Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 110 references

High-Energy Neutrinos from Black Hole Evaporation in Neutron Stars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dark matter collapsing inside neutron stars may repeatedly form microscopic black holes that evaporate, producing high-energy neutrinos with a Galactic-Center flux near 10^-12 GeV cm^-2 s^-1.

desk verdict A careful phenomenological study of repeated DM collapse and BH evaporation in neutron stars; the new quasi-stationary regime is interesting, but the neutrino flux is conditional on an unspecified BSM mediator. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13755 v2 pith:GE2OQ6L7 submitted 2026-07-15 hep-ph astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Ioannis Dalianis This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords high-energyneutrinosHawkingradiationmicroscopicblackholesneutronstarsasymmetricdarkmatterGalacticCenterlong-livedmediatorscollapse-evaporationcycles
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 argues that asymmetric dark matter captured by neutron stars can repeatedly collapse into microscopic black holes that evaporate via Hawking radiation. If the Hawking spectrum includes a long-lived, feebly interacting beyond-Standard-Model particle that escapes the star and decays into neutrinos, these repeated bursts combine into a quasi-steady high-energy neutrino source toward the Galactic Center. The predicted spectrum peaks above 10 TeV and is not a power law, and the spatial morphology tracks the product of the neutron-star density and the dark-matter density. Under favorable parameters the signal could contribute at the 1–10 percent level to the observed Galactic high-energy neutrino flux.

What carries the argument

The engine is the repeated cycle: geometric-saturation capture of heavy dark matter, self-gravitating core collapse to a Chandrasekhar/Kaup/CSW-scale micro black hole (masses around 10^4–10^6 kg), Hawking evaporation at initial temperatures from a few TeV to PeV, and reaccumulation of a new collapsing core on the timescale M_Ch divided by the dark-matter capture rate. The load-bearing particle is the generic long-lived mediator S, emitted with an energy fraction f_S|H ≈ g_S/g_H, escaping the neutron star, and decaying to neutrinos with a box-like daughter spectrum; the observable flux is set by the capture power of the Galactic-Center neutron-star population integrated over the halo profile.

What would settle it

A directed search for extended Galactic-Center neutrino emission using the template n_NS(r) ρ_DM(r) in the 10 TeV–EeV band, folded with detector acceptance, would falsify the benchmark if it excludes an energy-weighted flux of ~10^-12 GeV cm^-2 s^-1 (or ~10^-10 with a cuspy inner slope γ=1.5) in a ten-year exposure. A complementary decisive calculation would show that no viable mediator mass and coupling can produce a decay length comparable to the neutron-star radius while maintaining a branching ratio to neutrinos near unity; then P_dec drops far below one and the predicted flux vanishes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, when the initial black-hole mass is small enough that Hawking evaporation beats accretion, a neutron star hosting asymmetric dark matter becomes a repeating collapse-and-evaporate machine. The paper identifies a new partially thermalized regime: when the dark-matter thermalization time exceeds the time between collapse events, successive evaporation bursts heat the dark-matter cloud into a quasi-stationary hot state whose temperature can exceed the neutron-star core temperature by orders of magnitude, while the baryonic core stays cool. From this framework it derives time-integrated Hawking spectra, secondary neutrino spectra from decays of the escaping mediator, a

Load-bearing premise

The entire signal hinges on the existence of a long-lived, extremely weakly interacting particle S that is emitted in Hawking radiation with a sizeable fraction of the black-hole energy, escapes the neutron star, and decays mostly into neutrinos on a length scale matched to the star; the paper gives no concrete particle model, mass, or coupling for S.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mechanism operates, the Galactic-Center neutrino sky gains a broad, non-power-law component peaking above ~10 TeV, with the highest-energy neutrinos emitted in the final instants of each micro-black-hole burst.
  • The emission is strongly concentrated toward the Galactic Center, tracing n_NS(r) ρ_DM(r), so it can be separated from the gas-tracing Galactic diffuse component by template analyses.
  • A detectable signal would imply the existence of heavy (typically ≳10^9–10^12 GeV) asymmetric dark matter with repulsive or negligible self-interactions and DM–nucleon cross sections in an allowed band between the geometric-capture threshold and direct-detection limits.
  • The same process generates a subdominant diffuse extragalactic neutrino background with the same spectral shape; galaxies with denser nuclear clusters or cuspier halos could be substantially brighter.
  • Non-observation constrains the dark-matter mass, self-interactions, and ambient density, and the mechanism gives a new target for future larger neutrino telescopes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable byproduct is the predicted two-temperature structure itself: a hot dark-matter cloud embedded in a cool baryonic core would alter heat transport inside old neutron stars and could leave a surface-temperature floor, independent of the neutrino channel.
  • Since each neutron star evaporates a micro black hole roughly every M_Ch/Mdot_acc (as short as seconds in dense environments), a nearby neutron star might show episodic TeV–PeV neutrino flares rather than truly steady emission—a timing signature not highlighted in the paper.
  • The spectral peak position and the energy-weighted high-energy tail (E^2 dN/dE ∝ E^-1) are nearly model-independent fingerprints of a Hawking origin, so even a single burst with the predicted shape would point to the evaporation mechanism rather than to conventional astrophysical accelerators.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the possibility that asymmetric dark matter accumulated in neutron stars collapses into microscopic black holes, which then evaporate through Hawking radiation. If the Hawking spectrum contains a long-lived, feebly interacting BSM particle S that escapes the neutron star and decays into neutrinos, the repeated capture-collapse-evaporation cycles generate a quasi-continuous high-energy neutrino flux. The authors derive capture rates, black-hole formation conditions, evaporation-cycle timescales, primary Hawking spectra, secondary neutrino spectra from S decays, and the resulting Galactic-Center and extragalactic neutrino fluxes. Their benchmark Galactic flux is E^2 dPhi/dE ~ 10^-12 GeV cm^-2 s^-1 for an NFW profile, with possible O(1-10)% contributions to the observed Galactic high-energy neutrino flux under favorable parameters. They also identify a partially thermalized two-temperature regime for the captured dark-matter cloud as a new qualitative feature.

Significance. The paper is a carefully structured phenomenological study that connects several active areas: asymmetric dark matter, neutron-star capture and collapse, Hawking evaporation, and high-energy neutrino astronomy. Its main strengths are transparency, explicit scaling relations, and falsifiable predictions: a broad neutrino spectrum peaking above ~10 TeV and a Galactic-Center-concentrated morphology. If the underlying scenario is realized, the mechanism would provide a genuinely new observational window on Hawking radiation. However, the quantitative headline result is conditional on an unmodeled BSM mediator S. The paper is honest about this conditionality, but the central flux estimate is an assumed benchmark rather than a validated prediction. The astrophysical framework is worth publishing, but the particle-physics ingredient needs substantially more support or a clearly repositioned claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. V, VII, Eq. (70)] The observable neutrino flux is proportional to f_S|H x Br x P_dec, and the benchmark E^2 dPhi/dE ~ 10^-12 GeV cm^-2 s^-1 is obtained by inserting 'representative values' f_S|H ~ 10^-2, P_dec ~ 1, and a spectral factor ~0.3. No concrete particle model for S is provided: no mass, coupling, or decay-length benchmark, and no check against SN1987A energy-loss, BBN, beam-dump, or neutrino-experiment constraints. The condition P_dec ~ 1 requires a decay length between roughly the neutron-star radius (12 km) and the source distance (8.3 kpc); this is broad but nontrivial, and no microscopic example is shown to populate it. As written, Eq. (70) is an assumed benchmark, not a derived prediction. The paper should either present at least one constraint-satisfying realization of S or systematically scan f_S|H, Br, and P_dec together with existing limits and state the resulting viable range. Without
  2. [Sec. VI B 3, Eq. (72), Table II] Table II is labeled as 'average energy-weighted neutrino intensity' with entries ~10^-6-10^-7 GeV cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1 for gamma_dm = 1. These values appear to be the total DM-capture energy flux per steradian and do not include the mediator fraction f_S|H or the spectral factor. The actual differential neutrino intensity E^2 dPhi/dE/DeltaOmega at the peak is roughly 300 times smaller for the benchmark parameters. Either the table should be relabeled as the total capture energy intensity, or the factor should be applied consistently. As written, Eq. (72) formally defines I_nu in terms of E^2 dPhi/dE, but the table entries are not consistent with that definition plus Eq. (70).
  3. [Sec. IV B, Eqs. (42)-(46)] The partially thermalized quasi-stationary cloud, presented as one of the paper's new results, is derived from the very rough balance m_chi f_d|H M_Ch/M_chi ~ T_chi (Eq. (42)), followed by scaling relations for T_chi and M_sg,chi. No microscopic derivation or controlled approximation is given for this balance, and the numerical coefficients in Eqs. (45)-(46) are not derived. Since the neutrino flux calculation in Eq. (68) relies mainly on the accumulation time rather than the cloud temperature, this does not invalidate the flux benchmark; nevertheless, the claim of a two-temperature structure should be presented as an order-of-magnitude model rather than a derived equilibrium, or supplemented by a more rigorous treatment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Intro/Organization] The introduction states that conclusions appear in Sec. VI, but the paper actually has Sec. VII 'Discussion and Conclusions'. Please renumber or correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Sec. VI D, text near Eq. (83)] The text refers to 'as illustrated in Fig. 2' when discussing the morphology q_nu(r) proportional to n_NS(r) rho_chi(r); the relevant figure appears to be Fig. 7. Please check all cross-references.
  3. [Eq. (20)] The thermalization time expression in Eq. (20) is dimensionally ambiguous as written: the prefactor '10^4 yr' multiplies m_chi m_n/(m_chi+m_n)^2, which has units of inverse mass. A mass scale or GeV normalization should be shown explicitly to make the formula reproducible.
  4. [References] Reference [63] (Baker and Thamm) lacks a year and volume/page; please complete the citation. Also, references [24] and [25] appear to be missing explicit year or journal-volume fields in the arXiv-style list.
  5. [Table I] In Table I, the column header 'ADM Model' is a bit cryptic; the table would be clearer if the particle-statistics/self-interaction choice were spelled out in the caption or column title.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neutrino flux is a forward conditional estimate from DM capture power times explicitly assumed mediator parameters, not a fitted prediction or self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is forward and self-contained: DM capture (Eqs. 2–14) fixes the accretion power; black-hole formation thresholds (Eqs. 16–19) and the evaporation-vs-accretion condition (Eqs. 24–31) determine the allowed initial Hawking temperature; Hawking spectra (Eqs. 49–55) and decay kinematics (Eqs. 56–58) give the neutrino yield; and Eqs. (67)–(70) combine the Galactic capture power with a spectral ratio, a Hawking fraction f_S|H, and a decay probability P_dec to obtain the benchmark flux. No parameter is fitted to IceCube data; the comparison in Fig. 9 is a posteriori. The claimed spectral-peak range above O(10) TeV follows from the consistency bound kT_BH ≳ 5.3 TeV in Eq. (30), which is derived from tevap < Δt_acc, not from the observed flux. The benchmark flux in Eq. (70) is explicitly proportional to 'representative values' f_S|H ~ 10^-2, P_dec ~ 1, and an O(0.3) spectral factor; these are transparently labeled input assumptions rather than predictions, so the result is conditional and model-dependent but not circular in the sense of fitting or defining X in terms of Y. The only self-citation is Ref. [102], used in Sec. VII for context about primordial-curvature constraints on PBHs; it is not load-bearing for any of the paper's derivations. The partially thermalized regime is a consequence of the assumed energy injection fraction f_d|H and the stated timescale ordering, and the paper explicitly flags its model-independence and the generic nature of the mediator as a limitation. Under the required standard—exhibiting a specific reduction of a predicted quantity to a fitted or self-cited input by construction—no circular step is present in the manuscript.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on two layers: standard physics (Hawking radiation, DM capture, collapse limits) and a set of unvalidated assumptions (a tuned long-lived mediator, Bondi accretion in a sub-nucleon regime, a cuspy enough halo). The benchmark flux is proportional to f_S|H × P_dec × (capture power), and each factor is either chosen by hand or extrapolated, so the prediction is best viewed as an order-of-magnitude model rather than a first-principles result.

free parameters (7)
  • m_χ (dark matter particle mass) = scanned from 1e4 to 1e15 GeV; benchmark m_f = 1.8e13 GeV for M_BH = 1e4 kg
    Free parameter of the dark matter model; constrains the collapse mass and Hawking temperature through Eqs. (16), (18), (31).
  • λ (quartic self-interaction for bosonic DM) = benchmarks 1, 1e-10, 1e-20
    Free parameter controlling the CSW collapse mass (Eq. 18) and the bosonic thermalization cross section (Eq. 37).
  • γ_dm (inner halo slope) = benchmark 1, optimistic 1.5
    Free astrophysical parameter; the predicted flux scales as r^(0.3 - γ_dm) and changes by two orders of magnitude between NFW and cuspy profiles (Sec. V.B.2).
  • f_S|H / f_d|H (fraction of Hawking energy into the escaping mediator / dark sector) = f_S|H ~ 1e-2 in Eq. (70)
    Chosen as a representative value; determines the mediator flux and the DM cloud heating (Eqs. 45, 51, 70).
  • P_dec (probability that the mediator decays outside the NS) = ~1
    Assumed to be unity in the benchmark flux estimate (Eq. 70); in practice depends on the mediator decay length and the NS radius.
  • ξ_z (extragalactic source-evolution factor) = 2–3
    Order-of-magnitude uncertainty in the cosmological evolution of the source population (Eq. 77).
  • T_BH^init (initial Hawking temperature) = 100 TeV, 1 PeV, 10 PeV, 100 PeV
    Scanned in the flux and event-rate predictions; not uniquely predicted by the model (Figs. 6, 8, 9).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard Hawking radiation spectrum with graybody factors (Eq. 49)
    Assumed without modification inside the neutron star; the paper notes only 'modest corrections' from the dense medium (Sec. V.A).
  • domain assumption Bondi accretion formula dM_BH/dt = C_accr M_BH^2 (Eq. 24)
    Used to derive the evaporation threshold Eq. (25), although the paper itself states its applicability is 'questionable' for Schwarzschild radii far below nuclear scales (Sec. III.B).
  • standard math Chandrasekhar/Kaup/CSW collapse limits (Eqs. 16 and 18)
    Standard results from stellar structure, used to set the initial BH mass for fermionic and bosonic dark matter.
  • domain assumption Geometrically saturated dark matter capture rate (Eqs. 9-10)
    Used throughout; requires σ_χn ≳ σ_req and specifies the accretion rate 6e37 GeV/yr (Eq. 11).
  • domain assumption Asymmetric dark matter with negligible annihilation and co-annihilation
    Needed to accumulate DM without depletion (stated in Sec. III.A and Sec. VI).
  • ad hoc to paper Existence of a long-lived BSM mediator S emitted in Hawking radiation, escaping the NS, and decaying to neutrinos
    The entire observable neutrino flux depends on this particle; no concrete model is provided (Sec. V).
invented entities (1)
  • Long-lived feebly-interacting BSM mediator S
    purpose: Escape the neutron star, decay outside into high-energy neutrinos, and carry the observable signal
    The paper assumes this state exists and is produced in Hawking radiation with a non-negligible branching fraction (f_S|H), but gives no specific mass, coupling, or decay-length prediction, so there is no externally falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-Energy Neutrinos from Black Hole Evaporation in Neutron Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GE2OQ6L7

@misc{pith2026260713755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-Energy Neutrinos from Black Hole Evaporation in Neutron Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GE2OQ6L7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13755}
}
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 $\mathcal{O}(10)$ 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 the authors.

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. 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. FIG. 3. Initial black hole mass as a function of the dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Parameter space for repeated microscopic black hole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Equilibrium temperature of the quasi stationary par [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
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 strateg…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
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]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Differential contribution to the expected number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: For favorable microscopic parameters, an NFW dark matter halo profile, and a 10-year IceCube exposure, we predict O(10−2 ) detected events for T init BH = 100 TeV. Comparable rates are obtained for T init BH = 1 PeV, while the event rate decreases at higher Hawking tem…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The corresponding average energy-weighted neu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Galactic energy-weighted neutrino flux, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 69 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 [14, 18, 44, 48–51]. In each collision the DM par- ticle transfers part of its kinetic energy to the medium, 6 gradually cooling until the typical energy transfer be- comes comparable to the neutron ...

  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- ter cloud reaches the Chandrasekhar mass before com- plete thermalization. In this regime, the energy released by each black hole evaporation event heats and partially disperses the thermalized da...

  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 [83–86]. 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 15 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 ra...

  8. [8]

    ROI Intensity The flux estimate in Eq. (70) corresponds to the to- tal emission from the neutron star population within 16 θ ⟨Iν ⟩(γ dm = 1) ⟨Iν ⟩(γ dm = 1.5) (deg) (GeV cm−2 s−1 sr−1) (GeV cm−2 s−1 sr−1) 0.2 9.7×10 −6 9.2×10 −4 0.3 4.3×10 −6 4.1×10 −4 0.5 1.6×10 −6 1.5×10 −4 1 3.9×10 −7 3.7×10 −5 2 9.8×10 −8 9.2×10 −6 5 1.6×10 −8 1.5×10 −6 TABLE II. Aver...

Show all 110 references
  1. [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 th...

  2. [10]

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

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

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

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

    2019

  4. [12]

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

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

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

    1974

  6. [14]

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

    1975

  7. [15]

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

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

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

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Adrian-Martinezet al.(KM3Net), J

    S. Adrian-Martinezet al.(KM3Net), J. Phys. G43, 084001 (2016), arXiv:1601.07459 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Aielloet al.(KM3NeT), Nature638, 376 (2025), [Er- ratum: Nature 640, E3 (2025)]

    S. Aielloet al.(KM3NeT), Nature638, 376 (2025), [Er- ratum: Nature 640, E3 (2025)]

    2025

  11. [19]

    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]

    2023

  12. [20]

    Dimopoulos, J

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

    1982

  13. [21]

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

    1982

  14. [22]

    Bramante and N

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

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Goldman and S

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

    1989

  16. [24]

    Gould, B

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

    1990

  17. [25]

    Kouvaris and P

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

    2011 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kouvaris and P

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

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

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

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kouvaris, Phys

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

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    N. F. Bell, A. Melatos, and K. Petraki, Phys. Rev. D 87, 123507 (2013), arXiv:1301.6811 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bramante, K

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

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bramante, K

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

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bramante, T

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

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Garani, Y

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

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Dasgupta, A

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

    2006

  27. [35]

    Dasgupta, R

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

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Tinyakov, M

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

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Garani, D

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

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bhattacharya, B

    S. Bhattacharya, B. Dasgupta, R. Laha, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 091401 (2023), arXiv:2302.07898 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Robles, D

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

    2025

  32. [40]

    H. A. Adarsha, C. Chakraborty, and S. Bhattacharyya, Phys. Rev. D111, 103033 (2025), arXiv:2504.21843 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  33. [41]

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

    2025

  34. [42]

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

    1976

  35. [43]

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

    1976

  36. [44]

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

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

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

    2012 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Dave and I

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

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

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

    2025

  40. [48]

    A. P. Klipfel and D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 121003 (2025), arXiv:2503.19227 [hep-ph]. 21

    2025

  41. [49]

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

    1985

  42. [50]

    Gould, Astrophys

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

    1987

  43. [51]

    Bramante, A

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

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    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]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Kouvaris and P

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

    2010 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

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

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

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

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Fan, Phys

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

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Bertone and M

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

    2008 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bertoni, A

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

    2013 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Garani, A

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

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

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

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Autzen and C

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

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Kouvaris and P

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

    2014 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Giffin, J

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

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

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

    1994

  57. [65]

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

    1983

  58. [66]

    Kouvaris, Phys

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

    2008 arXiv

  59. [67]

    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]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [68]

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

    1962

  61. [69]

    Lynden-Bell and R

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

    1968

  62. [70]

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

    2002

  63. [71]

    Binney and S

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

    2008

  64. [72]

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

    arXiv

  65. [73]

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

    1976

  66. [74]

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

    1990

  67. [75]

    Ibarra, S

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

    arXiv

  68. [76]

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

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    D. Bose, T. N. Maity, and T. S. Ray, JCAP05(05), 001, arXiv:2108.12420 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  70. [78]

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

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    J. F. Acevedo, J. Bramante, Q. Liu, and N. Tyagi, JCAP03, 028, arXiv:2404.10039 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    D. Bose, R. Pramanick, and T. S. Ray, Phys. Lett. B 866, 139542 (2025), arXiv:2405.07894 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  73. [81]

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

    1996 arXiv

  74. [82]

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

    1997 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Catena and P

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

    arXiv

  76. [84]

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

    1906 arXiv

  77. [85]

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

    1986

  78. [86]

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

    2004 arXiv

  79. [88]

    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

    2004 arXiv

  80. [89]

    J. F. Navarro, A. Ludlow, V. Springel, J. Wang, M. Vo- gelsberger, S. D. M. White, A. Jenkins, C. S. Frenk, and A. Helmi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.402, 21 (2010), arXiv:0810.1522 [astro-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Moore, T

    B. Moore, T. R. Quinn, F. Governato, J. Stadel, and G. Lake, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.310, 1147 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9903164

    1999 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Iocco, M

    F. Iocco, M. Pato, G. Bertone, and P. Jetzer, JCAP11, 029, arXiv:1107.5810 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv

  83. [92]

    Faucher-Gigu` ere and V

    C.-A. Faucher-Gigu` ere and V. M. Kaspi, Astrophys. J. 643, 332 (2006), astro-ph/0512585

    2006 arXiv

  84. [93]

    D. R. e. a. Lorimer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.372, 777 (2006)

    2006

  85. [94]

    E. F. Keane and M. Kramer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.391, 2009 (2008), 0810.1512

    2009 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Sartore, E

    N. Sartore, E. Ripamonti, A. Treves, and R. Turolla, Astron. Astrophys.510, A23 (2010), arXiv:0908.3182 [astro-ph.GA]

    2010 arXiv

  87. [96]

    Genzelet al., Astrophys

    R. Genzelet al., Astrophys. J.594, 812 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0305423

    2003 arXiv

  88. [97]

    Levin and A

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

    2003 arXiv

  89. [98]

    Generozov, N

    A. Generozov, N. C. Stone, B. D. Metzger, and J. P. Ostriker, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.478, 4030 (2018), arXiv:1804.01543 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  90. [100]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Astrophys

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Astrophys. J.911, 67 (2021), arXiv:2012.01079 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021

  91. [101]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube-Gen2), J. Phys. G48, 060501 (2021), arXiv:2008.04323 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021

  92. [102]

    ´Alvarez-Mu˜ nizet al.(GRAND), Sci

    J. ´Alvarez-Mu˜ nizet al.(GRAND), Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.63, 219501 (2020), arXiv:1810.09994 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  93. [103]

    J. A. Aguilaret al.(RNO-G), JINST16(03), P03025, [Erratum: JINST 18, E03001 (2023)], arXiv:2010.12279 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  94. [104]

    Waxman and J

    E. Waxman and J. N. Bahcall, Phys. Rev. D59, 023002 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9807282

    1999 arXiv

  95. [105]

    Murase and E

    K. Murase and E. Waxman, Phys. Rev. D94, 103006 (2016), arXiv:1607.01601 [astro-ph.HE]. 22

    2016 arXiv

  96. [106]

    Gaggero, D

    D. Gaggero, D. Grasso, A. Marinelli, A. Urbano, and M. Valli, Astrophys. J. Lett.815, L25 (2015), arXiv:1504.00227 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  97. [107]

    Murase, Astrophys

    K. Murase, Astrophys. J. Lett.941, L17 (2022), arXiv:2211.04460 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  98. [108]

    K. Fang, J. S. Gallagher, and F. Halzen, Nature Astron. 8, 241 (2024), arXiv:2306.17275 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  99. [109]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Astrophys

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Astrophys. J.956, 20 (2023), arXiv:2307.07576 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023

  100. [110]

    Neumayer, A

    N. Neumayer, A. Seth, and T. Boeker, Astron. As- trophys. Rev.28, 4 (2020), arXiv:2001.03626 [astro- ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  101. [111]

    Dalianis, JCAP08, 032, arXiv:1812.09807 [astro- ph.CO]

    I. Dalianis, JCAP08, 032, arXiv:1812.09807 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  102. [112]

    N. Raj, P. Shivanna, and G. N. Rachh, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123040 (2024), arXiv:2403.07496 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.