Imprints of Higgs-portal fermionic dark matter on neutron-star tidal deformability and the mass-radius slope

Mehedi Kalam; Monmoy Molla; Tuhin Malik

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Imprints of Higgs-portal fermionic dark matter on neutron-star tidal deformability and the mass-radius slope

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a neutron star's tidal deformability at fixed mass can separate a Higgs-portal dark-matter component from ordinary nuclear-physics uncertainty, with a model-independent 7.5–7.8 sigma displacement at 1.4 solar masses.

desk verdict A transparent proof-of-concept that Lambda at fixed mass could separate dark-matter softening from nucleonic uncertainty, but the headline 7.5–7.8σ numbers rest on an untested single-fluid uniform-DM approximation that likely overstates the effect. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17034 v1 pith:2ZP3VQYO submitted 2026-07-19 hep-ph

Monmoy Molla , Mehedi Kalam , Tuhin Malik This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords Higgs-portaldarkmatterneutronstarstidaldeformabilitymass-radiusrelationequationofstaterelativisticmean-fieldmodelsadmixedgravitationalwaves

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

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

The paper asks whether dark matter trapped inside a neutron star can be told apart from ordinary nuclear-physics uncertainty using only measurable quantities. It models a Higgs-portal fermionic dark-matter component with a single control parameter, the DM Fermi momentum, and computes the mass-radius relation, maximum mass, sound speed, and tidal deformability across three density-dependent relativistic mean-field functionals. Against a Bayesian posterior of the pure-nucleonic equation of state, the paper finds that the tidal deformability at fixed mass is a sharp discriminator: at 1.4 solar masses and the largest DM momentum, the DM-induced reduction of Lambda is about eight times the nucleonic 1-sigma width (7.5-7.8 sigma), and the DM track leaves the 1-sigma band for DM momenta above roughly 0.03-0.04 GeV. The mass-radius slope becomes diagnostic only for the heavier 1.8-2.0 solar mass branch. If correct, a future precision measurement of Lambda below the nucleonic floor would be direct evidence of non-nucleonic softening, with dark matter one of several candidate explanations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless tidal deformability Lambda evaluated at fixed gravitational mass (1.4, 1.8, 2.0 solar masses), compared against the spread of a Bayesian nucleonic-EoS posterior to define 1-sigma and 2-sigma bands. The control parameter is the DM Fermi momentum k_F^DM, which sets the DM number density and hence the softening strength. The mechanism is that DM acts as a heavy, nearly pressureless Fermi component: adding its energy density while contributing almost nothing to pressure drives a fixed-mass star to higher compactness and central density, which collapses Lambda. A supporting near-universal identity is Lambda_1.4/Lambda_1.4(0) approximately [R_1.4/R_1.4(0)]^6

What would settle it

A precise determination of Lambda at 1.4 solar masses (with error smaller than the nucleonic 1-sigma width) that lands inside the nucleonic posterior band for a star whose mass-radius curve is consistent with a large DM Fermi momentum, or a two-fluid hydrostatic calculation showing the DM track no longer exits the 1-sigma band, would undercut the claimed separation. Directly, a measurement of Lambda_1.4 above the nucleonic floor at a DM Fermi momentum that the paper predicts should push it below the floor would falsify the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the DM-induced softening of the equation of state produces a reduction of the dimensionless tidal deformability at fixed gravitational mass that is separable, at a statistical significance of 7.5-7.8 sigma, from the existing nucleonic-EoS uncertainty encoded in a Bayesian posterior. At 1.4 solar masses and a DM Fermi momentum of 0.06 GeV, Lambda drops steeply in every model (for instance, from about 660 to about 110 in the stiffest functional), and the DM track exits the nucleonic 1-sigma band for k_F^DM above roughly 0.03-0.04 GeV. The maximum-mass and radius constraints set model-dependent upper bounds of about 0.04-0.05 GeV. The paper also shows that the

Load-bearing premise

The DM component is assumed to be spread evenly through the star with one fixed density value; if real captured dark matter is concentrated toward the center rather than uniform, the magnitude of the tidal imprint and the quoted significance would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A future gravitational-wave measurement of Lambda at 1.4 solar masses with uncertainty below the nucleonic 1-sigma width, landing below the Bayesian floor (Lambda_1.4 near 320), would indicate a non-nucleonic softening component inside the star.
The two-solar-mass pulsar limit and NICER radii jointly bound the DM Fermi momentum to about 0.04-0.05 GeV, while the stiffest functional requires a minimum DM content (k_F^DM above about 0.026 GeV) to satisfy the GW170817 tidal bound.
The mass-radius slope dR/dM is a weak discriminator at 1.4 solar masses but becomes a diagnostic at 1.8-2.0 solar masses, where DM lowers the slope steeply.
The signature is not unique to dark matter: hyperons, quark matter, or Delta-isobars would lower Lambda in the same way, so identifying the actual composition requires additional observables.
The near-universal scaling Lambda proportional to R^6.1 across the three functionals makes the DM-induced shift predictable from the radius shift alone.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step, which the paper motivates but does not perform, is to include k_F^DM as a free parameter in a Bayesian equation-of-state inference, allowing the DM fraction to be marginalized over rather than fixed.
The single-fluid, spatially uniform DM approximation likely overestimates the compactness shift; recomputing with a two-fluid, centrally concentrated DM profile would test whether the quoted 7.5-7.8 sigma separation survives for realistic captured-DM distributions.
The derived nucleonic floor of Lambda_1.4 near 320 can serve as a model-independent screening test on existing and future gravitational-wave catalogs, requiring no dark-matter modeling itself.
If the Lambda proportional to R^6.1 scaling is generic across different softening agents, then combining Lambda and radius measurements may help distinguish dark matter from hadronic exotica by their different scaling behavior—an extension not explored in the paper.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is the distinguishability analysis: instead of just showing that DM softens the EoS, the authors compare the DM track against a Bayesian nucleonic posterior band and ask whether a measurable quantity can separate the two. That is the right question, and the answer—that Lambda at fixed mass is a much sharper discriminator than dR/dM, with dR/dM only working at 1.8–2.0 solar masses—is a useful, concrete result. The paper also does a few things well: the forward calculation is transparent, the equations are internally consistent, the caveats about posterior width versus measurement error and the GW170817 conditioning of the band are stated plainly, and the caution that a low Lambda would signal generic non-nucleonic softening rather than DM specifically is honest.

The main soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note flags. The authors model the DM as a single fluid with a constant k_F^DM throughout the star (Sec. II.B, Eqs. 26–30). That makes the DM number density spatially uniform, so the DM-to-baryon ratio is largest in the low-density outer core and smallest at the center. This is the opposite of the centrally concentrated profile you get from two-fluid hydrostatic equilibrium, where heavy captured DM sinks to the core. Since the radius and tidal Love number are sensitive to the outer layers, this inverted profile can artificially boost the DM-induced reduction of R and Lambda. The paper cites two-fluid works in the introduction but never tests the uniform assumption against them. The 7.5–7.8σ separation at k_F^DM=0.06 GeV, the band-leaving thresholds, and even the R_1.4 ≈ 9.2 km numbers are all conditional on this choice. That is not a fatal flaw—the qualitative conclusion that Lambda is a promising discriminator may survive a proper two-fluid treatment—but the quantitative headline should not be billed as model-independent.

Other soft spots are more minor and mostly disclosed by the authors: the significance is measured against the posterior width, not a realistic measurement uncertainty; the posterior itself is partly conditioned on GW170817; and the three functionals are all stiff DDRMF, so the "nucleonic band" is not a full representation of nucleonic EoS uncertainty. No code or data are released, which limits reproducibility, though the underlying framework is public.

Who is this for? People working on DM-admixed neutron stars and on Bayesian EoS inference will want to read it. It is a reasonable proof-of-concept, not a settled constraint. I would send it to peer review—a good referee can push the authors to test the uniform-DM approximation against a two-fluid treatment or at least to soften the model-independence language. If that comparison comes out favorably, the paper becomes much stronger.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies neutron stars admixed with Higgs-portal fermionic dark matter, using three density-dependent relativistic mean-field functionals (DDME, DDB, GDFM). Dark matter is modeled as a uniform Fermi gas with Fermi momentum k_F^DM treated as a control parameter in 0.02–0.06 GeV. The authors solve the coupled mean-field and TOV equations to obtain the EoS, mass–radius relation, maximum mass, sound-speed profile, and tidal deformability Lambda, and compare the results with the 2 M_sun pulsar limit, NICER radii, and GW170817 tidal bound. The central new claim is a distinguishability analysis: using the Cartaxo et al. Bayesian DDRMF posterior as the nucleonic uncertainty band, the DM-admixed tracks in the (dR/dM, Lambda) plane are claimed to leave the nucleonic band at k_F^DM ~ 0.03–0.04 GeV and to reach a model-independent 7.5–7.8 sigma displacement in Lambda at 1.4 M_sun and k_F^DM = 0.06 GeV, while dR/dM becomes diagnostic only at 1.8–2.0 M_sun. The paper explicitly lists caveats about significance being measured against posterior width rather than observational error, the differential nature of the DDME displacement, and the degeneracy of DM with other softening mechanisms.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the paper provides a useful proof of concept: a future precision measurement of Lambda at fixed mass below the nucleonic floor would indicate non-nucleonic softening, with Higgs-portal fermionic DM as one candidate. The study's strengths are its transparent forward calculation, the use of three distinct functionals, the public Bayesian reference posterior, and explicit disclosure of the main caveats. The near-universal scaling relations in Eq. (40) are a practical byproduct. However, the headline quantitative separation rests on an untested single-fluid assumption for the DM radial distribution, and the quoted sigma values mix model offset with the DM-induced shift. These issues affect the robustness of the main claim and require address before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II.C, Eqs. (26)–(30); Sec. III.A, Figs. 4 and 7] The calculation assumes a globally constant k_F^DM, so n_DM = (k_F^DM)^3/(3 pi^2) is uniform in radius. Locally n_DM/n_B therefore scales as 1/n_B, placing most of the DM mass in the low-density outer core. This is opposite to the centrally concentrated profile obtained in two-fluid hydrostatic treatments (Refs. [11–14]), and because Lambda is sensitive to the outer layers, the inverted profile can artificially enhance the DM-induced reduction of R and Lambda. The paper does not test this assumption or compare with a two-fluid calculation. Since the central 7.5–7.8 sigma separation and the 0.03–0.04 GeV band-leaving thresholds depend on it, please either implement a hydrostatic two-fluid DM profile or provide a quantitative justification that the uniform-profile result is conservative.
[Abstract; Sec. III.A; Figs. 7–8] The abstract and conclusions call the 7.5–7.8 sigma value a 'DM-induced reduction' of Lambda. What is actually computed is (mean_nuc - Lambda_DM)/sigma_nuc, i.e., the distance from the Bayesian nucleonic mean to the full DM-admixed model prediction. For DDME, whose DM-free Lambda_1.4 ~ 733 is already above the posterior band, a large part of this displacement is not due to DM. The text later acknowledges this and recommends the differential displacement from each model's own DM-free point as the robust quantity, but the abstract is not qualified accordingly. Please report the differential shifts and adjust the abstract/conclusions so the claim is not overstated.
[Sec. III.A; Ref. [23]] The nucleonic reference band is the Cartaxo et al. posterior, which is conditioned on GW170817 tidal data and NICER mass–radius measurements. These same data are used elsewhere in the paper to judge the DM tracks. The paper notes this lack of statistical independence and defers a fully rigorous treatment. Because the central detectability statement relies on the 'nucleonic floor' of this posterior, please quantify the sensitivity of the band's lower edge and the quoted sigma values to excluding GW170817, or state clearly how the conclusions would change if the band were rebuilt without it.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. II.B] The sentence 'DM constitutes about 95% of the total density of matter' is imprecise; dark matter is roughly 85% of the matter density (or about 26% of the total energy density in the standard cosmological model). Please correct.
[Eqs. (23) and (27)] The notation gamma/(2 pi)^3 d^3k is nonstandard and may confuse readers; clarify that the angular integration is included in d^3k, or write the scalar density in the equivalent radial-integral form used elsewhere.
[Fig. 4] The text states that DDME meets the 2 M_sun limit up to k_F^DM ~ 0.059 GeV, but the left panel does not mark this threshold. Adding a vertical line or shaded region for the 2 M_sun constraint would improve readability.
[Sec. III.A] The phrase 'model-independently 7.5–7.8 sigma' is better stated as 'across the three models' or 'functional-independently', since the result still depends on the chosen nuclear functional class and the assumed DM benchmark parameters.
[Data availability] The manuscript states that generated EoSs are available on request. For reproducibility, consider releasing the DM-admixed EoS tables as supplementary data or via a public repository.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DM-admixed TOV analysis is a forward calculation with an explicit control parameter, and the comparison band is an independently conditioned published posterior.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained as a forward model: the DM contribution enters through the Higgs-portal Lagrangian (Eq. 21) and the mean-field equations (Eqs. 26–30), with k_F^DM declared as a control parameter rather than fitted to the output; the TOV and tidal-Love equations (Eqs. 32–39) are standard, and the nucleonic reference band is the published, data-conditioned Cartaxo et al. DDRMF posterior used only as a comparison object. The paper does not fit k_F^DM to the Lambda or M–R data it uses as discriminators, so the "prediction" of reduced Lambda is a computed consequence, not a re-use of inputs. The near-universal laws in Eq. (40) are explicitly fits to the generated model curves, not claimed as first-principles derivations. The paper itself flags the real limitations—constant-k_F^DM single-fluid approximation, degeneracy with hadronic softening, and the GW170817 conditioning of the band—which are model/statistical caveats rather than circular steps. Self-citations (DDB, CompactObject, Cartaxo posterior) refer to code-released, data-conditioned work and do not define the target result as an input. No step satisfies the required standard of equivalence-by-construction.

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

The paper introduces no new particles or forces: the neutralino and the Higgs-portal coupling are imported from Refs. [8,39], and the three functionals are published parameter sets (Refs. [19,20,22]). What the central claim actually rests on are four hand-set or bibliographic parameters (k_F^DM, y, m_chi, f) and the single-fluid uniform-DM approximation, the largest physical simplification. The comparison band is an external Bayesian posterior (Ref. [23]) whose authors overlap with this paper's co-author T. Malik; it is treated as a benchmark, not derived here. No machine-checked proofs, no shipped data.

free parameters (4)

k_F^DM (dark-matter Fermi momentum) = 0.02-0.06 GeV; capture estimate ~0.033 GeV
Central control parameter. All quantitative claims (8σ shift, band-leaving thresholds, R_1.4 and M_max reductions) are functions of this hand-set parameter; the paper maps sensitivity over the range rather than fitting it.
y (DM-Higgs Yukawa coupling) = 0.07
Benchmark from Refs. [8,39], within the quoted allowed interval 0.001-0.1. Chosen by hand; sets the DM-nucleon interaction strength and hence the magnitude of the softening.
m_chi (lightest neutralino mass) = 200 GeV
Benchmark from Refs. [8,39]; above m_h/2 so the invisible-Higgs-decay bound does not apply. The 'heavy, nearly pressureless' DM behavior driving the results assumes m_chi >> k_F^DM.
f (proton-Higgs form factor) = 0.35
Taken from Ref. [40]; enters the Higgs-nucleon Yukawa term f m/v and the nucleon mass shift in Eq. (25).

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Mean-field approximation: sigma/omega/rho and Higgs fields replaced by expectation values; quantum fluctuations neglected
Invoked in Sec. II.A-II.B; the entire RMF EoS construction and the h_0 equation (22) rest on it.
domain assumption Beta-equilibrium and charge neutrality for cold catalyzed matter (mu_n = mu_p + mu_e, mu_mu = mu_e; rho_p = rho_e + rho_mu)
Eqs. (17)-(20), Sec. II.A; standard assumption for cold NS cores, used for the DM-admixed case without re-derivation.
domain assumption DM forms a single-fluid, spatially uniform Fermi gas with fixed k_F^DM at all radii
Sec. II.B-II.C, Eqs. (26)-(30). The strongest simplification; not validated against the two-fluid treatments (Refs. [11-14]) cited in the introduction.
domain assumption The lightest neutralino (m_chi=200 GeV, y=0.07) is the DM candidate; h^3 and h^4 terms in the Higgs potential neglected
Sec. II.B, Eq. (21), following Refs. [8,39]. Benchmark particle-physics choice, not derived in this paper.
standard math BPS outer crust matched to the core by a polytrope with gamma=4/3
Sec. II.A, Ref. [33]. Standard crust treatment; affects the low-density EoS only.
standard math TOV equations and Hinderer tidal Love-number formalism describe the star's structure and tidal response
Sec. II.D-II.E, Eqs. (31)-(39). Standard GR tools; not in question.
domain assumption The Cartaxo et al. (2026) DDRMF posterior band represents current nucleonic EoS uncertainty
Sec. III.A. The 7.5-7.8σ significance is measured against this band's width; a wider non-RMF posterior would shrink it. The band is partly GW170817-conditioned, a caveat the authors disclose.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Imprints of Higgs-portal fermionic dark matter on neutron-star tidal deformability and the mass-radius slope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ZP3VQYO

@misc{pith2026260717034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Imprints of Higgs-portal fermionic dark matter on neutron-star tidal deformability and the mass-radius slope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ZP3VQYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17034}
}

abstract

We investigate the structure of neutron stars (NSs) admixed with fermionic dark matter (DM) using three density-dependent relativistic mean-field (DDRMF) functionals (DDME, DDB, and GDFM) for $\beta$-equilibrated nucleonic matter. Modeling DM as the lightest neutralino interacting via Higgs exchange, we treat the DM Fermi momentum $k_F^{\rm DM}$ as a control parameter in the range $0.02$-$0.06$ GeV. We solve the coupled mean-field and Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations to obtain the mass-radius relation, maximum mass $M_{\rm max}$, radial sound speed profile $c_s^2$, and tidal deformability $\Lambda$. In all models, DM softens the equation of state, systematically reducing $M_{\rm max}$, the radius $R_{1.4}$ (at $1.4M_{\odot}$), and the tidal deformability $\Lambda_{1.4}$ (at $1.4M_{\odot}$) as $k_F^{\rm DM}$ increases. Consequently, the $2 M_\odot$ pulsar limit and NICER data place a model-dependent upper limit on the DM content, while the GW170817 tidal bound requires a minimal DM content for the stiffest functional. Using a recent Bayesian inference of the DDRMF equation of state as the nucleonic reference band, we evaluate if this DM imprint can be distinguished from nucleonic uncertainties using only measureable quantities. Analyzing the tidal deformability $\Lambda$ and mass-radius slope $dR/dM$ at fixed mass, we find that $\Lambda$ is a sharp discriminator: at $1.4 M_\odot$ and $k_F^{\rm DM}=0.06$ GeV, the DM-induced reduction of $\Lambda$ reaches $\simeq 8$ times the nucleonic $1\sigma$ width (model-independently $7.5$-$7.8\sigma$). The DM track leaves the nucleonic $1\sigma$ band for $k_F^{\rm DM}\gtrsim0.03$-$0.04$ GeV, whereas $dR/dM$ becomes diagnostic only for the heavier ($1.8$-$2.0 M_\odot$) branch.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17034 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Mass–radius curves of NSs are shown for three different EoS models, assuming a DM Fermi momentum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Squared sound speed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Macroscopic observables as functions of the DM Fermi momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Dimensionless tidal deformability Λ as a function of NS mass for the three models, for DM Fermi momenta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Slope of the mass–radius relation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: Dark-matter imprint in the plane of two observables, the tidal deformability Λ versus the mass–radius slope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: As Fig. 7, but for the central squared sound speed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

N. K. Glendenning, Compact stars: From dwarfs to black holes, inCompact Stars: Nuclear Physics, Parti- cle Physics and General Relativity(Springer, 1997) pp. 55–123

1997
[2]

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

2001
[3]

softening agents

In our approximation, the Euler–Lagrange equations for all fields thus become m2 σσ= Γ σ ¯ψψ,(8) m2 ωω0 = Γω ¯ψγ0ψ,(9) m2 ρρ0 3 = 1 2 Γρ ¯ψγ0τ3ψ.(10) At zero temperature, the baryon number densityρ= ⟨ ¯ψγ 0ψ⟩and the scalar densityρ s =⟨ ¯ψψ⟩are given by ρ= γ 2π2 X B=n,p Z kF B 0 k2dk,(11) ρs = γ 2π2 X B=n,p Z kF B 0 m∗k2 √ m∗2 +k 2 dk,(12) whereγis the sp...

arXiv
[4]

Bauer and T

M. Bauer and T. Plehn,Yet another introduction to dark matter: the particle physics approach(Springer, 2019)

2019
[5]

V. C. Rubin, W. k. ford, jr., n. thonnard, Astrophys. J. Lett225, L107 (1978)

1978
[6]

Goldman and S

I. Goldman and S. Nussinov, Weakly interacting massive particles and neutron stars, Physical Review D40, 3221 (1989)

1989
[7]

Bertone and M

G. Bertone and M. Fairbairn, Compact stars as dark mat- ter probes, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravi- tation, and Cosmology77, 043515 (2008)

2008
[8]

Panotopoulos and I

G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Dark matter effect on re- alistic equation of state in neutron stars, Physical Review D96, 083004 (2017)

2017

Show all 61 references

[9]

Kouvaris and P

C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Can neutron stars con- strain dark matter?, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology82, 063531 (2010)

2010
[10]

Thakur, T

P. Thakur, T. Malik, A. Das, T. Jha, B. Sharma, and C. Providˆ encia, Feasibility study of a dark matter ad- mixed neutron star based on recent observational con- straints, Astronomy & Astrophysics697, A220 (2025)

2025
[11]

A. Das, T. Malik, and A. C. Nayak, Confronting nuclear equation of state in the presence of dark matter using gw170817 observation in relativistic mean field theory approach, Physical Review D99, 043016 (2019)

2019
[12]

Tolos, J

L. Tolos, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and Y. Dengler, Dark com- pact planets, Physical Review D92, 123002 (2015)

2015
[13]

Narain, J

G. Narain, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and I. N. Mishustin, Compact stars made of fermionic dark matter, Physical Review D74, 063003 (2006)

2006
[14]

M. F. Barbat, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and L. Tolos, Compre- hensive study of compact stars with dark matter, Physi- cal Review D110, 023013 (2024)

2024
[15]

Dengler, J

Y. Dengler, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and L. Tolos, Second love number of dark compact planets and neutron stars with dark matter, Physical Review D105, 043013 (2022)

2022
[16]

Ivanytskyi, V

O. Ivanytskyi, V. Sagun, and I. Lopes, Neutron stars: New constraints on asymmetric dark matter, Physical Review D102, 063028 (2020)

2020
[17]

Giangrandi, V

E. Giangrandi, V. Sagun, O. Ivanytskyi, C. Providˆ encia, and T. Dietrich, The effects of self-interacting bosonic dark matter on neutron star properties, The Astrophys- ical Journal953, 115 (2023)

2023
[18]

Molla, M

M. Molla, M. Murshid, and M. Kalam, Influence of fermionic dark matter on the structural and tidal prop- erties of neutron stars, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17905 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[19]

Rutherford, G

N. Rutherford, G. Raaijmakers, C. Prescod-Weinstein, and A. Watts, Constraining bosonic asymmetric dark matter with neutron star mass-radius measurements, Physical Review D107, 103051 (2023)

2023
[20]

Malik, M

T. Malik, M. Ferreira, B. Agrawal, and C. Providˆ encia, Relativistic description of dense matter equation of state and compatibility with neutron star observables: A bayesian approach, The Astrophysical Journal930, 17 (2022)

2022
[21]

Typel and H

S. Typel and H. Wolter, Relativistic mean field calcu- lations with density-dependent meson-nucleon coupling, Nuclear Physics A656, 331 (1999)

1999
[22]

P. Char, C. Mondal, F. Gulminelli, and M. Oertel, Gen- eralized description of neutron star matter with a nu- cleonic relativistic density functional, Physical Review D 108, 103045 (2023)

2023
[23]

G¨ ogelein, E

P. G¨ ogelein, E. N. E. van Dalen, C. Fuchs, and H. M¨ uther, Nuclear matter in the crust of neutron stars derived from realisticnninteractions, Physical Review C 77, 025802 (2008)

2008
[24]

nu- cleonic uncertainty band

and conditioned on nuclear saturation properties, chiral-EFT and perturbative-QCD limits, the GW170817 tidal deformability, and the NICER mass–radius mea- surements. This posterior provides a quantitative “nu- cleonic uncertainty band” against which a candidate DM imprint can ...
[25]

Cartaxo, C

J. Cartaxo, C. Huang, T. Malik, S. Sourav, W.-L. Yuan, T. Zhou, X. Liu, and C. Providˆ encia, Covariant Energy Density Functionals for Modeling the Equation of State of Neutron Star Matter: Cross-comparison Analysis Us- ing CompactObject, Astrophys. J. Suppl.282, 33 (2026), ar...

2026
[26]

Huang, T

C. Huang, T. Malik, B. Cartaxo,et al., CompactOb- ject: An open-source bayesian inference framework for neutron-star equation-of-state and dense-matter physics, (software / J. Open Source Softw.) (2024),https: //github.com/ChunHuangPhy/CompactObject

2024
[27]

T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous, D. Chakrabarty,et al., A nicer view of psr j0030+ 0451: millisecond pulsar parameter estimation, The As- trophysical Journal Letters887, L21 (2019)

2019
[28]

T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, S. M. Morsink, A. V. Bilous, Z. Arzouma- nian, D. Choudhury, J. S. Deneva,et al., A nicer view of the massive pulsar psr j0740+ 6620 informed by radio timing and xmm-newton spectroscopy, The Astrophysi- cal Journal ...

2021
[29]

Choudhury, T

D. Choudhury, T. Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, T. E. Riley, Y. Kini, A. L. Watts, B. Dorsman, S. Bogdanov, S. Guil- lot, P. S. Ray,et al., A nicer view of the nearest and brightest millisecond pulsar: Psr j0437–4715, The Astro- physical Journal Letters971, L20 (2024)

2024
[30]

Mauviard, S

L. Mauviard, S. Guillot, T. Salmi, D. Choudhury, B. Dorsman, D. Gonz´ alez-Caniulef, M. Hoogkamer, D. Huppenkothen, C. Kazantsev, Y. Kini,et al., A nicer view of the 1.4 m⊙edge-on pulsar psr j0614-3329, The Astrophysical Journal995, 60 (2025)

2025
[31]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Ad- hikari, V. B. Adya,et al., Gw170817: Measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state, Physical review letters121, 161101 (2018)

2018
[32]

Brockmann and H

R. Brockmann and H. Toki, Relativistic density- dependent hartree approach for finite nuclei, Physical re- view letters68, 3408 (1992)

1992
[33]

Ter Haar and R

B. Ter Haar and R. Malfliet, Nucleons, mesons and deltas in nuclear matter a relativistic dirac-brueckner approach, Physics Reports149, 207 (1987)

1987
[34]

Brockmann and R

R. Brockmann and R. Machleidt, Relativistic nuclear structure. i. nuclear matter, Physical Review C42, 1965 (1990)

1965
[35]

Carriere, C

J. Carriere, C. Horowitz, and J. Piekarewicz, Low-mass neutron stars and the equation of state of dense matter, 15 The Astrophysical Journal593, 463 (2003)

2003
[36]

Kouvaris, Wimp annihilation and cooling of neutron stars, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology77, 023006 (2008)

C. Kouvaris, Wimp annihilation and cooling of neutron stars, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology77, 023006 (2008)

2008
[37]

Xiang, W.-Z

Q.-F. Xiang, W.-Z. Jiang, D.-R. Zhang, and R.-Y. Yang, Effects of fermionic dark matter on properties of neutron stars, Physical Review C89, 025803 (2014)

2014
[38]

Ellis, G

J. Ellis, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and V. Vaskonen, Dark matter effects on neutron star properties, Physical Review D97, 123007 (2018)

2018
[39]

Ellis, A

J. Ellis, A. Hektor, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and V. Vaskonen, Search for dark matter ef- fects on gravitational signals from neutron star mergers, Physics Letters B781, 607 (2018)

2018
[40]

Brayeur and P

L. Brayeur and P. Tinyakov, Enhancement of dark mat- ter capture by neutron stars in binary systems, Physical review letters109, 061301 (2012)

2012
[41]

Murakami and J

B. Murakami and J. D. Wells, Nucleon scattering with higgsino and w-ino cold dark matter, Physical Review D 64, 015001 (2001)

2001
[42]

J. M. Cline, P. Scott, K. Kainulainen, and C. Weniger, Update on scalar singlet dark matter, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology88, 055025 (2013)

2013
[43]

Aprileet al., First dark matter search with nuclear re- coils from the xenonnt experiment, Physical Review Let- ters131, 041003 (2023)

E. Aprileet al., First dark matter search with nuclear re- coils from the xenonnt experiment, Physical Review Let- ters131, 041003 (2023)

2023
[44]

Aalberset al., First dark matter search results from the lux-zeplin (lz) experiment, Physical Review Letters 131, 041002 (2023)

J. Aalberset al., First dark matter search results from the lux-zeplin (lz) experiment, Physical Review Letters 131, 041002 (2023)

2023
[45]

Arcadi, A

G. Arcadi, A. Djouadi, and M. Raidal, Dark matter through the higgs portal, Physics Reports842, 1 (2020)

2020
[46]

R. C. Tolman, Static solutions of einstein’s field equations for spheres of fluid, Physical Review55, 364 (1939)

1939
[47]

J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, On massive neu- tron cores, Physical Review55, 374 (1939)

1939
[48]

Hinderer, Tidal love numbers of neutron stars, The Astrophysical Journal677, 1216 (2008)

T. Hinderer, Tidal love numbers of neutron stars, The Astrophysical Journal677, 1216 (2008)

2008
[49]

Hinderer, B

T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, and J. S. Read, Tidal deformability of neutron stars with realistic equa- tions of state and their gravitational wave signatures in binary inspiral, Phys. Rev. D81, 123016 (2010)

2010
[50]

Postnikov, M

S. Postnikov, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, Tidal love numbers of neutron and self-bound quark stars, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmol- ogy82, 024016 (2010)

2010
[51]

Malik, N

T. Malik, N. Alam, M. Fortin, C. Providˆ encia, B. Agrawal, T. Jha, B. Kumar, and S. Patra, Gw170817: Constraining the nuclear matter equation of state from the neutron star tidal deformability, Physical Review C 98, 035804 (2018)

2018
[52]

C. F. P. da Silva, Dark matter searches with lux, arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.03572 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[53]

Ferreira and C

M. Ferreira and C. Providˆ encia, Constraining neutron star matter from the slope of the mass-radius curves, Physical Review D110, 063018 (2024)

2024
[54]

Huang, L

C. Huang, L. Tolos, C. Providˆ encia, and A. Watts, Con- straining a relativistic mean field model using neutron star mass–radius measurements ii: hyperonic models, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society536, 3262 (2025)

2025
[55]

Annala, T

E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. N¨ attil¨ a, and A. Vuorinen, Evidence for quark-matter cores in massive neutron stars, Nature Physics16, 907 (2020)

2020
[56]

J. J. Li and A. Sedrakian, Implications from gw170817 forδ-isobar admixed hypernuclear compact stars, The Astrophysical Journal Letters874, L22 (2019)

2019
[57]

Shirke, S

S. Shirke, S. Ghosh, D. Chatterjee, L. Sagunski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, R-modes as a new probe of dark matter in neutron stars, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2023(12), 008
[58]

C. V. Flores, C. Lenzi, M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, and J. D. Arbanil, Gravitational wave asteroseismology of dark matter hadronic stars, Physical Review D109, 083021 (2024)

2024
[59]

D. Dey, J. A. Pattnaik, M. Bhuyan, R. Panda, and S. Pa- tra, f-mode oscillations of dark matter admixed quarky- onic neutron star, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti- cle Physics2025(08), 003
[60]

Thakur, A

P. Thakur, A. Kumar, V. B. Thapa, V. Parmar, and M. Sinha, Exploring non-radial oscillation modes in dark matter admixed neutron stars, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(12), 042
[61]

Shirke, B

S. Shirke, B. K. Pradhan, D. Chatterjee, L. Sagunski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Effects of dark matter onf- mode oscillations of neutron stars, Physical Review D 110, 063025 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

N. K. Glendenning, Compact stars: From dwarfs to black holes, inCompact Stars: Nuclear Physics, Parti- cle Physics and General Relativity(Springer, 1997) pp. 55–123

1997

[2] [2]

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

2001

[3] [3]

softening agents

In our approximation, the Euler–Lagrange equations for all fields thus become m2 σσ= Γ σ ¯ψψ,(8) m2 ωω0 = Γω ¯ψγ0ψ,(9) m2 ρρ0 3 = 1 2 Γρ ¯ψγ0τ3ψ.(10) At zero temperature, the baryon number densityρ= ⟨ ¯ψγ 0ψ⟩and the scalar densityρ s =⟨ ¯ψψ⟩are given by ρ= γ 2π2 X B=n,p Z kF B 0 k2dk,(11) ρs = γ 2π2 X B=n,p Z kF B 0 m∗k2 √ m∗2 +k 2 dk,(12) whereγis the sp...

arXiv

[4] [4]

Bauer and T

M. Bauer and T. Plehn,Yet another introduction to dark matter: the particle physics approach(Springer, 2019)

2019

[5] [5]

V. C. Rubin, W. k. ford, jr., n. thonnard, Astrophys. J. Lett225, L107 (1978)

1978

[6] [6]

Goldman and S

I. Goldman and S. Nussinov, Weakly interacting massive particles and neutron stars, Physical Review D40, 3221 (1989)

1989

[7] [7]

Bertone and M

G. Bertone and M. Fairbairn, Compact stars as dark mat- ter probes, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravi- tation, and Cosmology77, 043515 (2008)

2008

[8] [8]

Panotopoulos and I

G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Dark matter effect on re- alistic equation of state in neutron stars, Physical Review D96, 083004 (2017)

2017