Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 64 references

White dwarf mass estimates from light and from gravitational redshift disagree by 5–15%; this paper argues the gap is a gravitationally bound scalar dark-matter component, not a measurement error.

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

2026-08-04 07:02 UTC pith:ZOL7GWOE

load-bearing objection A physically motivated but statistically fragile case for bosonic DM in white dwarfs; the 50x Bayes factor likely collapses once group-averaged data are handled properly. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.00104 v2 pith:ZOL7GWOE submitted 2025-10-30 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COgr-qc

Testing bosonic dark matter through white dwarf mass measurements

Jorge Castelo Mourelle , Nicolas Sanchis-Gual , Jos\'e A. Font , Juan Calder\'on Bustillo This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COgr-qc PACS 04.40.Dg95.35.+d97.20.Rp
keywords white dwarfsdark matterboson starsultralight scalar fieldgravitational redshiftmass-radius relationBayesian model selectionrelativistic stellar structure
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.

This paper argues that the persistent 5–15% discrepancy between white-dwarf masses measured electromagnetically and through gravitational redshift is not purely observational error: it is the gravitational signature of an ultralight bosonic scalar field bound to the star. The authors build static equilibrium models of white dwarfs with a complex scalar-field component (a mixed white dwarf–boson star) and show that a scalar fraction of about 5–15% of the total mass reproduces the observed mass excess. A Bayesian model comparison finds this mixed-star scenario about 50 times more probable than assuming the two mass measurements agree, and peaks the boson mass near 10^-10 eV. If right, white dwarfs become indirect dark-matter detectors and the long-standing mass-bias problem becomes a window onto ultralight bosons.

Core claim

We claim that the observed difference ΔM = M_GRS − M_EM in white dwarfs can be accounted for by a gravitationally coupled, electromagnetically invisible scalar field. Solving the Einstein–Klein–Gordon system with a polytropic fermionic fluid yields composite configurations whose total mass matches the gravitational-redshift value while the fermionic component alone matches the electromagnetic value. The required scalar mass fraction is f_DM ~ 5–15%. A Bayesian analysis over discrete boson masses prefers μ ≈ 10^-10 eV and yields a Bayes factor of about 56 relative to the model imposing M_GRS = M_EM, placing preliminary constraints on the boson mass and the compactness of the scalar component.

What carries the argument

The modified Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff system for a static, spherically symmetric spacetime coupled to a complex scalar field with potential V = μ^2 |Φ|^2, together with Komar integrals that split the total gravitational mass into fermionic and bosonic parts. The scalar mass fraction f_DM is the bridge between ΔM and observation, and the boson mass μ sets the radial scale of the scalar component — a compact central core for μ ≈ 10^-10 eV versus a diffuse, star-sized distribution for μ ≈ 1.68 × 10^-11 eV — which is what allows the model to fit the radius-dependent data.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis treats the EM and GRS masses as independent measurements with no uncertainty on the common radius from which both are derived; if the shared radius error were propagated, the reported 50-fold preference for a bosonic component could erode.

What would settle it

Re-run the Bayesian comparison with a likelihood that samples the photometric radius jointly and propagates its uncertainty into both masses through the defining relations for M_EM and M_GRS; if the evidence ratio for the mixed-WD model over the equal-mass model drops below unity, the claim that white dwarfs favor a ~10^-10 eV scalar field is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • The observed EM/GRS mass bias becomes a physically motivated signal rather than unexplained systematics.
  • The boson mass is constrained to the ultralight range, with the Bayesian peak near μ ≈ 10^-10 eV and support from roughly 10^-11 to 10^-9 eV; masses below about 10^-12 eV are strongly disfavored.
  • Different boson masses produce distinguishable structures — a compact central core below 800 km for 10^-10 eV versus a diffuse component spanning the star for 1.68 × 10^-11 eV — which could be probed by asteroseismology or other structure-sensitive observations.
  • The mass bias should be stronger in dense dark-matter environments such as globular clusters, offering an environmental test of the scenario.
  • No direct dark-matter detection is needed; existing spectroscopic and photometric catalogs can be re-examined for the predicted pattern of mass bias versus radius.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If a future reanalysis propagates the shared radius uncertainty, the reported Bayes factor of about 56 will likely shrink; the paper's own assumption of no uncertainty on the radius makes that 50-fold preference the least robust number in the paper.
  • The same mixed fermion–boson construction could be applied to neutron stars or to white dwarfs in eclipsing binaries with independently measured radii, which would break the degeneracy between radius and scalar fraction.
  • A testable prediction from the model: white dwarfs with compact scalar cores (μ ≈ 10^-10 eV) should have pulsational mode frequencies and moments of inertia measurably different from pure white dwarfs of equal M_GRS; comparing seismology with the model's pressure profiles would decide between the core and diffuse interpretations.
  • If a radius-aware reanalysis retains the preference, the result would be a new, independent constraint on ultralight bosons that does not rely on dark-matter capture during the white dwarf lifetime but instead requires the field to have been present at formation — a narrower but testable formation scenario.

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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that a gravitationally coupled, electromagnetically invisible bosonic scalar field can account for the observed differences between electromagnetic (EM) and gravitational redshift (GRS) white-dwarf mass estimates. It solves the modified Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff system for static, spherically symmetric mixed WD-boson configurations, using a polytropic fermionic component and a complex scalar field with quadratic potential. For three boson masses in the range mu~10^-11 to 10^-10 eV, the authors construct equilibrium models in which the total mass matches M_GRS and the fermionic component matches M_EM, giving DM fractions of 5-15%. A Bayesian analysis over a 12-entry observational sample returns pointwise likelihood ratios up to 210 and a model-averaged evidence ratio of about 56 in favor of the mixed-WD model against the model with M_GRS=M_EM. The paper concludes that this scenario provides a physically motivated explanation for the observed mass bias and places preliminary constraints on the boson mass at mu~10^-10 eV.

Significance. The theoretical framework is standard and the numerical equilibria are likely computed correctly; the paper usefully extends the fermion-boson star formalism to white dwarfs and presents clear radial-profile comparisons. If the evidence claim were sound, the result would be interesting: it would link ultralight dark matter to an astrophysical compact-object observable and give a concrete boson-mass range. However, the central quantitative conclusion is not supported by the manuscript as written. The model parameters are fitted per star rather than predicted; the likelihood omits a factor of 1/2 in the Gaussian exponents; the dataset includes group-averaged entries treated as independent single stars; and the shared photometric radius is assumed to have no uncertainty even though both mass estimates depend on it. These are load-bearing statistical issues, not presentation details. The physical scenario remains a viable hypothesis, but the reported 50x evidence is not credible in its present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.C and Sec. VI.B / Eq. (22)] The full-data likelihood in Eq. (22) multiplies contributions from the 12 entries as if each were an independent, single-star measurement. Section IV.C explicitly states that the DB, DBs, DA, DAs, and DBA entries are average magnitudes obtained from groups of stars, and the Hyades WD entry is a cluster average. Group averages have much smaller uncertainties than individual stars and do not represent independent draws from a single-mu, per-star scalar-field mass fraction. Including them as 12 independent data points overstates the precision of the likelihood product and can dominate the evidence. The Bayes factor of roughly 56 should be recomputed with either only genuinely individual measurements or a hierarchical model that accounts for the group structure.
  2. [Sec. VI.A / Eq. (21)] Equation (21) writes the Gaussian likelihood with exponents of the form -[(M_GRS-M_tot)^2/sigma_GRS^2 + (M_EM-M_EM_model)^2/sigma_EM^2]. A product of two Gaussian densities has exponents -[(...)/(2 sigma^2)+...]. Omitting the 1/2 is not a harmless normalization choice because the normalization constants are dropped, and it makes the reported likelihood ratios exponentially too large. Concretely, the log-Bayes factor is doubled, so the quoted 56x evidence reduces to about 7.5x before any other correction. This is a discrete, fixable error, but it changes the headline result and must be corrected before the model-selection claim can be evaluated.
  3. [Sec. VI.A and Sec. IV.A-B / Eqs. (17)-(19)] The two mass estimates are not independent: Eq. (17) uses M_EM = g R_s^2/G and Eq. (19) uses M_GRS = v_GRS c R_s/G, so both are derived from the same photometric radius R_s. The text in Sec. VI.A states 'We assume no uncertainty on the radius.' Any radius error therefore propagates into both quantities and induces a covariance that is ignored by the two independent Gaussians in Eq. (21). This is particularly damaging because the observed mass difference DeltaM = M_GRS - M_EM could be partly a radius artifact; treating it as direct evidence for an extra mass component biases the analysis in favor of the bosonic model. The likelihood should marginalize over a latent radius with a prior and use the full covariance.
  4. [Sec. V.A / Table I and Eq. (21)] The representative models in Table I are obtained by choosing the central pressure p0 and scalar-field amplitude phi0 per star, with the text noting that these are 'guided by physical intuition and empirical fitting'; additionally, Sec. V.C changes the polytropic index to n=1.48 for Sirius B. Thus the model has considerable per-object freedom. Equation (21) nevertheless assumes that for a given (M_tot,R,mu) there is a unique MSF, and it integrates only over M_tot with a flat prior. But varying phi0 (or p0) at fixed R and mu gives a family of MSF values, so the likelihood undercounts model flexibility. Without marginalizing over these parameters with explicit priors and applying the corresponding Occam penalty, the reported likelihood ratios and the resulting boson-mass constraints are not a fair measure of the model's predictive power.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. V.C] The change of polytropic index from n=1.5 to n=1.48 for Sirius B is motivated only after the fact. Please present it as a systematic test of the EOS approximation and propagate it through the statistical analysis, or justify the value from independent white-dwarf modeling.
  2. [Sec. V.A] Typo: 'Syrius B' should be 'Sirius B'.
  3. [Sec. VI.A / Eq. (22)] The displayed equation 'log p(d|mu) = Sum_i log p(d|mu)' should read 'Sum_i log p(X_i|mu)'.
  4. [Sec. VI.B / Fig. 5] The vertical axis of Fig. 5 has arbitrary units (1e29); the caption should state that the plotted quantity is an unnormalized likelihood or posterior density.
  5. [Sec. VI.B / Table III] The claim 'p(mu < 1.68e-12) <= 1.5e-6' is an extrapolation between only a few discrete grid points. A denser sampling or an interpolation with explicit priors is needed before quoting such a bound.
  6. [Sec. IV / Fig. 1] For reproducibility, the 12 paired measurements (radii, M_GRS, M_EM, and uncertainties) should be given in a table rather than only in a figure.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Per-star fits of p0 and phi0 are presented as 'predictions' of Delta M; the Bayesian evidence is weakened by non-independent group-averaged entries and a shared-radius assumption, though the TOV construction itself is not circular.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V.A (last paragraph), Section V.D, Tables I-II and Fig. 4]
    "It is worth emphasizing that the equilibrium configurations were obtained by choosing initial parameters, namely, the central pressure and scalar field amplitude, guided by physical intuition and empirical fitting. ... The observational mass difference is computed from the difference between GRS and EM estimates while the theoretical one is defined as the difference between total and fermionic masses. ... Overall, our theoretical predictions match the observational measurements of ∆M with high precision, demonstrating the robustness of our approach across different regions of the parameter spa"

    Table I assigns a distinct central pressure p0 and scalar amplitude phi0 to each observed WD, and the text says these were chosen by 'empirical fitting.' The theoretical Delta M is then read off from the same solution as M_tot - M_WD, i.e. exactly the scalar-field mass that was tuned to make the solution pass through the observed M_GRS and M_EM. Comparing this with the observed Delta M is therefore an in-sample check, not an independent prediction. With two free parameters per star, the model can reproduce a wide range of mass discrepancies, so the agreement in Fig. 4 is built in rather than derived from first principles.

full rationale

The Einstein-Klein-Gordon-TOV system and the Bayesian likelihood of Eq. (21) are not circular by themselves: they solve a well-posed equilibrium problem and compare data with a model-generated relation M_SF(M_tot,R,mu). The main circular element is confined to Section V, where the per-star parameters are fitted to the same masses that are later called 'predicted.' The 56x Bayes factor has independent content but is undermined by two statistical issues quoted in the paper: Section IV.C says the DB, DBs, DA, DAs, DBA and Hyades entries are average magnitudes from groups of stars, not individual objects, yet Eq. (22) multiplies them as independent single-star likelihoods; and Section VI.A assumes independent Gaussians for M_GRS and M_EM while assuming no radius uncertainty, even though Eqs. (17)-(19) derive both estimates from the same R. These are correctness risks rather than circular reductions. The self-citation to [15] motivates the scenario and is used for dynamical-stability context, but the equilibrium construction and Bayesian comparison are performed independently in this paper, so I do not count it as load-bearing circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central model depends on several fitted parameters (polytropic index, central pressure, scalar amplitude) and on domain assumptions about the EOS and the interpretation of the mass difference. The bosonic scalar field is a pre-existing candidate but its presence in WDs is an ad hoc postulate. The statistical analysis adds further assumptions (independent masses, no radius error) that are not physically justified.

free parameters (4)
  • polytropic index n = 1.5 (most), 1.48 (Sirius B)
    The fermionic EOS is a polytrope with index n=1.5; for Sirius B it is reduced to 1.48 to improve the mass-radius fit (Section V.C).
  • central pressure p0 = values in Table I (e.g., 47.5e-10 code units for Sirius B)
    For each representative model, p0 is chosen to match observed mass and radius (Section V.A).
  • central scalar field amplitude φ0 = values in Table I (e.g., 1.03e-4)
    Chosen by empirical fitting to reproduce the observed EM-GRS mass difference (Section V.A).
  • boson mass μ = posterior peak at 10^-10 eV; scanned over 10 discrete values
    The particle mass is a parameter of the model; the data are used to constrain it, so it acts as a fitted parameter in the likelihood.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The scalar field obeys a mini-boson star potential V = μ^2 |Φ|^2 with no self-interaction
    Eq. (A4) and Section II; this assumes a free, massive complex scalar field.
  • domain assumption The fermionic matter is described by a polytropic EOS p = K ρ^Γ with Γ = 5/3 (n=1.5)
    Section II; the authors acknowledge this is an approximation (Section II).
  • domain assumption The spacetime is static and spherically symmetric, and the scalar field has a single harmonic time dependence (Eq. 9)
    Section II; this restricts to isotropic, non-rotating configurations.
  • ad hoc to paper The observed mass difference ΔM = M_GRS - M_EM is entirely attributed to a dark matter component; systematic differences from radius errors, atmosphere modeling, or radial motion are ignored
    Section IV.C; this identification is the basis of the analysis and is not independently justified.
  • ad hoc to paper M_GRS and M_EM are independent Gaussian measurements with known standard deviations and zero radius uncertainty
    Section VI.A; this is questionable because both quantities are derived from the same radius R.
  • standard math A flat prior on the total mass M_tot over the allowed range
    Section VI.A, Eq. (21); the prior is used for the likelihood integral.
invented entities (1)
  • bosonic scalar field core inside white dwarfs no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the extra gravitational mass to explain the EM-GRS discrepancy
    The scalar field is borrowed from prior dark matter literature (e.g., [15,16]), but the specific existence of such cores in WDs is postulated; no direct detection or independent prediction is given.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21887 in / 15729 out tokens · 133271 ms · 2026-08-04T07:02:47.012262+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Mass estimates of white dwarfs via electromagnetic methods, often differ from those obtained through gravitational redshift measurements, in some cases with discrepancies ranging in $5-15\%$ across independent datasets. Although many of the discrepancies reported in large spectroscopic surveys and confirmed by high-precision techniques such as astrometric microlensing and wide-binary analyses may be attributable to thermal effects, model uncertainties or measurement errors prevent a complete description of some of the observations. Here, we explore an alternative explanation based on the presence of a gravitationally coupled bosonic scalar field that contributes to the stellar mass while remaining electromagnetically invisible. We construct stationary, static mixed configurations consisting of a white dwarf that presents a bosonic scalar field (dark matter) component, forming a composite white dwarf-boson star system. We explore families of solutions showing that a scalar field fraction $f_{\rm DM} \sim 5-15\%$ to the mass contribution can account for the observed redshift excess. Our models provide a physically motivated explanation for the mass bias, might offer new observational signatures, and allow us to place preliminary constraints on the mass and compactness of the scalar field configuration. Finally, using our theoretical framework in combination with Bayesian model selection we provide plausible bounds for the mass of the constituent (ultralight) bosonic particle.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.00104 by Jorge Castelo Mourelle, Jos\'e A. Font, Juan Calder\'on Bustillo, Nicolas Sanchis-Gual.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Sample of WDs for which pairs of observational mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Top row: scalar field profiles of the models presented in Table I. Bottom row: pressure profiles for the same configu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison between the observational data and the equilibrium configurations for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the percent mass difference between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Posterior probability for the boson-mass values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 26 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The observed absorption-line profiles are fitted to grids of NLTE (non-local thermodynamic equilib- rium) atmosphere models [39], yielding estimates of the effective temperatureT eff and the surface grav- ity log ˜g, typically with uncertainties on the order of∼1% [40]

  2. [2]

    Hence, the determination ofM EM requires an independent estimate ofR s

    The surface gravity ˜gis defined by ˜g= G MEM R2s =⇒M EM = ˜g R2 s G ,(17) whereR s is the stellar radius andGis the gravita- tional constant. Hence, the determination ofM EM requires an independent estimate ofR s

  3. [3]

    ESF Investing in your future

    The radiusR s is inferred from the Ste- fan–Boltzmann law using the effective temperature and the bolometric luminosity: L= 4πR 2 s σ T4 eff ,(18) whereLis computed from the observed flux (via broad-band photometry) and the parallax-based distance, andσis the Stefan–Boltzmann constant [41]. This approach yields a model-dependent mass estimate that relies ...

    arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    Steen, J

    M. Steen, J. Hermes, J. A. Guidry, A. Paiva, J. Farihi, T. M. Heintz, B. B. Ewing, and N. Berry, Measuring white dwarf variability from sparsely sampled gaia dr3 multi-epoch photometry, The Astrophysical Journal967, 166 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Dufour, S

    P. Dufour, S. Blouin, S. Coutu, M. Fortin-Archambault, C. Thibeault, P. Bergeron, and G. Fontaine, The mon- treal white dwarf database: a tool for the community, arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.00986 (2016)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Tremblay and P

    P.-E. Tremblay and P. Bergeron, Spectroscopic analy- sis of da white dwarfs: Stark broadening of hydrogen lines including nonideal effects, The Astrophysical Jour- 16 nal696, 1755 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Calamida, T

    A. Calamida, T. Matheson, E. W. Olszewski, A. Saha, T. Axelrod, C. Shanahan, J. Holberg, S. Points, G. Narayan, K. Malanchev,et al., Perfecting our set of spectrophotometric standard da white dwarfs, The As- trophysical Journal940, 19 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    R. E. Falcon, D. Winget, M. H. Montgomery, and K. A. Williams, A gravitational redshift determination of the mean mass of white dwarfs: Dba and db stars, The As- trophysical Journal757, 116 (2012)

    2012

  9. [9]

    Bergeron, J

    P. Bergeron, J. Liebert, and M. Fulbright, Masses of da white dwarfs with gravitational redshift determina- tions, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 444, no. 2, p. 810-817444, 810 (1995)

    1995

  10. [10]

    Raddi, A

    R. Raddi, A. Rebassa-Mansergas, S. Torres, M. E. Camisassa, R. Napiwotzki, D. Koester, P.-E. Trem- blay, U. Heber, and L. Althaus, Testing the mass- radius relation of white dwarfs in common proper motion pairs i. hydrogen-dominated atmospheres, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01285 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Arseneau, V

    S. Arseneau, V. Chandra, H.-C. Hwang, N. L. Zakamska, G. A. Pallathadka, N. R. Crumpler, J. Hermes, K. El- Badry, H.-W. Rix, K. G. Stassun,et al., Measuring the mass–radius relation of white dwarfs using wide binaries, The Astrophysical Journal963, 17 (2024)

    2024

  12. [13]

    S. M. Arseneau, J. Hermes, N. L. Zakamska, K. El- Badry, N. R. Crumpler, V. Chandra, G. A. Pal- lathadka, C. Badenes, B. T. Gaensicke, and N. G. Fusillo, Resolution-corrected white dwarf gravitational redshifts validate sdss-v wavelength calibration and enable accu- rate mass-radius tests, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.04775 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  13. [14]

    N. R. Crumpler, V. Chandra, N. L. Zakamska, G. A. Pallathadka, S. Arseneau, N. G. Fusillo, J. Hermes, C. Badenes, P. Chakraborty, B. T. G¨ ansicke,et al., De- tection of the temperature dependence of the white dwarf mass–radius relation with gravitational redshifts, The Astrophysical Journal977, 237 (2024)

    2024

  14. [15]

    De Ridder, V

    J. De Ridder, V. Ripepi, C. Aerts, L. Palaversa, L. Eyer, B. Holl, M. Audard, L. Rimoldini, A. G. Brown, A. Val- lenari,et al., Gaia data release 3-pulsations in main se- quence obaf-type stars, Astronomy & Astrophysics674, A36 (2023)

    2023

  15. [16]

    Vallenari, A

    A. Vallenari, A. G. Brown, T. Prusti, J. H. De Bruijne, F. Arenou, C. Babusiaux, M. Biermann, O. L. Creevey, C. Ducourant, D. W. Evans,et al., Gaia data release 3- summary of the content and survey properties, Astron- omy & Astrophysics674, A1 (2023)

    2023

  16. [17]

    McGill, J

    P. McGill, J. Anderson, S. Casertano, K. C. Sahu, P. Bergeron, S. Blouin, P. Dufour, L. C. Smith, N. W. Evans, V. Belokurov,et al., First semi-empirical test of the white dwarf mass–radius relationship using a single white dwarf via astrometric microlensing, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society520, 259 (2023)

    2023

  17. [18]

    Sanchis-Gual and P

    N. Sanchis-Gual and P. Izquierdo, Ultralight bosonic dark matter in white dwarfs and potential observa- tional consequences, Phys. Rev. D105, 084023 (2022), arXiv:2202.00434 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [19]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, C. F. B. Macedo, H. Okawa, and C. Palenzuela, Interaction between bosonic dark matter and stars, Phys. Rev. D93, 044045 (2016), arXiv:1512.00466 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [20]

    S. C. Leung, M. C. Chu, L. M. Lin, and K. W. Wong, Dark-matter admixed white dwarfs, Phys. Rev. D87, 123506 (2013), arXiv:1305.6142 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [21]

    Chan, M.-c

    H.-S. Chan, M.-c. Chu, and S.-C. Leung, Dark Matter–admixed Rotating White Dwarfs as Peculiar Compact Objects, Astrophys. J.941, 115 (2022), arXiv:2111.12894 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [22]

    Dasgupta, A

    B. Dasgupta, A. Gupta, and A. Ray, Dark matter cap- ture in celestial objects: Improved treatment of multiple scattering and updated constraints from white dwarfs, JCAP08, 018, arXiv:1906.04204 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1906

  22. [23]

    P. W. Graham, R. Janish, V. Narayan, S. Rajendran, and P. Riggins, White Dwarfs as Dark Matter Detectors, Phys. Rev. D98, 115027 (2018), arXiv:1805.07381 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [24]

    Di Giovanni, S

    F. Di Giovanni, S. Fakhry, N. Sanchis-Gual, J. C. Degol- lado, and J. A. Font, Dynamical formation and stability of fermion-boson stars, Phys. Rev. D102, 084063 (2020), arXiv:2006.08583 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [25]

    D. J. Kaup, Klein-gordon geon, Phys. Rev.172, 1331 (1968)

    1968

  25. [26]

    S. L. Liebling and C. Palenzuela, Dynamical Boson Stars, Living Rev. Rel.15, 6 (2012), arXiv:1202.5809 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  26. [27]

    Castelo Mourelle,Universal relations for bosonic stars, Ph.D

    J. Castelo Mourelle,Universal relations for bosonic stars, Ph.D. thesis, U. Santiago de Compostela (main) (2025)

    2025

  27. [28]

    F. E. Schunck and E. W. Mielke, General relativis- tic boson stars, Class. Quant. Grav.20, R301 (2003), arXiv:0801.0307 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  28. [29]

    J. C. Mourelle, N. Sanchis-Gual, and J. A. Font, Repro- ducing galactic rotation curves with a two-component bosonic dark matter model, Phys. Rev. D112, 063054 (2025), arXiv:2505.07465 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [30]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, String axiverse, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology81, 123530 (2010)

    2010

  30. [31]

    F. F. Freitas, C. A. R. Herdeiro, A. P. Morais, A. Onofre, R. Pasechnik, E. Radu, N. Sanchis-Gual, and R. San- tos, Ultralight bosons for strong gravity applications from simple Standard Model extensions, JCAP12(12), 047, arXiv:2107.09493 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [32]

    Carvalho, R

    A. Carvalho, R. M. MarinhoJr, and M. Malheiro, Mass- Radius Relation for White Dwarfs Models at Zero Tem- perature, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.706, 052016 (2016)

    2016

  32. [33]

    Di Giovanni, S

    F. Di Giovanni, S. Fakhry, N. Sanchis-Gual, J. C. De- gollado, and J. A. Font, A stabilization mechanism for excited fermion–boson stars, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 194001 (2021), arXiv:2105.00530 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [34]

    J. C. Mourelle, C. Adam, J. Calder´ on Bustillo, and N. Sanchis-Gual, Rotating fermion-boson stars, Phys. Rev. D110, 123019 (2024), arXiv:2403.13052 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [35]

    M. E. Ramirez-Quezada, Constraining dark matter in- teractions mediated by a light scalar with white dwarfs, Phys. Rev. D107, 083022 (2023), arXiv:2212.09785 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [36]

    J. E. Nyhan and B. Kain, Dynamical evolution of fermion-boson stars with realistic equations of state, Phys. Rev. D105, 123016 (2022), arXiv:2206.07715 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [37]

    Di Giovanni, N

    F. Di Giovanni, N. Sanchis-Gual, D. Guerra, M. Miravet- Ten´ es, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, and J. A. Font, Impact of ultra- light bosonic dark matter on the dynamical bar-mode 17 instability of rotating neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D106, 044008 (2022), arXiv:2206.00977 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [38]

    Valdez-Alvarado, C

    S. Valdez-Alvarado, C. Palenzuela, D. Alic, and L. A. Ure˜ na L´ opez, Dynamical evolution of fermion-boson stars, Phys. Rev. D87, 084040 (2013)

    2013

  38. [39]

    Kain, Fermion–charged-boson stars, Phys

    B. Kain, Fermion–charged-boson stars, Phys. Rev. D 104, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2108.01404 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [40]

    Stergioulas and J

    N. Stergioulas and J. L. Friedman, Comparing mod- els of rapidly rotating relativistic stars constructed by two numerical methods, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9411032 (1994)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  40. [41]

    Tremblay, M

    P.-E. Tremblay, M. Hollands, N. P. Gentile Fusillo, J. Mc- Cleery, P. Izquierdo, B. T. G¨ ansicke, E. Cukanovaite, D. Koester, W. R. Brown, S. Charpinet,et al., Gaia white dwarfs within 40 pc–i. spectroscopic observations of new candidates, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society497, 130 (2020)

    2020

  41. [42]

    R. C. Bohlin, I. Hubeny, and T. Rauch, New grids of pure-hydrogen white dwarf nlte model atmospheres and the hst/stis flux calibration, The Astronomical Journal 160, 21 (2020)

    2020

  42. [43]

    Koester, White dwarf spectra and atmosphere models, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, v

    D. Koester, White dwarf spectra and atmosphere models, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, v. 81, p. 921-931 (2010)81, 921 (2010)

    2010

  43. [44]

    Tremblay, P

    P.-E. Tremblay, P. Bergeron, and A. Gianninas, An im- proved spectroscopic analysis of da white dwarfs from the sloan digital sky survey data release 4, The Astrophysical Journal730, 128 (2011)

    2011

  44. [45]

    R. E. Falcon, D. Winget, M. H. Montgomery, and K. A. Williams, A gravitational redshift determination of the mean mass of white dwarfs. da stars, The Astrophysical Journal712, 585 (2010)

    2010

  45. [46]

    S. R. Joyce, M. A. Barstow, J. B. Holberg, H. E. Bond, S. L. Casewell, and M. R. Burleigh, The gravitational redshift of sirius b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society481, 2361 (2018)

    2018

  46. [47]

    H. E. Bond, G. H. Schaefer, R. L. Gilliland, J. B. Hol- berg, B. D. Mason, I. W. Lindenblad, M. Seitz-McLeese, W. D. Arnett, P. Demarque, F. Spada,et al., The sirius system and its astrophysical puzzles: Hubble space tele- scope and ground-based astrometry, The Astrophysical Journal840, 70 (2017)

    2017

  47. [48]

    Bergeron, F

    P. Bergeron, F. Wesemael, P. Dufour, A. Beauchamp, C. Hunter, R. A. Saffer, A. Gianninas, M. Ruiz, M.- M. Limoges, P. Dufour,et al., A comprehensive spec- troscopic analysis of db white dwarfs, The Astrophysical Journal737, 28 (2011)

    2011

  48. [49]

    Pasquini, A

    L. Pasquini, A. Pala, H.-G. Ludwig, I. Leao, J. De Medeiros, and A. Weiss, Masses of the hyades white dwarfs-a gravitational redshift measurement, Astronomy & Astrophysics627, L8 (2019)

    2019

  49. [50]

    Tremblay, E

    P.-E. Tremblay, E. Schilbach, S. R¨ oser, S. Jordan, H.-G. Ludwig, and B. Goldman, Spectroscopic and photomet- ric studies of white dwarfs in the hyades, Astronomy & Astrophysics547, A99 (2012)

    2012

  50. [51]

    Gianninas, P

    A. Gianninas, P. Bergeron, and M. T. Ruiz, A Spec- troscopic Survey and Analysis of Bright, Hydrogen- rich White Dwarfs, Astrophys. J.743, 138 (2011), arXiv:1109.3171 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  51. [52]

    Chandra, H.-C

    V. Chandra, H.-C. Hwang, N. L. Zakamska, and S. Cheng, A gravitational redshift measurement of the white dwarf mass–radius relation, The Astrophysical Journal899, 146 (2020)

    2020

  52. [53]

    R. E. Falcon, D. E. Winget, M. H. Montgomery, and K. A. Williams, A Gravitational Redshift Determination of the Mean Mass of White Dwarfs. DA Stars, Astrophys. J.712, 585 (2010), arXiv:1002.2009 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [54]

    P. E. Tremblay, P. Bergeron, and A. Gianninas, An Im- proved Spectroscopic Analysis of DA White Dwarfs from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 4, Astrophys. J.730, 128 (2011), arXiv:1102.0056 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  54. [55]

    Koester, Gravitational redshift and mass-radius rela- tion in white dwarfs, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    D. Koester, Gravitational redshift and mass-radius rela- tion in white dwarfs, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 322, Nov. 15, 1987, p. 852-855.322, 852 (1987)

    1987

  55. [56]

    Onofrio and G

    R. Onofrio and G. A. Wegner, SEARCH FOR HIGGS SHIFTS IN WHITE DW ARFS, Astrophys. J.791, 125 (2014), arXiv:1409.8546 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  56. [57]

    T. M. Girard, H. Wu, J. T. Lee, S. Dyson, W. F. Van Al- tena, E. P. Horch, R. L. Gilliland, K. Schaefer, H. E. Bond, C. Ftaclas,et al., A redetermination of the mass of procyon, The Astronomical Journal119, 2428 (2000)

    2000

  57. [58]

    D. M. Popper, Red shift in the spectrum of 40 eridani b., Astrophysical Journal, vol. 120, p. 316120, 316 (1954)

    1954

  58. [59]

    Chandra, H.-C

    V. Chandra, H.-C. Hwang, N. L. Zakamska, B. T. G¨ ansicke, J. Hermes, A. Schwope, C. Badenes, G. Tov- massian, E. B. Bauer, D. Maoz,et al., A 99 minute double-lined white dwarf binary from sdss-v, The Astro- physical Journal921, 160 (2021)

    2021

  59. [60]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and H. Okawa, Accretion of dark matter by stars, Physical review letters115, 111301 (2015)

    2015

  60. [61]

    Hoefken Zink, S

    J. Hoefken Zink, S. Hor, and M. E. Ramirez-Quezada, Dark matter interactions in white dwarfs: A multi- energy approach to capture mechanisms, JHEP05, 160, arXiv:2410.13908 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [62]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, S. Robles, and M. Virgato, Heavy dark matter in white dwarfs: multiple-scattering capture and thermalization, JCAP07, 051, arXiv:2404.16272 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  62. [63]

    Niu and H.-F

    J.-S. Niu and H.-F. Xue, Possible dark matter sig- nals from white dwarfs, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04931 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [64]

    G. Sala, C. Brandenstein, S. Baum, and P. W. Graham, Detecting white dwarf binary mergers with gravitational waves, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.19913 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [65]

    Lindegren, S

    L. Lindegren, S. Klioner, J. Hern´ andez, A. Bombrun, M. Ramos-Lerate, H. Steidelm¨ uller, U. Bastian, M. Bier- mann, A. de Torres, E. Gerlach,et al., Gaia early data release 3-the astrometric solution, Astronomy & Astro- physics649, A2 (2021)

    2021