Accretion-Induced Collapse of Dark Matter Admixed White Dwarfs -- I: Formation of Low-mass Neutron Stars

Ken'ichi Nomoto; Lap-Ming Lin; Ming-chung Chu; Shing-Chi Leung; Shuai Zha

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 83 references

Accretion-Induced Collapse of Dark Matter Admixed White Dwarfs -- I: Formation of Low-mass Neutron Stars

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a compact dark matter core embedded in a white dwarf can alter accretion-induced collapse enough to form neutron stars with masses down to about 1.0 solar masses.

desk verdict First dynamical collapse simulation of DM-admixed white dwarfs, with a plausible central trend, but the static DM core approximation is load-bearing and contradicted by the paper's own Figure 5. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05102 v2 pith:YDQHOLTC submitted 2019-08-14 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Shing-Chi Leung , Shuai Zha , Ming-Chung Chu , Lap-Ming Lin , Ken'ichi Nomoto This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

keywords darkmatterwhitedwarfsneutronstarsaccretion-inducedcollapsehydrodynamicslow-masspulsarselectroncaptureproto-neutronstar

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 tries to establish a new formation channel for unusually light neutron stars: a white dwarf that harbors a compact dark matter core and collapses by electron capture can leave behind a proto-neutron star with mass as low as about 1.0 solar masses. Using one-dimensional hydrodynamics, the authors show that for white dwarfs with the same central baryon density, adding more dark matter slows the collapse and reduces the mass of the resulting neutron star, with 0.05 solar masses of dark matter delaying bounce from about 40 to 300 milliseconds and 0.06 solar masses preventing collapse altogether. The need for such a channel comes from observed pulsars near 1.1 solar masses, in particular J0453+1559 at 1.174 solar masses, which standard core-collapse supernova formation cannot produce. If the claim is right, dark matter admixture is a viable explanation for the low-mass neutron star population.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a white dwarf in hydrostatic equilibrium built from two fluids: ordinary baryonic matter described by the SFHo, HShen, or LS220 equation of state, and a compact dark matter core modeled as an ideal degenerate Fermi gas of 1 GeV particles. The dark matter is not evolved dynamically; it enters only as a static source of gravity in an approximate Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff gravity solver, while collapse is triggered by a parameterized electron-capture prescription that lowers the electron fraction and pressure. The mechanism that reduces the neutron star mass is that the dark matter's gravity hollows out and redistributes the baryonic density profile, making the inner electron-capture region smaller and slowing infall, so a smaller baryonic core compresses to nuclear density and forms the proto-neutron star.

What would settle it

Run the same initial models in a two-fluid hydrodynamic simulation in which the dark matter core is evolved with its own pressure and gravity instead of being held fixed; if the 0.06-solar-mass model still collapses, or if proto-neutron star mass no longer falls monotonically with dark matter mass, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mass of a neutron star formed by accretion-induced collapse is set not only by the white dwarf's baryonic structure but also by how much dark matter sits in its core. For a fixed initial central baryon density, adding a static, compact dark matter core of up to 0.05 solar masses progressively slows the collapse and lowers the proto-neutron star mass from roughly 1.35 down to about 1.0 solar masses; with 0.06 solar masses of dark matter the white dwarf fails to collapse. The paper identifies the low-mass pulsar J0453+1559 as a candidate product of this channel, requiring at most about 0.02 solar masses of admixed dark matter in its progenitor, and argues that the trend is stable under changes to the equation of state, initial temperature profile, electron-capture scheme, and the choice of Newtonian versus approximate general-relativistic gravity. The dark matter is modeled as an ideal degenerate Fermi gas of 1 GeV particles and is held fixed as a gravitational source while only baryonic matter moves.

Load-bearing premise

The central trend rests on treating the dark matter core as a static gravitational anchor while baryonic matter collapses; if the core responds dynamically during the collapse, the simulated neutron star masses and the inferred dark matter content of J0453+1559 would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A white dwarf containing roughly 0.01 to 0.02 solar masses of dark matter can collapse to a neutron star near the mass of the low-mass pulsar J0453+1559.
Dark matter mass of about 0.05 solar masses delays bounce from tens to hundreds of milliseconds, and about 0.06 solar masses prevents collapse altogether.
The mass-lowering trend persists for two nuclear equations of state, two initial temperature profiles, two electron-capture parametrizations, and for both Newtonian and approximate general-relativistic gravity, with changes at the ten percent level.
Because accretion-induced collapse ejects little mass, the proto-neutron star mass is a good proxy for the final neutron star mass, so the predicted low masses should survive to the present day.

Reading between the lines

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

A two-fluid simulation that lets the dark matter core move and contract would test the static-core approximation; the paper itself identifies a brief phase when baryonic and dark matter densities are comparable, so the final masses could shift if the core responds during that phase.
The same mechanism could alter other white-dwarf outcomes: a dark matter core that lowers the Chandrasekhar mass would also weaken Type Ia supernova explosions, potentially connecting the low-mass neutron star population to observed underluminous supernovae.
If this channel operates, low-mass neutron stars should be more common in dark-matter-rich environments, and their binary mergers would contribute a distinct low-mass component to gravitational-wave source populations.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is the first fully nonlinear hydro simulation of accretion-induced collapse with an admixed dark matter core, and the central trend — more DM gives slower collapse and a lighter proto-neutron star — is probably real. Prior work from the same group was static equilibrium; this paper actually follows collapse to PNS formation. It checks the trend across two nuclear EOSs, two electron-capture parameterizations, and a resolution test, and the benchmark no-DM model reproduces known AIC behavior. The discovery that 0.06 Msun of DM prevents collapse entirely is a nice sharp result.

The soft spot is the static DM core. Section 2.1 justifies it by saying the period when baryonic and DM densities are comparable lasts under 1e-4 seconds. That is wrong on its face: Figure 5 shows the central baryon density climbing from 5e10 to 3e14 g/cc over tens of milliseconds, so it spends several milliseconds crossing the DM core central densities in Table 1 (3e11 to 3e13 g/cc). The DM core's dynamical time, given R_DM ~ 40 km and M_DM ~ 0.01–0.06 Msun, is roughly 3–10 ms — the same order as the bounce phase. The authors acknowledge the approximation could break down when the two densities are comparable, but they never test it. The quantitative outputs they match to J0453+1559 — bounce time, maximum density, PNS mass — are exactly what a responding DM core would shift. So the claimed match to the observed low-mass pulsar is an inverse fit built on an untested approximation, not a robust prediction.

Also, the abstract says such low-mass NSs "cannot be obtained" by conventional CCSN paths. That is too strong. Their own discussion cites Suwa et al. 2018, which gets down to ~1.17 Msun from 8.8–9.3 Msun stars, and the paper says J1756-2251 can be explained only marginally. The observed 1.174 Msun of J0453+1559 sits at the edge of that range, so "cannot" overstates the case.

The electron-capture Ybar(rho) is inherited from a no-DM GR1D benchmark, but the comparison with the Liebendoerfer05 scheme gives similar collapse dynamics, so that is a minor concern.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. This is the first dynamical link between DM-admixed white dwarfs and the low-mass pulsar population, and the central trend will likely survive. But the referee should require either a dynamical DM run or a credible timescale analysis, and the claims about J0453+1559 should be dialed back to "could be consistent" unless the static approximation is validated.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether accretion-induced collapse (AIC) of a white dwarf containing a compact dark-matter core can produce low-mass neutron stars. Using one-dimensional hydrodynamics with the SFHo, LS220, and HShen equations of state, a TOV-type gravity solver, and a parametrized electron-capture scheme, the authors construct hydrostatic initial models with a fixed central baryon density and admixed degenerate Fermi-gas dark matter masses up to 0.06 solar masses. They find that increasing the dark matter mass delays collapse (bounce time growing from about 40 ms to about 300 ms), lowers the maximum central density, and reduces the proto-neutron-star mass, while a model with 0.06 solar masses of dark matter fails to collapse. They compare the resulting gravitational masses with low-mass pulsars and conclude that J0453+1559 can be explained by an initial white dwarf containing roughly 0.01 to 0.02 solar masses of dark matter.

Significance. If correct, this is an interesting and timely mechanism for populating the low-mass neutron-star branch below 1.2 solar masses, complementing electron-capture supernova channels. The paper appears to be the first hydrodynamic AIC calculation with an admixed dark-matter core, and it includes useful robustness checks spanning two nuclear equations of state, two electron-capture parameterizations, a temperature profile comparison, a Newtonian-gravity comparison, and a resolution test. The qualitative trend, namely that more dark matter gives a slower collapse and a lower proto-neutron-star mass, is consistent across those variations. The quantitative application to J0453+1559, however, rests on the static-dark-matter-core approximation and on mass definitions that are not fully transparent.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.1, Fig. 5, Table 1] The claim that baryonic and dark matter densities are comparable for only '<10^-4 s' is not supported by the paper's own data. For the benchmark model the central baryon density rises from about 5e10 to about 3e14 g/cc over roughly 40 ms, crossing the dark matter central densities listed in Table 1 (2.6e11 to 3.1e12 g/cc) over several milliseconds, and for the slow-collapse 5-5 model this interval is longer. The dark matter core dynamical time, sqrt(R_DM^3/G M_DM), is roughly 3 to 7 ms for R_DM around 40 km and M_DM = 0.01 to 0.06 solar masses, which is comparable to the infall and bounce phases. Because Eq. (5) feeds a fixed dark matter distribution into the gravity solver, any contraction or rearrangement of the dark matter core during the collapse would change the bounce time, the maximum density, and the proto-neutron-star mass that are later matched to observations. The static-core approximation is therefore load-bearing and requires either a dynamical dark matter treatment or a quantitative estimate of the error it introduces.
[Table 1 and Fig. 11] The proto-neutron-star mass MNS is defined in the table header but is never listed in the table, so the central quantitative claim that proto-neutron-star masses drop to about 1.0 solar masses cannot be checked from the tabulated models. In addition, Section 4.1 applies Eq. (11) to 'the total mass' M of the initial model to obtain the gravitational mass plotted in Fig. 11, but M includes the dark matter mass and is not the baryonic mass of the nascent neutron star. The conversion should instead be applied to the baryonic mass of the proto-neutron star, or the use of the initial total mass should be explicitly justified, and the resulting Mgrav values should be tabulated together with MNS.
[Section 2.3 and Section 3.3.3] The default electron-capture relation Ybar_e(rho) is taken from the no-dark-matter benchmark model and then applied to all dark-matter-admixed runs. Because the dark matter changes the collapse trajectory and the thermal structure, the assumption that the capture history is unchanged should be tested, for example by recomputing the collapse with an alternative capture law derived from a dark-matter-modified background or by demonstrating explicitly that the Liebendoerfer05 scheme gives the same proto-neutron-star mass trend. Without this check, the quantitative MNS versus M_DM relation used for J0453+1559 is not fully independent of the no-dark-matter benchmark input.

minor comments (6)

[Section 2.3, Eq. (7)] The definition dYe/dt = (Ybar_e - Ye)/delta_t looks like a numerical relaxation rather than a physical rate; please clarify the limiting behavior and whether delta_t is the hydrodynamic timestep.
[Table 1] The table header lists MNS among the masses, but the table columns do not include MNS; either add the missing column or remove MNS from the header description.
[Section 3.2, Eq. (10)] The fit tb = 1090 M^{-12} lacks error bars and a stated fitting range, and the units of the coefficient should be specified explicitly.
[Section 4.1, Fig. 11] The phrase 'progenitor gravitational mass' is confusing because the figure is compared with final neutron-star masses; please define Mgrav explicitly in the text and caption.
[Throughout] There are occasional typos and informal phrases, such as 'baronyic' in Section 4.2 and 'very very short duration' in Section 2.1, which should be cleaned up.
[Fig. 5 and Fig. 6] The legend entries '0 2 4 5 6' are cryptic; using the model names or explicit M_DM values would make the figures much easier to read.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: PNS masses and collapse delays are hydrodynamically computed outputs; DM mass is a free model parameter, not a fitted target.

full rationale

The paper's central result—that increasing admixed DM mass delays collapse and lowers the proto-neutron-star mass—is obtained from spherically symmetric hydrodynamics simulations with specified EOS, electron-capture parametrization, and hydrostatic initial models. The PNS mass is an output of the collapse calculation, not an input or a fitted quantity. The Ybar_e(rho) relation is calibrated on a no-DM GR1D benchmark and then applied to DM runs, but that is an input-physics approximation rather than a fitted prediction, and the paper checks it against the independent Liebendoerfer (2005) scheme; the qualitative trend survives that check, so the central claim does not reduce to the calibration. The comparison to J0453+1559 uses M_DM as a model parameter constrained by the observed mass, which is standard parameter inference rather than a circular 'prediction' of that mass. The main caveat is the static-DM-core approximation (Section 2.1): the DM is held fixed while baryons collapse, justified by a claimed <10^-4 s overlap that appears inconsistent with the collapse timescales in Figure 5 and Table 1. That is a physical robustness concern about the validity of the approximation, not a circularity of the derivation chain, and it does not make the PNS masses equal to inputs by construction. No load-bearing self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggled-by-citation was found; prior Leung et al. work provides background and initial-profile context, while the dynamical result is newly computed here and benchmarked against external codes (GR1D), EOSs, and the Liebendoerfer electron-capture scheme.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several domain assumptions about dark matter behavior and electron capture, plus a deliberately static treatment of the dark matter core. The dark matter mass and particle mass are free parameters of the model, with M_DM effectively fitted to the target pulsar mass in Section 4.1. No new particles or forces are introduced beyond the assumed non-self-annihilating Fermi gas dark matter.

free parameters (2)

Admixed dark matter mass M_DM = 0.01 to 0.06 Msun; 0.02 Msun inferred for J0453+1559
The total mass of the non-self-annihilating dark matter core in the initial white dwarf. Varying it changes the initial total mass and the resulting proto-neutron star mass. In Section 4.1, the observed pulsar mass is used to infer a value of about 0.02 Msun, so it acts as a fitted parameter in the astrophysical application.
Dark matter particle mass m_DM = 1 GeV
Chosen by hand, motivated by mirror dark matter models (Foot et al. 1991, Okun 2007). It sets the Fermi pressure of the dark matter core, and the collapse dynamics depend on it. Only the 1 GeV case is simulated; other masses are discussed qualitatively.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Initial white dwarf with admixed dark matter is in hydrostatic equilibrium (Eqs. 1-3).
The initial models solve hydrostatic equilibrium for both normal matter and dark matter, giving the starting point for the collapse simulation.
domain assumption Dark matter behaves as an ideal degenerate Fermi gas with no self-annihilation.
This equation of state is used for the dark matter component and determines the compact core structure.
domain assumption Electron capture rate is a function of baryon density only through Ybar_e(rho), applied uniformly across the star.
The parametrized scheme from Liebendoerfer (2005) is used, with Ybar_e(rho) taken from a no-dark-matter GR1D AIC simulation. This assumes the local density fully determines the electron fraction evolution.
ad hoc to paper Dark matter core is static and does not dynamically respond to the baryonic collapse.
Section 2.1 states 'we only follow the motion of baryonic matter' and treats dark matter as a fixed gravity source. The authors acknowledge a brief period of comparable densities but do not test the impact of this approximation on the final mass.
domain assumption Spherical symmetry is adequate for the collapse and bounce dynamics.
The 1D code assumes spherical symmetry; multidimensional effects such as convection and non-radial modes are not modeled.
standard math The modified TOV gravity of Marek et al. (2006) approximates general relativity adequately.
The gravity solver is an approximate GR scheme. The paper compares with a Newtonian run and finds about 10% changes in bounce time and central density.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accretion-Induced Collapse of Dark Matter Admixed White Dwarfs -- I: Formation of Low-mass Neutron Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YDQHOLTC

@misc{pith2026190805102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accretion-Induced Collapse of Dark Matter Admixed White Dwarfs -- I: Formation of Low-mass Neutron Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YDQHOLTC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05102}
}

abstract

Recently observed pulsars with masses $\sim 1.1 ~M_{\odot}$ challenge the conventional neutron star (NS) formation path by core-collapse supernova (CCSN). Using spherically symmetric hydrodynamics simulations, we follow the collapse of a massive white dwarf (WD) core triggered by electron capture, until the formation of a proto-NS (PNS). For initial WD models with the same central density, we study the effects of a static, compact dark matter (DM) admixed core on the collapse and bounce dynamics and mass of the PNS, with DM mass $\sim 0.01 ~M_{\odot}$. We show that increasing the admixed DM mass generally leads to slower collapse and smaller PNS mass, down to about 1.0 $M_{\odot}$. Our results suggest that the accretion-induced collapse of dark matter admixed white dwarfs can produce low-mass neutron stars, such as the observed low-mass pulsar J0453+1559, which cannot be obtained by conventional NS formation path by CCSN.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05102 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The Y¯e(ρNM) relation using the GR1D simulation (this work) and that in Liebendoerfer (2005) based on detailed neutrino transport. 0.00 0.05 0.10 time (s) 11 12 13 14 log10ρc (g cm−3 ) 0.036 0.038 0.040 14.4 14.5 14.6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Central density against time for the benchmark model. The smaller panel is the zoomed-in plot around the bounce. verification of the numerical scheme we have used by comparing with similar models in the literature. 3.1. Benchmark model In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The density (upper panel), velocity (middle panel) and Ye profiles (lower panel) for the benchmark model at t = 40 ms (black solid line) and 10 ms (red solid line) before bounce, bounce (green dashed line), 10 ms (blue dot-dashed line) and 50 ms (purple dotted line) after bounce. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 r (km) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 log10 ρNM (g cm−3 ) 0 2 4 6 Model 5 − 0 − c − SFHo − G Model 5 − 2 − c − SFHo − G Mo… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Initial density profiles of Models 5-0-c-SFHo-G (black solid line), 5-2-c-SFHo-G (red solid line), 5-4-c-SFHoG (green dashed line) and 5-6-c-SFHo-G (blue dot-dashed line) third entry (c) indicates whether it is cold c or hot h. The fourth entry (SFHo) reveals the EOS,…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Central baryon densities of Models 5-0-c-SFHoG (black solid line), 5-2-c-SFHo-G (red dotted line), 5-4-cSFHo-G (green dashed line), 5-5-c-SFHo-G (blue dot-dashed line) and 5-6-c-SFHo-G (purple solid line) respectively. result, the region for efficient electron captur…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Bounce time against M (dashed line) based on Models 5-x-c-SFHo-G where x = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the corresponding dynamical time calculated with the initial radius and mass (solid line). 0.00 0.05 0.10 time (s) 11 12 13 14 log10 ρc (g cm−3 ) Model 5 − 0 − c − SFHo …

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Central baryon densities of Models 5-0-c-SFHoG (black solid line), 5-0-h-SFHo-G (red dashed line), 5-0-cHshen-G (green dot-dashed line), 5-0-c-LS220-G (blue dot dashed line), 5-0-c-SFHo-L (purple dotted line) and 5-0-csFHo-G-Newt (cyan dotted line) vs. time. of 0.8…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Mgrav against MDM of this work for the SFHo models. Selected pulsar mass data are presented, including J1756-2251 and J1756.2251c. (Ferdman et al. 2014), J1807-2500c. (Lynch et al. 2012) and the J0453+1559 (Martinez et al. 2015). the presence of a NS. However, in gene…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Central densities of Models 5-0-c-SFHo-G-coarse, 5-0-c-SFHo-c and 5-0-c-SFHo-G-fine respectively. This work was supported by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI), MEXT, Japan and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP26400222, JP16H02168, JP17K05382, a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

[1]

P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 231103

2018
[2]

B., Ott, C

Abdikamalov, E. B., Ott, C. D., Rezzolla, L., et al. 2010, PhRvD, 81, 044012

2010
[3]

2015, Eur

Addazi, A., Berezhiani, Z., Bernabei, R., et al. 2015, Eur. Phys. J. C, 75, 400

2015
[4]

S., Araujo, H

Akerib, D. S., Araujo, H. M., Bai, X., et al. 2013, PhRvL, 112, 091303 —. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 161302

work page 2013
[5]

S., Alsum, S., Ara´ ujo, H

Akerib, D. S., Alsum, S., Ara´ ujo, H. M., et al. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 062005

work page 2018
[6]

Antoniadis, J., Freire, P. C. C., Wex, N., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 448

2013
[7]

2016, PhRvD, 94 , 122001 —

Aprile, E., Aalbers, J., Agostini, F., et al. 2016, PhRvD, 94 , 122001 —. 2017, PhRvL, 108, 101101

work page 2016
[8]

2014, PhRvD, 90, 062009 12

Aprile, E., Agostini, F., Alfonsi, M., et al. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 062009 12

work page 2014

Show all 83 references

[9]

2009, PhRvL, 105, 131302

Aprile, E., Arisaka, K., Arneodo, F., et al. 2009, PhRvL, 105, 131302

2009
[10]

2019, PhRvL, 122, 071301

Aprile, E., Aalbers, J., Agostini, F., et al. 2019, PhRvL, 122, 071301

2019
[11]

1987, ApJ, 320, 304

Baron, E., Cooperstein, J., Kahana, S., & Nomoto, K. 1987, ApJ, 320, 304

1987
[12]

C., & Delepine, D

Barranco, J., Monteverde, A. C., & Delepine, D. 2013, PhRvD, 87, 103011

2013
[13]

2008, MNRAS, 391, 942

Baumgardt, H., & Mieske, S. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 942

2008
[14]

2008, Eur

Bernabei, R., Belli, P., Cappella, F., et al. 2008, Eur. Phys . J., C56, 333 —. 2014, Nucl. Instru. and Methods in Phys. Research A, 742, 177

2008
[15]

2013, Int

Bernabei, R., Belli, P., D’Angelo, S., et al. 2013, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 28, 1330022

2013
[16]

2018, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35, 234002

Bezares, M., & Palenzuela, C. 2018, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35, 234002

2018
[17]

2015, PhRvL, 115, 111301

Brito, R., Cardoso, V., & Okawa, H. 2015, PhRvL, 115, 111301

2015
[18]

2019, MNRAS, 485, 2153

Burrows, A., Radice, D., & Vartanyan, D. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2153

2019
[19]

1976, A&A, 46, 229

Canal, R., & Schatzman, E. 1976, A&A, 46, 229

1976
[20]

2009, ApJ, 705, 135 —

Casanellas, J., & Lopes, I. 2009, ApJ, 705, 135 —. 2011, ApJ, 733, L51 Cerme˜ no, M., P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, M. A., & Lineros, R. A. 2018, ApJ, 863, 157

2009
[21]

2011, Physics Letters B, 695, 19

Ciarcelluti, P., & Sandin, F. 2011, Physics Letters B, 695, 19

2011
[22]

Clough, K., Dietrich, T., & Niemeyer, J. C. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 083020

2018
[23]

D., Quataert, E., et al

Darbha, S., Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 846

2010
[24]

2007, ApJ, 669, 585

Dessart, L., Burrows, A., Livne, E., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 585

2007
[25]

2006, ApJ, 644, 1063

Dessart, L., Burrows, A., Ott, C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 1063

2006
[26]

I., & Pethick, C

Epstein, R. I., & Pethick, C. J. 1981, ApJ, 243, 1003

1981
[27]

Feng, J. L. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 495

2010
[28]

D., Stairs, I

Ferdman, R. D., Stairs, I. H., Kramer, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2183

2014
[29]

Foot, R., Lew, H., & Volkas, R. R. 1991, Physics Letters B, 272, 67

1991
[30]

T., Kahlhoefer, F., March-Russell, J., et al

Frandsen, M. T., Kahlhoefer, F., March-Russell, J., et al. 2011, PhRvD, 84, 041301

2011
[31]

T., & Sarkar, S

Frandsen, M. T., & Sarkar, S. 2010, PhRvL, 105, 011301

2010
[32]

2008, ApJ, 685, L101

Freese, K., Bodenheimer, P., Spolyar, D., & Gondolo, P. 2008, ApJ, 685, L101

2008
[33]

2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 066902

Freese, K., Rindler-Daller, T., Spolyar, D., & Valluri, M. 2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 066902

2016
[34]

2009, New J

Freese, K., Spolyar, D., Bodenheimer, P., & Gondolo, P. 2009, New J. Phys., 11, 105014

2009
[35]

Freire, P. C. C., & Tauris, T. M. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L86

2014
[36]

D., & Nielsen, H

Froggatt, C. D., & Nielsen, H. B. 2015, Phys. Lett. A, 30, 1550195

2015
[37]

Fuller, J., & Ott, C. D. 2015, MNRAS, 450, L71

2015
[38]

1989, PhRvD, 40, 3221

Goldman, I., & Nussinov, S. 1989, PhRvD, 40, 3221

1989
[39]

W., Rajendran, S., & Varela, J

Graham, P. W., Rajendran, S., & Varela, J. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 063007

2015
[40]

J., Zentner, A

Hurst, T. J., Zentner, A. R., Natarajan, A., & Badenes, C. 2015, PhRvD, 91, 103514

2015
[41]

2015, PhRvD, 91, 023008

Iwazaki, A. 2015, PhRvD, 91, 023008

2015
[42]

L., Dunkley, J., et al

Jarosik, N., Bennett, C. L., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 14

2011
[43]

2008, PhRvD, 77, 023006

Kouvaris, C. 2008, PhRvD, 77, 023006

2008
[44]

Kouvaris, C., & Nielsen, N. G. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 075016

2015
[45]

M., & Douglas Swesty, F

Lattimer, J. M., & Douglas Swesty, F. 1991, Nuclear Physics A, 535, 331

1991
[46]

M., & Prakash, M

Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2001, ApJ, 550, 426

2001
[47]

2011, PhRvD, 84, 107301 —

Leung, S.-C., Chu, M.-C., & Lin, L.-M. 2011, PhRvD, 84, 107301 —. 2012, PhRvD, 85, 103528 —. 2015a, ApJ, 812, 110 —. 2015b, MNRAS, 454, 1238

2011
[48]

2013, PhRvD, 87, 123506

Leung, S.-C., Chu, M.-C., Lin, L.-M., & Wong, K.-W. 2013, PhRvD, 87, 123506

2013
[49]

2017, Mem

Leung, S.-C., & Nomoto, K. 2017, Mem. della Soc. Astron. Ital., 88, 266

2017
[50]

2018, ApJ, 861, 143 —

Leung, S.-C., & Nomoto, K. 2018, ApJ, 861, 143 —. 2019, PASA, 36, e006

2018
[51]

2005, ApJ, 633, 1042

Liebendoerfer, M. 2005, ApJ, 633, 1042

2005
[52]

S., Freire, P

Lynch, R. S., Freire, P. C. C., Ransom, S. M., & Jacoby, B. A. 2012, ApJ, 745, 109

2012
[53]

G., Stovall, K., Freire, P

Martinez, J. G., Stovall, K., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 143

2015
[54]

2007, Nature, 445, 286

Massey, R., Rhodes, J., Ellis, R., et al. 2007, Nature, 445, 286

2007
[55]

Mayle, R., & Wilson, J. R. 1988, ApJ, 334, 909

1988
[56]

D., Piro, A

Metzger, B. D., Piro, A. L., & Quataert, E. 2009, arXiv:0908.1127

2009 arXiv
[57]

V., & Wai, L

Moskalenko, I. V., & Wai, L. L. 2007, ApJ, 659, L29

2007
[58]

Narain, G., Schaﬀner-Bielich, J., & Mishustin, I. N. 2006, PhRvD, 74, 063003 N¨ attil¨ a, J., Steiner, A. W., Kajava, J. J. E., Suleimanov, V. F., & Poutanen, J. 2016, A&A, 591, A25

2006
[59]

1991, ApJ, 367, L19 13

Nomoto, K., & Kondo, Y. 1991, ApJ, 367, L19 13

1991
[60]

1982, ApJ, 257, 780 O’Connor, E., & Ott, C

Nomoto, K., Thielemann, F.-K., & Yokoi, K. 1982, ApJ, 257, 780 O’Connor, E., & Ott, C. D. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 114103 Okun’, L. B. 2007, Physics Uspekhi, 50, 380

1982
[61]

D., & Quinn, H

Peccei, R. D., & Quinn, H. R. 1977, PhRvL, 38, 1440

1977
[62]

1999, ApJ, 517, 565

Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565

1999
[63]

2016, PhRvD, 94, 103004

Raby, S. 2016, PhRvD, 94, 103004

2016
[64]

2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1950002

Rezaei, Z. 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1950002

2018
[65]

G., Filippenko, A

Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Challis, P., et al. 1998, ApJ, 116, 1009

1998
[66]

2007, MNRAS, 378, 41

Salucci, P., Lapi, A., Tonini, C., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 41

2007
[67]

2010, Astropart

Sandin, F., & Ciarcelluti, P. 2010, Astropart. Phys., 32, 27 8

2010
[68]

2010, ApJ, 719, 722

Schwab, J., Podsaidlowski, P., & Rappaport, S. 2010, ApJ, 719, 722

2010
[69]

2015, MNRAS, 453, 1910

Schwab, J., Quataert, E., & Bildsten, L. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1910

2015
[70]

2009, MNRAS, 394, 82

Scott, P., Fairbairn, M., & Edsjo, J. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 82

2009
[71]

1998, Nucl

Shen, H., Toki, H., Oyamatsu, K., & Sumiyoshi, K. 1998, Nucl. Phys. A, 637, 435

1998
[72]

2011, ApJS, 197, 20

Shen, H., Toki, H., Oyamatsu, K., & Sumiyoshi, K. 2011, ApJS, 197, 20

2011
[73]

2009, ApJ, 705, 1031

Spolyar, D., Bodenheimer, P., Freese, K., & Gondolo, P. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1031

2009
[74]

2005, MNRAS, 364, 1005

Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1005

2005
[75]

Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629

2005
[76]

W., Hempel, M., & Fischer, T

Steiner, A. W., Hempel, M., & Fischer, T. 2013, ApJ, 774, 17

2013
[77]

2016, ApJ, 821, 38

Janka, H.-T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38

2016
[78]

2018, MNRAS, 481, 3305

Takahashi, K. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3305

2018
[79]

2013, ApJ, 771, 28

Takahashi, K., Yoshida, T., Umeda, H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, 28

2013
[80]

2015, PhRvD, 92, 123002

Tolos, L., & Schaﬀner-Bielich, J. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 123002

2015
[81]

E., & Baron, E

Woosley, S. E., & Baron, E. 1992, ApJ, 391, 228

1992
[82]

Yi, I., & Blackman, E. G. 1998, ApJ, 494, L163

1998
[83]

R., & Hearin, A

Zentner, A. R., & Hearin, A. P. 2011, PhRvD, 84, 101302 14

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 231103

2018

[2] [2]

B., Ott, C

Abdikamalov, E. B., Ott, C. D., Rezzolla, L., et al. 2010, PhRvD, 81, 044012

2010

[3] [3]

2015, Eur

Addazi, A., Berezhiani, Z., Bernabei, R., et al. 2015, Eur. Phys. J. C, 75, 400

2015

[4] [4]

S., Araujo, H

Akerib, D. S., Araujo, H. M., Bai, X., et al. 2013, PhRvL, 112, 091303 —. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 161302

work page 2013

[5] [5]

S., Alsum, S., Ara´ ujo, H

Akerib, D. S., Alsum, S., Ara´ ujo, H. M., et al. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 062005

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Antoniadis, J., Freire, P. C. C., Wex, N., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 448

2013

[7] [7]

2016, PhRvD, 94 , 122001 —

Aprile, E., Aalbers, J., Agostini, F., et al. 2016, PhRvD, 94 , 122001 —. 2017, PhRvL, 108, 101101

work page 2016

[8] [8]

2014, PhRvD, 90, 062009 12

Aprile, E., Agostini, F., Alfonsi, M., et al. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 062009 12

work page 2014