nucleon couplings—can explain the hard X-ray excess of the isolated neutron star RX J1856.5-3754 through axion-photon conversion, provided

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 03:27 UTC pith:IJZQKADI

load-bearing objection The paper's honest body contradicts its triumphant abstract, and the one benchmark that 'works' has a g_aγ already ruled out by CAST — so the central claim cannot stand as stated. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23140 v1 pith:IJZQKADI submitted 2026-07-25 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Testing selectively enhanced QCD axions couplings as an explanation of the RX J1856.5-3754 hard X-ray excess

Charul Rathod , Madhukar Mishra , P.K Das This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.HE
keywords QCD axionselectively enhanced couplingshard X-ray excessRX J1856.5-3754Magnificent Sevenaxion-photon conversionneutron star coolingnucleon bremsstrahlung
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks whether the hard X-ray excess of the isolated neutron star RX J1856.5-3754 can be explained by QCD axions, not just by generic axion-like particles with freely chosen couplings. It compares a canonical KSVZ axion at 16 meV with a selectively enhanced QCD axion at 18 µeV, whose photon and nucleon couplings are boosted through a clockwork-like hierarchy, using a full neutron-star cooling calculation and magnetospheric axion-photon conversion. In the unpaired-core case, the enhanced model produces a 2–8 keV flux at the observed scale—about 24% above the sum of the observed central bin values—whereas the KSVZ model predicts negligible flux. The binned spectral shape does not match, however: the model underproduces the 2–4 keV bin and overproduces the 6–8 keV bin. If nucleon pairing is active, the predicted flux drops by orders of magnitude and the surface temperature falls below the observed range, so the agreement holds only for an unpaired core.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a selectively enhanced QCD axion, rather than a generic ALP, can account for the hard X-ray excess of RX J1856.5-3754. With mass m_a = 18 µeV and enhancement parameters λ = 15, κ = 10^-6, the model B couplings give g_aγ ≈ 1.1×10^-10 GeV^-1 and nucleon couplings near 10^-9. In an unpaired core, thermal axions from nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung, converted to photons in the magnetosphere, yield binned fluxes (1.10, 4.22, 8.39) in units of 10^-16 erg cm^-2 s^-1 keV^-1 against observed central values (4.72, 5.20, 1.16), with the integrated flux 23.7% above the observed central values. The canonical KSVZ axion at 16 meV produces essentially no flux in the same tr

What carries the argument

The central object is the selectively enhanced QCD axion model 'B': a clockwork-inspired multi-Higgs construction that preserves the QCD axion mass–decay-constant relation while exponentially enhancing the effective photon and nucleon coupling coefficients (C_γ ≈ 3.3×10^4, C_p ≈ C_n ≈ 4.26×10^2 for the chosen benchmark). This enhanced coupling is what lifts the converted photon flux from negligible (KSVZ) to the observed scale. The supporting machinery is a neutron-star thermal evolution calculation with nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung and Cooper-pair breaking/formation as axion emission channels, combined with a non-resonant axion-photon conversion probability in the magnetosphere.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that RX J1856.5-3754's core is unpaired (normal nuclear matter) at the reference age of 0.42 Myr; if nucleon pairing is active, the predicted hard-X-ray flux drops by orders of magnitude and the surface temperature falls below the observed interval.

What would settle it

A response-folded analysis of the published X-ray data in the 2–4, 4–6, and 6–8 keV bins would settle it: if the true spectrum has more flux in the 2–4 keV bin or less in the 6–8 keV bin than the unpaired model-B staircase (1.10, 4.22, 8.39 in 10^-16 erg cm^-2 s^-1 keV^-1), the claimed explanation is excluded; independent evidence that the star's core is superfluid at 0.42 Myr would also falsify it, since the predicted flux collapses to 2.35×10^-19 erg cm^-2 s^-1.

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

If this is right

  • The canonical KSVZ QCD axion at 16 meV cannot explain the RX J1856 hard X-ray excess under the adopted cooling and conversion treatment.
  • The selectively enhanced model B, with unpaired bremsstrahlung, reaches the observed 2–8 keV flux scale without an added fitted normalization, at about 24% above the integrated observed central values.
  • Nucleon pairing suppresses the enhanced-model flux by about four orders of magnitude and predicts a surface temperature below the observed interval, so the viable branch is unpaired.
  • Proton 1S0 pair-breaking and formation produces no flux in the 2–8 keV band because its redshifted threshold near 169 keV lies above the band; it instead predicts a signal near 169 keV.
  • Enhancement alone does not reproduce the full three-bin spectral shape: the 2–4 keV bin is underpredicted and the 6–8 keV bin overpredicted.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the enhanced-coupling mechanism is real, other Magnificent Seven neutron stars with hard X-ray excesses should show a flux scale consistent with the same boosted g_aγ rather than with star-by-star ALP parameter freedom; this is a testable prediction the paper does not perform.
  • The predicted proton-PBF threshold near 169 keV turns the paper's null result in the 2–8 keV band into a concrete high-energy signature: a search for axion-converted photons around 170 keV could confirm or exclude the model independently of the low-energy bins.
  • Because enhancement changes the normalization but not the spectral shape, the residual mismatch in the lower and upper bins suggests the next lever is the conversion probability or an energy-dependent pairing-gap profile, not larger couplings alone.
  • An independent determination of the age or pairing state of RX J1856.5-3754 would be decisive: if the core is paired at 0.42 Myr, the paper's own numbers falsify the enhanced QCD-axion explanation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether QCD axions with selectively enhanced couplings can explain the hard X-ray excess of RX J1856.5-3754. It implements thermal axion emission from nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung and Cooper-pair breaking/formation in the NSCool code with the APR equation of state, evolves the neutron star cooling history, converts the escaping axion flux into photons using a magnetospheric conversion probability, and compares the resulting 2–8 keV flux with XMM-Newton and Chandra data. The canonical KSVZ model (m_a = 16 meV) is found to yield negligible hard X-ray flux, while the unpaired enhanced model B benchmark (m_a = 18 µeV, λ = 15, κ = 1e-6) reaches the observed flux scale in the middle 4–6 keV bin but underproduces the 2–4 keV bin and overproduces the 6–8 keV bin. With nucleon pairing, the model B flux drops by about four orders of magnitude. The paper nonetheless concludes that QCD axions under an enhanced coupling scenario could explain the hard X-ray excess.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the paper would provide a concrete QCD-axion realization rather than a generic ALP explanation for the RX J1856 hard X-ray excess, connecting neutron-star cooling calculations to an electromagnetic observable. The work has clear strengths: fixed benchmark parameters from the literature, no tuning to the X-ray data, a detailed cooling implementation including PBF processes, and explicit caveats in the body about spectral shape and pairing. However, the chosen enhanced model B benchmark has an axion-photon coupling that is excluded by laboratory bounds, and the abstract overstates the conclusions relative to the body, so the significance of the result as stated is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.A.2 and Table I] The model B benchmark uses m_a = 18 µeV and g_aγ = 1.105e-10 GeV^-1. The CAST helioscope limit for m_a < 0.02 eV is g_aγ < 0.66e-10 GeV^-1 (95% CL). Since 18 µeV is well below 0.02 eV, this benchmark is excluded by a factor of about 1.7. This is a laboratory constraint independent of the neutron-star modeling, conversion probability, or pairing state. The paper nowhere addresses this bound. Consequently, the central claim that this model explains the hard X-ray excess cannot be correct as stated. The analysis would need to be redone at a CAST-allowed coupling, where—since both axion production scales with g_aN^2 and conversion scales with g_aγ^2—the predicted flux would be substantially lower and the claimed agreement would likely disappear.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. IV item 2] The abstract states that hard X-rays "could be explained by QCD axions under an enhanced coupling scenario," but the body explicitly concludes that the unpaired model B "does not reproduce the complete spectral shape," underpredicting the 2–4 keV bin and overpredicting the 6–8 keV bin. The integrated-flux comparison (23.7% above the sum of the three central values) is not a meaningful substitute for a binned spectral comparison, as the shape is inconsistent. This is an internal inconsistency between the abstract and the paper's own quantitative findings, and the conclusion should be corrected or substantially qualified.
  3. [Sec. III.C, Fig. 7; Sec. IV item 3] The positive result depends entirely on the unpaired (normal-matter) case. When nucleon pairing is included with the adopted density-dependent critical-temperature model, the model B converted flux drops from 2.74e-15 to 2.35e-19 erg cm^-2 s^-1, about four orders of magnitude below the observed hard X-ray flux, and the predicted surface temperature falls below the observed interval. Since neutron-star cores are generally expected to be paired/superfluid, the paper must either justify why RX J1856.5-3754 should be unpaired at 0.42 Myr or present the conclusion as strictly conditional. The paper's own conclusion 3 concedes the agreement holds "only at the level of the unpaired hard-X-ray excess," but this caveat is absent from the abstract and title-level claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract should explicitly state that the claim applies only to the unpaired, selectively enhanced model B and that the full 2–8 keV spectral shape is not reproduced.
  2. [Sec. II] There is a typo: "descibed" should be "described."
  3. [Fig. 8] The y-axis ranges below zero, which might misleadingly imply negative fluxes. A positive-only axis starting at zero would be clearer for a differential flux plot.
  4. [Sec. III.C] The statement that the simple asymmetric-uncertainty analysis "improves" agreement is not a substitute for a response-folded likelihood; the paper acknowledges this, but the sentence could be tightened to avoid appearing to claim statistical support.
  5. [Sec. II.C.1] Eq. (22) is adopted as an approximate non-resonant conversion probability; the paper should state more explicitly its domain of validity and whether finite-mass or resonant effects could change the normalization, since this is the step that maps axion luminosity to observable flux.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: fixed external model-B benchmark fed through a forward cooling and conversion calculation and tested against RX J1856 data.

full rationale

The claimed chain is X = fixed external benchmark -> thermal evolution (NSCool/APR EoS, standard bremsstrahlung/PBF emissivities) -> axion spectrum -> conversion probability Eq. (22) -> flux Eq. (23) -> comparison with the observed 2-8 keV bins. Model B parameters are not obtained from the RX J1856 data; they are quoted as fixed numbers ('We took m_a = 18 µeV, lambda = 15, kappa = 10^-6') from ref. [20]. Eq. (4) defines the model B coefficients; no observed flux enters that equation. Eq. (22) is the same approximate non-resonant conversion probability used in refs. [19,37], with ref. [19] external, and Eq. (23) is just a geometric rescaling. The paper even presents a failing scenario (paired bremsstrahlung, suppressed by orders of magnitude below the data) and states the agreement holds 'only at the level of the unpaired hard-X-ray excess'; such a failed branch is incompatible with a result forced by construction. The only overlap with the authors' own prior work is ref. [37] (and [49] for envelope relations), used for standard spectral/conversion formulas; those formulas are not unique to the present claim and are also supported by external references. The CAST exclusion noted by the skeptic concerns whether the benchmark is physically allowed; it is a correctness/viability issue, not a definitional equivalence of prediction and input. Thus there is no exhibited circular step; score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced; model B and its heavy scalar states are imported from ref. [20]. The central claim depends on selected benchmark parameters (m_a, λ, κ) and on astrophysical modeling choices (APR EoS, pairing profile, non-resonant conversion formula, NSCool).

free parameters (5)
  • λ (model B enhancement stages) = 15
    Adopted from ref. [20] benchmark; sets C_Bγ=2λ and C_Bp/n via Eq. (4); result depends on this choice.
  • κ (model B sea-quark mixing parameter) = 1e-6
    Adopted from ref. [20]; controls the nucleon vs photon coupling split in Eq. (4).
  • m_a (model B) = 18 µeV
    Benchmark mass; determines f_a via Eq. (2) and all couplings; chosen from the model-B illustrative point in ref. [20].
  • m_a (KSVZ) = 16 meV
    Canonical KSVZ comparison point; chosen to represent the standard QCD axion.
  • pairing critical-temperature model = density-dependent profile cited to refs. [29,57]
    Choice of Tc(ρ) and gap model determines whether bremsstrahlung is suppressed and sets the PBF threshold 2∆_p^∞ ≈ 169 keV; it is a modeling choice, not derived in the paper.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption QCD axion mass–decay-constant relation (Eq. 2): m_a ≈ 6.0 µeV × (10^12 GeV / f_a)
    Used to derive f_a and couplings from m_a; standard from PQ mechanism, but model B modifies charge assignments.
  • domain assumption Nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung emissivity formulas (Eqs. 6-9)
    Taken from Hanhart et al./Iwamoto; assumed valid in the degenerate NS core.
  • domain assumption PBF emissivity formulas (Eqs. 11-17)
    Taken from Keller/Sedrakian; assumes nucleon pairing gaps and superfluid phases.
  • domain assumption Non-resonant conversion probability Eq. (22)
    From refs. [19,37]; neglects resonant, adiabatic, and finite-mass conversion effects, as acknowledged in the paper.
  • standard math APR EoS and TOV solution for 1.4 M_sun NS
    Standard inputs; mass, pressure profile, and radius obtained by solving TOV equations.
  • domain assumption NSCool code correctly evolves NS thermal history
    The calculation relies on the public NSCool code's microphysics for cooling and luminosity outputs.
  • domain assumption No internal heating (H=0) and non-magnetized iron envelope
    Excludes exotic heating sources and magnetic envelope effects; could affect the thermal state and flux.
  • domain assumption Observed RX J1856 parameters (t_RX=4.2e5 yr, d=0.123 kpc, B0=2.9e13 G) are correct
    These are observational inputs; the predicted flux scales directly with these values.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11998 in / 12721 out tokens · 112893 ms · 2026-08-01T03:27:17.560700+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We explore the possibility of explaining hard X-ray data obtained from one of the Magnificent Seven (M7) neutron-stars (NSs) employing QCD axion-converted photons. The emission of thermal axions along with neutrinos from the core has been considered. We adopt the nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung process as the baseline axion production mechanism and Cooper-pair breaking and formation (PBF) as an additional process. We investigate here whether the selectively enhanced QCD axion coupling model can better explain the hard X-ray excess than the commonly used KSVZ axion model. Our results suggest that meV-mass QCD axions cannot explain the hard X-ray observation within the adopted framework. The enhanced selective model in the micro-eV scale provides closer agreement with the hard X-ray data. We thus conclude that the emission of hard X-rays in the $2-8$ keV range from isolated M7 stars could be explained by QCD axions under an enhanced coupling scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23140 by Charul Rathod, Madhukar Mishra, P.K Das.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Redshifted effective temperature versus age for (a) KSVZ and (b) enhanced Model B, with and without nucleon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Paired redshifted effective temperature versus age for (a) KSVZ and (b) enhanced model ’B’. Solid and dash-dotted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Redshifted NN-bremsstrahlung axion luminosity for KSVZ (a) and enhanced model ’B’ (b). Solid and dashed curves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Redshifted PBF axion luminosities for KSVZ (a) and enhanced model ’B’ (b). Solid and dotted curves denote proton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. NN-bremsstrahlung axion spectra for KSVZ (a) and enhanced model ’B’ (b). Solid and dashed curves denote the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Proton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Converted bremsstrahlung photon spectra for KSVZ (a) and enhanced Model B (b). Solid and dashed curves denote [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Binned RX J1856 hard-X-ray spectrum. Stars show the combined PN, MOS, and Chandra measurements [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Within the adopted conversion treatment with and without nucleon pairing for the bremsstrahlung process, the canonical KSVZ model atm a = 16 meV produces a hard X-ray flux far below the observed flux data by PN+MOS+Chandra tele- scope

  2. [2]

    However, it under predicts the 2−4 keV bin and overpredicts the 6−8 keV bin, and therefore does not reproduce the complete spectral shape

    The unpaired selectively enhanced model ’B’ benchmark reaches the integrated 2−8 keV flux scale without introducing an additional fitted nor- malization. However, it under predicts the 2−4 keV bin and overpredicts the 6−8 keV bin, and therefore does not reproduce the complete spectral shape

  3. [3]

    The adopted pairing model also predicts a surface tem- perature below the RX J1856 thermal interval

    Nucleon pairing shifts the bremsstrahlung spec- tral maximum toward the observed energy range but suppresses the axion luminosity and converted photon flux by several orders of magnitude. The adopted pairing model also predicts a surface tem- perature below the RX J1856 thermal interval

  4. [4]

    Because proton PBF emission requires a minimum energy threshold,E ∞ ≥2∆ ∞ p , the resulting spectrum does not lie in the observed 2-8 keV band

    Using the adopted density-dependent critical- temperature profile and the local temperature of the selected core zone, the redshifted proton 1S0 pair-breaking threshold is 2∆∞ p ≃169 keV for both axion benchmarks. Because proton PBF emission requires a minimum energy threshold,E ∞ ≥2∆ ∞ p , the resulting spectrum does not lie in the observed 2-8 keV band....

  5. [5]

    These results show reasonably good agreement with data for the selectively enhanced benchmark over canon- ical KSVZ only at the level of the unpaired hard-X-ray excess

    Selective enhanced coupling regime can remove the normalization deficit of the canonical QCD-axion prediction, but enhancement alone is insufficient to describe the thermal state and the three-bin hard- X-ray spectrum simultaneously. These results show reasonably good agreement with data for the selectively enhanced benchmark over canon- ical KSVZ only at...

  6. [6]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  7. [7]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  8. [8]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  9. [9]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  10. [10]

    J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 103 (1979)

    1979

  11. [11]

    Shifman, A

    M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and V. Zakharov, Nuclear Physics B166, 493 (1980)

    1980

  12. [12]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Physics Letters B104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  13. [13]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.31, 260 (1980)

    1980

  14. [14]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Physics Letters B120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  15. [15]

    Abbott and P

    L. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Physics Letters B120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  16. [16]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Physics Letters B120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  17. [18]

    J. E. Kim, Physical Review Letters43, 103 (1979)

    1979

  18. [19]

    M. A. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nu- clear Physics B166, 493 (1980)

    1980

  19. [20]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Physics letters B104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  20. [21]

    Zhitnitsky, Sov

    A. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys31, 41 (1980)

    1980

  21. [22]

    D. J. Marsh, Physics Reports643, 1 (2016)

    2016

  22. [23]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics102, 89 (2018)

    2018

  23. [24]

    Buschmann, R

    M. Buschmann, R. T. Co, C. Dessert, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 021102 (2021)

    2021

  24. [25]

    Darm´ e, L

    L. Darm´ e, L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, and E. Nardi, Phys- ical Review D103, 015034 (2021)

    2021

  25. [26]

    D. E. Kaplan and R. Rattazzi, Physical Review D93, 11 085007 (2016)

    2016

  26. [27]

    Choi and S

    K. Choi and S. H. Im, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, 1 (2016)

    2016

  27. [28]

    G. F. Giudice and M. McCullough, Journal of High En- ergy Physics2017, 1 (2017)

    2017

  28. [29]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, Physics Reports870, 1 (2020)

    2020

  29. [30]

    Di Luzio, F

    L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, E. Nardi, P. Panci, and R. Ziegler, Physical review letters120, 261803 (2018)

    2018

  30. [31]

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 557 (2010)

    2010

  31. [32]

    Yakovlev and C

    D. Yakovlev and C. Pethick, Annual Review of Astron- omy and Astrophysics42, 169 (2004)

    2004

  32. [33]

    D. Page, J. M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, and A. W. Steiner, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series155, 623 (2004)

    2004

  33. [34]

    D. Page, U. Geppert, and F. Weber, Nucl. Phys. A777, 497 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0508056

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  34. [35]

    G. G. Raffelt,Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics(University of Chicago press, 1996)

    1996

  35. [36]

    Umeda, N

    H. Umeda, N. Iwamoto, S. Tsuruta, L. Qin, and K. Nomoto, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9806337 (1998)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  36. [37]

    Hanhart, D

    C. Hanhart, D. R. Phillips, and S. Reddy, Physics Letters B499, 9 (2001)

    2001

  37. [38]

    Keller and A

    J. Keller and A. Sedrakian, Nuclear Physics A897, 62 (2013)

    2013

  38. [39]

    Sedrakian, Phys

    A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. D93, 065044 (2016)

    2016

  39. [40]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D37, 1237 (1988)

    1988

  40. [41]

    S. J. Witte, D. Noordhuis, T. D. Edwards, and C. Weniger, Physical Review D104, 103030 (2021)

    2021

  41. [42]

    Yadav, M

    S. Yadav, M. Mishra, and T. G. Sarkar, The European Physical Journal C84, 687 (2024)

    2024

  42. [43]

    Dessert, J

    C. Dessert, J. W. Foster, and B. R. Safdi, The Astro- physical Journal904, 42 (2020)

    2020

  43. [44]

    Yoneyama, K

    T. Yoneyama, K. Hayashida, H. Nakajima, S. Inoue, and H. Tsunemi, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan69, 50 (2017)

    2017

  44. [45]

    Fortin and K

    J.-F. Fortin and K. Sinha, Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 1 (2018)

    2018

  45. [46]

    Fortin, H.-K

    J.-F. Fortin, H.-K. Guo, S. P. Harris, E. Sheridan, and K. Sinha, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(06), 036

  46. [47]

    A. J. Millar, S. Baum, M. Lawson, and M. D. Marsh, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021 (11), 013

  47. [48]

    Page, NSCool: Neutron star cooling code, Astro- physics Source Code Library, record ascl:1609.009 (2016), ascl:1609.009

    D. Page, NSCool: Neutron star cooling code, Astro- physics Source Code Library, record ascl:1609.009 (2016), ascl:1609.009

    2016

  48. [49]

    Akmal, V

    A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C58, 1804 (1998)

    1998

  49. [50]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev.55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  50. [51]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev.55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  51. [52]

    A. Y. Potekhin, J. A. Pons, and D. Page, ssr191, 239 (2015)

    2015

  52. [53]

    Yakovlev, D.G

    A. Yakovlev, D.G. Kaminker, O. Gnedin, and P. Haensel, Phys. Rep.354, 1 (2001)

    2001

  53. [54]

    Yadav, M

    S. Yadav, M. Mishra, T. G. Sarkar, and C. R. Singh, The European Physical Journal C84, 225 (2024)

    2024

  54. [55]

    E. H. Gudmundsson, C. J. Pethick, and R. I. Epstein, apj272, 286 (1983)

    1983

  55. [56]

    G. G. Di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. P. Vega, and G. Villadoro, Journal of High Energy Physics2016, 1 (2016)

    2016

  56. [57]

    Iwamoto, Phys

    N. Iwamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 1198 (1984)

    1984

  57. [58]

    Carenza, T

    P. Carenza, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, G. Guo, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, and A. Mirizzi, Journal of Cosmol- ogy and Astroparticle Physics2019(10), 016

  58. [59]

    Sedrakian, Physical Review D99(2019)

    A. Sedrakian, Physical Review D99(2019)

    2019

  59. [60]

    Buschmann, C

    M. Buschmann, C. Dessert, J. W. Foster, A. J. Long, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 091102 (2022)

    2022

  60. [61]

    Flowers, M

    E. Flowers, M. Ruderman, and P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J.205, 541 (1976)

    1976

  61. [62]

    Yakovlev, O

    D. Yakovlev, O. Gnedin, M. Gusakov, A. Kaminker, K. Levenfish, and A. Potekhin, Nuclear Physics A752, 590 (2005)

    2005

  62. [63]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Physical Review D37, 1237 (1988)

    1988