Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 104 references

Neutron stars could repeatedly form microscopic black holes whose evaporation produces a Galactic-Center neutrino signal peaking above ~10 TeV.

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

2026-08-02 03:47 UTC pith:GE2OQ6L7

load-bearing objection A careful, honest phenomenological study of repeated micro-BH evaporation in neutron stars; the observable signal is conditional on an unspecified BSM mediator, but the paper is a legitimate contribution worth refereeing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13755 v1 pith:GE2OQ6L7 submitted 2026-07-15 hep-ph astro-ph.HEgr-qc

High-Energy Neutrinos from Black Hole Evaporation in Neutron Stars

Ioannis Dalianis This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords high-energy neutrinosHawking radiationmicroscopic black holesneutron starsasymmetric dark matterGalactic Centerdark matter captureneutrino astronomy
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.

Neutron stars that accrete asymmetric dark matter could host a repeating cycle of microscopic black hole formation and Hawking evaporation, according to this paper. Each cycle converts about 10^4 kg of dark matter into radiation over a fraction of a second, and if the radiation includes a feebly interacting beyond-Standard-Model particle, that particle can leave the star and decay into high-energy neutrinos nearby. The author identifies a partially thermalized regime in which Hawking heating sustains a dark matter cloud far hotter than the neutron star core, so the collapse–evaporation cycle repeats quasi-continuously. The predicted result is a neutrino signal concentrated toward the Galactic Center, peaking above roughly 10 TeV, with a flux that could reach E^2 dΦ/dE ~ 10^-12 GeV cm^-2 s^-1 in favorable conditions—about a percent of the observed Galactic neutrino flux, or about one event per decade in a km^3-scale neutrino telescope for a cuspy halo. A detection would connect dark matter, neutron stars, and black hole thermodynamics to neutrino astronomy.

Core claim

Repeated gravitational collapse of asymmetric dark matter inside a neutron star is argued to yield black holes of order 10^4 kg that Hawking-evaporate before accreting, with an initial temperature of at least ~5.3 TeV in the dense Galactic-Center benchmark. Each burst emits a fraction of its energy into a long-lived feebly interacting beyond-Standard-Model particle S that escapes the star and decays into neutrinos outside it. The paper's new result is that these bursts do not destroy the system: the cloud of captured dark matter reaches a quasi-stationary, partially thermalized state, hotter than the neutron star core, that keeps producing collapse–evaporation cycles. The cumulative signal f

What carries the argument

The central objects are (i) the repeated capture–collapse–evaporation cycle and (ii) the long-lived beyond-Standard-Model mediator S. The cycle is governed by the competition between Hawking evaporation (t_evap ∝ M_BH^3) and dark matter accretion (t_acc ∝ M_BH / ˙M_acc); requiring t_evap < t_acc gives M_BH ≲ 10^6 kg and hence an initial Hawking temperature above ~5.3 TeV. The mediator is a feebly interacting particle emitted in the Hawking spectrum that escapes the neutron star and decays into neutrinos; only its energy fraction f_{S|H}, decay probability P_dec, and branching ratio Br enter, so the predicted neutrino spectrum inherits the Hawking spectral shape. A second key ingredient is th

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism's observable signal requires the existence of a long-lived, feebly interacting beyond-Standard-Model particle S that Hawking radiation emits, that escapes the neutron star, and that decays into neutrinos; the paper adopts this particle as an assumption without deriving its mass, couplings, or lifetime from a concrete model.

What would settle it

A 10-year observation by a next-generation neutrino telescope with sensitivity to E^2 dΦ/dE ≈ 10^-12 GeV cm^-2 s^-1 in a 1° region around the Galactic Center, finding no excess above background at >10 TeV, would rule out the benchmark NFW model (Eq. 70).

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

If this is right

  • The predicted Galactic signal has two distinctive signatures: a non-power-law neutrino spectrum with a peak set by the initial Hawking temperature (generally above ~10 TeV) and a spatial distribution tracing n_NS(r) ρ_χ(r), strongly concentrated toward the Galactic Center.
  • Benchmark event rates are modest: ~10^-2 events in 10 years for an NFW halo in a km^3-scale detector, and ~1 event for a cuspy (γ=1.5) halo, so the signal could be a percent-level component of the observed Galactic neutrino flux.
  • The same mechanism predicts a diffuse extragalactic neutrino background with the same spectral shape, subdominant if the Milky Way is a typical galaxy.
  • If observed, the signal would be evidence both for Hawking radiation from microscopic black holes and for asymmetric dark matter that collapses inside neutron stars.
  • Existing Galactic-template neutrino searches can already constrain the scenario, and the absence of a signal would translate into limits on the dark matter mass, self-interaction strength, and ambient dark matter density.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that a clear measurement of the spectral peak energy would directly probe the collapse mass M_Ch, and hence the dark matter particle mass and its self-interaction strength, turning the neutrino spectrum into a dark-matter mass measurement.
  • I infer that the same cycle should operate in other dense stellar environments, such as white dwarfs or the centers of dwarf spheroidal galaxies, where the lower escape velocities or higher dark matter densities would change the neutrino flux but preserve the spectral peak.
  • I infer that a null result at the benchmark flux in a next-generation neutrino telescope would not falsify the mechanism, but would push it toward cuspy halos or small mediator branchings; a positive detection would motivate multi-messenger searches, including gamma rays from mediator decays and neutron-star surface heating.

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. This paper proposes that asymmetric dark matter captured by neutron stars can gravitationally collapse into microscopic black holes which, after a brief accretion-vs-evaporation competition, evaporate via Hawking radiation. Assuming that the Hawking spectrum contains a feebly interacting beyond-SM particle S that escapes the neutron star and later decays into neutrinos, the authors compute the primary and secondary neutrino spectra, the repeated collapse–evaporation cycle, the resulting Galactic and extragalactic neutrino fluxes, and the expected IceCube event rates. The benchmark flux is E^2 dΦ/dE ~ 10^-12 GeV cm^-2 s^-1 (Eq. 70), with spectral peak set by the initial Hawking temperature, and O(10^-2) events in 10 years for an NFW profile rising to O(1) for a cuspy γ=1.5 halo. A new partially thermalized dark-matter-cloud regime is also identified.

Significance. If the required BSM mediator exists, the paper provides a coherent end-to-end calculation from dark-matter capture to observable neutrino flux. The arithmetic is internally consistent: the timescale comparisons in Eqs. (25)–(31), the evaporation-cycle conditions, and the spectral convolution with a two-body decay kernel all check out. The two predicted signatures — a broad neutrino spectrum peaking at a scale tied to the initial Hawking temperature and a Galactic-Center-concentrated morphology tracing n_NS(r)ρ_χ(r) — are falsifiable and observationally distinctive. The main weakness is that the observable signal is entirely conditional on an unspecified BSM particle S, so the work is best viewed as a sensitivity framework for a class of models rather than a concrete prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.A; Eq. (70)] The entire predicted flux is proportional to f_S|H × P_dec × Br, and the paper assumes without demonstration that a particle S with the required properties exists ('Let us assume that the Hawking spectrum contains at least one particle species...'). No concrete model or parameter scan shows that a state can simultaneously (a) be produced with sufficient abundance, (b) have a mean free path exceeding the neutron-star radius, and (c) decay into neutrinos at a length scale shorter than the source distance. Since the event rates in Fig. 8 vanish if this assumption fails, this is a load-bearing premise. The authors should either provide an explicit benchmark model realizing this window or reformulate the result as a sensitivity projection with the required S properties quantitatively specified.
  2. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (42)] The quasi-stationary condition m_χ f_d|H M_Ch/M_χ ~ T_χ is introduced as an equilibrium equality without derivation. The cloud temperature T_χ (Eq. 45), the self-gravitating cloud mass M_sg,χ (Eq. 46), and the entire classification of the partially thermalized regime depend on this condition. A derivation from energy balance and thermalization, or at least an explicit statement that this is an order-of-magnitude heuristic, is needed before the two-temperature structure can be regarded as a firm prediction rather than an ansatz.
  3. [Sec. V.B.4; Fig. 8] The IceCube event-rate estimate needs clarification. The Galactic Center is at declination δ ≈ -29°, i.e., a southern-sky source, while the standard IceCube through-going muon sample is dominated by upgoing (northern-sky) events because downgoing muons are swamped by atmospheric muons. Using a through-going ν_μ effective area for this declination may be inappropriate; the cascade or starting-event channel is usually the relevant one for the GC. In addition, the illustrative calculation with 1 km^2 geometric area and P_int ~ 10^-5–10^-4 yields roughly 10^-4–10^-3 detected events over 10 yr for the NFW benchmark, whereas O(10^-2) is claimed a few lines later. Please reconcile these estimates and state explicitly which IceCube event selection and effective area enter Figs. 8 and Eq. (75).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI.B] In the discussion of steep cusps the text says 'Moore profile, γ_dm = −1.5'; the sign is inconsistent with Eq. (61), where positive γ_dm corresponds to a cusp. Should be γ_dm = 1.5.
  2. [Sec. VI.D] The sentence 'as illustrated in Fig. 2' for the morphology q_ν(r) ∝ n_NS(r)ρ_χ(r) appears to refer to the wrong figure; Fig. 2 shows the DM capture rate, not the neutrino emissivity morphology. Presumably Fig. 7 is intended.
  3. [Sec. V.A] In the paragraph defining S, 'with spins S, and g_S internal degrees of freedom' should probably read 'with spin s_S and g_S internal degrees of freedom'.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption uses 'E_S ≫ m_S' without defining E_S in the main text near the figure; it is first used in Eq. (56) and the definition could be stated more explicitly for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: predictions are a forward convolution of capture power, Hawking spectra, and decay kinematics, with the BSM mediator left as an explicit free parameter.

full rationale

The derivation is a forward model rather than an inverse fit. The observed-flux comparison (Fig. 9) uses independently measured IceCube fluxes as external benchmarks; no IceCube data point is used to set f_S|H, P_dec, Br, M_BH, or the DM profile normalization. The central flux estimate, Eq. (70), is obtained by multiplying the capture power (Eqs. 63-65) by the BH formation rate (Eq. 66) and the Hawking-decay spectrum (Eqs. 49, 56-58); each ingredient is derived from stated microphysical inputs (NS mass/radius, DM mass/density, cross sections, Hawking temperature). The spectral peak follows from Eq. (1) and the benchmark collapse mass, with the lower bound Eq. (30) derived from the inequality tevap < Delta_t_acc (Eqs. 27-29), not imposed. The equilibrium cloud temperature Eq. (42) is a self-consistency/energy-balance condition; it does not define the final neutrino spectrum in terms of itself. The BSM mediator S is introduced by explicit assumption (Sec. V.A: 'Let us assume that the Hawking spectrum contains at least one particle species that interacts sufficiently weakly to escape the neutron star before decaying.'), which limits the model but does not make the subsequent calculation circular: its properties (m_S, g_S, lifetime, Br) are free parameters, not fitted outputs. The only self-citation, Ref. [95], appears in a 'see e.g.' list about primordial black hole constraints and is not load-bearing. Thus no step reduces to its own input, and the paper is not circular; the main caveat is model-dependence/speculation, which is not a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The model rests on a large set of benchmark choices (σ_χn, m_χ, ρ_DM, halo slope, NS population, mediator properties, f_d|H) rather than on fitted data. The only arguably new entity is the generic mediator S, whose existence is assumed rather than derived, rendering the predicted signal a conditional placeholder. The partially thermalized regime is an additional ad hoc energy-balance construction that does not affect the flux normalization.

free parameters (8)
  • DM–neutron scattering cross section σ_χn = benchmark satisfying 10^-39 cm^2 ≲ σ_χn ≲ 10^-36 cm^2 (saturated capture)
    Sets the capture rate in Eq. (10); chosen to lie between the multi-scatter requirement and direct-detection bound.
  • Dark matter particle mass m_χ = ~10^12–10^13 GeV (fermionic benchmark)
    Determines the Chandrasekhar/CSW collapse mass M_Ch ~ 10^4 kg and the initial Hawking temperature through Eq. (16).
  • Ambient dark matter density ρ_DM = 10^3 GeV cm^-3 (GC benchmark)
    Normalizes the DM mass flux in Eq. (3) and hence the capture luminosity and neutrino flux.
  • Galactic halo inner slope γ_dm = 1 (NFW) or 1.5 (cuspy)
    Changes the predicted flux by ~2 orders of magnitude (Table II, Fig. 9).
  • Galactic Center neutron star population normalization = Generozov et al. 'Fiducial ×10': N_NS ~ 1.6×10^6 within 100 pc
    Used in Eqs. (62)–(64); a factor-of-ten enhancement in the star-formation history is adopted.
  • Mediator parameters (m_S, Br(S→ν), decay length, f_S|H) = f_S|H ~ 10^-2, P_dec ~ 1, E^2 dN/E_tot dE ~ 0.3 (representative)
    Sets the spectral normalization in Eq. (70); never derived from a concrete BSM model.
  • Hawking-energy fraction deposited in DM cloud f_d|H = unspecified (must be nonzero for the partially thermalized regime)
    Controls the cloud temperature in Eqs. (33)–(45); a free knob introduced ad hoc.
  • Bosonic quartic self-interaction λ = benchmarks 10^-2, 10^-10 for CSW mass
    Sets the bosonic collapse mass in Eq. (18); affects the allowed m_χ range.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The standard Hawking spectrum with graybody factors (Eq. 49) describes evaporation of a ~10^4 kg black hole inside a neutron star, with only modest Pauli-blocking corrections.
    Stated in Sec. V.A, citing Refs. [46,47] for the medium corrections.
  • domain assumption Bondi-like accretion expression dM/dt = C_accr M^2 applies (Eq. 24) down to sub-nucleon black holes.
    Used to derive the critical mass in Eq. (25); the paper itself notes the Bondi description is questionable for r_s below nuclear scales (Sec. III.B).
  • domain assumption Multi-scatter capture with geometric saturation (Eqs. 2–12) is the correct capture rate for heavy ADM.
    Section II, based on Goldman–Nussinov [12] and subsequent multi-scatter treatments.
  • domain assumption Dark matter is asymmetric with negligible annihilation and negligible DM–baryon co-annihilation.
    Section III.A: 'we assume that dark matter–baryon co-annihilations are negligible' and 'annihilation is absent or highly suppressed'.
  • domain assumption The thermalization timescales of Eqs. (20) and (21) from Refs. [43–45] are accurate in the ultra-heavy DM regime.
    Used to separate the fully vs. partially thermalized regimes in Sec. IV.
  • ad hoc to paper The equilibrium condition m_χ f_d|H M_Ch/M_χ ~ T_χ (Eq. 42) determines the quasi-stationary cloud temperature.
    Section IV.B.1: an order-of-magnitude energy balance with no derivation of the coefficients c_f, c_b, C_f, C_b or the O(1) numerical factors.
invented entities (2)
  • Long-lived feebly interacting beyond-SM particle S no independent evidence
    purpose: Emitted by Hawking radiation, escapes the neutron star, and decays into high-energy neutrinos.
    Section V.A: 'Let us assume the Hawking spectrum contains at least one particle species that interacts sufficiently weakly to escape.' No mass, coupling, or model is specified; the neutrino flux scales with f_S|H, lifetime, and branching ratio, none of which are predicted.
  • Dark-sector degrees of freedom coupled to the DM cloud receiving a fraction f_d|H of the Hawking luminosity no independent evidence
    purpose: Heat the ambient DM cloud and create the partially thermalized two-temperature state.
    Section IV.A (Eq. 33) and Eq. (42): the energy-deposition fraction f_d|H is a free knob; without it the headline partially thermalized regime disappears.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27394 in / 15054 out tokens · 149920 ms · 2026-08-02T03:47:47.997130+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the production of high-energy neutrinos from microscopic black holes formed through the gravitational collapse of asymmetric dark matter accumulated inside neutron stars. When Hawking evaporation dominates over accretion, long-lived, feebly interacting particles beyond the Standard Model escape the neutron star and subsequently decay into high-energy neutrinos. We analyze the repeated cycle of dark matter capture, black hole formation, and evaporation, identifying two distinct regimes determined by the competition between the dark matter thermalization time and the collapse cycle. In particular, we identify a partially thermalized regime in which the dark matter cloud evolves toward a quasi-stationary state with a temperature significantly exceeding that of the neutron star core. We derive the time-integrated Hawking emission, the resulting secondary neutrino spectra, and the expected Galactic and diffuse extragalactic neutrino fluxes. The predicted signal exhibits two distinctive signatures: a broad neutrino spectrum with a characteristic energy scale set by the initial Hawking temperature of the evaporating black hole, whose spectral peak naturally lies above $\mathcal{O}(10\,{\rm TeV})$, and an extended Galactic component strongly concentrated toward the Galactic Center. Although the predicted event rates are generally small, the resulting signal may contribute at the percent level to the observed Galactic high-energy neutrino flux under favorable microscopic and astrophysical conditions. The proposed mechanism provides a new observational window on Hawking evaporation through microscopic black holes continuously produced inside neutron stars, linking dark matter, compact objects, black hole thermodynamics and high-energy neutrino astronomy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13755 by Ioannis Dalianis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the particle physics ingredi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Dark matter capture rate in a neutron star as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Initial black hole mass as a function of the dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Parameter space for repeated microscopic black hole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Equilibrium temperature of the quasi stationary par [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: VI. OBSERVABLE SIGNALS The evaporation of microscopic black holes inside neutron stars may produce observable neutrino fluxes through the decay of long-lived particles emitted in Hawking radiation. Depending on the source distribu￾tion, two complementary search strategies can be envis￾aged. The first is the detection of an individual nearby neutron star as a point source. The second is the cumula￾tive emis… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Radial distribution of the dark matter capture power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Differential contribution to the expected number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The corresponding average energy-weighted neu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.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

104 extracted references · 65 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    NS accretion

    Thermalization of captured dark matter The thermalization of captured DM proceeds through repeated scatterings with the constituents of the neutron star core [12, 16, 38, 42–45]. In each collision the DM par- ticle transfers part of its kinetic energy to the medium, gradually cooling until the typical energy transfer be- comes comparable to the neutron st...

  2. [2]

    Black hole evaporation and partial rethermalization Forσ χn ≲min σth χn(mχ), σDD χn (mχ) (andσ req(mχ)≲ σχn, the regime of interest in this work), the dark mat- TBH init = 5.3 TeV Rethermalization threshold 102 103 104 105 106 107 10810-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 TBH init [GeV] σχn/σreq Complete rethermalization Partial rethermalization σχn =σ req σχn =σ χn D...

  3. [3]

    As DM capture continues, the accumulated cloud even- tually becomes self-gravitating

    Gravitational compression and BH formation After a time interval ∆t Ch acc, an amount of dark matter equal to the Chandrasekhar massM Ch has been added to the partially thermalized DM cloud, while an equal mass has accumulated in the central region and collapsed into a black hole. As DM capture continues, the accumulated cloud even- tually becomes self-gr...

  4. [4]

    The partially thermalized regime (tth >∆t Ch acc) exhibits a qualitatively different transient evolution

    BH Evaporation Cycles and Two-Temperature Structure In the fully thermalized regime (t th <∆t Ch acc), the in- terval between successive BH formation events is simply the time required to accumulate a Chandrasekhar mass of DM, ∆t cyc ≃∆t Ch acc. The partially thermalized regime (tth >∆t Ch acc) exhibits a qualitatively different transient evolution. Follo...

  5. [5]

    Secondary spectrum from decaysS→ν+· · · Let us consider a single unstable escaping particle speciesSemitted in Hawking radiation with instanta- neous spectrumd 2NS/(dt dES). The instantaneous sec- ondary neutrino spectrum is obtained by convolving the primary Hawking spectrum with the neutrino spectrum produced in the decay of a parent particle of energy ...

  6. [6]

    Fiducial (×10)

    Galactic Neutron Star Population The Milky Way is expected to host a total neutron star population of order 10 8–109, although only a small fraction are directly observed owing to selection effects [75–78]. For the present work, the most relevant popu- lation is that residing in the Galactic Center, where the enhanced dark matter density leads to the larg...

  7. [7]

    Integrated Neutrino Flux from the Galactic Center The cumulative neutrino signal is obtained by sum- ming the contribution from the entire Galactic-center neutron star population. Since each black hole evapora- tion event is triggered by the accumulation and collapse of a dark matter core of massM Ch, the relevant quantity is the dark matter capture rate ...

  8. [8]

    (70) corresponds to the to- tal emission from the neutron star population within the adopted Galactic-center region

    ROI Intensity The flux estimate in Eq. (70) corresponds to the to- tal emission from the neutron star population within the adopted Galactic-center region. For comparison with Galactic-center searches, it is convenient to consider the cumulative neutrino flux enclosed within a circular region of interest (ROI) of angular radiusθ, Φν(< θ) = Z ∆Ω(θ) dΩ dΦν ...

  9. [9]

    Conse- quently, the neutrino flux arriving at Earth is expected to be approximately flavor democratic, νe :ν µ :ν τ ≃1 : 1 : 1, almost independently of the production mechanism

    Expected Event Rates During propagation over Galactic distances, neutrino oscillations average out the flavor composition. Conse- quently, the neutrino flux arriving at Earth is expected to be approximately flavor democratic, νe :ν µ :ν τ ≃1 : 1 : 1, almost independently of the production mechanism. Each flavor therefore carries approximately one third of...

  10. [10]

    E. W. Kolb, S. A. Colgate, and J. A. Harvey, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 1373 (1982)

    1982

  11. [11]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    E. H. T. Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    J. E. Greene, J. Strader, and L. C. Ho, Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys.58, 257 (2020), arXiv:1911.09678 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  15. [15]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975), [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  16. [16]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Science342, 1242856 (2013), arXiv:1311.5238 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  17. [17]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 101101 (2014), arXiv:1405.5303 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science380, adc9818 (2023), arXiv:2307.04427 [astro-ph.HE]

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science380, adc9818 (2023), arXiv:2307.04427 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Dimopoulos, J

    S. Dimopoulos, J. Preskill, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B119, 320 (1982)

    1982

  20. [20]

    Bramante, K

    J. Bramante, K. Fukushima, J. Kumar, and E. Stop- nitzky, Phys. Rev. D89, 015010 (2014), arXiv:1310.3509 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Bramante and N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Goldman and S

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

    1989

  23. [23]

    Gould, B

    A. Gould, B. T. Draine, R. W. Romani, and S. Nussinov, Phys. Lett. B238, 337 (1990)

    1990

  24. [24]

    Kouvaris and P

    C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D83, 083512 (2011), arXiv:1012.2039 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  25. [25]

    Kouvaris and P

    C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 091301 (2011), arXiv:1104.0382 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  26. [26]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  27. [27]

    Kouvaris, Phys

    C. Kouvaris, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 191301 (2012), arXiv:1111.4364 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    N. F. Bell, A. Melatos, and K. Petraki, Phys. Rev. D87, 123507 (2013), arXiv:1301.6811 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    Bramante, K

    J. Bramante, K. Fukushima, and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D87, 055012 (2013), arXiv:1301.0036 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, 116902 (2021), arXiv:2002.12778 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Bramante, T

    J. Bramante, T. Linden, and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D 97, 055016 (2018), arXiv:1706.00001 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Garani, Y

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Dasgupta, R

    B. Dasgupta, R. Laha, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 141105 (2021), arXiv:2009.01825 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Tinyakov, M

    P. Tinyakov, M. Pshirkov, and S. Popov, Universe7, 401 (2021), arXiv:2110.12298 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Garani, D

    R. Garani, D. Levkov, and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063019 (2022), arXiv:2112.09716 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Robles, D

    S. Robles, D. Vatsyayan, and G. Busoni, Phys. Rev. D 112, 123011 (2025), arXiv:2507.22881 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    A. K. Saha, A. Dubey, and N. Raj, (2025), arXiv:2511.19599 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    D. N. Page and S. W. Hawking, Astrophys. J.206, 1 (1976)

    1976

  39. [39]

    B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J.206, 8 (1976)

    1976

  40. [40]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    J. F. Acevedo, J. Bramante, A. Goodman, J. Kopp, and T. Opferkuch, JCAP04, 026, arXiv:2012.09176 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  42. [42]

    Dave and I

    P. Dave and I. Taboada (IceCube), PoSICRC2019, 863 (2021), arXiv:1908.05403 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, F. Halzen, and D. Lust, Phys. Rev. D112, 083034 (2025), arXiv:2505.23414 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    A. P. Klipfel and D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 121003 (2025), arXiv:2503.19227 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    W. H. Press and D. N. Spergel, Astrophys. J.296, 679 (1985)

    1985

  46. [46]

    Gould, Astrophys

    A. Gould, Astrophys. J.321, 571 (1987)

    1987

  47. [47]

    Sofue, Rotation curve of the milky way and the dark matter density (2020), arXiv:2004.11688 [astro-ph.GA]

    Y. Sofue, Rotation curve of the milky way and the dark matter density (2020), arXiv:2004.11688 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Kouvaris and P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. D109, 112010 (2024), arXiv:2402.08865 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky,Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars: The physics of compact ob- jects(1983)

    1983

  51. [51]

    Fan, Phys

    J. Fan, Phys. Dark Univ.14, 84 (2016), arXiv:1603.06580 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  52. [52]

    Bertone and M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  53. [53]

    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

  54. [54]

    Garani, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    Autzen and C

    M. Autzen and C. Kouvaris, Phys. Rev. D89, 123519 (2014), arXiv:1403.1072 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [57]

    Kouvaris and P

    C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D90, 043512 (2014), arXiv:1312.3764 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  58. [58]

    Giffin, J

    P. Giffin, J. Lloyd, S. D. McDermott, and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D105, 123030 (2022), arXiv:2105.06504 [hep- 21 ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    J. M. Lattimer, K. A. van Riper, M. Prakash, and M. Prakash, Astrophys. J.425, 802 (1994)

    1994

  60. [60]

    Ibarra, S

    A. Ibarra, S. Lopez Gehler, and M. Pato, JCAP07, 043, arXiv:1205.0007 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    Kouvaris, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  62. [62]

    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

  63. [63]

    V. A. Antonov, Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta7, 135 (1962)

    1962

  64. [64]

    Lynden-Bell and R

    D. Lynden-Bell and R. Wood, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society138, 495 (1968)

    1968

  65. [65]

    P. H. Chavanis, Astronomy & Astrophysics381, 340 (2002)

    2002

  66. [66]

    Binney and S

    J. Binney and S. Tremaine,Galactic Dynamics, 2nd ed. (Princeton University Press, 2008)

    2008

  67. [67]

    M. J. Baker and A. Thamm, JHEP01, 063, arXiv:2210.02805 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  68. [68]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D13, 198 (1976)

    1976

  69. [69]

    J. H. MacGibbon and B. R. Webber, Phys. Rev. D41, 3052 (1990)

    1990

  70. [71]

    R. K. Leane, T. Linden, P. Mukhopadhyay, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D103, 075030 (2021), arXiv:2101.12213 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  71. [72]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [73]

    J. F. Acevedo, J. Bramante, Q. Liu, and N. Tyagi, JCAP 03, 028, arXiv:2404.10039 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [74]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J.462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  74. [75]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J.490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  75. [76]

    Catena and P

    R. Catena and P. Ullio, JCAP08, 004, arXiv:0907.0018 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  76. [77]

    P. F. de Salas, K. Malhan, K. Freese, K. Hattori, and M. Valluri, JCAP10, 037, arXiv:1906.06133 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1906

  77. [78]

    G. R. Blumenthal, S. M. Faber, R. Flores, and J. R. Primack, Astrophys. J.301, 27 (1986)

    1986

  78. [79]

    O. Y. Gnedin and J. R. Primack, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 061302 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0308385

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  79. [80]

    Levin and A

    Y. Levin and A. M. Beloborodov, Astrophys. J. Lett. 590, L33 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0303436

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  80. [81]

    J. F. Navarro, E. Hayashi, C. Power, A. Jenkins, C. S. Frenk, S. D. M. White, V. Springel, J. Stadel, and T. R. Quinn, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.349, 1039 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0311231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

Showing first 80 references.