Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Phenomenology of Neutrino-Dark Matter Interaction in DSNB and AGN

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Neutrino flux attenuation yields new upper bounds on neutrino–dark matter coupling, with AGN sources giving the strongest limits.

desk verdict DSNB/DUNE part is a solid, useful sensitivity study; the AGN bounds are real but ride on an unquantified 4 Rs emission-radius assumption the paper never flags. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08537 v2 pith:DKMFTB5F submitted 2024-12-11 hep-ph

Po-Yan Tseng , Yu-Min Yeh This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords darkmatterneutrino-darkinteractiondiffusesupernovaneutrinobackgroundactivegalacticnucleiDMspikeattenuationIceCubeDUNE
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a light scalar dark matter particle φ that couples to neutrinos through a heavy fermion mediator F imprints itself by attenuating neutrino fluxes from cosmic sources. Using two very different source classes—the MeV-energy Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background and TeV-PeV neutrinos from AGNs NGC 1068 and TXS 0506+056—it converts attenuation into upper bounds on the coupling y and on the cross-section parameter σ0. The DSNB analysis, with Super-K data and projected DUNE/Hyper-K exposures, sets limits in the low-mass region; the AGN analysis, incorporating a dark-matter spike around each supermassive black hole, yields constraints that the paper finds more stringent than earlier DSNB-Xenon1T and DSNB-SuperK limits for mφ between 1e-6 and 1 GeV. The AGN bounds are explicitly conditional on the existence of a DM spike at the center of each AGN, which the paper flags as its main caveat.

What carries the argument

The central object is the νφ scattering cross section, which has distinct energy dependences in different kinematic regions: σ ∝ Eν² for Eν ≪ mφ ≈ mF, an energy-independent form when mF = mφ ≫ Eν, σ ∝ Eν⁻¹ for Eν ≫ mφ, and σ ∝ Eν in the heavy-mediator limit mF² ≫ Eν mφ ≫ mφ². The argument also relies on the transmittance $e^{{-τ}}$ from the optical depth integral, the DM spike density profile ρ_sp with a saturation density set by φφ* annihilation, and the IceCube event-count comparison through the ratio N_sct/N ≥ Q for each AGN source.

What would settle it

Measure the dark-matter density in the inner several hundred parsecs of NGC 1068 (e.g., through stellar kinematics or gravitational lensing) and check whether the density at r = 4Rs approaches the assumed spike profile; if the density is lower by an order of magnitude or more, the AGN optical depth and the resulting bounds weaken correspondingly, while the DSNB-DUNE prediction would be unaffected.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that neutrino–scalar dark matter scattering, mediated by a fermion F, attenuates astrophysical neutrino fluxes in an energy-dependent way, and that measuring this attenuation at existing and upcoming detectors sets meaningful upper limits on the coupling. For the DSNB, the cross section behaves as σνφ ∝ Eν² at low energy or becomes energy independent in the degenerate-mass limit, and the resulting flux suppression is computed including cosmological redshift and then compared with Super-K observations and projected DUNE/Hyper-K event rates. For AGNs, the paper chooses the kinematic region mF² ≫ Eν mφ ≫ mφ², where σνφ ∝ Eν, and computes the optical depth through a DM spike profile around each supermassive black hole, including saturation of the spike density from φφ* annihilation. The resulting constraints on σ0 for NGC 1068 and TXS 0506+056 are stronger than the DSNB-based limits over a broad mass range, with σ0 running from about 7 × 10⁻³⁸ cm² to 3 × 10⁻²⁷ cm² for mφ between 1e-6 and 1 GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The AGN constraints assume that a dark-matter spike with a specific density profile and fixed parameters (black-hole mass, age, and influence radius) exists at the center of NGC 1068 and TXS 0506+056, and if the spike does not form or has different parameters, the resulting bounds change substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DUNE, Hyper-Kamiokande, and Super-K can probe the neutrino–dark matter coupling y in the low-mass region through a detectable suppression of the DSNB flux in the open energy window between 10.8 and 26.4 MeV.
  • The AGN constraints from NGC 1068 and TXS 0506+056 are more stringent than the earlier DSNB-Xenon1T and DSNB-SuperK bounds for mφ between about 1e-6 and 1 GeV.
  • For TXS 0506+056, the high neutrino energy makes the Eν-linear cross section very effective, so its constraint remains strong even with a much lower allowed event-fraction Q = 0.05.
  • Dark-matter self-annihilation saturates the spike density for heavier φ, weakening the AGN bounds and making the σ0 upper bound rise steeply for mφ above about 1e-4 GeV.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A more robust version of the AGN bound would marginalize over the spike parameters (MBH, tBH, rh) rather than fixing them to representative values; the paper's central caveat is that the bounds weaken substantially if the spike is absent.
  • Because the νφ cross section grows linearly with neutrino energy, the same analysis could be extended to map the dark-matter column density as a function of redshift by stacking neutrino sources at different distances.
  • The coupling of spike saturation to φφ* annihilation suggests that neutrino attenuation and dark-matter self-annihilation could be constrained jointly with future multimessenger observations, separating the two effects through the spectral shape of the attenuation.
  • If no DM spike forms at the center of AGNs, the DSNB-based limits become the more robust channel; the paper's comparison of AGN and DSNB bounds therefore depends on which astrophysical environment is better understood.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a neutrino–scalar dark matter interaction mediated by a fermion, computes the νφ scattering cross section in different kinematic limits, and uses the resulting flux attenuation to constrain the coupling. The DSNB part models the diffuse supernova neutrino background with a Fermi–Dirac spectrum and a star-formation-rate parametrization, computes event rates at Super-Kamiokande, Hyper-Kamiokande, and DUNE, and derives upper bounds on y versus mφ using a Poisson likelihood. The AGN part assumes a DM spike at the centers of NGC 1068 and TXS 0506+056, includes saturation by φφ* annihilation, computes the optical depth for neutrinos emitted at the inner edge of the spike, and uses IceCube event rates to set upper bounds on σ0 versus mφ. The paper concludes that the AGN bounds are more stringent than existing DSNB-Xenon1T and DSNB-SuperK limits, while explicitly cautioning that the AGN results rely on the existence of a DM spike.

Significance. If the constraints are robust, the paper provides useful new limits on neutrino–dark matter interactions in the high-energy regime where σ ∝ Eν, and it combines two complementary sources (MeV DSNB and TeV–PeV AGN neutrinos). The authors make several good choices: they use the νFATE package to treat the cascade attenuation, they provide detailed appendices for the cross sections and the νAr scattering calculation, and they explicitly show the effect of φφ* annihilation on the spike saturation density. The main value of the paper is the quantitative comparison of DSNB and AGN probes within one model; however, as discussed in the major comments, the AGN constraints rest on an unquantified geometric assumption about the neutrino emission radius that is not acknowledged in the paper's caveats.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, Eqs. (4.8) and (4.14)] The optical depth is computed by integrating the DM column from r = 4Rs to the observer, which places the neutrino source at the inner edge of the DM spike. For the adopted r^{-7/3} spike profile, the column density from an emission radius r_emit to Rsp scales as r_emit^{-4/3} (neglecting the Rsp term), so increasing r_emit from 4Rs to 100Rs reduces τ by about a factor of 25^{4/3} ≈ 73 and correspondingly relaxes the upper bound on σ0 by the same factor. For TXS 0506+056, blazar emission regions are commonly modeled at 0.1–10 pc from the central engine, which for MBH = 3×10^8 M⊙ corresponds to roughly 10^3–10^5 Rs; even at the lower end of this range the constraints would weaken by several orders of magnitude. The manuscript's caveat at the end of Section 5 mentions only the existence of the DM spike, not the emission-radius assumption. The authors should either justify 4Rs as the appropriate emission radius or quantify the dependence of all AGN constraints on r_emit, since the claim that the AGN bounds are more stringent than DSNB-Xenon1T/SuperK is not robust to this geometric uncertainty.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (4.11)] The AGN constraints are derived by requiring Nsct/N ≥ Q with Q = 0.5 (NGC 1068) and Q = 0.05 (TXS 0506+056), where the text says these values include the IceCube uncertainties. The mapping between the quoted experimental uncertainties and these thresholds is not shown. Because the upper bound on σ0 is set approximately by the condition e^{-τ} ≈ Q (or the equivalent attenuation level), a factor-of-2 change in Q shifts the bounds by a factor of about 2 in σ0. The authors should derive Q from the measured fluxes and their errors, or alternatively show the bounds for a range of Q values, so that the quantitative comparison with previous limits is not tied to an unexplained choice.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the typo 'Kamionkande'; it should read 'Kamiokande'.
  2. [Section 1, paragraph 1] The phrase 'through the upper scattering with cosmic electrons or neutrinos' should presumably be 'through upscattering by cosmic electrons or neutrinos'.
  3. [Section 4, paragraph after Eq. (4.14)] The sentence 'For TXS 0506+056, , since the energy range...' contains a double comma before 'since'.
  4. [Appendix A, after Eq. (A.10)] The phrase 'As For the ϕϕ∗ annihilation' should read 'As for the ϕϕ∗ annihilation'.
  5. [Section 4, paragraph after Eq. (4.14)] 'The contribution for r > Ris negligible' contains a typo; it should be 'r > R is negligible'.
  6. [Table 1, caption] The caption begins with 'T able 1' due to a formatting artifact; it should read 'Table 1'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central DSNB/AGN constraints are self-contained parameter scans; only the DSNB benchmark-point 'detectable suppression' statement is a minor by-construction illustration.

  1. other [Sec. 3 (Fig. 2, Table 1) and Sec. 5 Conclusion]
    "There are four selected benchmark points on the margin of DUNE fiducial curve. ... We can see that all of the BPs can be distinguished from the unattenuated DSNB flux and produce the detectable suppression signal. ... the benchmark points in Table 1 predict the detectable attenuation of DSNB fluxes."

    Each BP is selected on the DUNE fiducial sensitivity curve of Fig. 2, i.e., on the 2σ contour defined by χ2_νϕ − χ2_no-νϕ = 4 from the Poisson likelihood in Eq. (3.9). A parameter set on that contour is, by construction, one for which the attenuated DSNB flux differs from the unattenuated flux at the 2σ level in the same statistical test. The statement that the BPs 'produce the detectable suppression signal' therefore restates the selection criterion rather than providing an independent prediction. This illustrative claim is non-load-bearing: the central upper-bound curves are obtained by scanning (m_ϕ, y) and do not depend on the BPs.

full rationale

The main derivation is not circular. For DSNB, the attenuated flux is computed from Eq. (3.4) with the transmittance (2.6), event rates from Eq. (3.7), and a Poisson χ2 (3.9) against external SK/DUNE assumptions; the resulting (m_ϕ, y) bounds are a parameter scan, not a fit renamed as a prediction. For AGN, Eqs. (4.8)-(4.11) integrate a DM spike profile and require the attenuated IceCube event fraction to remain above Q; the spike saturation depends on the same coupling through ϕϕ* annihilation, but this is a coupled physical relation rather than a definitional equivalence. The self-citations (e.g., Ref. [11]) are background context and are not load-bearing. The acknowledged reliance on a DM spike and the unquantified choice of the neutrino emission radius (r_i = 4R_s in Eq. (4.8)) are modeling assumptions and robustness caveats, not circular steps. The only reduction-by-construction statement found is the illustrative DSNB benchmark-point 'prediction' described above; because the BPs are chosen on the very sensitivity contour used to claim detectability, that particular sentence is tautological. This does not undermine the central bounds, so the overall circularity is minor.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard treatments of the DSNB flux and on the theoretical DM spike profile for AGNs. The paper does not introduce new particles or entities. The model parameters y, m_phi, and m_F are scanned or fixed by hand rather than fitted to data, and the plotted constraints are sensitive to several fixed inputs (m_F/m_phi, E0, Q values).

free parameters (5)
  • m_F/m_phi ratio = 1.1
    Fixed by hand to avoid the divergence in the DSNB cross section when m_F equals m_phi (Section 2, after Eq. (2.5)).
  • E0 = 10 TeV
    Arbitrary rescale energy used to define sigma0 in Eq. (2.5); the plotted sigma0 bounds are quoted for E0 = 10 TeV.
  • Q_NGC = 0.5
    Chosen threshold for the ratio of surviving to unattenuated events in NGC 1068; the resulting sigma0 bound scales with this choice.
  • Q_TXS = 0.05
    Chosen threshold for TXS 0506+056 constraint; the bound is sensitive to this value.
  • m_F (AGN) = 10 TeV
    Chosen so the kinematic region m_F^2 much greater than E_nu m_phi holds; Fig. 4 varies m_F, showing the bound moves for smaller m_F.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Lambda-CDM cosmology with Planck parameters H0, Omega_m, Omega_Lambda
    Used in the optical depth integral Eq. (2.6) and (2.7).
  • domain assumption Supernova neutrino spectrum is a thermal Fermi-Dirac distribution with T_nu = 6.6 MeV
    Used for DSNB flux in Eq. (3.1); the temperature is fixed to a representative value from Ref. [17].
  • domain assumption Core-collapse supernova rate follows the star-formation rate parametrization with Salpeter IMF
    Used to compute the DSNB flux in Eq. (3.2) and (3.3).
  • domain assumption The AGN neutrino flux follows a single power law with the IceCube best-fit spectral index (gamma = 3.2 for NGC 1068, gamma = 2 for TXS 0506+056)
    Used in the event rate ratio Eq. (4.10) and (4.11); the authors note the constraints depend on these flux models.
  • domain assumption Dark matter forms a spike around the SMBH with profile given by Eq. (4.1) to (4.7), with saturation from phi-phi* annihilation
    Central to the AGN attenuation calculation; explicitly flagged in the abstract and Section 5 as relying on theoretical spike formation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phenomenology of Neutrino-Dark Matter Interaction in DSNB and AGN." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DKMFTB5F

@misc{pith2026241208537,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phenomenology of Neutrino-Dark Matter Interaction in DSNB and AGN},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DKMFTB5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08537}
}
abstract

We investigate a neutrino-scalar dark matter (DM) $\nu\phi$ interaction encountering distinctive neutrino sources, namely Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background (DSNB) and Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN). The interaction is mediated by a fermionic particle $F$, in which the $\nu\phi$ scattering cross section characterizes different energy dependent with respect to the kinematic regions, and manifests itself through the attenuation of neutrino fluxes from these sources. We model the unscattered neutrino flux from DSNB via core-collapse supernova (CCSN) and star-formation rate (SFR), then incorporate the present Super-Kamionkande and future DUNE/Hyper-Kamiokande experiments to set limits on DM-neutrino interaction. For AGNs, NGC 1068 and TXS 0506+056, where the neutrino carries energy above TeV, we select the kinematic region $m^2_F \gg E_\nu m_\phi \gg m^2_\phi$ such that the $\nu \phi$ scattering cross section features an enhancement at high energy. Furthermore, taking into account the DM spike profile at the center of AGN, we constrain on $m_\phi$ and scattering cross section via computing the neutrino flux at IceCube, where the $\phi\phi^*$ annihilation cross section is implemented to determine the saturation density of the spikes. Notice that the later results heavily rely on the existence of DM spike at the center of AGN, otherwise, our results may alter.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Astrophysical Neutrino Sources as Colliders

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Neutrino point-source observations (IceCube, KM3NeT) can bound inelastic pp and pγ cross sections from √s ≈ 1 GeV to ~10^5 GeV, extending beyond LHC/HERA and sometimes below unitarity limits.

  2. Dark matter scattering with pre-supernova neutrinos

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Attenuation of pre-supernova electron antineutrinos by local dark matter yields upper limits on the reduced DM–ν cross section of order 10^{-21} cm^{2}/GeV at detectors such as JUNO, Super-K and KamLAND.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Cosmological bounds on dark matter-neutrino interactions

    G. Mangano, A. Melchiorri, P. Serra, A. Cooray, and M. Kamionkowski, “Cosmological bounds on dark matter-neutrino interactions”, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 043517, astro-ph/0606190

    arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    Imprints of light dark matter on the evolution of cosmic neutrinos

    I. R. Wang and X.-J. Xu, “Imprints of light dark matter on the evolution of cosmic neutrinos”, JCAP 05 (2024) 050, arXiv:2312.17151

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Hints of dark matter-neutrino interactions in Lyman- α data

    D. C. Hooper and M. Lucca, “Hints of dark matter-neutrino interactions in Lyman- α data”, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 10, 103504, arXiv:2110.04024

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Dark Matter Neutrino Scattering in the Galactic Center with IceCube

    IceCube Collaboration, A. McMullen, A. Vincent, C. Arguelles, and A. Schneider, “Dark matter neutrino scattering in the galactic centre with IceCube”, JINST 16 (2021), no. 08, C08001, arXiv:2107.11491

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Dips in the Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background

    Y. Farzan and S. Palomares-Ruiz, “Dips in the Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background”, JCAP 06 (2014) 014, arXiv:1401.7019

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Constraints on dark matter-neutrino scattering from the Milky-Way satellites and subhalo modeling for dark acoustic oscillations

    K. Akita and S. Ando, “Constraints on dark matter-neutrino scattering from the Milky-Way satellites and subhalo modeling for dark acoustic oscillations”, JCAP 11 (2023) 037, arXiv:2305.01913

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    New constraints on the dark matter-neutrino and dark matter-photon scattering cross sections from TXS 0506+056

    F. Ferrer, G. Herrera, and A. Ibarra, “New constraints on the dark matter-neutrino and dark matter-photon scattering cross sections from TXS 0506+056”, JCAP 05 (2023) 057, arXiv:2209.06339

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Tidal disruption events and dark matter scatterings with neutrinos and photons

    M. Fujiwara and G. Herrera, “Tidal disruption events and dark matter scatterings with neutrinos and photons”, Phys. Lett. B 851 (2024) 138573, arXiv:2312.11670

    arXiv 2024

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Exclusion limits on dark matter-neutrino scattering cross section

    D. Ghosh, A. Guha, and D. Sachdeva, “Exclusion limits on dark matter-neutrino scattering cross section”, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 10, 103029, arXiv:2110.00025

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Speeding up dark matter with solar neutrinos

    Y. Zhang, “Speeding up dark matter with solar neutrinos”, PTEP 2022 (2022), no. 1, 013B05, arXiv:2001.00948

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cosmic-Neutrino-Boosted Dark Matter (νBDM)

    Y. Jho, J.-C. Park, S. C. Park, and P.-Y. Tseng, “Cosmic-Neutrino-Boosted Dark Matter (νBDM)”, arXiv:2101.11262

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    (In)direct Detection of Boosted Dark Matter

    K. Agashe, Y. Cui, L. Necib, and J. Thaler, “(In)direct Detection of Boosted Dark Matter”, JCAP 10 (2014) 062, arXiv:1405.7370

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Energy-dependent boosted dark matter from diffuse supernova neutrino background

    A. Das, T. Herbermann, M. Sen, and V. Takhistov, “Energy-dependent boosted dark matter from diffuse supernova neutrino background”, JCAP 07 (2024) 045, arXiv:2403.15367

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bounds on neutrino-DM interactions from TXS 0506+056 neutrino outburst

    G. D. Zapata, J. Jones-P´ erez, and A. M. Gago, “Bounds on neutrino-DM interactions from TXS 0506+056 neutrino outburst”, arXiv:2503.03823

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    The Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background

    J. F. Beacom, “The Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 439–462, arXiv:1004.3311

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    The Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background is detectable in Super-Kamiokande

    S. Horiuchi, J. F. Beacom, and E. Dwek, “The Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background is detectable in Super-Kamiokande”, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 083013, arXiv:0812.3157

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Fundamental physics with the diffuse supernova background neutrinos

    A. De Gouvˆ ea, I. Martinez-Soler, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and M. Sen, “Fundamental physics with the diffuse supernova background neutrinos”, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 123012, arXiv:2007.13748. – 17 –

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Supernova Relic Neutrino Search with Neutron Tagging at Super-Kamiokande-IV

    Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, H. Zhang et al., “Supernova Relic Neutrino Search with Neutron Tagging at Super-Kamiokande-IV”, Astropart. Phys. 60 (2015) 41–46, arXiv:1311.3738

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Diffuse supernova neutrino background search at Super-Kamiokande

    Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, K. Abe et al., “Diffuse supernova neutrino background search at Super-Kamiokande”, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 12, 122002, arXiv:2109.11174

    2021

  12. [20]

    Hyper-Kamiokande Experiment: A Snowmass White Paper

    Hyper-Kamiokande Collaboration, J. Bian et al., “Hyper-Kamiokande Experiment: A Snowmass White Paper”, in “Snowmass 2021”. 3 2022. arXiv:2203.02029

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume I Introduction to DUNE

    DUNE Collaboration, B. Abi et al., “Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume I Introduction to DUNE”, JINST 15 (2020), no. 08, T08008, arXiv:2002.02967

    2020

  14. [22]

    Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics

    DUNE Collaboration, B. Abi et al., “Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics”, arXiv:2002.03005

    2002

  15. [23]

    Evidence for neutrino emission from the nearby active galaxy NGC 1068

    IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasi et al., “Evidence for neutrino emission from the nearby active galaxy NGC 1068”, Science 378 (2022), no. 6619, 538–543, arXiv:2211.09972

    2022

  16. [24]

    Neutrino emission from the direction of the blazar TXS 0506+056 prior to the IceCube-170922A alert

    IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al., “Neutrino emission from the direction of the blazar TXS 0506+056 prior to the IceCube-170922A alert”, Science 361 (2018), no. 6398, 147–151, arXiv:1807.08794

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Multimessenger observations of a flaring blazar coincident with high-energy neutrino IceCube-170922A

    IceCube, F ermi-LA T, MAGIC, AGILE, ASAS-SN, HA WC, H.E.S.S., INTEGRAL, Kanata, Kiso, Kapteyn, Liverpool T elescope, Subaru, Swift NuST AR, VERIT AS, VLA/17B-403Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al., “Multimessenger observations of a flaring blazar coincident with high-energy ne...

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center

    P. Gondolo and J. Silk, “Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 1719–1722, astro-ph/9906391

    1999 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Probing Light Dark Matter through Cosmic-Ray Cooling in Active Galactic Nuclei

    G. Herrera and K. Murase, “Probing Light Dark Matter through Cosmic-Ray Cooling in Active Galactic Nuclei”, arXiv:2307.09460

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    NGC 1068 constraints on neutrino-dark matter scattering

    J. M. Cline and M. Puel, “NGC 1068 constraints on neutrino-dark matter scattering”, JCAP 06 (2023) 004, arXiv:2301.08756

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Scalar dark matter candidates

    C. Boehm and P. Fayet, “Scalar dark matter candidates”, Nucl. Phys. B 683 (2004) 219–263, hep-ph/0305261

    2004 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Are There Real Goldstone Bosons Associated with Broken Lepton Number?

    Y. Chikashige, R. N. Mohapatra, and R. D. Peccei, “Are There Real Goldstone Bosons Associated with Broken Lepton Number?”, Phys. Lett. B 98 (1981) 265–268

    1981

  23. [31]

    Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in Majoron models of neutrino mass

    P. Di Bari, D. Marfatia, and Y.-L. Zhou, “Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in Majoron models of neutrino mass”, JHEP 10 (2021) 193, arXiv:2106.00025

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Astrophysical neutrino point sources as a probe of new physics

    C. D¨ oring and S. Vogl, “Astrophysical neutrino point sources as a probe of new physics”, arXiv:2304.08533

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    AGN constraints on neutrino-dark matter scattering

    J. M. Cline, “AGN constraints on neutrino-dark matter scattering”, in “58th Rencontres de Moriond on Very High Energy Phenomena in the Universe”. 4 2024. arXiv:2404.19471

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    High-energy neutrino attenuation in the Earth and its associated uncertainties

    A. C. Vincent, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, and A. Kheirandish, “High-energy neutrino attenuation in the Earth and its associated uncertainties”, JCAP 11 (2017) 012, arXiv:1706.09895

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Boosted dark matter from diffuse supernova neutrinos

    A. Das and M. Sen, “Boosted dark matter from diffuse supernova neutrinos”, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 7, 075029, arXiv:2104.00027. – 18 –

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters”, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, arXiv:1807.06209, [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Revealing the High-Redshift Star Formation Rate with Gamma-Ray Bursts

    H. Yuksel, M. D. Kistler, J. F. Beacom, and A. M. Hopkins, “Revealing the High-Redshift Star Formation Rate with Gamma-Ray Bursts”, Astrophys. J. Lett. 683 (2008) L5–L8, arXiv:0804.4008

    2008 arXiv

  30. [38]

    The Luminosity function and stellar evolution

    E. E. Salpeter, “The Luminosity function and stellar evolution”, Astrophys. J. 121 (1955) 161–167

    1955

  31. [39]

    Nuclear Effects in Neutrino Detection

    S. J. Gardiner, “Nuclear Effects in Neutrino Detection”, PhD thesis, UC, Davis, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Measuring the supernova unknowns at the next-generation neutrino telescopes through the diffuse neutrino background

    K. Møller, A. M. Suliga, I. Tamborra, and P. B. Denton, “Measuring the supernova unknowns at the next-generation neutrino telescopes through the diffuse neutrino background”, JCAP 05 (2018) 066, arXiv:1804.03157

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Imaging Galactic Dark Matter with High-Energy Cosmic Neutrinos

    C. A. Arg¨ uelles, A. Kheirandish, and A. C. Vincent, “Imaging Galactic Dark Matter with High-Energy Cosmic Neutrinos”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017), no. 20, 201801, arXiv:1703.00451

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    The full Boltzmann hierarchy for dark matter-massive neutrino interactions

    M. R. Mosbech, C. Boehm, S. Hannestad, O. Mena, J. Stadler, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, “The full Boltzmann hierarchy for dark matter-massive neutrino interactions”, JCAP 03 (2021) 066, arXiv:2011.04206

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Constraints on dark matter–neutrino interaction from 21-cm cosmology and forecasts on SKA1-Low

    A. Dey, A. Paul, and S. Pal, “Constraints on dark matter–neutrino interaction from 21-cm cosmology and forecasts on SKA1-Low”, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524 (2023), no. 1, 100–107, arXiv:2207.02451

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Dark Matter Profile in the Galactic Center

    O. Y. Gnedin and J. R. Primack, “Dark Matter Profile in the Galactic Center”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 061302, astro-ph/0308385

    2004 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Blazar Constraints on Neutrino-Dark Matter Scattering

    J. M. Cline, S. Gao, F. Guo, Z. Lin, S. Liu, M. Puel, P. Todd, and T. Xiao, “Blazar Constraints on Neutrino-Dark Matter Scattering”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023), no. 9, 091402, arXiv:2209.02713

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Searching for Afterglow: Light Dark Matter Boosted by Supernova Neutrinos

    Y.-H. Lin, W.-H. Wu, M.-R. Wu, and H. T.-K. Wong, “Searching for Afterglow: Light Dark Matter Boosted by Supernova Neutrinos”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023), no. 11, 111002, arXiv:2206.06864

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    The redshift of the BL Lac object TXS 0506+056

    S. Paiano, R. Falomo, A. Treves, and R. Scarpa, “The redshift of the BL Lac object TXS 0506+056”, Astrophys. J. Lett. 854 (2018), no. 2, L32, arXiv:1802.01939

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A Dark matter spike at the galactic center?

    P. Ullio, H. Zhao, and M. Kamionkowski, “A Dark matter spike at the galactic center?”, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 043504, astro-ph/0101481

    2001 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Lambda CDM Halo Density Profiles: Where do actual halos converge to NFW ones?

    G. Gentile, C. Tonini, and P. Salucci, “Lambda CDM Halo Density Profiles: Where do actual halos converge to NFW ones?”, Astron. Astrophys. 467 (2007) 925–931, astro-ph/0701550

    2007 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Indirect and direct search for dark matter

    M. Klasen, M. Pohl, and G. Sigl, “Indirect and direct search for dark matter”, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 85 (2015) 1–32, arXiv:1507.03800

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Direct detection of dark matter—APPEC committee report*

    J. Billard et al., “Direct detection of dark matter—APPEC committee report*”, Rept. Prog. Phys. 85 (2022), no. 5, 056201, arXiv:2104.07634

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Indirect Detection of Dark Matter in the Galaxy

    R. K. Leane, “Indirect Detection of Dark Matter in the Galaxy”, in “3rd World Summit on Exploring the Dark Side of the Universe”, pp. 203–228. 2020. arXiv:2006.00513. – 19 –

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Recent Developments

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, “Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Recent Developments”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70 (2020) 355–394, arXiv:2006.02838

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Correlated signals of first-order phase transitions and primordial black hole evaporation

    D. Marfatia and P.-Y. Tseng, “Correlated signals of first-order phase transitions and primordial black hole evaporation”, JHEP 08 (2022) 001, arXiv:2112.14588, [Erratum: JHEP 08, 249 (2022)]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Direct detection of light dark matter from evaporating primordial black holes

    R. Calabrese, M. Chianese, D. F. G. Fiorillo, and N. Saviano, “Direct detection of light dark matter from evaporating primordial black holes”, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 2, L021302, arXiv:2107.13001

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, “Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy”, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018), no. 6, 063001, arXiv:1801.05235

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Diffuse supernova neutrino background as a probe of late-time neutrino mass generation

    A. de Gouvˆ ea, I. Martinez-Soler, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and M. Sen, “Diffuse supernova neutrino background as a probe of late-time neutrino mass generation”, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 10, 103026, arXiv:2205.01102. – 20 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.