R-modes as a New Probe of Dark Matter in Neutron Stars
Extracted source text · arXiv 2305.05664
\documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}
\pdfoutput=1 % if your are submitting a pdflatex (i.e. if you have
% images in pdf, png or jpg format)
\usepackage{jcappub} % for details on the use of the package, please
% see the JCAP-author-manual
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % if needed
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
%\usepackage{amsmath,amsthm,amssymb}
%\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{multicol}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{xcolor}
%\usepackage{biblatex}
%\addbibresource{bibliography.bib}
%%% Author comments in colour
\newcommand{\sss}[1]{\textsf{\color{blue}{ #1}}}
\newcommand{\sg}[1]{\textsf{\color{purple}{ #1}}}
\newcommand{\dc}[1]{\textsf{\color{red}{ #1}}}
\newcommand{\ls}[1]{\textsf{\color{magenta}{ #1}}}
\newcommand{\rd}[1]{\textsf{\color{green}{ #1}}}
\newcommand{\js}[1]{\textsf{\color{orange}{ #1}}}
\newcommand{\egp}[1]{\textsf{\color{cyan}{ #1}}}
%\title{\boldmath First investigation of the effect of \\
\title{\boldmath
%Gravitational waves to probe \\
%Dark Matter in Neutron Stars
%\ls{More precise title:}\\
%\dc{1. Study of $r$-mode instability in Dark Matter admixed Neutron Stars\\
%2. Effect of presence of dark matter in Neutron Stars on $r$-mode instability\\
%3. Constraining Dark Matter in Neutron Stars using $r$-modes}\\
%\ls{4.
$R$-modes as a New Probe of Dark Matter in Neutron Stars
%}\\
%\sss{\\5. Effect of Neutron Decay to Dark Matter on %Gravitational Waves/$r$-mode instability of Neutron Stars\\
%6. Gravitational Waves/$R$-mode Oscillations to probe Neutron %Decay to Dark Matter inside Neutron Stars}
}
\author[a,1]{Swarnim Shirke\note{Corresponding author.},}
\author[a]{Suprovo Ghosh,}
\author[a]{Debarati Chatterjee,}
%\author[b]{Robin Diedrichs,}
%\author[b]{Edwin Genoud-Prachex,}
\author[b]{Laura Sagunski}
\author[b]{and Jürgen Schaffner-Bielich}
\affiliation[a]{Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Post Bag 4, Ganeshkhind, Pune University Campus, Pune 411007, India}
\affiliation[b]{Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Goethe University, Max von Laue Str. 1, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany}
% more complex case: 4 authors, 3 institutions, 2 footnotes
%\author[a,b,1]{S. Shirke\note{Corresponding author.}}
%\author[c]{S. Ghosh,}
%\author[a,2]{D. Chatterjee\note{Also at Some University.}}
%\author[a,2]{J. Schaffner-Bielich}
% The "\note" macro will give a warning: "Ignoring empty anchor..."
% you can safely ignore it.
%\affiliation[a]{One University,\\some-street, Country}
%\affiliation[b]{Another University,\\different-address, Country}
%\affiliation[c]{A School for Advanced Studies,\\some-location, Country}
% e-mail addresses: one for each author, in the same order as the authors
\emailAdd{swarnim@iucaa.in}
\emailAdd{suprovo@iucaa.in}
\emailAdd{debarati@iucaa.in}
%\emailAdd{dietrichs@itp.uni-frankfurt.de}
%\emailAdd{genoud@itp.uni-frankfurt.de}
\emailAdd{sagunski@itp.uni-frankfurt.de}
\emailAdd{schaffner@astro.uni-frankfurt.de}
%\emailAdd{fourth@one.univ}
\abstract{
%\ls{Thanks a lot for adding the abstract, Debbi! I went through it and made some small changes. The next person can take over.}
In this work, we perform the first systematic investigation of effects of the presence of dark matter on $r$-mode oscillations in neutron stars (NSs).
%and the associated gravitational wave (GW) emission. %Inversely, we also impose constraints on the dark matter (DM) model using recent multimessenger astrophysical observations.
Using a self-interacting dark matter (DM) model based on the neutron decay anomaly and a hadronic model obtained from the posterior distribution of a recent Bayesian analysis, we impose constraints on the DM self-interaction strength using recent multimessenger astrophysical observations. The constrained DM interaction strength is then used to estimate DM self-interaction cross section and shear viscosity resulting from DM, which is found to be several orders of magnitude smaller than shear viscosity due to hadronic matter.
Assuming that the DM fermion is in chemical equilibrium with the neutrons in the neutron star, we estimate the bulk viscosity resulting from the dark decay of neutrons, and find it to be much smaller than the hadronic bulk viscosity. We also conclude that the $r$-mode instability window with minimal hadronic damping mechanisms can become smaller when including DM shear and bulk viscosity but remains incompatible with the X-ray and pulsar observational data for the chosen DM model.}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\flushbottom
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\subsection{Neutron stars as gravitational wave sources}
\label{sec:nsgw}
%\dc{Motivation for the model by Theo Motta; sufficient DM in NS; $\Gamma_n$ gives key ingredient for DM viscosity; other models should be considered}\\
%\ls{Went through this section and made edits. The next person can take over.}
The direct detection of gravitational waves (GWs) has revolutionised the field of astronomy, particularly for compact stars. Until recently, neutron stars (NS) were only observed using electromagnetic radiation at multiple wavelengths, from which their astrophysical observables could be indirectly deduced. Gravitational waves, on the other hand, allow us to directly probe their complex interior composition. The detection of GWs from the first binary NS merger event GW170817~\cite{Abbott2017AGW170817, abbott2017BGW170817multi} along with simultaneous observations of its electromagnetic counterparts revealed a wealth of information about such systems~\cite{abbott2018, abbott2019properties}, ushering in a new era of multi-messenger astronomy. In particular, tidal effects on the waveform during the inspiral phase of the merger allowed us to put important constraints on dense matter properties \cite{annala2018, Most2018, ghosh2022multi, ghosh2022multihyperon, shirke2023}.
The motivation for studying the NS interior composition is that its ultradense matter environment allows us to probe physics under extreme conditions. NSs are perfect astrophysical laboratories to study cold and dense nuclear matter. The interior densities in NSs can surpass several times normal nuclear matter densities encountered in terrestrial (nuclear and heavy-ion) experiments~\cite{Lattimer2021}. Further, unlike systems which have the same number density of neutrons and protons, NSs are highly isospin asymmetric (many more neutrons than protons). Nuclear matter theories calculating the NS equation of state (EOS) therefore need to interpolate to high densities and finite isospin asymmetries, which allows us to probe the behaviour of dense matter beyond our present understanding (see e.g.~\cite{oertel2017}). It is expected that strangeness containing matter, such as hyperons or deconfined quark matter, can exist as stable constituents of the inner NS core~\cite{Lattimer2021}.
% \js{can we please cite a more recent work here?}.\dc{done}
Neutron stars are important GW sources~\cite{Abbott2017AGW170817}, not only in binary but also in isolated systems. When NSs are perturbed, quasi-normal modes may become unstable, leading to copious emission of GWs. Depending on the restoring forces that bring the star back to equilibrium, these modes can be classified as {\it f-,p-,g-}modes, etc. for the fluid modes (similar to asteroseismology), while {\it w-}modes are pure-space time modes (similar to black hole quasi-normal modes). Analogous to oscillation modes observed in the solar or stellar physics, NS asteroseismology allows us to directly probe the NS interior composition.
Particularly interesting are {\it r-}modes, that are generic to all rotating neutron stars and restored by the Coriolis force. They may become unstable~\cite{andersson1998} due to the Chandrasekhar-Friedman-Schutz (CFS) mechanism~\cite{CFS1,CFS2}, where more and more negative angular momentum is removed from the system, resulting in an instability and copious GW emission~\cite{andersson2003}. These continuous GWs may be detected by GW detectors such as future observing runs of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA detectors, or third generation detectors such as Einstein Telescope~\cite{puntoro2010ET, hild2011ET} or Cosmic Explorer\cite{reitze2019CE}.
% \ls{I like that! Do we want to add references for ET and CE?} \sss{added}
However, shear and bulk viscosities inside the NS can lead to the damping of the GW emission~\cite{owen1998gravitational, Lindblom2002, Debi_2006, KaonBV}.
\iffalse
if the following condition is satisfied:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\tau_{GW} (\Omega,T)} + \frac{1}{\tau_{SV}(\Omega,T)} + \frac{1}{\tau_{BV}(\Omega,T)} = 0~.
\end{equation}
\fi
In NSs, shear viscosity (SV) can result from scattering among leptons, while bulk viscosity (BV) can result from leptonic weak interaction processes. If strangeness-containing matter (such as hyperons or quarks) are present in the core, non-leptonic weak interactions could give rise to additional contributions to bulk viscosity. At low temperatures, superfluidity in hadronic or quark matter would also modify such weak interaction rates, as these viscosities depend on the NS internal composition, and therefore detected GWs would contain the signatures of such composition. $R$-mode oscillations are interesting as they control the maximum observed rotation frequencies of pulsars and also are sources of continuous gravitational waves (CGW) targeted by searches by the current network of GW detectors~\cite{fesik2020, fesik2020erratum, abbott2021, rajbhandari2021}.
\subsection{Dark matter in neutron stars}
\label{sec:dmns}
%\ls{Went through this section and made edits. The next person can take over.}
DM is the dominant form of matter in the Universe, being about five times as prevalent as ordinary nuclear matter. Despite its ubiquity, the particle nature of DM is still unknown. The evidence for DM ranges from astrophysical observations, e.g., of dwarf galaxies rotation curves or the mass distribution of the Bullet cluster, to cosmological observations, such as structure formation and the cosmic microwave background (see, e.g., \cite{Bertone:2018krk,AlvesBatista:2021eeu, khlopov2013, khlopov2021} for reviews).
It is conjectured that DM could also exist within and around NSs, accreted into its interior forming a DM core~\cite{ellis2018, bell2020, bell2021, anzuini2021} or as DM halo exceeding its radius~\cite{Sagunski:2017nzb,Huang:2018pbu,nelson2019, ivanytskyi2020, Zhang:2021mks,karkevandi2021, karkevandi2022}. %Alternatively, pure DM stars could accrete baryonic matter forming a NS~\cite{ellis2018}.
The presence of DM in NSs would affect NS observables such as their mass, radius, tidal deformability, or cooling~\cite{kouvaris2008, li2012, sedrakian2016, rezaei2017, panotopoulos2017, ellis2018, sedrakian2019, gresham2019, hcdas2020, karkevandi2021, karkevandi2022, hcdas2022, garcia2022, leung2022, giangrandi2022, diedrichs2023}.
%Thus, multi-messenger observations of NSs can lead to important constraints of DM particle mass and couplings~\cite{Baryakhtar:2022hbu}.
%\\
%\dc{Review of DM in NSs to be added:} Overview of DM models (including experimental constraints from astrophysics, particle physics and cosmology): \cite{Bertone:2018krk, AlvesBatista:2021eeu} (In \cite{AlvesBatista:2021eeu}, see Sec.9 9 "Dark Matter".)\\
%Review on SIDM (including constraints from astrophysics and particle physics): \cite{Tulin:2017ara} \\
%Gravitational wave probes of dark matter (including dark matter halos around BHs and NSs, exotic compact objects): \cite{Bertone:2019irm} \\
%DM in the NS core: \cite{ellis2018} \\
%NS surrounded by axion cloud: \cite{Huang:2018pbu,Zhang:2021mks} \\
%LIGO constraints on ultralight bosons as DM candidates: \cite{LIGOScientific:2021jlr}
%\\
%
If DM is present in NSs, it could affect gravitational wave emission through its effects on the global properties such as NS mass and radius, or its effect on unstable oscillation modes such as $r$-modes.
NS multi-messenger observations could then be used to constraints the DM particle mass and couplings~\cite{Baryakhtar:2022hbu}.
In recent years, there has been significant interest in this topic, and several investigations tried to impose constraints on DM models using astrophysical data~\cite{garani2019, nelson2019, ivanytskyi2020, husain2022a, rutherford2022, shakeri2022}. Moreover, Atreya~et al.~\cite{atreya2019} investigated the effect of DM shear viscosity on cosmological evolution. However, to our knowledge, there exist no detailed investigations about the effect of DM on NS $r$-modes. There have been only two preliminary studies~\cite{horowitz2012, yoshida2020} relating the DM self-interaction cross section with shear viscosity, but the consequent effect on $r$-mode instability is yet to be worked out in detail.
If DM in present in the NS core, it would affect its global properties such as mass, radius, tidal deformability. By comparing with current astrophysical data, one can then constrain the DM model considered. The presence of DM could also affect the transport properties in the NS, such as shear or bulk viscosities. These play a crucial role in determining the stability of the star against $r$-modes and the resulting GW emission. The aim of this work is to perform the first systematic investigation of the effect of DM on $r$-mode oscillations in neutron stars (NS) and the associated gravitational wave (GW) emission.
This paper is structured as follows. After having outlined the motivation for our work in Sec.~\ref{sec:intro}, we elaborate the models used to describe the internal composition (hadronic and dark matter) and the calculation of the NS structure parameters in Sec.~\ref{sec:models}. In Sec.~\ref{sec:results}, we present the results of this investigation. Finally, in Sec.~\ref{sec:discussions}, we discuss the implications of this study and future directions.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Neutron Star model}
\label{sec:models}
%\dc{Intro: In this section, we describe the NS model applied in this work; Hadronic, DM model, Global structure}
%\ls{Went through this section and made edits. The next person can take over.}
As described in Sec.~\ref{sec:intro}, in this work, we construct theoretical models of neutron stars that describe both hadronic matter as well as DM. There exist various classes of theoretical hadronic matter models, such as microscopic (ab-initio) or phenomenological ones where the model parameters are fitted to reproduce experimental data. The phenomenological models have been particularly successful in reproducing nuclear and hypernuclear experimental data as well as current multi-messenger astrophysical data. Therefore, in this investigation, we adopt such a phenomenological EOS model, the Relativistic Mean Field (RMF) model (see Sec.~\ref{sec:hadronic} for further details).
Various DM models can be constructed
%and have been explored
%, e.g. fermionic DM, fermion-boson stars, $\phi^4$ theory, DM interacting via Higgs model, superfluid DM, etc
to describe DM in NSs~\cite{Goldman:1989nd,kouvaris2008,Kouvaris:2010vv,Sandin:2008db,Ciarcelluti:2010ji,Leung:2011zz,Guver:2012ba,Li:2012ii,Xiang:2013xwa,Tolos:2015qra,Mukhopadhyay:2016dsg,ellis2018,McKeen:2018xwc,Baym:2018ljz,motta2018a, motta2018b,Ivanytskyi:2019wxd,Bell:2020obw,husain2022a,berryman2022BNVProcesses,Cassing:2022tnn,diedrichs2023}.
In this work, we adopt a DM model based on a recent work by~\cite{motta2018a, motta2018b, husain2022a} which is motivated by the fact that the neutron decay anomaly can be explained via the decay of the neutron to the dark sector~\cite{Fornal2019, fornal2020}. The motivation for applying such a model is twofold: (i) firstly it can explain sufficient DM fraction in NSs which is an essential requirement for our investigation and (ii) secondly, the decay rate of neutrons fixes a key ingredient for the calculation of viscosity in NSs. However, in future works, studies using other models should be considered. The details of the DM model used in this work is given in Sec.~\ref{sec:DM}.
%%%%%%=======================
\subsection{Hadronic matter model}
\label{sec:hadronic}
%\dc{RMF model, GM1 and Hornick parametrisation: please add}\\
%\ls{Went through this section and made edits. The next person can take over.}\\
For the description of hadronic matter, we use the relativistic mean field (RMF) model. In the RMF model, nucleons interact via the exchange of $\sigma$ scalar, $\omega$ vector, and $\mathbf{\rho}$ iso-vector mesons. Within the mean-field approximation, each mesonic field is replaced by its expectation value ($\Bar{\sigma}$, $\Bar{\omega}$, $\Bar{\rho}$). The interaction Lagrangian can be written as
\begin{align}\label{interaction_lagrangian}
\mathcal{L}_{int} &= \sum_{N} \bar\psi_{N}\left[g_{\sigma}\sigma-g_{\omega}\gamma^{\mu}\omega_{\mu}-\frac{g_{\rho}}{2}\gamma^{\mu}\boldsymbol{\tau\cdot\rho}_{\mu}\right]\psi_{N} -\frac{1}{3}bm_{N}(g_{\sigma}\sigma)^{3}-\frac{1}{4}c(g_{\sigma}\sigma)^{4} \nonumber \\
&+ \Lambda_{\omega}(g^{2}_{\rho}\boldsymbol{\rho^{\mu}\cdot\rho_{\mu}})(g^{2}_{\omega}\omega^{\nu}\omega_{\nu}) + \frac{\zeta}{4!}(g^{2}_{\omega}\omega^{\mu}\omega_{\mu})^{2}~,
\end{align}
where the summation is over the two nucleons ($N$), i.e., protons ($p$) and neutrons ($n$), $\psi_N$ is the Dirac spinor for the nucleons, $m_{N}$ is the vacuum nucleon mass, $\{\gamma^{i}\}$ are the gamma matrices, $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ are Pauli matrices, and $g_{\sigma}$, $g_{\omega}$, $g_{\rho}$ are meson-nucleon coupling constants. The scalar and vector self-interactions couplings are $b$, $c$, and $\zeta$, respectively, while $\Lambda_{\omega}$ is the vector-isovector interaction. $\zeta$ is set to zero in this work as it is known to soften the EOS \cite{mueller1996, tolos2017, pradhan2022zeta}
% \ls{I don't understand the argument here. Why would it be a problem if the EOS is softened?} \sss{We are using the stiffest EoS in the work anyway, so for that EoS $\zeta$ will be zero as $\zeta$ only softens}.
The energy density of the nucleonic matter thus obtained is given by \cite{hornick2018}
%
\begin{align}
\epsilon&=\sum_{N}\frac{1}{8\pi^{2}}\left[k_{F_{N}}E^{3}_{F_{N}}+k^{3}_{F_{N}}E_{F_{N}}
-m^{*4}\ln\left(\frac{k_{F_{N}}+E_{F_{N}}}{m^{*}}\right)\right] +\frac{1}{2}m^{2}_{\sigma}\bar\sigma^{2}+ \frac{1}{2}m^{2}_{\omega}\bar\omega^{2}+\frac{1}{2}m^{2}_{\rho}\bar\rho^{2} \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{1}{3}bm_{N}(g_{\sigma}\bar\sigma)^{3} + \frac{1}{4}c(g_{\sigma}\bar\sigma)^{4} + 3\Lambda_{\omega}(g_{\rho}g_{\omega}\bar\rho\bar\omega)^{2} + \frac{\zeta}{8}(g_{\omega}\bar{\omega})^{4}~, \label{energydensity}\\
\end{align}
%
where $k_{F_{N}}$ is the Fermi momentum, $E_{F_{N}} = \sqrt{k_{F_{N}}^{2} + m^{*2}}$ is the Fermi energy, and $m^{*}=m_{N}-g_{\sigma}\sigma$ is the effective mass.
% \ls{Explain the index $N$ already in equation~\eqref{interaction_lagrangian}?} \sss{done}.
The pressure ($P$) is given by the Gibbs-Duhem relation
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:pressure}
P = \sum_{N}{}\mu_{N}n_{N} - \epsilon~,
\end{equation}
where, $\mu_{N} = E_{F_{N}} + g_{\omega}\bar{\omega} + \frac{g_{\rho}}{2}\tau_{3N}\bar{\rho}$. We add to this the contribution from free electrons and muons. The matter is in beta equilibrium and charge neutral which gives the following conditions on the chemical potentials:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:betaeqlbm_neutrality}
\mu_n = \mu_p + \mu_e,~ \mu_\mu = \mu_e,~ n_p = n_e + n_\mu
\end{equation}
The coupling constants ($g_{\sigma}, g_{\omega}, g_{\rho}$, $b$, $c$, and $\Lambda_{\omega}$) are fixed to reproduce the desired nuclear saturation parameters ($n_{sat}$, $E_{sat}$, $K_{sat}$, $E_{sym}$, $L_{sym}$ and $m^*/m$) extracted from nuclear experiments. In this investigation, we have used two hadronic parametrizations compatible with recent multi-messenger data (see Table.~\ref{table:parametrizations}), HTZCS following~\cite{hornick2018} and another from the results of a recent Bayesian analysis~\cite{ghosh2022multi}, described in further detail below.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c}
\hline\hline
Model & $n_{sat}$ & $E_{sat}$ & $K_{sat}$ & $E_{sym}$ & $L_{sym}$ & $m^*/m$ \\
&(fm$^{-3})$ & (MeV) & (MeV) & (MeV) & (MeV) &\\ \\
[0.5ex]
\hline
HTZCS \cite{hornick2018} & 0.15 & -16.0 & 240 & 31 & 50 & 0.65 \\ [1ex] % [1ex] adds vertical space
% Stiffest \cite{ghosh2022multi} & 0.144972 & -15.966072 & 238.074142 & 31.080246 & 56.482792& 0.550473 \\
Stiffest \cite{ghosh2022multi} & 0.145 & -15.966 & 238.074 & 31.080 & 56.483& 0.550 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Nuclear saturation parameters used in this work. Meson masses are set to $m_{\sigma}=550$ MeV, $m_{\omega}=783$ MeV, $m_{\rho}=770$ MeV, and the nucleon mass is set to $m_N=939.565$ MeV.}
\label{table:parametrizations}
\end{table}
In recent publications~\cite{ghosh2022multi,ghosh2022multihyperon}, some of the authors of this paper (S. G., D. C. and J.S.B.) explored the parameter space of hadronic matter within the framework of the RMF model compatible with up-to-date nuclear and hypernuclear experimental data. A hard cut-off scheme with statistical weights was applied to constrain the parameter space imposing multi-physics constraints at different density regimes: chiral effective field theory (CEFT) at low density ($n_b/n_0 \sim 0.4-1$), nuclear and heavy-ion collision data at intermediate density ($n_b/n_0 \sim 1-2$), and multi-messenger astrophysical observations of neutron stars for high density EOS.
%In a subsequent publication~\cite{shirkeQM2022}, this scheme was extended by the authors (including S.S.) to the quark degrees of freedom incorporating pQCD constraints at very high densities ($n_b/n_0 \geq 40$). \\
%\sg{Add Later based on the graphs in Sec.~\ref{sec:global}.}\\
In this investigation, we have considered the stiffest EOS from the posterior set obtained after imposing the multi-physics constraints (see Table.~\ref{table:parametrizations} "Stiffest" EOS parameter set).
%%%%===================
\subsection{Dark matter model}
\label{sec:DM}
%\dc{Theo Motta's DM model based on neutron decay}\\
The experimental data on the decay of neutrons is not fully understood at present \cite{czarnecki2018}. The dominant decay channel for neutrons is the $\beta$-decay
$$n \rightarrow p + e^{-} + \bar{\nu_{e}}~.$$
There is a discrepancy in the lifetime of this decay when measured via two different methods: 1) Bottle experiments and 2) beam experiments. One possible resolution of the problem is allowing the decay of neutrons into a dark sector \cite{Fornal2019}.
The Particle Data Group (PDG) quotes the neutron lifetime as $878.4 \pm 0.5$ s \cite{pdg2022}. It takes into account the recent precise bottle experiment providing an improved measurement of the neutron lifetime as $877.75 \pm 0.28_{\rm stat} +0.22/-0.16_{\rm sys}$ s \cite{gonzalez2021} and seven other previous measurements \cite{serebov2005, pichlmaier2010, steyerl2012, arzumanov2015, serebov2018, pattie2018, ezhov2018}. The beam experiments on the other hand, which count the number of protons emitted, give the neutron lifetime as $888.0 \pm 2.0$ s \cite{czarnecki2018}, based on two beam experiments \cite{byrne1996, Yue2013}. This is about a $4\sigma$ difference in the measurement via the two methods. It can be explained if the branching fraction of the neutron decay via the $\beta$ decay is less than $100\%$. Fornal $\&$ Grinstein \cite{Fornal2019} suggested that the discrepancy can be resolved if about $1\%$ of neutrons decay into the dark sector.
In this work, we use a DM model motivated from this anomaly~\cite{Fornal2019}.
% \ls{Add citations here?} \dc{added same as above}
One of the mechanisms proposed was a decay involving photon emission $n \rightarrow \chi + \gamma$. Tang~et~al.~\cite{tang2018} performed a follow-up experiment to test this hypothesis and ruled out this possibility of decay. For this study, we use the other decay channel proposed:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:darkdecay}
n\rightarrow\chi+\phi~,
\end{equation}
$\chi$ being the dark spin-half fermion with baryon number 1, and $\phi$ being a light dark boson. This possibility is also explored by various other recent works \cite{motta2018a, motta2018b, husain2022a}. The light dark particle $\phi$ is assumed to escape the NS without any interaction, similar to neutrinos. This sets the equilibrium condition
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chemicalequilibrium}
\mu_{\chi}=\mu_{n}~.
\end{equation}
%\sss{Note that there is another decay channel that was suggested later on by \cite{strumia2022}. Husain~et~al. \cite{husain2022b} focus on this decay channel $n\rightarrow\chi+\chi+\chi$, $\chi$ having baryon number 1/3. The chemical equilibrium in this case satisfies $\mu_{\chi}=\mu_{N}/3$. }
Nuclear stability requires $937.993$ MeV $< m_{\chi}+m_{\phi}< m_n = 939.565$ MeV \cite{fornal2020}. Stability of the dark particle requires $|m_{\chi} - m_{\phi} | < m_p + m_e = 938.783$ MeV to prevent further beta decay of the dark particles \cite{fornal2020}. We assume $m_{\phi} = 0$ in our model resulting in the condition $937.993$ MeV $< m_{\chi}< 938.783$. We fix the DM mass to $m_{\chi}=938.0$ MeV for this study.
We account for DM self-interactions by adding vector interactions between dark particles,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} \supset -g_V\Bar{\chi}\gamma^{\mu}\chi V_{\mu} -\frac{1}{4}V_{\mu\nu}V^{\mu\nu}+ \frac{1}{2}m_V^2V_{\mu}V^{\mu}~,
\end{equation}
where $g_V$ is the coupling strength and $m_V$ is the mass of the vector boson. This results in an additional interaction term in the energy density apart from the free fermion part. The DM energy density is given by
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{DM} = \frac{1}{\pi^2}\int_{0}^{k_{F_{\chi}}} k^2\sqrt{k^2 + m_{\chi}^2}dk + \frac{1}{2}Gn_{\chi}^2,
\label{eqn:endens_dm}
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:Gdefinition}
G = \left(\frac{g_V}{m_V}\right)^2, \qquad n_{\chi} = \frac{k_{F_{\chi}}^3}{3 \pi^2}
\end{equation}
The Fermi momentum $k_{F_{\chi}}$ is set by the equilibrium condition Eq.~\ref{eqn:chemicalequilibrium}. Here, $\mu_{\chi} = \sqrt{k_{F_{\chi}}^2+m_{\chi}^2} + Gn_{\chi}$.
% For viscosity calculations we considered the DM .EOS from Motta et al. \cite{motta2018a, motta2018b}
% in which the neutron decay anomaly explained via decay of neutron to dark sector \cite{Fornal2019}.
% This focusses on the decay channel $n\rightarrow\chi+\phi$, $\chi$ being the dark baryon with baryon number 1 and $\phi$ being a light boson. The EOS has been reconstructed using RMF hadronic EOS and solved using the single fluid model unlike the two-fluid approach adopted in Husain et al. \cite{husain2022a}. The reason for not using two-fluid model is that in this case, the DM is considered to be in chemical equilibrium with neutron matter through the condition $\mu_{\chi}=\mu_{N}$.
% This admixture formalism is similar to previous one apart from the fact that the decay channel is different. This EOS has also been reproduced using a RMF hadronic EOS.
%\dc{Swarnim please add description of RMF EOS in brief and figures for EOS for different g values here}\\
Note that there is another possible decay channel that was suggested later on by \cite{strumia2022} and studied by Husain~et~al. \cite{husain2022b}. This channel involves a decay of the neutron into three DM particles $n\rightarrow\chi+\chi+\chi$, $\chi$ having baryon number 1/3. The chemical equilibrium in this case satisfies $\mu_{\chi}=\mu_{N}/3$. We do not consider this decay channel here.
To check the effect of DM and its self-interaction strength $G$ on the EOS, we plot the EOS for different values of $G$ in Fig. \ref{fig:EOS_hornick}. The presence of DM adds a new degree of freedom and is responsible for softening the EOS. We note that the EOS gets stiffer as the interaction strength is increased, and the DM fraction reduces as we increase $G$. This is evident from the population fractions of various particle species plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:population_fraction_hornick}. The DM fraction is maximal in the case of non-interacting DM. As we increase $G$, the DM fraction reduces, and for asymptotically large values of $G$, the DM content reduces to zero, that is, the case of pure hadronic EOS without DM. This is consistent with the results from recent studies of DM in NSs \cite{motta2018a, motta2018b}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/EOS_hornick_2.pdf}
\caption{The EOS (pressure vs energy density) for different DM self-interaction strengths $G$. The HTZCS parametrization is used for the nucleonic matter (see Table.~\ref{table:parametrizations}).}
\label{fig:EOS_hornick}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/population_fraction_hornick.pdf}
\caption{Population fractions of particles for different DM self-interaction strengths $G$. The HTZCS parametrization is used for the nucleonic matter (see Table.~\ref{table:parametrizations}).}
\label{fig:population_fraction_hornick}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Global structure}\label{sec:global}
%\dc{Brief discussion on TOV, M-R relation, tidal deformability: please add}\\
To calculate the macroscopic observables like mass and radius, we solve the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff (TOV) equations
\begin{align}\label{TOV equations}
\frac{dP(r)}{dr} &= -\frac{[P(r)+\epsilon(r)][m(r)+4\pi r^3P(r)]}{r(r-2m(r))}~, \nonumber \\
\frac{dm(r)}{dr}&=4\pi r^{2}\epsilon(r)~,
\end{align}
along with the EOS $P(\epsilon)$ described in Sec.~\ref{sec:hadronic} and Sec.~\ref{sec:DM}. The boundary conditions are $m(r=0)=0$ at the centre and $P(r=R)=0$ at the surface. The dimensionless tidal deformability $\Lambda$ is obtained from the expression
\begin{equation}\label{Lambda}
\Lambda=\frac{2}{3}\frac{k_{2}}{C^{5}}~.
\end{equation}
The $l = 2$ Love number $k_{2}$ is calculated as done in \cite{flanagan2008, hinderer2008, damour2009, yagi2013prd}. Here, we study the case where a chemical equilibrium is established between ordinary matter and the dark sector. So as the density of neutrons drops to zero, the DM population disappears. For this reason, we resort to a single-fluid TOV treatment as opposed to two-fluid as done in \cite{motta2018a, motta2018b, strumia2022}.
%\dc{Swarnim please add figures for M-R and $\Lambda$-M for different g here}\\
In Fig.~\ref{fig:mr_hornick}, we plot the mass-radius curves obtained from solving Eqns.~\ref{TOV equations} for all the EOSs shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:EOS_hornick}. We observe that the maximum mass increases with increasing interaction strength $G$. This variation will be studied in more detail in the next section. We show the bands of the mass measurements for two of the heaviest pulsars observed, PSR J0740+6620 ($M=2.072^{+0.067}_{-0.066}$~\cite{riley2021}) and PSR J0952-0607($M=2.35^{+0.17}_{-0.17}$~\cite{romani2022}), for comparison. The corresponding tidal deformability-mass curves are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:lm_hornick} along with the tidal deformability range for 1.4$M_{\odot}$ NS ($\Lambda_{1.4M_{\odot}} = 190^{+390}_{-120}$~\cite{abbott2018}), inferred from the binary neutron star merger event GW170817. Here, we observe that the tidal deformability increases with the interaction strength $G$, too. These results are consistent with previous studies~\cite{motta2018a, husain2022a}.
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/mr_hornick_bands.pdf}
\caption{Mass-Radius curves for different DM self-interaction strengths $G$. The HTZCS parametrization is used for the ordinary hadronic matter (see Table \ref{table:parametrizations})}
\label{fig:mr_hornick}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/ml_log_hornick_band.pdf}
\caption{Tidal deformability ($\Lambda$)--mass curves for different DM self-interaction strengths $G$. The HTZCS parametrization is used for the ordinary hadronic matter (see Table \ref{table:parametrizations})}
\label{fig:lm_hornick}
\end{figure}
\fi
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/mr_hornick_bands_2.pdf}
\caption{Mass-radius curves for different DM self-interaction strengths $G$. The HTZCS parametrization is used for the nucleonic matter (see Table \ref{table:parametrizations}). The yellow and green bands correspond to mass measurements of the heaviest pulsars known, $M=2.072^{+0.067}_{-0.066}$ of PSR J0740+6620~\cite{riley2021} and $M=2.35^{+0.17}_{-0.17}$ of PSR J0952-0607~\cite{romani2022} respectively.}
\label{fig:mr_hornick}
\end{minipage}%
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/ml_log_hornick_band_2.pdf}
\caption{Tidal deformability ($\Lambda$) as a function of mass ($M$) for different DM self-interaction strengths $G$. The HTZCS parametrization is used for the nucleonic matter (see Table \ref{table:parametrizations}). The black bar corresponds to the tidal deformability of a 1.4$M_{\odot}$ NS $\Lambda_{1.4M_{\odot}} = 190^{+390}_{-120}$~\cite{abbott2018}, inferred from the binary neutron star merger event GW170817.}
\label{fig:lm_hornick}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Constraints on the DM model from NS maximum mass}
\label{sec:constraints}
%\dc{Recap of Bayesian analysis, stiffest EOS satisfying CEFT: Suprovo please add} \\
%\dc{Constraints on g from $M_{max}$ and $\Lambda_{GW170817}$: Swarnim please add}\\
The same DM model considered in this work (see Sec.~\ref{sec:DM}) was also recently applied by Husain et al. \cite{husain2022a}, within the quark-meson coupling (QMC) framework to describe hadronic matter. It was concluded that for a chosen set of coupling parameters, the DM self-interaction strength $G$ should be greater than $26$ fm$^2$ to satisfy the 2-solar-mass constraint for NSs~\cite{riley2021}.
%\ls{Add reference here?} \dc{done}
In this work, we revisit the analysis using the RMF model for hadronic matter resulting from the Bayesian analysis explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:hadronic}. The resulting nuclear saturation parameters lie within known experimental uncertainties, are consistent with the low-energy CEFT band as well as with multi-messenger astrophysical data. From these parameters, we choose those leading to the stiffest possible hadronic EOS (see `Stiffest' in Table.~\ref{table:parametrizations}). Within this hadronic model, the self-interaction strength $G$ for the DM sector is then varied to produce a set of EOSs with varying stiffness. This enables us to obtain the lowest possible value of $G$ that still satisfies the 2-solar-mass constraint or any maximum mass constraint to be imposed. The mass-radius curves obtained for this parametrization are shown in Fig~\ref{fig:mr_stiffest} for different values of $G$. The maximum mass for this parameter set without any DM content is $\sim 2.94 M_{\odot}$.
% $G$ is varied on a logarithmic scale.
Fig.~\ref{fig:maxmass_vs_G} shows how the maximum mass of the DM admixed NS varies with $G$. From this curve, we conclude that for the NS maximum mass to be greater than $2 M_{\odot}$, $G$ has to be greater than 5.6 fm$^2$. If we consider the mass of PSR J0740+6620~\cite{riley2021, fonseca2021}, then $M_{\rm max}\gtrsim2.01 M_{\odot}$ considering the $1\sigma$ interval. This translates to $G\gtrsim5.72$ fm$^2$. For the case of PSR J0952-0607, the study by \cite{romani2022} impose $M_{\rm max}>2.19 M_{\odot}$ at $1\sigma$ confidence. This gives $G>8.53$ fm$^2$. Thus, the lower limit of $G$ is much lower than $G>26$ fm$^2$ as obtained in \cite{husain2022a}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
% \begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/mr_stiffest_bands_2.pdf}
\caption{Mass-radius curves for different DM self-interaction strengths $G$. The stiffest parametrization is used for nucleonic matter (see Table. \ref{table:parametrizations}). The yellow and green bands correspond to mass measurements of the heaviest pulsars known, $M=2.072^{+0.067}_{-0.066}$ of PSR J0740+6620~\cite{riley2021} and $M=2.35^{+0.17}_{-0.17}$ of PSR J0952-0607~\cite{romani2022}.}
\label{fig:mr_stiffest}
\end{figure}
We make a remark on the constraint obtained from tidal deformability of GW170817. From \cite{abbott2018}, we get an upper limit on the tidal deformability of a 1.4$M_{\odot}$ NS ($\Lambda_{1.4M_{\odot}}<580$). As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lm_hornick}, $\Lambda$ increases with increasing $G$ and matches that of the pure hadronic case for asymptotically large values of $G$. Thus, if we start with a soft enough hadronic EOS (for which $\Lambda_{1.4M_{\odot}}<580$), the constraint is satisfied by all values of $G$, no matter how large. Thus, we cannot obtain an upper bound on $G$ corresponding to the upper bound on $\Lambda_{1.4M_{\odot}}$. Considering the lower bound on tidal deformability ($\Lambda_{1.4M_{\odot}} = 190^{+390}_{-120}$~\cite{abbott2018}), just as the case for the mass constraint, the stiffest EOS gives the lowest value of $G$ satisfying $\Lambda_{1.4M_{\odot}}>70$. This results in $G>1.6$ fm$^2$. This is lower than $5.6$ fm$^2$ and hence, does not constrain $G$ more than the one from $M_{\rm max}$.
% It is also to be noted that the lower bound of $\Lambda_{1.4M_{\odot}}$ depends on the poorly measured mass ratio of the GW170817 component binaries \cite{kiuchi2019}. This makes this lower bound and the corresponding bound on $G$ unreliable, and we continue using $G>5.6$ fm$^2$ in further discussions.}
From Fig.~\ref{fig:population_fraction_hornick}, it is evident that for a given hadronic EoS, the DM fraction decreases with increase in self-interaction $G$. Corresponding to the ``stiffest'' hadronic EOS, we obtained the lower limit of $G\ge5.6$ fm$^2$ compatible with NS astrophysical data. The obtained constraint on the lower limit of $G$ therefore allows us to comment on the maximum DM fraction ($f_{DM}=M_{\rm DM}/M_{\rm TOT}$) for a DM admixed NS within the neutron decay model of DM.
%The stiffest EOS (see `Stiffest' in Table.~\ref{table:parametrizations}) results in a maximal DM fraction for a fixed value of $G$.
%For a fixed EOS parametrization and $G$, the maximum TOV mass configuration results in a DM admixed NS with the highest DM fraction.
We plot this DM fraction corresponding to the maximum mass configuration ($f_{DM({max)}}$) of the stiffest EOS as a function of $G$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:dmfrac_vs_G}.
%The DM fraction increases as we decrease $G$.
%This is consistent with Fig.~\ref{fig:population_fraction_hornick}, where we observe the population fraction to increase with decreasing $G$.
%The lower bound on $G$ can thus be used to find the maximum possible DM fraction in a DM admixed NS.
Using $G\ge5.6$ fm$^2$, we get a maximum allowed DM fraction of $37.9\%$. If we consider $G\ge29.8$ fm$^2$, motivated from astrophysical observations (see discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:crosssection}), we get $f_{DM}\le13.7\%$.
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/mr_stiffest_bands.pdf}
\caption{Mass-radius curves for different DM self-interaction strengths $G$. The stiffest parametrization is used for the ordinary hadronic matter (see Table \ref{table:parametrizations})}
\label{fig:mr_stiffest}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/Mmax_vs_G_bands.pdf}
\caption{Variation of the maximum TOV mass with DM self-interaction strength $G$. The stiffest parametrization is used for the ordinary hadronic matter (see Table \ref{table:parametrizations})}
\label{fig:maxmass_vs_G}
\end{figure}
\fi
% \end{minipage}%
% \hfill
% \begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/Mmax_vs_G_bands.pdf}
\caption{Variation of the maximum TOV mass with DM self-interaction strength $G$. The stiffest parametrization is used for nucleonic matter (see Table. \ref{table:parametrizations}). The yellow and the green bands correspond to mass measurements of the heaviest pulsars known, $M=2.072^{+0.067}_{-0.066}$ of PSR J0740+6620~\cite{riley2021} and $M=2.35^{+0.17}_{-0.17}$ of PSR J0952-0607~\cite{romani2022} respectively.}
\label{fig:maxmass_vs_G}
% \end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/dmfrac_vs_G.pdf}
\caption{Variation of the maximum DM fraction ($f_{DM(max)}$) with DM self-interaction strength $G$ for the two parameterizations, stiffest and HTZCS (see Table.~\ref{table:parametrizations}). The stiffest parametrization gives the maximum fraction $f_{DM(max)}$ corresponding to the lowest bound on $G$. The fraction $f_{DM(max)}$ for the HTZCS parametrization is also plotted for reference.}
\label{fig:dmfrac_vs_G}
% \end{minipage}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Shear viscosity in presence of dark matter}
\label{sec:shear}
In non-superfluid nucleonic matter, the primary contribution to shear viscosity (SV) comes from neutron-neutron (n-n) and electron-electron (e-e) scattering~\cite{flowers1976, flowers1979, cutler1987}. To estimate the effect of the presence of DM in NSs on shear viscosity and how it compares with the shear viscosity contribution from n-n scattering, we employ the kinetic theory formula as done in \cite{horowitz2012, yoshida2020}.
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shear_formula}
\eta_{\chi} \approx \frac{\sqrt{m_{\chi}kT}}{\sigma_{\chi}}
\end{equation}
Here, $k$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T$ is temperature. The pre-factor of the expression is $\mathcal{O}(1)\approx 1$.
In this study, we consider a self-interaction term of the form $\frac{1}{2}Gn_{\chi}^2$ (see Eq.~\ref{eqn:endens_dm}) which is related to the DM self-interaction cross-section. We calculate this in order to compare it with existing bounds on DM self-interaction cross-section and to get an estimate of shear viscosity. The inter-relation between $G$ and $\sigma_\chi$ is carried out below.
\subsubsection{Dark matter self-interaction cross-section}
\label{sec:crosssection}
Consider self-interacting fermionic DM interacting via a mediator boson $V$ with mass $m_{V}$ and a dark structure constant $\alpha_{\chi}$. Here, $\alpha_{\chi}=g_{V}^2/4\pi$ and $G = g_{V}^2/m_{V}^2$ (see Eq.~\ref{eqn:Gdefinition}). Combining these, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:G_alpha}
\frac{G}{4\pi}=\frac{\alpha_{\chi}}{m_{V}^2}
\end{equation}
Now from \cite{zurek2014asymmetric, yoshida2020, Tulin2018}, we have the expression for self-interaction cross-section given as
% DM scattering processes can contribute to the shear viscosity in the crust and core ~\cite{horowitz2012,yoshida2020}
% In a preliminary study, Yoshida \cite{yoshida2020} and Narain et al. \cite{Narain:2006kx} used the same self-interacting fermionic DM model to estimate shear viscosity in neutron stars.
% \\
% For the calculation of shear viscosity, we need the the self-interaction cross-section.
% \begin{align}\label{eqn:sigmaderivation}
% \sigma_{\chi} &\approx 5 \times 10^{-23} \left(\frac{\alpha_{\chi}}{0.01}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_{\chi}}{10 \text{ GeV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{10 \text{ MeV}}{m_\phi}\right)^4 \text{cm}^2 \\
% % &\approx 5 \times 10^{-17} \left(\frac{\alpha_{\chi} \text{ MeV}^2}{m_{\phi}^2}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_{\chi}}{1 \text{ GeV}}\right)^2 \text{cm}^2 \\
% % &\approx 5 \times 10^{-17} \left(\frac{G}{4\pi
% % \text{ MeV}^{-2}}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_{\chi}}{1 \text{ GeV}}\right)^2 \text{cm}^2 \\
% \sigma_{\chi} &\approx 2.1 \times 10^{-28} \left(\frac{G}{1 \text{ fm}^2}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_{\chi}}{1 \text{ GeV}}\right)^2 \text{cm}^2 \\
% \end{align}
\begin{align}\label{eqn:sigmaderivation}
\sigma_{\chi} &\approx 5 \times 10^{-23} \left(\frac{\alpha_{\chi}}{0.01}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_{\chi}}{10 \text{ GeV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{10 \text{ MeV}}{m_V}\right)^4 \text{cm}^2 \nonumber \\
%\sigma_{\chi}
&\approx 2.1 \times 10^{-28} \left(\frac{G}{1 \text{ fm}^2}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_{\chi}}{1 \text{ GeV}}\right)^2 \text{cm}^2~,
\end{align}
where we make use of Eqn.~\ref{eqn:G_alpha} and $1$ MeV$ = 1/197.3$ fm$^{-1}$. This is valid only when $\alpha_{\chi}m_{\chi}/m_{V} \sim Gm_{\chi}m_{V}\ll 1$ or $m_{V}\ll 1/Gm_{\chi}$. We can write the expression for $\sigma_{\chi}/m_{\chi}$ using the conversion $1$ GeV$ = 1.78 \times 10^{-24}$ g such that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\sigma_{\chi}}{m_{\chi}} \approx 1.2 \times 10^{-4} \left(\frac{G}{1\text{ fm}^2}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_{\chi}}{1\text{ GeV}}\right)~\text{cm}^2/\text{g}~.
\end{equation}
Thus, the obtained limit of $G \ge 5.6 \text{ fm}^2$ translates to $\sigma_{\chi}/m_{\chi} \ge 3.53 \times 10^{-3}~\text{cm}^2/\text{g}$. Even for $G > 8.53 \text{ fm}^2$ we get $\sigma_{\chi}/m_{\chi} \ge 8.19 \times 10^{-3}~\text{cm}^2/\text{g}$. %This is lower than the lower limit coming from other astrophysical considerations
%\cite{tulin2013, Tulin2018}
%\dc{give references?} \sss{Could Laura/Robin/Edwin add these?} \ls{Yes, for sure. I'll do that.} \\
%\sss{Thanks. Should we also have a short paragraph on astrophysical constraints on $\sigma/m$ and why we use this range?}\ls{Done. I've added the paragraph below which contains the references and a discussion why we use the particular range for the self-interaction cross section.}
%which give $0.1\le \sigma_{\chi}/m_{\chi} \le 10$ (cm$^2$g$^{-1}$).
This is lower than the lower limit coming from other astrophysical considerations. Galaxy cluster observations require cross sections of order $\sim 0.1~\text{cm}^2/\text{g}$~\citep{Loeb:2010gj,Kaplinghat:2015aga,Sagunski:2020spe}. For solving the core-cusp problem on galactic scales, on the other hand, cross sections $\lesssim 100~\text{cm}^2/\text{g}$ are needed~\citep{Kaplinghat:2015aga,Sagunski:2020spe}. This is why in this work, we consider the self-interaction cross section range as $0.1~\text{cm}^2/\text{g} \le \sigma_{\chi}/m_{\chi} \le 100~\text{cm}^2/\text{g}$.
% \ls{IMPORTANT: I looked at the literature~\citep{Kaplinghat:2015aga,Sagunski:2020spe} again, and I think, it would be more consistent to use $0.1~\text{cm}^2/\text{g} \le \sigma_{\chi}/m_{\chi} \le 100~\text{cm}^2/\text{g}$ instead of $0.1~\text{cm}^2/\text{g} \le \sigma_{\chi}/m_{\chi} \le 10~\text{cm}^2/\text{g}$ as the cross section range (see also the discussion on p.13 in my paper~\citep{Sagunski:2020spe}). If you agree, we need to update the upper limit on $G$.}
Conversely, these limits on $\sigma_{\chi}/m_{\chi}$ translate to
% $$28.9 \sqrt{\frac{1GeV}{m_{\chi}}} \text{fm}^2 \le G \le 289 \sqrt{\frac{1GeV}{m_{\chi}}} \text{fm}^2~.$$
$$28.9 \sqrt{\frac{1GeV}{m_{\chi}}} \text{fm}^2 \le G \le 914 \sqrt{\frac{1GeV}{m_{\chi}}} \text{fm}^2~.$$
For DM particle of mass 938 MeV, this becomes
% $$29.8 \text{ fm}^2 \le G \le 298 \text{ fm}^2.$$
$$29.8 \text{ fm}^2 \le G \le 943 \text{ fm}^2.$$
% \sss{If instead, we use the range $0.1~\text{cm}^2/\text{g} \le \sigma_{\chi}/m_{\chi} \le 100~\text{cm}^2/\text{g}$, we get $$28.9 \sqrt{\frac{1GeV}{m_{\chi}}} \text{fm}^2 \le G \le 914 \sqrt{\frac{1GeV}{m_{\chi}}} \text{fm}^2~.$$ And for DM particle of mass 938 MeV, this becomes, $$29.8 \text{ fm}^2 \le G \le 943 \text{ fm}^2.$$}
Thus, the lower limit obtained in Sec.~\ref{sec:constraints} is less constraining than the existing constraints. Using Eqn.~\ref{eqn:shear_formula} and the expression for $\sigma_{\chi}$ derived in Eqn. \ref{eqn:sigmaderivation} we get,
\begin{align}
\eta_{\chi} &\approx 5.6\times10^{19}\left(\frac{1\text{fm}^2}{G}\right)\left(\frac{1\text{GeV}}{m_{\chi}}\right)^2\sqrt{m_{\chi}kT} \text{ cm}^{-2} \nonumber \\
&= 2.6 \times 10^{12} \sqrt{\frac{T}{10^{9}K}}\left(\frac{1\text{fm}^2}{G}\right)^2 \text{ g cm$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$}~.
\end{align}
The shear viscosity thus obtained, $\eta_{\chi} \sim T^{1/2}G^{-2}$, is orders of magnitude lower than that from n-n scattering ($\eta_{nn} = 347\rho^{9/4}T^{-2}$) and e-e scattering ($\eta_{ee} = 6.0\times10^{6}\rho^{2}T^{-2}$)~\cite{cutler1987}. This is evident from Fig.~\ref{fig:shear}, where we compare the DM shear viscosity with n-n and e-e shear viscosity, at a density $\rho=10^{13}$ g cm$^{-3}$, a value much lower that nuclear saturation density. For the most optimistic case, we use the lowest value of $G$ that was found to be consistent with 2$M_{\odot}$ constraint ($G=5.6$ fm$^2$). Note that this is lower than the lower limit coming from other astrophysical constraints $G = 29.8$ fm$^2$. For $T<10^9$ K, the DM shear viscosity is more than 2 orders of magnitude lower, and it only becomes important above $T=10^{10}$ K. At such high temperatures, damping is already dominated by bulk viscosity and is the primary dissipation channel. The actual densities within neutron stars are higher and $G$ is expected to be larger than 5.6 fm$^{2}$, making DM shear viscosity practically negligible.
% For this reason, we do not consider the contribution of DM SV for the rest of the study.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/DM_SV_2.pdf}
\caption{Relative strengths of shear viscosity ($\eta$) from different processes: e-e scattering (blue), n-n scattering (red) and DM-DM scattering (green) as a function of temperature (T).}
\label{fig:shear}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Bulk viscosity in presence of dark matter}
\label{sec:bulk}
%\dc{Suprovo please revise}\\
Bulk viscosity in neutron stars arises from the deviation of the composition from chemical equilibrium due to leptonic or non-leptonic weak interactions. Depending on the timescales of such processes,
bulk viscosity may damp out unstable $r$-modes~\cite{owen1998gravitational}, and the ``instability window" is determined by the balance between gravitational and viscous timescales.
Bulk viscosity of NS matter originating from leptonic processes such as direct Urca~\cite{URCABV1,URCABV2} and modified Urca~\cite{Sawyer1989,mURCABV2} reactions, as well as possible non-leptonic contributions for hyperonic matter~\cite{Jones2001,Lindblom2002,Debi_2006} have been studied extensively. Weak interaction processes involving DM inside the NS core could also potentially contribute to bulk viscosity.
In our DM model described in Sec.~\ref{sec:DM}, we consider the existence of a dark decay channel including a dark fermion $\chi$ given in Eqn.~\eqref{eqn:darkdecay}, which is very nearly degenerate with the neutron. The presence of this dark fermion $\chi$ changes the composition of the NS as it is in chemical equilibrium with the neutrons. The corresponding $\beta$-equilibrium equations and charge conservation reactions are given in Eqn.~\eqref{eqn:betaeqlbm_neutrality} and ~\eqref{eqn:chemicalequilibrium}.
For any weak process, the real part of the bulk viscosity coefficient is calculated in terms of relaxation times of microscopic processes
~\cite{Debi_2006}
\begin{equation}\label{BV}
\zeta = P(\gamma_{\infty} - \gamma_0)\frac{\tau}{1+(\omega\tau)^2}
\end{equation}
where $P$ stands for the pressure, $\omega$ for the oscillation frequency of the ($l,m$) r mode which is related to the angular velocity $\Omega$ of a rotating NS~\cite{Provost1981,Ghosh2022,ghosh2023universal}, $\tau$ is the characteristic timescale of the reaction, and $\gamma_{\infty}$ and $\gamma_0$ are the ``infinite" and ``zero" frequency adiabatic indices, respectively. This factor is given by~\cite{Lindblom2002}
\begin{equation}\label{adia}
\gamma_{\infty} - \gamma_0 = -\frac{n_B}{P}\frac{\partial P}{\partial n_n} \frac{dn_n}{d n_{B}}
\end{equation}
where $n_B$ is the baryon number density and $n_n$ the neutron fraction.
Given the EOS, the relaxation timescale ($\tau$) for the neutron decay~\eqref{eqn:darkdecay} is the only unknown parameter to calculate the bulk viscosity from this neutron decay process. According to the analysis by Fornal and Grinstein et al. (2019)~\cite{Fornal2019}, in order to explain the neutron decay via this particular dark decay channel, the rate for the reaction should be 1/100 times the rate of neutron decay to proton. Assuming that this estimate also remains valid for NS matter decay via modified Urca reactions, one can compute the relaxation timescale~\cite{Sawyer1989}
\begin{equation}\label{tau}
\frac{1}{\tau_{n\rightarrow \chi}} = \frac{\Delta\Gamma_{n\rightarrow \chi}}{ \delta \mu} \frac{\delta \mu}{n_B\delta x_n} = \frac{\Delta\Gamma_{m-URCA}/100}{ \delta \mu} \frac{\delta \mu}{n_B\delta x_n}~.
\end{equation}
From the bulk viscosity calculation for the modified URCA process by Sawyer (1989)~\cite{Sawyer1989}, up to leading order in $\delta \mu$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Sawyer}
\frac{\Delta\Gamma_{m-URCA}}{\delta \mu} = \lambda_{MURCA} = 1.62\times 10^{-18}\hbar^{-4}c^3m_e^3\left(\frac{k_BT}{1MeV}\right)^6~.
\end{equation}
The other term $\frac{\delta \mu}{n_B\delta x_n}$ can be directly calculated from the EOS~\cite{Lindblom2002,Debi_2006} numerically. This calculation shows that the bulk viscosity originating from this neutron decay channel will always be several orders of magnitude smaller than that of the one of m-URCA for all temperatures. In the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:Strength}, we compare the strength of the DM bulk viscosity against the shear viscosity from both $n-n$ and $e-e$ scattering and the m-URCA bulk viscosity at different temperatures. It is evident that DM bulk viscosity is always several orders of magnitude lower than that of m-URCA BV.
In the calculation of the timescale, we assumed that the relaxation rate is always 100 times smaller than that of the m-URCA reaction, which implies that it follows the same temperature dependence as that of the m-URCA reaction. Another possibility is to take the neutron decay rate calculated from the Standard Model~\cite{Fornal2019,Chang_2018} and the neutron decay to DM rate is 100 times smaller of that, irrespective of the temperature inside the NS. This assumption leads to a constant timescale for the neutron decay
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tau_const}
\tau_{n\rightarrow \chi} = \tau_{n\rightarrow p}^{SM}\times 100 = 8.8\times 10^4 s~.
\end{equation}
With this constant timescale assumption, we calculated that bulk viscosity for this decay channel, see the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:Strength}. One can see that this bulk viscosity dominates both other hadronic sources of viscosity : the shear viscosity from both $n-n$ and $e-e$ scattering and the m-URCA bulk viscosity over the temperature range of $\sim 10^7- 10^{10}$K.
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_final_all_7.0.png}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_final_all_9.0.png}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_final_all_11.0.png}
\caption{Relative strength of the different viscosity sources for NS matter : SV from $n-n$ scattering(in green), SV from $e-e$ scattering(in red, m-URCA BV(in blue) and DM BV(in orange), for different temperatures as function of their radial distances for a 1.4 M$_{\odot}$ NS.}
\label{fig:Strength_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_final_all_2_5.0.png}
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_final_all_2_9.0.png}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_final_all_2_11.0.png}
\caption{Relative strength of the different viscosity sources for NS matter : SV from $n-n$ scattering(in green),SV from $e-e$ scattering(in red, m-URCA BV(in blue) and DM BV(in orange) assuming constant timescale, for different temperatures as function of their radial distances for a 1.4 M$_{\odot}$ NS.}
\label{fig:Strength_2}
\end{figure}
\fi
\begin{figure}[htp] % "[t!]" placement specifier just for this example
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_final_all_7.0.png}
\end{subfigure}\hspace*{\fill}
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_final_all_2_5.0.png}
\end{subfigure}
\medskip
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_final_all_9.0.png}
\end{subfigure}\hspace*{\fill}
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_final_all_2_9.0.png}
\end{subfigure}
\medskip
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_final_all_11.0.png}
\end{subfigure}\hspace*{\fill}
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_final_all_2_11.0.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Relative strength of the different viscosity sources for NS matter : shear viscosity from $n-n$ scattering(in green), shear viscosity from $e-e$ scattering (in red), m-URCA bulk viscosity (in blue) and DM bulk viscosity (in orange) for different temperatures as function of their radial distances for a 1.4 M$_{\odot}$ NS. In the left panel, the bulk visosity for DM is calculated assuming the rate is 1/100 times that of the m-URCA. In the right panel, we consider a constant timescale as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:bulk}}
\label{fig:Strength}
\end{figure}
\subsection{R-mode instability window in presence of DM}
$R$-mode is a toroidal fluid oscillation mode in NSs that may become unstable due to the Chandrasekhar-Friedman-Schutz (CFS) mechanism~\cite{CFS1,CFS2} leading to continuous GW emission. Depending on timescales, viscous processes (shear and bulk viscosity) of NS matter may result in damping these oscillation modes. The balance between viscous and gravitational timescales defines an instability window within which the $r$-mode amplitude can grow, spinning down the star~\cite{owen1998gravitational}. In our model of hadronic matter, we consider only the shear viscosity due to the n-n scattering and bulk viscosity due to m-URCA reactions although several other sources of viscosity e.g. non-leptonic weak interactions involving hyperons~\cite{Lindblom2002,Debi_2006}, ungapped interacting quark matter~\cite{Alford2014}, Ekman layer damping~\cite{Shternin2008} can affect the $r$-mode instability window. In addition, we consider contributions to shear viscosity from DM self-interaction and bulk viscosity from neutron decay as damping source to the $r$-mode instability. The instability window boundary is determined by conservation equations that equate the energy loss rates, namely, the power $P_G$ fed into the $r$-mode by radiating gravitational waves and the dissipated power $P_D$ from the viscous mechanisms~\cite{owen1998gravitational,Alford2014}
\begin{equation}
P_G = P_{D|\alpha \rightarrow 0}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is the $r$-mode amplitude.
To investigate the effect of DM on the $r$-mode instability window systematically, we vary the parameters of the DM model, namely the self-interaction strength $G$ and the damping timescale ($\tau_{n\rightarrow \chi}$ denoted by $\tau$ in the following). For the calculation of the neutron decay timescale, we consider the two different scenarios described in Sec.~\ref{sec:bulk}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:dm_bv_vary_g}, we plot the static instability window assuming the first scenario of the DM decay timescale for 1.4M$_{\odot}$ NS with different values of the DM self-interaction strength $G$ but fixed nuclear parametrization (HTZCS parameters). The figure shows that the parameter $G$ has negligible effect on the $r$-mode instability boundary.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:dm_bv_fT}, we plot the $r$-mode instability window in the $f-T$ (frequency vs temperature) parameter space comparing the cases without DM and with DM. The curves represent a $1.4M_{\odot}$ NS with HTZCS parametrization for the hadronic EOS and G = 26 fm$^2$ self-interaction strength for the DM EOS.
It is evident that for the first scenario ($\tau = 100\times \tau_{m-URCA}$), there is no visible change in the instability window because the DM viscosities (both shear and bulk) never dominate the hadronic contributions as shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:Strength}. But for the second scenario ($\tau = 8.8\times 10^4 s$), we see a constant frequency boundary in the temperature region $5\times 10^7$- $10^{10}$K where the DM bulk visosity dominates (refer to Fig.~\ref{fig:Strength}). We also consider two different values of $\tau$, $\tau = 8.8\times 10^2 s$ and $\tau = 8.8\times 10 s$, respectively, which are comparable to the neutron decay timescale, to demonstrate that the instability boundary is at a much higher frequency with decreasing $\tau$. Since the timescale in this scenario is independent of temperature, we get a constant frequency boundary in this region. In Fig.~\ref{fig:limit}, we also plot the minimum frequency of the instability boundary as a function of the decay timescale for the constant timescale scenario for bulk viscosity and see that the frequency boundary value decreases with increasing $\tau$. At the expected decay rate of $\tau_{n\rightarrow \chi} = \tau_{n\rightarrow p}^{SM}\times 100 $ from Eqn.~\eqref{eq:tau_const}, we see the boundary frequency value is around $0.1\times \Omega_K$ which is very close to the non-DM scenario. To compare the instability window with recent pulsar data, we also plot the $f-T$ data in Fig.~\ref{fig:dm_bv_fT} for low-mass x-ray binaries (LMXBs)~\cite{Alford2014,Haskell2012}, which are being heated and potentially spun up by accretion from a companion, without the error bars estimated from the envelope model~\cite{Haskell2012}. Further, to take into account pulsar timing data, we convert this $f-T$ boundary to a dynamical boundary in $f-\Dot{f}$ parameter space by assuming that the power-loss due to the spin-down driven by $r$-mode instability is equal to the luminosity (both neutrino and photon luminosity) of the star
\begin{equation}
P_G = L_{\nu} + L_{photon}
\end{equation}
where $L_{\nu}$ and $L_{photon}$ denote the neutrino and photon luminosity~\cite{luminosity,Alford2014a}, respectively.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:dm_bv_ff1}, we plot the same instability window in the $f-\Dot{f}$ plane along with the pulsar timing data from the ATNF catalog~\cite{ATNF}. Since we assumed that the spin down is entirely due to $r$-modes ignoring other spin-down mechanisms, we put a left arrow in the $\Dot{f}$ parameter for all the pulsars indicating that the spin-down $\Dot{f}$ originating from $r$-modes alone will be less than that measured in pulsar data. For both the Figs.~\ref{fig:dm_bv_fT} and \ref{fig:dm_bv_ff1}, we see that the $r$-mode instability cannot be reconciled with the pulsar data for currently known minimal hadronic damping mechanisms. Adding DM contribution to the NS for the models considered in this work does not change the conclusions except for the case where the DM decay timescale is constant and much lower than the neutron decay timescale.
% \dc{Fig.12 update and add text?} \sg{Done.} \js{I do not see the text for fig. 12, where is it?} \dc{The reference to Fig. 12 appears before 10 and 11. Can you either move the figure or the text reference?}\sg{I have moved the figure up and now they are appear as in the text.}
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/ener_prof_dm.pdf}
\caption{Energy density profile as a function of radial distance for different DM self-interaction $g_\chi$}
\label{fig:ener_prof_dm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_5.png}
\caption{Comparison of the shear and bulk viscosity components for hadronic and dark matter at T=$10^5$ K}
\label{fig:comp_T1e5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/BV_9.png}
\caption{Comparison of the shear and bulk viscosity components for hadronic and dark matter at T=$10^9$ K}
\label{fig:comp_T1e9}
\end{figure}
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/fT_instability_dm_tau.pdf}
\caption{$R$-mode instability window for varying values of relaxation timescale $\tau$}
\label{fig:dm_bv_vary_tau}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/fof1_instability_DM_tau.pdf}
\caption{$R$-mode instability window for varying values of relaxation timescale $\tau$}
\label{fig:dm_bv_vary_g}
\end{figure}
\fi
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/fT_instability_dm_vary_G.pdf}
\caption{$R$-mode instability window for 1.4M$_{\odot}$ NS with varying values of DM self-interaction $G$}
\label{fig:dm_bv_vary_g}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/fT_instability_dm_final.pdf}
\caption{$R$-mode static instability window in the $f-T$ plane for 1.4M$_{\odot}$ NS for the two different calculations of relaxation timescale $\tau$ described in Sec.~\ref{sec:bulk} along with the X-ray data without the error estimates~\cite{Haskell2012}. }
\label{fig:dm_bv_fT}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/limits_tau.pdf}
\caption{Minimum frequency in terms of the Keplerian frequency ($\Omega_K$) for the $r$-mode dynamic instability window for a 1.4M$_{\odot}$ NS as a function of the neutron decay timescale for the constant timescale scenario}
\label{fig:limit}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{DM_Rmodes_Figs/fof1_instability_DM.pdf}
\caption{$R$-mode dynamic instability window in the $f-\Dot{f}$ plane for a 1.4M$_{\odot}$ NS for the two different calculations of the relaxation timescale $\tau$ as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:bulk} along with the pulsar timing data from the ATNF catalogue~\cite{ATNF}}
\label{fig:dm_bv_ff1}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Discussions}
\label{sec:discussions}
In this work, we perform the first systematic investigation of the effect of dark matter in NSs on $r$-mode instability. For the hadronic model, we consider state-of-the-art equations of state that are compatible with constraints from chiral EFT calculations and multi-messenger (electromagnetic and gravitational wave) observations. The shear and bulk viscosity in hadronic matter taken into account comes mainly from leptonic weak interaction processes and is well known.
For the DM model, we adopt an EOS motivated by the neutron decay anomaly explained via a dark decay channel. The decay rate of neutrons via the dark channel fixes the key ingredient for the calculation of bulk viscosity in presence of DM. The shear viscosity in the presence of DM can be estimated from the DM self-interaction cross section employing kinetic theory.
Using the shear and bulk viscosities, one can determine the effect of the presence of DM on the $r$-mode instability window in NSs.
For the DM model considered, even for the most optimistic value of self-interaction strength $G$, we found that the shear viscosity for DM is orders of magnitude lower than that from n-n scattering that contributes to the hadronic shear viscosity for temperatures below $10^9$ K. For the temperature regime in which DM shear viscosity becomes important (T > $10^{10}$ K) damping is already dominated by hadronic bulk viscosity. Therefore, we can conclude from our investigation that the effect of DM shear viscosity can be neglected for the model considered.
For the bulk viscosity calculation for DM in NSs,
we compared the strength of the DM bulk viscosity against the shear viscosity from n-n scattering and the modified URCA bulk viscosity at different temperatures, and found that DM bulk viscosity is always several orders of
magnitude lower than that of the m-URCA bulk visosity.
For the calculation of the $r$-mode instability window, we investigate the role of both the self-interaction strength $G$ and the relaxation timescale $\tau$. We found that the parameter $G$ has a negligible effect on the $r$-mode instability boundary.
For the relaxation timescale for the neutron decay, we considered two different scenarios. In the first scenario, we assumed that the relaxation rate is always 100 times smaller than that of the m-Urca reaction and follows the same temperature dependence. The alternative assumption considered the neutron decay rate to protons and the neutron decay to DM rate being 100 times smaller than
that, irrespective of the temperature inside the NS. This assumption leads to a constant
timescale for the neutron decay. For both scenarios, we compared the instability windows with and without the presence of DM against the x-ray data and pulsar data from the ATNF catalogue. We concluded that the instability window with the minimal hadronic damping mechanisms on inclusion of shear and bulk viscosity contributions from DM within the considered model were incompatible with the observational data.
While there are many studies in the literature calculating shear and bulk viscosity of hadronic and quark matter, there are to our knowledge no prior studies of DM viscosities on $r$-modes. In this work, the choice of the DM model was motivated by the recent work of~\cite{motta2018a, motta2018b, husain2022a}, which were based on the neutron decay anomaly and considered DM self-interaction via a $U(1)$ vector gauge boson. This work used the Quark Meson Coupling model for the hadronic EOS and imposed constraints from the maximum NS mass to deduce an upper limit of 26 fm$^2$ for the value of $G$. In our case, we considered a hadronic model compatible with recent chiral EFT and multi-messenger constraints and derive a lower limit of 5.6 fm$^2$ for the value of $G$. There is just a couple of earlier work~\cite{horowitz2012, yoshida2020} that derived the relation between the DM shear viscosity and the DM cross-section using kinetic theory. In our calculations, we used the derived value of lower limit for $G$ to obtain an estimate of the DM shear viscosity.
The results of this investigation are timely and interesting for both the observational pulsar astrophysics and gravitational wave communities. There is a considerable interest about the effect of the presence of DM in NSs on gravitational wave signals, and $r$-modes are targets for current searches as sources of continuous GWs \cite{fesik2020, fesik2020erratum, abbott2021, rajbhandari2021}.
% \js{can you cite a paper from LIGO on that, please?} \sss{done}.
However, calculations of DM transport properties are challenging given that there are a large number of DM models spanning wide ranges of properties of DM candidates, given that current observational data from astrophysics and cosmology do not have a high constraining power. While this study lays the foundation for calculating viscosity of DM in NSs for particular chosen hadronic models, this also opens up the possibility of investigating other hadronic and DM models.
In particular, the inclusion of an attractive two-body interaction between the DM particles will form Cooper pairs of DM particles which could be able to describe the pulsar data by including effects from a dark superfluid phase. We plan to investigate this possibility in forthcoming work.
%For example, we are presently investigating the effects of superfluid DM on $r$-mode instability and the results will be presented in a forthcoming publication \sss{remove this statement?}
%\ls{I wouldn't mention a specific model here yet. What do you think about just ending with the sentence I have added above?}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\appendix
%\section{Some title}
%Please always give a title also for appendices.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\acknowledgments
The authors thank Dhruv Pathak for providing the pulsar X-ray and timing data. The authors also thank Robin Diedrichs and Edwin Genoud-Prachex for useful discussions during this work. L.S., D.C., S.S. and S.G. acknowledge the support by the State of Hesse within the Research Cluster ELEMENTS (Project ID 500/10.006).
J.S.B. acknowledges support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) through the CRC-TR 211 `Strong-interaction matter under extreme conditions' -- project number 315477589 -- TRR 211.
D.C., S.S., S.G. acknowledge usage of the IUCAA HPC computing facility for the numerical calculations. They also thank the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the Goethe University and the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Frankfurt, Germany, for their warm hospitality, where part of this research was carried out.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% The bibliography will probably be heavily edited during typesetting.
% We'll parse it and, using the arxiv number or the journal data, will
% query inspire, trying to verify the data (this will probalby spot
% eventual typos) and retrive the document DOI and eventual errata.
% We however suggest to always provide author, title and journal data:
% in short all the informations that clearly identify a document.
% \bibliographystyle{unsrtnat}
\bibliographystyle{JHEP}
\bibliography{Refs}
\iffalse
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{a}
Author, \emph{Title}, \emph{J. Abbrev.} {\bf vol} (year) pg.
\bibitem{b}
Author, \emph{Title},
arxiv:1234.5678.
\bibitem{c}
Author, \emph{Title},
Publisher (year).
% Please avoid comments such as "For a review'', "For some examples",
% "and references therein" or move them in the text. In general,
% please leave only references in the bibliography and move all
% accessory text in footnotes.
% Also, please have only one work for each \bibitem.
\end{thebibliography}
\fi
\end{document}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright\begin{thebibliography}{100}
\bibitem{Abbott2017AGW170817}
{\scshape LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration} collaboration,
\emph{Gw170817: Observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star
inspiral},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101}{\emph{Physical Review
Letters.} {\bfseries 119} (2017) 161101}.
\bibitem{abbott2017BGW170817multi}
B.P.~{Abbott}, R.~{Abbott}, T.D.~{Abbott}, F.~{Acernese}, K.~{Ackley},
C.~{Adams} et~al., \emph{Gravitational waves and gamma-rays from a binary
neutron star merger: Gw170817 and grb 170817a},
\href{https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c}{\emph{The Astrophysical
Journal Letters} {\bfseries 848} (2017) L13}.
\bibitem{abbott2018}
{\scshape The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration}
collaboration, \emph{{GW170817: Measurements of Neutron Star Radii and
Equation of State}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101}{\emph{Physical Review
Letters} {\bfseries 121} (2018) 161101}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.11581}{{\ttfamily 1805.11581}}].
\bibitem{abbott2019properties}
{\scshape LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration} collaboration,
\emph{Properties of the binary neutron star merger gw170817},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001}{\emph{Physical Review X}
{\bfseries 9} (2019) 011001}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.11579}{{\ttfamily 1805.11579}}].
\bibitem{annala2018}
E.~{Annala}, T.~{Gorda}, A.~{Kurkela} and A.~{Vuorinen},
\emph{{Gravitational-Wave Constraints on the Neutron-Star-Matter Equation of
State}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.172703}{\emph{Physical
Review Letters} {\bfseries 120} (2018) 172703}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.02644}{{\ttfamily 1711.02644}}].
\bibitem{Most2018}
E.R.~Most, L.R.~Weih, L.~Rezzolla and J.~Schaffner-Bielich, \emph{New
constraints on radii and tidal deformabilities of neutron stars from
gw170817},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.261103}{\emph{Physical Review
Letters.} {\bfseries 120} (2018) 261103}.
\bibitem{ghosh2022multi}
S.~{Ghosh}, D.~{Chatterjee} and J.~{Schaffner-Bielich}, \emph{{Imposing
multi-physics constraints at different densities on the neutron Star Equation
of State}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00679-w}{\emph{EPJA} {\bfseries
58} (2022) 37} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.09371}{{\ttfamily
2107.09371}}].
\bibitem{ghosh2022multihyperon}
S.~{Ghosh}, B.K.~{Pradhan}, D.~{Chatterjee} and J.~{Schaffner-Bielich},
\emph{{Multi-Physics Constraints at Different Densities to Probe Nuclear
Symmetry Energy in Hyperonic Neutron Stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2022.864294}{\emph{FrASS} {\bfseries 9}
(2022) 864294} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.03156}{{\ttfamily
2203.03156}}].
\bibitem{shirke2023}
S.~{Shirke}, S.~{Ghosh} and D.~{Chatterjee}, \emph{{Constraining the Equation
of State of Hybrid Stars Using Recent Information from Multidisciplinary
Physics}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acac31}{\emph{The
Astrophysical Journal} {\bfseries 944} (2023) 7}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.09077}{{\ttfamily 2210.09077}}].
\bibitem{Lattimer2021}
J.~Lattimer, \emph{Neutron stars and the nuclear matter equation of state},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419-124827}{\emph{Annual Review
of Nuclear and Particle Science} {\bfseries 71} (2021) 433}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419-124827}{{\ttfamily
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419-124827}}].
\bibitem{oertel2017}
M.~{Oertel}, M.~{Hempel}, T.~{Kl{\"a}hn} and S.~{Typel}, \emph{{Equations of
state for supernovae and compact stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007}{\emph{Reviews of Modern
Physics} {\bfseries 89} (2017) 015007}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.03361}{{\ttfamily 1610.03361}}].
\bibitem{andersson1998}
N.~{Andersson}, \emph{{A New Class of Unstable Modes of Rotating Relativistic
Stars}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1086/305919}{\emph{The Astrophysical
Journal} {\bfseries 502} (1998) 708}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9706075}{{\ttfamily gr-qc/9706075}}].
\bibitem{CFS1}
S.~Chandrasekhar, \emph{Solutions of two problems in the theory of
gravitational radiation},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.24.611}{\emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
{\bfseries 24} (1970) 611}.
\bibitem{CFS2}
J.L.~{Friedman} and B.F.~{Schutz}, \emph{{Secular instability of rotating
Newtonian stars.}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1086/156143}{\emph{The
Astrophysical Journal} {\bfseries 222} (1978) 281}.
\bibitem{andersson2003}
N.~{Andersson}, \emph{{TOPICAL REVIEW: Gravitational waves from instabilities
in relativistic stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/20/7/201}{\emph{Classical and Quantum
Gravity} {\bfseries 20} (2003) R105}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211057}{{\ttfamily
astro-ph/0211057}}].
\bibitem{puntoro2010ET}
M.~{Punturo}, M.~{Abernathy}, F.~{Acernese}, B.~{Allen}, N.~{Andersson},
K.~{Arun} et~al., \emph{{The third generation of gravitational wave
observatories and their science reach}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084007}{\emph{Classical and
Quantum Gravity} {\bfseries 27} (2010) 084007}.
\bibitem{hild2011ET}
S.~{Hild}, M.~{Abernathy}, F.~{Acernese}, P.~{Amaro-Seoane}, N.~{Andersson},
K.~{Arun} et~al., \emph{{Sensitivity studies for third-generation
gravitational wave observatories}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094013}{\emph{Classical and
Quantum Gravity} {\bfseries 28} (2011) 094013}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.0908}{{\ttfamily 1012.0908}}].
\bibitem{reitze2019CE}
D.~{Reitze}, R.X.~{Adhikari}, S.~{Ballmer}, B.~{Barish}, L.~{Barsotti},
G.~{Billingsley} et~al., \emph{{Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to
Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO}}, in \emph{Bulletin of the
American Astronomical Society}, vol.~51, p.~35, Sept., 2019,
\href{https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.04833}{DOI}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04833}{{\ttfamily 1907.04833}}].
\bibitem{owen1998gravitational}
B.J.~{Owen}, L.~{Lindblom}, C.~{Cutler}, B.F.~{Schutz}, A.~{Vecchio} and
N.~{Andersson}, \emph{{Gravitational waves from hot young rapidly rotating
neutron stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.084020}{\emph{Physical Review D}
{\bfseries 58} (1998) 084020}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9804044}{{\ttfamily gr-qc/9804044}}].
\bibitem{Lindblom2002}
L.~Lindblom and B.J.~Owen, \emph{Effect of hyperon bulk viscosity on
neutron-star r-modes},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.063006}{\emph{Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 65} (2002) 063006}.
\bibitem{Debi_2006}
D.~Chatterjee and D.~Bandyopadhyay, \emph{Effect of hyperon-hyperon interaction
on bulk viscosity and $r$-mode instability in neutron stars},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.023003}{\emph{Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 74} (2006) 023003}.
\bibitem{KaonBV}
D.~Chatterjee and D.~Bandyopadhyay, \emph{Bulk viscosity in kaon condensed
matter}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.123006}{\emph{Phys. Rev.
D} {\bfseries 75} (2007) 123006}.
\bibitem{fesik2020}
L.~{Fesik} and M.A.~{Papa}, \emph{{First Search for r-mode Gravitational Waves
from PSR J0537-6910}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab8193}{\emph{The Astrophysical
Journal} {\bfseries 895} (2020) 11}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07605}{{\ttfamily 2001.07605}}].
\bibitem{fesik2020erratum}
L.~{Fesik} and M.A.~{Papa}, \emph{{Erratum: ``First Search for r-mode
Gravitational Waves from PSR J0537-6910'' (2020, ApJ, 895, 11)}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aba04e}{\emph{The Astrophysical
Journal} {\bfseries 897} (2020) 185}.
\bibitem{abbott2021}
R.~{Abbott} et~al., \emph{{Constraints from LIGO O3 Data on Gravitational-wave
Emission Due to R-modes in the Glitching Pulsar PSR J0537-6910}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac0d52}{\emph{The Astrophysical
Journal} {\bfseries 922} (2021) 71}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.14417}{{\ttfamily 2104.14417}}].
\bibitem{rajbhandari2021}
B.~{Rajbhandari}, B.J.~{Owen}, S.~{Caride} and R.~{Inta}, \emph{{First searches
for gravitational waves from r -modes of the Crab pulsar}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.122008}{\emph{Physical Review D}
{\bfseries 104} (2021) 122008}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00714}{{\ttfamily 2101.00714}}].
\bibitem{Bertone:2018krk}
G.~Bertone and T.~Tait, M.~P., \emph{{A new era in the search for dark
matter}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0542-z}{\emph{Nature}
{\bfseries 562} (2018) 51}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.01668}{{\ttfamily 1810.01668}}].
\bibitem{AlvesBatista:2021eeu}
R.~Alves~Batista et~al., \emph{{EuCAPT White Paper: Opportunities and
Challenges for Theoretical Astroparticle Physics in the Next Decade}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.10074}{\emph{arXiv e-prints} (2021)
} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.10074}{{\ttfamily 2110.10074}}].
\bibitem{khlopov2013}
M.~{Khlopov}, \emph{{Fundamental Particle Structure in the Cosmological Dark
Matter}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X13300421}{\emph{International Journal
of Modern Physics A} {\bfseries 28} (2013) 1330042}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.2468}{{\ttfamily 1311.2468}}].
\bibitem{khlopov2021}
M.~{Khlopov}, \emph{{What comes after the Standard Model?}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103824}{\emph{Progress in Particle
and Nuclear Physics} {\bfseries 116} (2021) 103824}.
\bibitem{ellis2018}
J.~{Ellis}, G.~{H{\"u}tsi}, K.~{Kannike}, L.~{Marzola}, M.~{Raidal} and
V.~{Vaskonen}, \emph{{Dark matter effects on neutron star properties}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.123007}{\emph{Physical Review D}
{\bfseries 97} (2018) 123007}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01418}{{\ttfamily 1804.01418}}].
\bibitem{bell2020}
N.F.~{Bell}, G.~{Busoni}, S.~{Robles} and M.~{Virgato}, \emph{{Improved
treatment of dark matter capture in neutron stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/028}{\emph{Journal of
Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics} {\bfseries 2020} (2020) 028}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14888}{{\ttfamily 2004.14888}}].
\bibitem{bell2021}
N.F.~{Bell}, G.~{Busoni}, S.~{Robles} and M.~{Virgato}, \emph{{Improved
treatment of dark matter capture in neutron stars II: leptonic targets}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/086}{\emph{Journal of
Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics} {\bfseries 2021} (2021) 086}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.13257}{{\ttfamily 2010.13257}}].
\bibitem{anzuini2021}
F.~{Anzuini}, N.F.~{Bell}, G.~{Busoni}, T.F.~{Motta}, S.~{Robles},
A.W.~{Thomas} et~al., \emph{{Improved treatment of dark matter capture in
neutron stars III: nucleon and exotic targets}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/056}{\emph{Journal of
Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics} {\bfseries 2021} (2021) 056}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.02525}{{\ttfamily 2108.02525}}].
\bibitem{Sagunski:2017nzb}
L.~Sagunski, J.~Zhang, M.C.~Johnson, L.~Lehner, M.~Sakellariadou, S.L.~Liebling
et~al., \emph{{Neutron star mergers as a probe of modifications of general
relativity with finite-range scalar forces}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.064016}{\emph{Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 97} (2018) 064016}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.06634}{{\ttfamily 1709.06634}}].
\bibitem{Huang:2018pbu}
J.~Huang, M.C.~Johnson, L.~Sagunski, M.~Sakellariadou and J.~Zhang,
\emph{{Prospects for axion searches with Advanced LIGO through binary
mergers}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063013}{\emph{Phys. Rev.
D} {\bfseries 99} (2019) 063013}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.02133}{{\ttfamily 1807.02133}}].
\bibitem{nelson2019}
A.E.~{Nelson}, S.~{Reddy} and D.~{Zhou}, \emph{{Dark halos around neutron stars
and gravitational waves}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/07/012}{\emph{Journal of
Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics} {\bfseries 2019} (2019) 012}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.03266}{{\ttfamily 1803.03266}}].
\bibitem{ivanytskyi2020}
O.~{Ivanytskyi}, V.~{Sagun} and I.~{Lopes}, \emph{{Neutron stars: New
constraints on asymmetric dark matter}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063028}{\emph{Physical Review D}
{\bfseries 102} (2020) 063028}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.09925}{{\ttfamily 1910.09925}}].
\bibitem{Zhang:2021mks}
J.~Zhang, Z.~Lyu, J.~Huang, M.C.~Johnson, L.~Sagunski, M.~Sakellariadou et~al.,
\emph{{First Constraints on Nuclear Coupling of Axionlike Particles from the
Binary Neutron Star Gravitational Wave Event GW170817}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.161101}{\emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
{\bfseries 127} (2021) 161101}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.13963}{{\ttfamily 2105.13963}}].
\bibitem{karkevandi2021}
D.~{Rafiei Karkevandi}, S.~{Shakeri}, V.~{Sagun} and O.~{Ivanytskyi},
\emph{{Tidal Deformability as a Probe of Dark Matter in Neutron Stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.14231}{\emph{arXiv e-prints} (2021)
arXiv:2112.14231} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.14231}{{\ttfamily
2112.14231}}].
\bibitem{karkevandi2022}
D.~{Rafiei Karkevandi}, S.~{Shakeri}, V.~{Sagun} and O.~{Ivanytskyi},
\emph{{Bosonic dark matter in neutron stars and its effect on gravitational
wave signal}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023001}{\emph{Physical Review D}
{\bfseries 105} (2022) 023001}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.03801}{{\ttfamily 2109.03801}}].
\bibitem{kouvaris2008}
C.~{Kouvaris}, \emph{{WIMP annihilation and cooling of neutron stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.023006}{\emph{Physical Review D}
{\bfseries 77} (2008) 023006}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2362}{{\ttfamily 0708.2362}}].
\bibitem{li2012}
X.Y.~{Li}, F.Y.~{Wang} and K.S.~{Cheng}, \emph{{Gravitational effects of
condensate dark matter on compact stellar objects}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2012/10/031}{\emph{Journal of
Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics} {\bfseries 2012} (2012) 031}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1748}{{\ttfamily 1210.1748}}].
\bibitem{sedrakian2016}
A.~{Sedrakian}, \emph{{Axion cooling of neutron stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.065044}{\emph{Physical Review D}
{\bfseries 93} (2016) 065044}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.07828}{{\ttfamily 1512.07828}}].
\bibitem{rezaei2017}
Z.~{Rezaei}, \emph{{Study of Dark-matter Admixed Neutron Stars Using the
Equation of State from the Rotational Curves of Galaxies}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6528/aa5273}{\emph{The Astrophysical
Journal} {\bfseries 835} (2017) 33}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.02804}{{\ttfamily 1612.02804}}].
\bibitem{panotopoulos2017}
G.~{Panotopoulos} and I.~{Lopes}, \emph{{Dark matter effect on realistic
equation of state in neutron stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.083004}{\emph{Physical Review D}
{\bfseries 96} (2017) 083004}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.06312}{{\ttfamily 1709.06312}}].
\bibitem{sedrakian2019}
A.~{Sedrakian}, \emph{{Axion cooling of neutron stars. II. Beyond hadronic
axions}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.043011}{\emph{Physical
Review D} {\bfseries 99} (2019) 043011}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.00190}{{\ttfamily 1810.00190}}].
\bibitem{gresham2019}
M.I.~{Gresham} and K.M.~{Zurek}, \emph{{Asymmetric dark stars and neutron star
stability}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083008}{\emph{Physical
Review D} {\bfseries 99} (2019) 083008}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08254}{{\ttfamily 1809.08254}}].
\bibitem{hcdas2020}
H.C.~{Das}, A.~{Kumar}, B.~{Kumar}, S.K.~{Biswal}, T.~{Nakatsukasa}, A.~{Li}
et~al., \emph{{Effects of dark matter on the nuclear and neutron star
matter}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1435}{\emph{Monthly Notices
of the Royal Astronomical Society} {\bfseries 495} (2020) 4893}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.00594}{{\ttfamily 2002.00594}}].
\bibitem{hcdas2022}
H.C.~{Das}, A.~{Kumar}, B.~{Kumar} and S.K.~{Patra}, \emph{{Dark Matter Effects
on the Compact Star Properties}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies10010014}{\emph{Galaxies} {\bfseries
10} (2022) 14} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.14198}{{\ttfamily
2112.14198}}].
\bibitem{garcia2022}
M.~{{\'A}ngeles P{\'e}rez-Garc{\'\i}a}, H.~{Grigorian}, C.~{Albertus},
D.~{Barba} and J.~{Silk}, \emph{{Cooling of Neutron Stars admixed with light
dark matter: A case study}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136937}{\emph{Physics Letters
B} {\bfseries 827} (2022) 136937}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.00702}{{\ttfamily 2202.00702}}].
\bibitem{leung2022}
K.-L.~{Leung}, M.-c.~{Chu} and L.-M.~{Lin}, \emph{{Tidal deformability of dark
matter admixed neutron stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.123010}{\emph{Physical Review D}
{\bfseries 105} (2022) 123010}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.02433}{{\ttfamily 2207.02433}}].
\bibitem{giangrandi2022}
E.~{Giangrandi}, V.~{Sagun}, O.~{Ivanytskyi}, C.~{Provid{\^e}ncia} and
T.~{Dietrich}, \emph{{The effects of self-interacting bosonic dark matter on
neutron star properties}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.10905}{\emph{arXiv e-prints} (2022)
arXiv:2209.10905} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.10905}{{\ttfamily
2209.10905}}].
\bibitem{diedrichs2023}
R.~{Fynn Diedrichs}, N.~{Becker}, C.~{Jockel}, J.-E.~{Christian}, L.~{Sagunski}
and J.~{Schaffner-Bielich}, \emph{{Tidal Deformability of Fermion-Boson
Stars: Neutron Stars Admixed with Ultra-Light Dark Matter}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.04089}{\emph{arXiv e-prints} (2023)
arXiv:2303.04089} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.04089}{{\ttfamily
2303.04089}}].
\bibitem{Baryakhtar:2022hbu}
M.~Baryakhtar et~al., \emph{{Dark Matter In Extreme Astrophysical
Environments}}, in \emph{{Snowmass 2021}}, 3, 2022
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.07984}{{\ttfamily 2203.07984}}].
\bibitem{garani2019}
R.~{Garani}, Y.~{Genolini} and T.~{Hambye}, \emph{{New analysis of neutron star
constraints on asymmetric dark matter}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/05/035}{\emph{Journal of
Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics} {\bfseries 2019} (2019) 035}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.08773}{{\ttfamily 1812.08773}}].
\bibitem{husain2022a}
W.~{Husain}, T.F.~{Motta} and A.W.~{Thomas}, \emph{{Consequences of neutron
decay inside neutron stars}}, {\emph{arXiv e-prints} (2022) arXiv:2203.02758}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.02758}{{\ttfamily 2203.02758}}].
\bibitem{rutherford2022}
N.~{Rutherford}, G.~{Raaijmakers}, C.~{Prescod-Weinstein} and A.~{Watts},
\emph{{Constraining bosonic asymmetric dark matter with neutron star
mass-radius measurements}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.03282}{\emph{arXiv e-prints} (2022)
arXiv:2208.03282} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.03282}{{\ttfamily
2208.03282}}].
\bibitem{shakeri2022}
S.~{Shakeri} and D.~{Rafiei Karkevandi}, \emph{{Bosonic Dark Matter in Light of
the NICER Precise Mass-Radius Measurements}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.17308}{\emph{arXiv e-prints} (2022)
arXiv:2210.17308} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.17308}{{\ttfamily
2210.17308}}].
\bibitem{atreya2019}
A.~{Atreya}, J.R.~{Bhatt} and A.K.~{Mishra}, \emph{{Viscous self interacting
dark matter cosmology for small redshift}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/045}{\emph{Journal of
Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics} {\bfseries 2019} (2019) 045}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11666}{{\ttfamily 1810.11666}}].
\bibitem{horowitz2012}
C.J.~{Horowitz}, \emph{{Dark matter transport properties and rapidly rotating
neutron stars}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1205.3541}{\emph{arXiv
e-prints} (2012) arXiv:1205.3541}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3541}{{\ttfamily 1205.3541}}].
\bibitem{yoshida2020}
S.~{Yoshida}, \emph{{Fermionic dark stars spin slowly}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.07285}{\emph{arXiv e-prints} (2020)
arXiv:2011.07285} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.07285}{{\ttfamily
2011.07285}}].
\bibitem{Goldman:1989nd}
I.~Goldman and S.~Nussinov, \emph{{Weakly Interacting Massive Particles and
Neutron Stars}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.40.3221}{\emph{Phys.
Rev. D} {\bfseries 40} (1989) 3221}.
\bibitem{Kouvaris:2010vv}
C.~Kouvaris and P.~Tinyakov, \emph{{Can Neutron stars constrain Dark Matter?}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.063531}{\emph{Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 82} (2010) 063531}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0586}{{\ttfamily 1004.0586}}].
\bibitem{Sandin:2008db}
F.~Sandin and P.~Ciarcelluti, \emph{{Effects of mirror dark matter on neutron
stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.09.005}{\emph{Astropart.
Phys.} {\bfseries 32} (2009) 278}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/0809.2942}{{\ttfamily 0809.2942}}].
\bibitem{Ciarcelluti:2010ji}
P.~Ciarcelluti and F.~Sandin, \emph{{Have neutron stars a dark matter core?}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2010.11.021}{\emph{Phys. Lett. B}
{\bfseries 695} (2011) 19} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.0857}{{\ttfamily
1005.0857}}].
\bibitem{Leung:2011zz}
S.C.~Leung, M.C.~Chu and L.M.~Lin, \emph{{Dark-matter admixed neutron stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.107301}{\emph{Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 84} (2011) 107301}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1787}{{\ttfamily 1111.1787}}].
\bibitem{Guver:2012ba}
T.~G\"uver, A.E.~Erkoca, M.~Hall~Reno and I.~Sarcevic, \emph{{On the capture of
dark matter by neutron stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2014/05/013}{\emph{JCAP} {\bfseries
05} (2014) 013} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2400}{{\ttfamily
1201.2400}}].
\bibitem{Li:2012ii}
A.~Li, F.~Huang and R.-X.~Xu, \emph{{Too massive neutron stars: The role of
dark matter?}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.07.006}{\emph{Astropart.
Phys.} {\bfseries 37} (2012) 70}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3722}{{\ttfamily 1208.3722}}].
\bibitem{Xiang:2013xwa}
Q.-F.~Xiang, W.-Z.~Jiang, D.-R.~Zhang and R.-Y.~Yang, \emph{{Effects of
fermionic dark matter on properties of neutron stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.89.025803}{\emph{Phys. Rev. C}
{\bfseries 89} (2014) 025803}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.7354}{{\ttfamily 1305.7354}}].
\bibitem{Tolos:2015qra}
L.~Tolos, J.~Schaffner-Bielich and Y.~Dengler, \emph{{Dark Compact Planets}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.123002}{\emph{Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 92} (2015) 123002}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.08197}{{\ttfamily 1507.08197}}].
\bibitem{Mukhopadhyay:2016dsg}
S.~Mukhopadhyay, D.~Atta, K.~Imam, D.N.~Basu and C.~Samanta, \emph{{Compact
bifluid hybrid stars: Hadronic Matter mixed with self-interacting fermionic
Asymmetric Dark Matter}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5006-3}{\emph{Eur. Phys. J. C}
{\bfseries 77} (2017) 440}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07093}{{\ttfamily 1612.07093}}].
\bibitem{McKeen:2018xwc}
D.~McKeen, A.E.~Nelson, S.~Reddy and D.~Zhou, \emph{{Neutron stars exclude
light dark baryons}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.061802}{\emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
{\bfseries 121} (2018) 061802}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.08244}{{\ttfamily 1802.08244}}].
\bibitem{Baym:2018ljz}
G.~Baym, D.H.~Beck, P.~Geltenbort and J.~Shelton, \emph{{Testing dark decays of
baryons in neutron stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.061801}{\emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
{\bfseries 121} (2018) 061801}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.08282}{{\ttfamily 1802.08282}}].
\bibitem{motta2018a}
T.F.~{Motta}, P.A.M.~{Guichon} and A.W.~{Thomas}, \emph{{Neutron to dark matter
decay in neutron stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X18440207}{\emph{International Journal
of Modern Physics A} {\bfseries 33} (2018) 1844020}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.00903}{{\ttfamily 1806.00903}}].
\bibitem{motta2018b}
T.F.~{Motta}, P.A.M.~{Guichon} and A.W.~{Thomas}, \emph{{Implications of
neutron star properties for the existence of light dark matter}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/aab689}{\emph{Journal of Physics G
Nuclear Physics} {\bfseries 45} (2018) 05LT01}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.08427}{{\ttfamily 1802.08427}}].
\bibitem{Ivanytskyi:2019wxd}
O.~Ivanytskyi, V.~Sagun and I.~Lopes, \emph{{Neutron stars: New constraints on
asymmetric dark matter}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063028}{\emph{Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 102} (2020) 063028}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.09925}{{\ttfamily 1910.09925}}].
\bibitem{Bell:2020obw}
N.F.~Bell, G.~Busoni, T.F.~Motta, S.~Robles, A.W.~Thomas and M.~Virgato,
\emph{{Nucleon Structure and Strong Interactions in Dark Matter Capture in
Neutron Stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.111803}{\emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
{\bfseries 127} (2021) 111803}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.08918}{{\ttfamily 2012.08918}}].
\bibitem{berryman2022BNVProcesses}
J.M.~{Berryman}, S.~{Gardner} and M.~{Zakeri}, \emph{{Neutron Stars with Baryon
Number Violation, Probing Dark Sectors}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14030518}{\emph{Symmetry} {\bfseries 14}
(2022) 518} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.02637}{{\ttfamily
2201.02637}}].
\bibitem{Cassing:2022tnn}
M.~{Cassing}, A.~{Brisebois}, M.~{Azeem} and J.~{Schaffner-Bielich},
\emph{{Exotic Compact Objects with Two Dark Matter Fluids}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acb3be}{\emph{The Astrophysical
Journal} {\bfseries 944} (2023) 130}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13697}{{\ttfamily 2210.13697}}].
\bibitem{Fornal2019}
{Fornal, Bartosz} and {Grinstein, Benjam\'{\i}n}, \emph{Dark side of the
neutron?}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201921905005}{\emph{EPJ Web
Conf.} {\bfseries 219} (2019) 05005}.
\bibitem{fornal2020}
B.~{Fornal} and B.~{Grinstein}, \emph{{Neutron{\textquoteright}s dark secret}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732320300190}{\emph{Modern Physics Letters
A} {\bfseries 35} (2020) 2030019}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.13931}{{\ttfamily 2007.13931}}].
\bibitem{mueller1996}
H.~{M{\"u}ller} and B.D.~{Serot}, \emph{{Relativistic mean-field theory and the
high-density nuclear equation of state}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(96)00187-X}{\emph{Nuclear Physics A}
{\bfseries 606} (1996) 508}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/9603037}{{\ttfamily nucl-th/9603037}}].
\bibitem{tolos2017}
L.~{Tolos}, M.~{Centelles} and A.~{Ramos}, \emph{{Equation of State for
Nucleonic and Hyperonic Neutron Stars with Mass and Radius Constraints}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/3}{\emph{The Astrophysical
Journal} {\bfseries 834} (2017) 3}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00919}{{\ttfamily 1610.00919}}].
\bibitem{pradhan2022zeta}
B.K.~{Pradhan}, D.~{Chatterjee}, R.~{Gandhi} and J.~{Schaffner-Bielich},
\emph{{Role of vector self-interaction in neutron star properties}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122578}{\emph{Nuclear Physics
A} {\bfseries 1030} (2023) 122578}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.12657}{{\ttfamily 2209.12657}}].
\bibitem{hornick2018}
N.~{Hornick}, L.~{Tolos}, A.~{Zacchi}, J.-E.~{Christian} and
J.~{Schaffner-Bielich}, \emph{{Relativistic parameterizations of neutron
matter and implications for neutron stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.98.065804}{\emph{Physical Review C}
{\bfseries 98} (2018) 065804}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.06808}{{\ttfamily 1808.06808}}].
\bibitem{czarnecki2018}
A.~Czarnecki, W.J.~Marciano and A.~Sirlin, \emph{Neutron lifetime and axial
coupling connection},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.202002}{\emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
{\bfseries 120} (2018) 202002}.
\bibitem{pdg2022}
{\scshape Particle Data Group} collaboration, \emph{{Review of Particle
Physics}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptac097}{\emph{PTEP} {\bfseries
2022} (2022) 083C01}.
\bibitem{gonzalez2021}
{\scshape $\mathrm{UCN}\ensuremath{\tau}$ Collaboration} collaboration,
\emph{Improved neutron lifetime measurement with
$\mathrm{UCN}\ensuremath{\tau}$},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.162501}{\emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
{\bfseries 127} (2021) 162501}.
\bibitem{serebov2005}
A.~{Serebrov}, V.~{Varlamov}, A.~{Kharitonov}, A.~{Fomin}, Y.~{Pokotilovski},
P.~{Geltenbort} et~al., \emph{{Measurement of the neutron lifetime using a
gravitational trap and a low-temperature Fomblin coating}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2004.11.01310.48550/arXiv.nucl-ex/0408009}{\emph{Physics
Letters B} {\bfseries 605} (2005) 72}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0408009}{{\ttfamily nucl-ex/0408009}}].
\bibitem{pichlmaier2010}
A.~{Pichlmaier}, V.~{Varlamov}, K.~{Schreckenbach} and P.~{Geltenbort},
\emph{{Neutron lifetime measurement with the UCN trap-in-trap MAMBO II}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2010.08.032}{\emph{Physics Letters
B} {\bfseries 693} (2010) 221}.
\bibitem{steyerl2012}
A.~Steyerl, J.M.~Pendlebury, C.~Kaufman, S.S.~Malik and A.M.~Desai,
\emph{Quasielastic scattering in the interaction of ultracold neutrons with a
liquid wall and application in a reanalysis of the mambo i neutron-lifetime
experiment}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.065503}{\emph{Phys.
Rev. C} {\bfseries 85} (2012) 065503}.
\bibitem{arzumanov2015}
S.~{Arzumanov}, L.~{Bondarenko}, S.~{Chernyavsky}, P.~{Geltenbort},
V.~{Morozov}, V.V.~{Nesvizhevsky} et~al., \emph{{A measurement of the neutron
lifetime using the method of storage of ultracold neutrons and detection of
inelastically up-scattered neutrons}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.04.021}{\emph{Physics Letters
B} {\bfseries 745} (2015) 79}.
\bibitem{serebov2018}
A.P.~Serebrov, E.A.~Kolomensky, A.K.~Fomin, I.A.~Krasnoshchekova,
A.V.~Vassiljev, D.M.~Prudnikov et~al., \emph{Neutron lifetime measurements
with a large gravitational trap for ultracold neutrons},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.055503}{\emph{Phys. Rev. C}
{\bfseries 97} (2018) 055503}.
\bibitem{pattie2018}
R.W.~{Pattie}, N.B.~{Callahan}, C.~{Cude-Woods}, E.R.~{Adamek},
L.J.~{Broussard}, S.M.~{Clayton} et~al., \emph{{Measurement of the neutron
lifetime using a magneto-gravitational trap and in situ detection}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan889510.48550/arXiv.1707.01817}{\emph{Science}
{\bfseries 360} (2018) 627}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01817}{{\ttfamily 1707.01817}}].
\bibitem{ezhov2018}
V.F.~{Ezhov}, A.Z.~{Andreev}, G.~{Ban}, B.A.~{Bazarov}, P.~{Geltenbort},
A.G.~{Glushkov} et~al., \emph{{Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime with
Ultracold Neutrons Stored in a Magneto-Gravitational Trap}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1134/S0021364018110024}{\emph{Soviet Journal of
Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters} {\bfseries 107} (2018) 671}.
\bibitem{byrne1996}
J.~{Byrne}, P.G.~{Dawber}, C.G.~{Habeck}, S.J.~{Smidt}, J.A.~{Spain} and
A.P.~{Williams}, \emph{{A revised value for the neutron lifetime measured
using a Penning trap}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1209/epl/i1996-00319-x}{\emph{EPL (Europhysics
Letters)} {\bfseries 33} (1996) 187}.
\bibitem{Yue2013}
A.T.~Yue, M.S.~Dewey, D.M.~Gilliam, G.L.~Greene, A.B.~Laptev, J.S.~Nico et~al.,
\emph{Improved determination of the neutron lifetime},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.222501}{\emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
{\bfseries 111} (2013) 222501}.
\bibitem{tang2018}
Z.~Tang, M.~Blatnik, L.J.~Broussard, J.H.~Choi, S.M.~Clayton, C.~Cude-Woods
et~al., \emph{Search for the neutron decay
$n\ensuremath{\rightarrow}x+\ensuremath{\gamma}$, where $x$ is a dark matter
particle}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.022505}{\emph{Phys.
Rev. Lett.} {\bfseries 121} (2018) 022505}.
\bibitem{strumia2022}
A.~{Strumia}, \emph{{Dark Matter interpretation of the neutron decay anomaly}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2022)06710.48550/arXiv.2112.09111}{\emph{Journal
of High Energy Physics} {\bfseries 2022} (2022) 67}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.09111}{{\ttfamily 2112.09111}}].
\bibitem{husain2022b}
W.~{Husain} and A.W.~{Thomas}, \emph{{Novel neutron decay mode inside neutron
stars}}, {\emph{arXiv e-prints} (2022) arXiv:2206.11262}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.11262}{{\ttfamily 2206.11262}}].
\bibitem{flanagan2008}
{\'E}.{\'E}.~{Flanagan} and T.~{Hinderer}, \emph{{Constraining neutron-star
tidal Love numbers with gravitational-wave detectors}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.021502}{\emph{Physical Review D}
{\bfseries 77} (2008) 021502}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.1915}{{\ttfamily 0709.1915}}].
\bibitem{hinderer2008}
T.~{Hinderer}, \emph{{Tidal Love Numbers of Neutron Stars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1086/533487}{\emph{The Astrophysical Journal}
{\bfseries 677} (2008) 1216}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2420}{{\ttfamily 0711.2420}}].
\bibitem{damour2009}
T.~{Damour} and A.~{Nagar}, \emph{{Relativistic tidal properties of neutron
stars}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.084035}{\emph{Physical
Review D} {\bfseries 80} (2009) 084035}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0096}{{\ttfamily 0906.0096}}].
\bibitem{yagi2013prd}
K.~{Yagi} and N.~{Yunes}, \emph{{I-Love-Q relations in neutron stars and their
applications to astrophysics, gravitational waves, and fundamental physics}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.023009}{\emph{Physical Review D}
{\bfseries 88} (2013) 023009}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1528}{{\ttfamily 1303.1528}}].
\bibitem{riley2021}
T.E.~{Riley}, A.L.~{Watts}, P.S.~{Ray}, S.~{Bogdanov}, S.~{Guillot},
S.M.~{Morsink} et~al., \emph{{A NICER View of the Massive Pulsar PSR
J0740+6620 Informed by Radio Timing and XMM-Newton Spectroscopy}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81}{\emph{The Astrophysical
Journal Letters} {\bfseries 918} (2021) L27}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.06980}{{\ttfamily 2105.06980}}].
\bibitem{romani2022}
R.W.~{Romani}, D.~{Kandel}, A.V.~{Filippenko}, T.G.~{Brink} and W.~{Zheng},
\emph{{PSR J0952-0607: The Fastest and Heaviest Known Galactic Neutron
Star}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac8007}{\emph{The
Astrophysical Journal Letters} {\bfseries 934} (2022) L17}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05124}{{\ttfamily 2207.05124}}].
\bibitem{fonseca2021}
E.~{Fonseca}, H.T.~{Cromartie}, T.T.~{Pennucci}, P.S.~{Ray}, A.Y.~{Kirichenko},
S.M.~{Ransom} et~al., \emph{{Refined Mass and Geometric Measurements of the
High-mass PSR J0740+6620}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8}{\emph{The Astrophysical
Journal Letters} {\bfseries 915} (2021) L12}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.00880}{{\ttfamily 2104.00880}}].
\bibitem{flowers1976}
E.~{Flowers} and N.~{Itoh}, \emph{{Transport properties of dense matter.}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1086/154375}{\emph{The Astrophysical Journal}
{\bfseries 206} (1976) 218}.
\bibitem{flowers1979}
E.~{Flowers} and N.~{Itoh}, \emph{{Transport properties of dense matter. II.}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1086/157145}{\emph{The Astrophysical Journal}
{\bfseries 230} (1979) 847}.
\bibitem{cutler1987}
C.~{Cutler} and L.~{Lindblom}, \emph{{The Effect of Viscosity on Neutron Star
Oscillations}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1086/165052}{\emph{The Astrophysical
Journal} {\bfseries 314} (1987) 234}.
\bibitem{zurek2014asymmetric}
K.M.~{Zurek}, \emph{{Asymmetric Dark Matter: Theories, signatures, and
constraints}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2013.12.001}{\emph{Physics Reports}
{\bfseries 537} (2014) 91} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0338}{{\ttfamily
1308.0338}}].
\bibitem{Tulin2018}
S.~{Tulin} and H.-B.~{Yu}, \emph{{Dark matter self-interactions and small scale
structure}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004}{\emph{Physics Reports}
{\bfseries 730} (2018) 1} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.02358}{{\ttfamily
1705.02358}}].
\bibitem{Loeb:2010gj}
A.~Loeb and N.~Weiner, \emph{{Cores in Dwarf Galaxies from Dark Matter with a
Yukawa Potential}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.171302}{\emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
{\bfseries 106} (2011) 171302}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6374}{{\ttfamily 1011.6374}}].
\bibitem{Kaplinghat:2015aga}
M.~Kaplinghat, S.~Tulin and H.-B.~Yu, \emph{{Dark Matter Halos as Particle
Colliders: Unified Solution to Small-Scale Structure Puzzles from Dwarfs to
Clusters}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.041302}{\emph{Phys.
Rev. Lett.} {\bfseries 116} (2016) 041302}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.03339}{{\ttfamily 1508.03339}}].
\bibitem{Sagunski:2020spe}
L.~Sagunski, S.~Gad-Nasr, B.~Colquhoun, A.~Robertson and S.~Tulin,
\emph{{Velocity-dependent Self-interacting Dark Matter from Groups and
Clusters of Galaxies}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/01/024}{\emph{JCAP} {\bfseries
01} (2021) 024} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12515}{{\ttfamily
2006.12515}}].
\bibitem{URCABV1}
P.~Haensel and R.~Schaeffer, \emph{Bulk viscosity of hot-neutron-star matter
from direct urca processes},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.45.4708}{\emph{Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 45} (1992) 4708}.
\bibitem{URCABV2}
P.~{Haensel}, K.P.~{Levenfish} and D.G.~{Yakovlev}, \emph{{Bulk viscosity in
superfluid neutron star cores. I. Direct Urca processes in npemu matter}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0004183}{\emph{A\&A} {\bfseries
357} (2000) 1157} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004183}{{\ttfamily
astro-ph/0004183}}].
\bibitem{Sawyer1989}
R.F.~Sawyer, \emph{Bulk viscosity of hot neutron-star matter and the maximum
rotation rates of neutron stars},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.39.3804}{\emph{Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 39} (1989) 3804}.
\bibitem{mURCABV2}
{Haensel, P.}, {Levenfish, K. P.} and {Yakovlev, D. G.}, \emph{Bulk viscosity
in superfluid neutron star cores - ii. modified urca processes in npeu
matter}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20010383}{\emph{A\&A}
{\bfseries 372} (2001) 130}.
\bibitem{Jones2001}
P.B.~Jones, \emph{Bulk viscosity of neutron-star matter},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.084003}{\emph{Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 64} (2001) 084003}.
\bibitem{Provost1981}
J.~{Provost}, G.~{Berthomieu} and A.~{Rocca}, \emph{{Low Frequency Oscillations
of a Slowly Rotating Star - Quasi Toroidal Modes}}, {\emph{Astronomy and
Astrophysics} {\bfseries 94} (1981) 126}.
\bibitem{Ghosh2022}
S.~{Ghosh}, D.~{Pathak} and D.~{Chatterjee}, \emph{{Relativistic Correction to
the r-mode Frequency in Light of Multimessenger Constraints}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acb0d3}{\emph{The Astrophysical
Journal} {\bfseries 944} (2023) 53}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.11941}{{\ttfamily 2209.11941}}].
\bibitem{ghosh2023universal}
S.~{Ghosh}, \emph{{Universal relations to measure neutron star properties from
targeted r-mode searches}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.12356}{\emph{arXiv e-prints} (2023)
arXiv:2304.12356} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.12356}{{\ttfamily
2304.12356}}].
\bibitem{Chang_2018}
C.C.~Chang, A.N.~Nicholson, E.~Rinaldi, E.~Berkowitz, N.~Garron, D.A.~Brantley
et~al., \emph{A per-cent-level determination of the nucleon axial coupling
from quantum chromodynamics},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0161-8}{\emph{Nature} {\bfseries
558} (2018) 91}.
\bibitem{Alford2014}
M.G.~Alford and K.~Schwenzer, \emph{What the timing of millisecond pulsars can
teach us about their interior},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.251102}{\emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
{\bfseries 113} (2014) 251102}.
\bibitem{Shternin2008}
P.S.~Shternin and D.G.~Yakovlev, \emph{Shear viscosity in neutron star cores},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.063006}{\emph{Phys. Rev. D}
{\bfseries 78} (2008) 063006}.
\bibitem{Haskell2012}
B.~Haskell, N.~Degenaar and W.C.G.~Ho, \emph{{Constraining the physics of the
r-mode instability in neutron stars with X-ray and ultraviolet
observations}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21171.x}{\emph{Monthly Notices
of the Royal Astronomical Society} {\bfseries 424} (2012) 93}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/424/1/93/3256129/mnras0424-0093.pdf}{{\ttfamily
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/424/1/93/3256129/mnras0424-0093.pdf}}].
\bibitem{luminosity}
E.H.~{Gudmundsson}, C.J.~{Pethick} and R.I.~{Epstein}, \emph{{Structure of
neutron star envelopes}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1086/161292}{\emph{The
Astrophysical Journal} {\bfseries 272} (1983) 286}.
\bibitem{Alford2014a}
M.G.~{Alford} and K.~{Schwenzer}, \emph{{Gravitational Wave Emission and
Spin-down of Young Pulsars}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/26}{\emph{The Astrophysical
Journal} {\bfseries 781} (2014) 26}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6091}{{\ttfamily 1210.6091}}].
\bibitem{ATNF}
R.N.~{Manchester}, G.B.~{Hobbs}, A.~{Teoh} and M.~{Hobbs}, \emph{{The Australia
Telescope National Facility Pulsar Catalogue}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1086/428488}{\emph{Astronomical Journal} {\bfseries
129} (2005) 1993} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412641}{{\ttfamily
astro-ph/0412641}}].
\end{thebibliography}\endgroup