Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dark matter that flavor-changes between electrons and muons cannot cool inside a neutron star, so it stays hot and keeps the star at ~2000 K — a signal future infrared telescopes can see.

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

2026-08-03 23:26 UTC pith:ASMYLNJJ

load-bearing objection Flavor blocking is a genuinely new and plausible mechanism for keeping DM hot in neutron stars, but the headline reach depends on one unquantified loop-suppression claim that a referee should force the authors to estimate. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.05651 v3 pith:ASMYLNJJ submitted 2025-11-07 hep-ph

Neutron stars can shine a light on elusive lepton-flavor-violating dark matter

Hooman Davoudiasl , Jaime Hoefken Zink , Sebastian Trojanowski This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d97.60.Jd14.80.Va
keywords dark matterneutron star heatinglepton flavor violationaxion-like particlethermal relicp-wave annihilationflavor blockingindirect detection
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 argues that a dark-matter particle that changes the flavor of the leptons it touches — turning electrons into muons or back — cannot cool down once captured inside a neutron star. Because such flavor-changing interactions are kinematically forbidden at low energies, the dark matter remains much hotter than the star itself. That sustained heat keeps its p-wave annihilation channel switched on, depositing energy that keeps old neutron stars at surface temperatures around 2,000–2,300 K, warm enough for planned infrared telescopes to see. If true, neutron-star thermometry would probe a thermal-relic dark-matter scenario that direct detection, indirect detection, and accelerator searches all miss, constraining the lepton-flavor-violating coupling by up to three orders of magnitude below current bounds.

Core claim

The central discovery is a mechanism called flavor blocking: in a neutron star, a sub-GeV dark-matter particle interacting only through χe↔χμ transitions is trapped at a temperature floor near 43 keV for GeV-scale masses, far above the star's own temperature. The floor follows because the inelastic transition requires a target lepton with energy E ≥ Δm²_μe/(2q), and once the DM momentum q drops below Δm²_μe/(2μ) no lepton in the degenerate Fermi gas can supply it. As a result the DM never thermalizes; its residual velocity keeps the p-wave secluded annihilation χ̄χ→aa efficient, and the axion-like particles (ALPs) produced deposit energy when they decay to e±μ∓. The paper shows this makes ne

What carries the argument

The linchpin is the kinematic threshold for lepton-flavor-violating scattering. In the deep interior, the lepton chemical potential μ ≈ 250 MeV caps the energy of target electrons and muons. For a DM particle with temperature T_DM and momentum q ∼ √(3 m_χ T_DM), the reaction χe→χμ needs a target energy E⁺_p1 = Δm²_μe/(2q); when this exceeds μ the reaction is Pauli-blocked and cannot cool the DM. The paper derives the resulting DM-temperature floor T_DM ≳ (Δm²_μe)²/(48 m_χ μ²) and shows that at this floor the p-wave annihilation factor A_χ ∝ 1/T_DM^{1/2} remains large, whereas an s-wave factor would scale as T_DM^{-3/2}. Flavor blocking is thereby the crucial step that turns a p-wave-suppress

Load-bearing premise

The whole signal rests on the claim that loop-induced elastic scattering of dark matter off electrons and muons is so rare that the dark matter never cools to the neutron-star temperature within the age of the universe — a step the paper asserts but does not compute in detail.

What would settle it

Compute the full one-loop elastic-scattering rates χe→χe and χμ→χμ in the LFV ALP model; if for couplings in the currently allowed region the thermalization time is less than the universe's age, the dark matter would sit at the star's temperature, the p-wave annihilation rate would drop, and the predicted T_s ≳ 1900 K floor would disappear. Empirically, if several old neutron stars in the local halo are observed with surface temperatures well below 2000 K, the heating prediction for that part of parameter space is contradicted.

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

If this is right

  • Neutron stars with surface temperatures T_s ≳ 2×10³ K become smoking-gun signatures for lepton-flavor-violating dark matter, distinguishable from speculative heating mechanisms by observing a population of old stars.
  • Future infrared surveys with sensitivity around 10³ K could constrain the coupling g_μe down to ~10⁻⁷ at sub-GeV masses, three orders of magnitude below current muonium-oscillation and rare-decay bounds.
  • The high internal dark-matter temperature makes p-wave secluded annihilation χ̄χ→aa dominate over s-wave χ̄χ→eμ, so indirect-detection limits from CMB and cosmic-ray measurements remain subdominant and the scenario stays viable.
  • In the allowed parameter space, because the dark matter never cools, kinetic and annihilation heating combine to deposit essentially the full relativistic energy γ_s m_χ per captured particle.
  • The flavor-blocking effect also mitigates constraints on asymmetric dark matter collapsing to black holes in old neutron stars, because the inflated dark-matter temperature enlarges the isothermal radius.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A dedicated one-loop calculation of the elastic processes χe→χe and χμ→χμ would directly test the assumed absence of cooling; if the thermalization time is shorter than the universe's age for some couplings, the predicted temperature floor and bounds shrink accordingly.
  • The flavor-blocking floor should hold for any inelastic dark-matter–lepton portal, not only ALPs; deriving analogous NS-heating signatures for vector or scalar mediators could extend the reach of neutron-star thermometry.
  • A null observation — many old neutron stars in dense dark-matter environments staying well below ~2000 K — would turn absence of heating into a robust exclusion tool for flavor-violating dark-matter couplings.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a thermal-relic Dirac fermion DM particle coupled to electrons and muons through a lepton-flavor-violating (LFV) ALP mediator. In a neutron star, infalling DM can scatter inelastically via χe↔χμ; the authors argue that this LFV interaction becomes kinematically blocked when the DM energy drops below a threshold, preventing thermalization to the NS temperature. The resulting relatively hot DM population then annihilates through the p-wave secluded channel χ̄χ→aa, producing ALPs that decay to e±μ∓ and heat the star. The predicted surface temperatures T_s ≳ 2×10^3 K are claimed to be observable with future infrared telescopes, yielding constraints on the LFV coupling g_μe that are up to three orders of magnitude stronger than existing bounds at sub-GeV masses. The paper includes detailed capture-rate and energy-deposition calculations, a treatment of general-relativistic corrections, and public NS-profile data.

Significance. If the central mechanism is correct, this would be a genuinely new astrophysical probe of LFV DM, reaching couplings inaccessible to direct, indirect, and collider searches. The paper is careful in many respects: it uses a realistic NS equation of state, includes previously omitted GR factors such as sqrt(g_rr) in the optical depth, provides machine-readable data, and gives clear analytic expressions for the capture and heating rates. The projected sensitivities are strong and falsifiable. However, two load-bearing points currently undermine confidence in the 'flavor blocking' narrative: (i) the loop-induced elastic scattering rate is asserted to be negligible without calculation, and (ii) the claimed role of a high DM temperature in 'enabling' p-wave annihilation appears inconsistent with the paper's own Aχ ∝ T^{-1/2} scaling. These issues should be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [NS heating; Supplemental 'Annihilation of DM in the star'] The assertion that loop-induced elastic processes χe→χe and χμ→χμ have thermalization times far exceeding the age of the universe is not supported by any calculation or order-of-magnitude estimate in the text or the supplement. This assumption is load-bearing for Eq. (10): if these loop processes are not negligible, T_DM can fall below the flavor-blocking floor T_min. The paper provides no quantitative basis for this claim, and the importance of the parameter dependence is not obvious: for g_μe near the current muonium bound (~10^-3), a naive one-loop estimate may give thermalization times shorter than 10^10 yr. Please provide an explicit loop calculation or, at minimum, a sensitivity test in which Eq. (10) is replaced by T_DM = T_NS and Fig. 3 is recomputed. As written, this is a placeholder rather than a demonstration.
  2. [Abstract, NS heating, Fig. 3] The paper repeatedly states that flavor blocking keeps DM hot enough to 'enable efficient p-wave annihilations'. This appears inconsistent with the paper's own framework. In Eq. (58), Aχ ≈ ⟨σannv⟩/((2π)^{3/2} r0^3) with r0 ∝ T^{1/2}; for a p-wave channel, ⟨σannv⟩ ∝ T, so Aχ ∝ T^{-1/2}. Reducing T_DM from the flavor-blocking value T_min ≈ 43 keV (Eq. 10) to T_NS ≈ 2×10^3 K would therefore increase Aχ by a factor (T_min/T_NS)^{1/2} ≈ 500, making p-wave annihilation faster, not slower. What flavor blocking actually does is suppress the s-wave channel more strongly (Aχ ∝ T^{-3/2}), thereby changing the dominant annihilation channel. The authors should clarify this distinction and quantify how the projected bounds in Fig. 3 change when T_DM is set to T_NS.
  3. [Eqs. (3)–(4)] The relic abundance is fixed using only the secluded annihilation mode χ̄χ→aa (Eq. (3)). For the largest values of g_μe shown in Fig. 3 (near the muonium-oscillation bound), the s-wave channel χ̄χ→eμ of Eq. (4) may become non-negligible at freeze-out, which would modify the relationship g_χ,th(m_a, g_μe) used throughout the NS heating calculation. Please quantify the ratio ⟨σv⟩_μe/⟨σv⟩_aa at T_f.o. over the plotted parameter plane and confirm that the thermal-relic value of g_χ is insensitive to g_μe.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplemental Eq. (15)] In Eq. (15) of the Supplement, the notation '⟨|M|⟩' should read '⟨|M|^2⟩'.
  2. [Fig. 3] Please specify the assumed NS age and equation of state for the T = 1900/2100/2300 K projection curves, and state whether the curves assume f_ann = 1 or include the finite-age solution for Nχ(t).
  3. [Eq. (7)] The functions g_s(m) and β_s(m) are defined only in the Supplement. A brief definition or reference in the main text would improve readability.
  4. [Discussion] The remarks about bosonic DM and black-hole formation mitigation are speculative and not supported by calculations in this paper; consider moving them to an explicit outlook subsection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the flavor-blocking floor, the thermal-relic g_chi, and the predicted T_s are derived from kinematics and stated cross sections, not fitted to the NS-temperature target; the only flagged gap is an asserted (not computed) loop-induced elastic thermalization rate, which is a robustness concern, not a circular step.

full rationale

Walk the central chain: (i) The LFV ALP Lagrangian (eqs. 1–2) is stated in the paper; the model connection to a UV scale cites [45], but the NS calculation does not assume the conclusion. (ii) The dark coupling g_chi is fixed by requiring Omega_chi h^2 ~ 0.12 via the secluded annihilation cross section (eq. 3, cited to [65], not to the authors' own result); this is a parameter fixed by an external, independent constraint, not fitted to the predicted T_s. (iii) The flavor-blocking floor, eq. (10), T_DM >~ (Delta m^2_{mu e}/(4 mu))^2/(3 m_chi), is derived in the Supplemental Material from energy-momentum conservation and the Pauli-blocking condition E_{p2} > mu for inelastic chi e <-> chi mu; it is not set by requiring any target surface temperature. (iv) The annihilation heating rate then follows from the p-wave <sigma v> for chi-bar chi -> a a and the equilibrium N_chi, giving f_ann=1 and E_k = gamma_s m_chi (eq. 9); T_s is computed from Stefan-Boltzmann (eq. 8), so the 1900–2300 K contours in Fig. 3 are outputs, not inputs. No equation reduces to a fitted parameter or to a uniqueness claim. One flagged passage (Section 'NS heating'): 'We note that, at very late times, DM is expected to fully thermalize with the star due to loop-induced processes, chi e -> chi e and chi mu -> chi mu. These processes remain very strongly suppressed such that the relevant thermalization time significantly exceeds the age of the universe.' This is an uncomputed estimate, and if the loop rate were large the flavor-blocking mechanism would fail; however, that is a missing quantitative demonstration, not a circular reduction by construction. The self-citations (e.g., ref. [45] for the LFV model and cross section) are not load-bearing for the new flavor-blocking claim, so only minor credit is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The main free parameters are the benchmark mass hierarchy and the thermal-relic value of the dark coupling. The most fragile input is the assertion that loop-induced elastic DM-lepton scattering is negligible, which is necessary for flavor blocking but not quantified in the paper.

free parameters (3)
  • dark coupling g_chi,th = ≈0.1 sqrt(m_a/GeV) for m_chi=2m_a
    Chosen so that the secluded annihilation channel χ̄χ→aa reproduces the observed thermal relic abundance Ωh²≈0.12 (Eq. 3); sets the annihilation rate that drives NS heating.
  • DM mass m_chi and ALP mass m_a = m_chi = 2 m_a
    Benchmark mass hierarchy chosen for illustration; other hierarchies would change kinematics and reach.
  • NS mass and equation of state = M_NS=2 M_sun, BSk25 EoS
    Single neutron-star model used to compute lepton chemical potentials and density profiles; other EoS may produce different muon abundances and chemical potentials, affecting the flavor-blocking floor.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Dark matter was thermally produced in the early universe with the observed relic abundance
    Justifies the benchmark g_chi,th and the p-wave secluded annihilation channel.
  • domain assumption Neutron-star interiors consist of npeμ matter treated as a zero-temperature free Fermi gas
    Used to compute lepton densities, chemical potentials, and Pauli blocking (Supplemental Material, Eq. 11).
  • ad hoc to paper Tree-level DM-lepton scattering is purely LFV (χe↔χμ); elastic scattering is loop-induced and negligible
    The flavor-blocking mechanism requires no tree-level elastic channel and loop-induced elastic rates far too slow to thermalize DM within the age of the universe; the paper asserts this without a quantitative loop calculation.
  • standard math Annihilation cross sections are given by Eqs. (3)-(4) from prior literature
    Taken from refs. [65] and [45]; used to compute annihilation heating and indirect-detection constraints.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21640 in / 14453 out tokens · 129991 ms · 2026-08-03T23:26:46.916235+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate a scenario in which dark matter (DM) poses a challenge to conventional direct and indirect detection, making it much more elusive than typical candidates. We focus on thermally produced DM that couples to electrons and muons via a lepton-flavor-violating (LFV) axion-like particle (ALP). Given the DM kinematics and lack of muon targets on Earth, direct detection would be infeasible. Indirect detection of our DM candidate is also hampered by the dominance of $p$-wave annihilation. However, we demonstrate that neutron stars (NS) can serve as probes of such a scenario, through future dedicated observational campaigns. Infalling DM is accelerated to semi-relativistic velocities, triggering inelastic $\chi e \leftrightarrow \chi \mu$ scattering off both electrons and muonic targets within the NS. We show that ``flavor blocking'' -- the kinematic suppression of LFV interactions at low energies -- prevents DM thermalization with the cold neutron star, enabling efficient $p$-wave annihilations. The resulting NS surface temperatures ($T_s \gtrsim 2 \times 10^3~\mathrm{K}$) offer a possible signature for future infrared searches, probing thermal relics beyond the reach of direct, indirect, and accelerator experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.05651 by Hooman Davoudiasl, Jaime Hoefken Zink, Sebastian Trojanowski.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Optical factor, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Evolution of the DM temperature ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Current constraints and projected exclusion bounds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Lowest temperature reached by DM for case 1 and a NS of mass of 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Equilibration time with respect to each channel and the DM temperature for an NS of mass of 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Dark Matter Heating of Compact Stars Beyond Capture: A Relativistic Framework for Energy Deposition by Particle Beams

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    A new relativistic formalism computes capture and energy deposition of directed particle beams in compact stars, applied to blazar-boosted dark matter heating of white dwarfs and neutron stars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 82 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Roszkowski, E

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 066201 (2018), arXiv:1707.06277 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Billardet al., Rept

    J. Billardet al., Rept. Prog. Phys.85, 056201 (2022), arXiv:2104.07634 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Boveiaet al., (2022), arXiv:2210.01770 [hep-ph]

    A. Boveiaet al., (2022), arXiv:2210.01770 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Alves Batistaet al., (2021), arXiv:2110.10074 [astro- ph.HE]

    R. Alves Batistaet al., (2021), arXiv:2110.10074 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Kouvaris, Phys

    C. Kouvaris, Phys. Rev. D77, 023006 (2008), arXiv:0708.2362 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Bertone and M

    G. Bertone and M. Fairbairn, Phys. Rev. D77, 043515 (2008), arXiv:0709.1485 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Kouvaris and P

    C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D82, 063531 (2010), arXiv:1004.0586 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    de Lavallaz and M

    A. de Lavallaz and M. Fairbairn, Phys. Rev. D81, 123521 (2010), arXiv:1004.0629 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    Bertoni, A

    B. Bertoni, A. E. Nelson, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. D 88, 123505 (2013), arXiv:1309.1721 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    Baryakhtar, J

    M. Baryakhtar, J. Bramante, S. W. Li, T. Linden, and N. Raj, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 131801 (2017), arXiv:1704.01577 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Bramante, A

    J. Bramante, A. Delgado, and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 96, 063002 (2017), arXiv:1703.04043 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    N. Raj, P. Tanedo, and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. D97, 043006 (2018), arXiv:1707.09442 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, and S. Robles, JCAP09, 018 (2018), arXiv:1807.02840 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    J. F. Acevedo, J. Bramante, R. K. Leane, and N. Raj, JCAP03, 038 (2020), arXiv:1911.06334 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, S. Robles, and M. Virgato, JCAP 09, 028 (2020), arXiv:2004.14888 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, T. F. Motta, S. Robles, A. W. Thomas, and M. Virgato, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 111803 (2021), arXiv:2012.08918 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Garani, A

    R. Garani, A. Gupta, and N. Raj, Phys. Rev. D103, 043019 (2021), arXiv:2009.10728 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Dasgupta, A

    B. Dasgupta, A. Gupta, and A. Ray, JCAP10, 023 (2020), arXiv:2006.10773 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Anzuini, N

    F. Anzuini, N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, T. F. Motta, S. Robles, A. W. Thomas, and M. Virgato, JCAP11, 056 (2021), [Erratum: JCAP 04, E02 (2024)], arXiv:2108.02525 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    DeRocco, M

    W. DeRocco, M. Galanis, and R. Lasenby, JCAP05, 015 (2022), arXiv:2201.05167 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Coffey, D

    J. Coffey, D. McKeen, D. E. Morrissey, and N. Raj, Phys. Rev. D106, 115019 (2022), arXiv:2207.02221 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    T. T. Q. Nguyen and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D107, 115016 (2023), arXiv:2212.12547 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, S. Robles, and M. Virgato, JCAP 04, 006 (2024), arXiv:2312.11892 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Bramante and N

    J. Bramante and N. Raj, Phys. Rept.1052, 1 (2024), arXiv:2307.14435 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Zhang, R

    H.-Y. Zhang, R. Hagimoto, and A. J. Long, Phys. Rev. D109, 103005 (2024), arXiv:2309.03889 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    L. Su, L. Wu, and M. Yang, Phys. Rev. D110, 055014 (2024), arXiv:2408.03759 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Y. Ema, R. McGehee, M. Pospelov, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. D111, 023005 (2025), arXiv:2405.18472 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Goldman and S

    I. Goldman and S. Nussinov, Phys. Rev. D40, 3221 (1989)

    1989

  29. [29]

    S. D. McDermott, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D85, 023519 (2012), arXiv:1103.5472 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  30. [30]

    Bramante and T

    J. Bramante and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 191301 (2014), arXiv:1405.1031 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    Garani, Y

    R. Garani, Y. Genolini, and T. Hambye, JCAP05, 035 (2019), arXiv:1812.08773 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, and S. Robles, JCAP06, 054 (2019), arXiv:1904.09803 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Joglekar, N

    A. Joglekar, N. Raj, P. Tanedo, and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Lett. B809, 135767 (2020), arXiv:1911.13293 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Joglekar, N

    A. Joglekar, N. Raj, P. Tanedo, and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. D102, 123002 (2020), arXiv:2004.09539 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, S. Robles, and M. Virgato, JCAP 03, 086 (2021), arXiv:2010.13257 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Haensel, A

    P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev,Neu- tron stars 1: Equation of state and structure, Vol. 326 (Springer, New York, USA, 2007)

    2007

  37. [37]

    Garani and J

    R. Garani and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev. D100, 035039 (2019), arXiv:1906.10145 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rept.870, 1 (2020), arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    K. Choi, S. H. Im, and C. Sub Shin, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 225 (2021), arXiv:2012.05029 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, and A. Thamm, JHEP04, 063 (2021), arXiv:2012.12272 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Davidson and K

    A. Davidson and K. C. Wali, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 11 (1982)

    1982

  42. [42]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 1549 (1982)

    1982

  43. [43]

    Bauer, T

    M. Bauer, T. Schell, and T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. D94, 056003 (2016), arXiv:1603.06950 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    K. Choi, S. H. Im, C. B. Park, and S. Yun, JHEP11, 070 (2017), arXiv:1708.00021 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    Batell, H

    B. Batell, H. Davoudiasl, R. Marcarelli, E. T. Neil, 7 and S. Trojanowski, Phys. Rev. D110, 075039 (2024), arXiv:2407.15942 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    P. S. B. Dev, R. N. Mohapatra, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 221804 (2018), arXiv:1711.08430 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    M. Endo, S. Iguro, and T. Kitahara, JHEP06, 040 (2020), arXiv:2002.05948 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, and A. Thamm, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 211803 (2020), arXiv:1908.00008 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Cornella, P

    C. Cornella, P. Paradisi, and O. Sumensari, JHEP01, 158 (2020), arXiv:1911.06279 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Calibbi, D

    L. Calibbi, D. Redigolo, R. Ziegler, and J. Zupan, JHEP 09, 173 (2021), arXiv:2006.04795 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    S. N. Gninenko, M. M. Kirsanov, N. V. Krasnikov, and V. A. Matveev, Mod. Phys. Lett. A17, 1407 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0106302

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  52. [52]

    Gninenko, S

    S. Gninenko, S. Kovalenko, S. Kuleshov, V. E. Lyubovit- skij, and A. S. Zhevlakov, Phys. Rev. D98, 015007 (2018), arXiv:1804.05550 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Davoudiasl, R

    H. Davoudiasl, R. Marcarelli, N. Miesch, and E. T. Neil, Phys. Rev. D104, 055022 (2021), arXiv:2105.05866 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Cheung, A

    K. Cheung, A. Soffer, Z. S. Wang, and Y.-H. Wu, JHEP 11, 218 (2021), arXiv:2108.11094 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, and A. Thamm, JHEP09, 056 (2022), arXiv:2110.10698 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Davoudiasl, R

    H. Davoudiasl, R. Marcarelli, and E. T. Neil, JHEP02, 071 (2023), arXiv:2112.04513 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Haghighat and M

    G. Haghighat and M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, Nucl. Phys. B980, 115827 (2022), arXiv:2106.00505 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    Y. Ema, Z. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, and M. Pospelov, JHEP02, 135 (2023), arXiv:2211.00664 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Radics, L

    B. Radics, L. Molina-Bueno, L. Fields., H. Sieber, and P. Crivelli, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 775 (2023), arXiv:2306.07405 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Davoudiasl, R

    H. Davoudiasl, R. Marcarelli, and E. T. Neil, Phys. Rev. D109, 115013 (2024), arXiv:2402.17821 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Calibbi, T

    L. Calibbi, T. Li, L. Mukherjee, and Y. Yang, Phys. Rev. D110, 115009 (2024), arXiv:2406.13234 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Li and Z

    Y. Li and Z. Liu, (2025), arXiv:2501.12075 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Huang and Z

    Z.-M. Huang and Z. Liu, (2025), arXiv:2506.16922 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Huang, C

    Z.-M. Huang, C. Li, and Z. Liu, (2025), arXiv:2510.22523 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Armando, P

    G. Armando, P. Panci, J. Weiss, and R. Ziegler, Phys. Rev. D109, 055029 (2024), arXiv:2310.05827 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [67]

    Y. Xu, S. Goriely, A. Jorissen, G. Chen, and M. Arnould, Astron. Astrophys.549, A106 (2013), arXiv:1212.0628 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  68. [68]

    Goriely, N

    S. Goriely, N. Chamel, and J. M. Pearson, Phys. Rev. C 88, 061302 (2013)

    2013

  69. [69]

    Perot, N

    L. Perot, N. Chamel, and A. Sourie, Phys. Rev. C100, 035801 (2019), arXiv:1910.13202 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [70]

    Chatterjee, R

    S. Chatterjee, R. Garani, R. K. Jain, B. Kanodia, M. S. N. Kumar, and S. K. Vempati, Phys. Rev. D108, L021301 (2023), arXiv:2205.05048 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    J. F. Acevedo, J. Bramante, Q. Liu, and N. Tyagi, (2024), arXiv:2404.10039 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Willmannet al., Phys

    L. Willmannet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 49 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9807011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  73. [73]

    Baiet al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.11406 [hep-ph]

    A.-Y. Baiet al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.11406 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  74. [74]

    John and T

    I. John and T. Linden, JCAP12, 007 (2021), arXiv:2107.10261 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  75. [75]

    Liang, Y

    J.-H. Liang, Y. Liao, and X.-D. Ma, (2025), arXiv:2508.05121 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Cooleyet al., (2022), arXiv:2209.07426 [hep-ph]

    J. Cooleyet al., (2022), arXiv:2209.07426 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    Wang, X.-C

    Y.-N. Wang, X.-C. Duan, T.-P. Tang, Z. Wang, and Y.-L. S. Tsai, JCAP08, 059 (2025), arXiv:2502.18263 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rept.537, 91 (2014), arXiv:1308.0338 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  79. [79]

    Davoudiasl, J

    H. Davoudiasl, J. Hoefken Zink, and S. Trojanowski, GitHub repository – main plots data and star profile (2025)

    2025

  80. [80]

    J. M. Pearson, N. Chamel, A. Y. Potekhin, A. F. Fantina, C. Ducoin, A. K. Dutta, and S. Goriely, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.481, 2994 (2018), [Er- ratum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 486, 768 (2019)], arXiv:1903.04981 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

Showing first 80 references.