Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Probing axion-like particles through the gamma-ray production from cosmic-ray scattering in the Milky Way dark matter halo

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that gamma rays produced when high-energy cosmic-ray protons and electrons scatter off axion-like particles in the Milky Way's dark matter halo can be detected by current and near-future ground-based very-high-energy…

desk verdict Competent ALP sensitivity forecast for VHE gamma-ray observatories; the headline order-of-magnitude improvement over satellites is real but rests on an untested uniform GC cosmic-ray flux assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11691 v2 pith:JCHYEM4U submitted 2025-01-20 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Victor P. Goncalves , Emmanuel Moulin , Igor Reis , Aion Viana This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords axion-likeparticlesdarkmattercosmic-rayscatteringinversePrimakoffprocessComptonvery-high-energygammaraysGalacticCentergamma-rayobservatories
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

This paper argues that the Milky Way dark matter halo can act as a large target for axion-like particles: when high-energy cosmic-ray protons or electrons scatter off halo ALPs, they produce very-high-energy gamma rays through the inverse Primakoff process $p+a\to p+\gamma$ and the inverse Compton process $e+a\to e+\gamma$. Using an NFW halo profile, the measured Galactic Center proton flux, and the local cosmic-ray electron spectrum, the authors compute the expected gamma-ray flux toward the Galactic Center and in empty fields. From that flux they derive 95% confidence-level mean expected upper limits for H.E.S.S.-like, CTAO, and SWGO observations. The projected sensitivities improve on the gamma-ray satellite limits from EGRET, Fermi, and E-Astrogram by an order of magnitude for the ALP-photon coupling at masses below $10^{-9}$ GeV, and extend ALP-electron coupling sensitivity to masses below $10^{-8}$ GeV. The paper presents a sensitivity forecast, not a detection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the conversion of a high-energy cosmic-ray particle into a gamma ray by scattering off a halo ALP: inverse Primakoff $p+a\to p+\gamma$ for protons and inverse Compton $e+a\to e+\gamma$ for electrons, with photon energies set by the ALP mass and the incoming particle energy. The predicted flux is obtained by folding the differential cross-sections with the cosmic-ray spectra and the D-factor, the line-of-sight integral of the DM density over the observed solid angle. The calculation uses the NFW profile for the halo, the Galactic Center proton flux measured by H.E.S.S. with normalization $\Phi_0=4\times10^{-8}\ \mathrm{cm}^{-2}\mathrm{s}^{-1}\mathrm{TeV}^{-1}\mathrm{sr}^{-1}$ and spectral index $\Gamma=2.4$, and the H.E.S.S. broken-power-law local electron spectrum. Those inputs determine where in the $(m_a,\,g_{a\gamma\gamma})$ and $(m_a,\,g_{ae})$ planes each observatory can set limits.

What would settle it

Run the same 500-hour analysis on the real H.E.S.S. Inner Galaxy Survey data instead of an Asimov mock dataset: if the resulting 95% CL upper limit on $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ at masses below $10^{-9}$ GeV does not improve on the Fermi and EGRET limits by an order of magnitude, the central claim would be falsified. A second check would be a direct measurement of the multi-TeV to PeV proton spectrum in the inner Galactic halo that comes out below the assumed $\Phi_0$ value or cuts off before 1 PeV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gamma-ray signal from cosmic-ray scattering off ALPs in the Milky Way dark matter halo is observable with current and near-future very-high-energy gamma-ray instruments. For photophilic ALPs, the inverse Primakoff process with Galactic Center protons gives 95% CL mean expected upper limits on $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ reaching $1.6\ \mathrm{TeV}^{-1}$ for H.E.S.S.-like observations, $0.9\ \mathrm{TeV}^{-1}$ for CTAO, and $0.5\ \mathrm{TeV}^{-1}$ for SWGO in the low-mass region, about one order of magnitude stronger than the limits from EGRET, Fermi, and E-Astrogram for masses below $10^{-9}$ GeV. For photophobic ALPs, cosmic-ray electrons scattering via the inverse Compton process yield $g_{ae}$ sensitivities down to about $5\times10^{-6}$ at masses below $10^{-8}$ GeV, probing lower masses than satellite gamma-ray experiments. These are projected sensitivities, and the paper argues they make ground-based VHE observatories a complementary probe of eV-mass ALPs alongside dedicated laboratory and stellar-evolution searches.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the Galactic Center cosmic-ray proton flux is uniform over the whole 5-degree observing region, with a fixed normalization of $4\times10^{-8}\ \mathrm{cm}^{-2}\mathrm{s}^{-1}\mathrm{TeV}^{-1}\mathrm{sr}^{-1}$ and spectral index 2.4. If the true average proton flux in that region is lower or varies strongly with position, the projected order-of-magnitude improvement over satellite experiments would shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 500-hour observation of the inner Galactic halo with H.E.S.S.-like or CTAO, or a 10-year SWGO survey, could set ALP-photon coupling limits at $g_{a\gamma\gamma}\sim0.5$-$1.6\ \mathrm{TeV}^{-1}$ for ALP masses below $10^{-9}$ GeV.
  • These limits would improve on EGRET, Fermi, and E-Astrogram by an order of magnitude in the low-mass region, closing a window those satellites could not reach.
  • For photophobic ALPs, the same observations would extend ALP-electron coupling sensitivity below $10^{-8}$ GeV, with $g_{ae}$ limits of order $10^{-5}$.
  • The gamma-ray channel provides a complementary, model-independent route to eV-mass ALPs alongside light-shining-through-wall and helioscope searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not quantify how spatial inhomogeneity or a lower normalization of the Galactic Center cosmic-ray flux would degrade the sensitivities; a systematic study of that flux would turn the forecast into a more robust experimental projection.
  • The electron-ALP signal is computed from local DM inside a 1 kpc sphere, but the same flux formulas could be applied to other DM-dominated environments with cleaner backgrounds, such as dwarf spheroidal galaxies, to cross-check the couplings at different mass scales.
  • If no signal appears, the halo-scattering channel would convert existing and planned gamma-ray surveys into one of the strongest laboratory-independent constraints on eV-mass axion-like particles without requiring new instrumentation.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the very-high-energy gamma-ray flux produced by cosmic-ray scattering off axion-like-particle dark matter, considering proton-ALP inverse Primakoff scattering in the Galactic Center region and electron-ALP inverse Compton scattering in the local neighborhood. Using an NFW dark-matter profile, a fixed GC proton flux normalization and spectral index, and local electron spectra, the authors derive 95% mean expected upper limits on the ALP-photon coupling gaγγ and ALP-electron coupling gae for H.E.S.S.-like observations, CTAO, and SWGO. The statistical treatment uses a binned ON-OFF likelihood with Asimov data, and the results are compared with limits from Fermi, EGRET, E-Astrogram, and other experiments. The central claim is that current and near-future ground-based observatories can improve the low-mass gaγγ sensitivity by about an order of magnitude over satellite gamma-ray experiments and can probe gae at masses below 10^-8 GeV.

Significance. If the underlying assumptions hold, this is a useful and complementary forecast: it applies established cross-section formulas and public instrument response functions, uses a conventional Asimov-based sensitivity procedure, and makes explicit comparisons with previously published gamma-ray constraints. The calculation is not circular: the gamma-ray flux is built from external cross sections and measured cosmic-ray spectra, and the reported curves are expected upper limits from background-only mock data rather than fits to observed ALP signals. The main strength of the paper is that it turns a well-defined particle-physics target into concrete, instrument-specific projections. Its principal weakness is that the headline order-of-magnitude improvement in the proton channel rests on a single, spatially uniform GC cosmic-ray flux assumption that is not tested or assigned an uncertainty.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II A, Eq. (3) and the following flux paragraph] The claimed order-of-magnitude improvement in the proton channel relies on applying the GC pevatron cosmic-ray flux (Φ0 = 4×10^-8 cm^-2 s^-1 TeV^-1 sr^-1, Γ = 2.4), measured within the inner ~10 pc, uniformly to ROIs of 3°–10° radius (roughly 0.4–1.5 kpc at the Galactic Center distance). This is a strong extrapolation. In the background-dominated regime the expected upper limit on gaγγ scales approximately as Φ0^{-1/2}, so a factor 10 decline of the average CR flux over the ROI would weaken the quoted 0.5–1.6 TeV^-1 limits by about a factor of 3, while a factor 100 decline would put them at or above the satellite limits used for comparison. The paper's DM-profile robustness test (Burkert profile, factor ~4 degradation) does not cover this. Please add a quantitative robustness check, for example a conservative radial CR profile or a lower uniform normalization, and show how the sensitivity curves shift.
  2. [§III B and §III C] The Asimov dataset and the likelihood use a background composed only of the residual misidentified hadron/electron cosmic-ray background. In the Galactic Center region this is not the only VHE gamma-ray background: the central source HESS J1745-290, the SNR/molecular-cloud complex HESS J1745-303, the CMZ diffuse emission, and the Galactic-plane emission all contribute inside a 3°–10° ROI even after the |b| < 0.3° band is excluded. The paper states only that a set of masks can be used and does not specify which components are actually masked or how the residual astrophysical diffuse emission is included in the OFF estimate. If the ON region contains unmodeled gamma-ray emission, the background-only Asimov dataset is not representative and the expected upper limits are optimistic. Please quantify this by adding the observed diffuse-emission template to the background or by reporting how the sensitivity changes when such a template is included.
  3. [§II B, Eq. (7)] The electron-channel limits depend on an effective sphere of radius Reff = 1 kpc with constant local DM density ρ⊙, but no uncertainty is quoted for Reff. Since the signal is proportional to Reff, the derived gae limits scale roughly as Reff^{-1/2} in the background-dominated regime. Please state the dependence on Reff and on the uncertainty of ρ⊙, or provide a short scan over a physically motivated range (for example Reff = 0.5–2 kpc), so that the robustness of the claimed low-mass reach for gae can be assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrasing 'improves upon one order of magnitude' should be 'improves by one order of magnitude', and 'Their sensitivities reached on the ALP-electron couplings' should be 'The sensitivities on the ALP-electron couplings'.
  2. [Introduction, first paragraph] There is a typo in 'CR)' where the opening parenthesis for 'cosmic rays' is missing; it should read '(CR)'.
  3. [References] Several references are duplicated: [22] and [27] are the same H.E.S.S. pevatron paper, [36] and [45] are the same Fermi anisotropy paper, and [46] and [52] are the same H.E.S.S. dark-matter annihilation search. Please consolidate the bibliography.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption and Fig. 4 labels] The labels 'CTA' and 'CTAO' are used inconsistently; the paper should choose one name for the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory and use it consistently in text and figures.
  5. [§IV, general] The text alternates between 'sensitivity' and 'limits' (for example 'sensitivity curves' and 'strongest sensitivities reach'); since all results are mean expected upper limits from Asimov data, 'projected sensitivity' should be used consistently throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projected ALP sensitivities are a forward-modeled Asimov forecast from external cross sections and measured cosmic-ray fluxes, with no ALP parameter fitted to data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The gamma-ray flux is computed from Eq. (3) as the product of an externally given cross-section from Ref. [19], a D-factor integral over a standard NFW profile, and cosmic-ray fluxes taken from external measurements (H.E.S.S. GC proton flux [27] and H.E.S.S. local electron flux [37]). No ALP coupling is fitted to observed gamma-ray data: the 95% C.L. sensitivities are mean expected upper limits obtained from an Asimov dataset built from background only, with the test statistic threshold TS = 2.71 (Eq. 11 and surrounding text). The comparison limits from Fermi, EGRET and E-Astrogram are also taken from the external Ref. [19]. The self-citations present in the paper (Refs. [25] and [26], which involve some of the current authors) are methodological or parametric rather than evidential: Ref. [26] is cited for how to update the D-factor for alternative DM profiles and for the general likelihood procedure, and Ref. [25] supplies the NFW scale radius value rs = 15.5 kpc. Neither carries the central claim, and neither imports a uniqueness theorem or a fitted ALP result. The weakest element, the assumption that the GC cosmic-ray proton flux measured near the central accelerator applies uniformly over the whole ROI, is a modeling uncertainty that could affect the magnitude of the projected limits, but it is not a circular reduction of the prediction to its own inputs. The paper therefore exhibits no step in which a derived quantity is equivalent by construction to an input it claims to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or interactions; it applies existing ALP cross sections and measured CR spectra. The forecast's main burden is on external astrophysical inputs: the Galactic Center CR proton flux (normalization and spatial uniformity), the local CR electron spectrum, the NFW DM profile and local DM density, and the chosen effective radius for the local electron signal. These are adopted from the literature, not derived or fit in this paper, and their uncertainties are not propagated.

free parameters (7)
  • GC CR proton flux normalization Φ0 = 4 x 10^-8 cm^-2 s^-1 TeV^-1 sr^-1
    Adopted from H.E.S.S. Pevatron measurement [27] and assumed constant over the full ROI; the proton-ALP sensitivity scales linearly with this flux. No uncertainty is propagated.
  • GC CR proton spectral index Γ = 2.4
    Adopted from [27]; affects the energy dependence of the signal.
  • Maximum CR proton energy Emax_p = 1 PeV
    Baseline value following [27]; the signal flux in Fig. 3 is shown for 10 TeV, 100 TeV, 1 PeV, and the sensitivity depends on the value.
  • Effective radius Reff for local CRe-ALP scattering = 1 kpc
    Choice motivated by TeV electron energy losses; the gae sensitivity scales as 1/sqrt(Reff). No uncertainty is given.
  • Local DM density ρ⊙ = 0.38 GeV cm^-3
    External input [20]; scales the CRe-ALP signal.
  • NFW scale radius rs = 15.5 kpc
    External input [25]; affects the D-factor and the GC region signal.
  • CRe spectral parameters (Φe,0, Γ1, Γ2, Eb, α) = 1.26e5 TeV^-1 m^-2 sr^-1 s^-1, 3.25, 4.49, 4.49 TeV, 0.21
    Best-fit smooth broken power law to H.E.S.S. CRe data [37]; used for the local electron signal.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption ALPs comprise all of the DM in the Milky Way halo
    Stated in the abstract; the number density of ALPs is taken as ρ_DM/m_a in the flux calculations.
  • domain assumption The GC CR proton flux is spatially uniform over the ROI
    Used in Eq. (3) for the proton-ALP flux; no spatial variation is modeled.
  • domain assumption The inverse Primakoff and inverse Compton cross sections from Ref. [19] are valid at the energy scales considered
    The cross sections in Eqs. (6) and (8) are taken directly from Ref. [19].
  • domain assumption Local CR electron flux is isotropic and described by the H.E.S.S. best-fit broken power law
    The CRe flux is taken from Ref. [37] and assumed isotropic, consistent with no detected anisotropy.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way DM halo follows the NFW profile with the stated parameters
    Eq. (5) with rs=15.5 kpc and ρ(r⊙)=0.38 GeV cm^-3 is used for the D-factor.
  • domain assumption The residual background can be modeled as isotropic and derived from the instrument response functions
    Used in the background estimation for all observatories; no self-consistent GC source model is attempted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing axion-like particles through the gamma-ray production from cosmic-ray scattering in the Milky Way dark matter halo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JCHYEM4U

@misc{pith2026250111691,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing axion-like particles through the gamma-ray production from cosmic-ray scattering in the Milky Way dark matter halo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JCHYEM4U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11691}
}
abstract

Axion-like particles (ALP) are promising candidates to comprise all the dark matter in the universe. We investigate the ALP couplings to photons and electrons via astrophysical measurements through the search for very-high-energy gamma rays arising from high-energy cosmic-ray scattering off ALP populating the halo of the Milky Way. We show that gamma-ray signals from ALP couplings to photons and electrons via inverse Primakoff and Compton processes respectively, can be probed by very-high-energy ($\gtrsim$100 GeV) gamma-ray ground-based observatories, providing an alternative and complementary avenue to probe ALP couplings in the eV mass range. Sensitivities of current and near-future ground-based gamma-ray observatories improves upon one order of magnitude the current constraints from gamma-ray satellite experiments for the ALP-photon couplings in the region of masses below 10$^{-9}$ GeV. Their sensitivities reached on the ALP-electron couplings allow probing masses below 10$^{-8}$ GeV, which are lower than the masses probed in gamma-ray satellite experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11691 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Gamma-ray production in a CR - ALP interaction. For a photophilic ALP, the leading interaction is described by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Gamma-ray production in a CR electron - ALP interaction. For a photophobic ALP, the leading interaction is described [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Energy-differential gamma-ray flux for expected CR-induced signal and background, respectively, for three observato [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Sensitivity on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Sensitivity on the ALP - electron coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Colllaboration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Silk et al

    J. Silk et al. , Particle Dark Matter: Observations, Models and Searches , edited by G. Bertone (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    J. L. Feng, Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48, 495 (2010), arXiv:1003.0904 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Boveia and C

    A. Boveia and C. Doglioni, Dark Matter Searches at Colliders, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 429 (2018), arXiv:1810.12238 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, Wispy cold dark matter, Journal of 10 Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (06), 013

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Axions in string theory, Journal of High Energy Physics 2006, 051 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, String axiverse, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    Sikivie, Axion Cosmology, Lect

    P. Sikivie, Axion Cosmology, Lect. Notes Phys. 741, 19 (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0610440

    arXiv 2008

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    De Angelis, M

    A. De Angelis, M. Roncadelli, and O. Mansutti, Evidence for a new light spin-zero boson from cosmological gamma-ray propagation?, Phys. Rev. D 76, 121301 (2007), arXiv:0707.4312 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Mirizzi, G

    A. Mirizzi, G. G. Raffelt, and P. D. Serpico, Signatures of Axion-Like Particles in the Spectra of TeV Gamma-Ray Sources, Phys. Rev. D 76, 023001 (2007), arXiv:0704.3044 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Simet, D

    M. Simet, D. Hooper, and P. D. Serpico, The Milky Way as a Kiloparsec-Scale Axionscope, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063001 (2008), arXiv:0712.2825 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Ayala, I

    A. Ayala, I. Dom ´ ınguez, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and O. Straniero, Revisiting the bound on axion-photon coupling from Globular Clusters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 191302 (2014), arXiv:1406.6053 [astro-ph.SR]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Giannotti, I

    M. Giannotti, I. Irastorza, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, Cool WISPs for stellar cooling excesses, JCAP 05, 057, arXiv:1512.08108 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    M. M. Miller Bertolami, B. E. Melendez, L. G. Althaus, and J. Isern, Revisiting the axion bounds from the Galactic white dwarf luminosity function, JCAP 10, 069, arXiv:1406.7712 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Sikivie, Invisible axion search methods, Rev

    P. Sikivie, Invisible axion search methods, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015004 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Agrawal et al

    P. Agrawal et al. , Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1015 (2021), arXiv:2102.12143 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    C. P. Wu, C. P. Liu, L. Singh, G. C., J. W. Chen, H. C. Chi, M. K. Pandey, and H. T. Wong, Inverse Primakoff scattering for axionlike particle couplings, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043029 (2023), arXiv:2206.07878 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, J. L. Newstead, A. Rodriguez, I. M. Shoemaker, Z. Tabrizi, and N. T. Arellano, Gamma ray signals from cosmic ray scattering on axionlike particles, Phys. Rev. D 104, 055044 (2021), arXiv:2012.07930 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    R. Guo, C. Liu, S. Mao, et al. , Measuring the local dark matter density with LAMOST DR5 and Gaia DR2, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 495, 4828 (2020), arXiv:2005.12018 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Acero et al

    F. Acero et al. (Fermi-LAT Collaboration), Development of the Model of Galactic Interstellar Emission for Standard Point- Source Analysis of Fermi Large Area Telescope Data, Astrophys. J. Suppl.223, 26 (2016), arXiv:1602.07246 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [23]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, The Structure of cold dark matter halos, Astrophys. J. 462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025 [astro-ph]

    1996 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Guo, Y.-L

    G. Guo, Y.-L. S. Tsai, M.-R. Wu, and Q. Yuan, Elastic and Inelastic Scattering of Cosmic-Rays on Sub-GeV Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103004 (2020), arXiv:2008.12137 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Montanari, E

    A. Montanari, E. Moulin, and N. L. Rodd, Toward the ultimate reach of current imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes and their sensitivity to TeV dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 107, 043028 (2023), arXiv:2210.03140 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [26]

    I. Reis, E. Moulin, A. Viana, and V. P. Goncalves, Sensitivity to sub-GeV dark matter from cosmic-ray scattering with very-high-energy gamma-ray observatories, JCAP 07, 012, arXiv:2403.09343 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  18. [27]

    Abramowski et al

    A. Abramowski et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), Acceleration of petaelectronvolt protons in the Galactic Centre, Nature 531, 476 (2016), arXiv:1603.07730 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Chao, J.-J

    W. Chao, J.-J. Feng, and M. Jin, Direct detections of the axionlike particle revisited, Phys. Rev. D 109, 075044 (2024), arXiv:2311.09547 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Abdollahi et al

    S. Abdollahi et al. (Fermi-LAT Collaboration), Cosmic-ray electron-positron spectrum from 7 GeV to 2 TeV with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Phys. Rev. D 95, 082007 (2017), arXiv:1704.07195 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Aguilar et al

    M. Aguilar et al. (AMS Collaboration), The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) on the international space station: Part II — Results from the first seven years, Phys. Rept. 894, 1 (2021)

    2021

  22. [31]

    Ambrosi et al

    G. Ambrosi et al. (DAMPE Collaboration), Direct detection of a break in the teraelectronvolt cosmic-ray spectrum of electrons and positrons, Nature 552, 63 (2017), arXiv:1711.10981 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Adriani et al

    O. Adriani et al. (CALET Collaboration), Direct Measurement of the Spectral Structure of Cosmic-Ray Elec- trons+Positrons in the TeV Region with CALET on the International Space Station, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 191001 (2023), arXiv:2311.05916 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Aharonian et al

    F. Aharonian et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), The energy spectrum of cosmic-ray electrons at TeV energies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 261104 (2008), arXiv:0811.3894 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Aharonian et al

    F. Aharonian et al. , Probing the ATIC peak in the cosmic-ray electron spectrum with H.E.S.S., aap 508, 561 (2009), arXiv:0905.0105 [astro-ph.HE]

    2009 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Chai (MAGIC Collaboration), The cosmic-ray electron energy spectrum measured with the MAGIC telescopes, PoS ICRC2023, 323 (2023)

    Y. Chai (MAGIC Collaboration), The cosmic-ray electron energy spectrum measured with the MAGIC telescopes, PoS ICRC2023, 323 (2023)

    2023

  27. [36]

    Abdollahi et al

    S. Abdollahi et al. (Fermi-LAT Collaboration), Search for cosmic-ray electron and positron anisotropies with seven years of fermi large area telescope data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 091103 (2017)

    2017

  28. [37]

    Aharonian et al

    F. Aharonian et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), High-Statistics Measurement of the Cosmic-Ray Electron Spectrum with H.E.S.S., Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 221001 (2024), arXiv:2411.08189 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  29. [38]

    R. R. Daniel and S. A. Stephens, Propagation of Cosmic Rays in the Galaxy, Space Sci. Rev. 17, 45 (1975). 11

    1975

  30. [39]

    https://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/HESS/

  31. [40]

    https://www.cta-observatory.org

  32. [41]

    C. T. A. Observatory and C. T. A. Consortium, CTAO Instrument Response Functions - prod5 version v0.1, 10.5281/zen- odo.5499840 (2021)

    2021 doi

  33. [42]

    C. T. A. Observatory and C. T. A. Consortium, CTAO Instrument Response Functions - version prod3b-v2 (2021)

    2021

  34. [43]

    https://www.swgo.org/SWGOWiki/doku.php ()

  35. [44]

    https://github.com/harmscho/SGSOSensitivity/ ()

  36. [45]

    Abdollahi et al

    S. Abdollahi et al. (Fermi-LAT Collaboration), Search for Cosmic-Ray Electron and Positron Anisotropies with Seven Years of Fermi Large Area Telescope Data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 091103 (2017), arXiv:1703.01073 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [47]

    Bernl¨ ohret al

    K. Bernl¨ ohret al. , Monte carlo design studies for the cherenkov telescope array, Astroparticle Physics 43, 171 (2013), seeing the High-Energy Universe with the Cherenkov Telescope Array - The Science Explored with the CTA

    2013

  38. [48]

    Aharonian et al

    F. Aharonian et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), Spectrum and variability of the Galactic Center VHE gamma-ray source HESS J1745-290, Astron. Astrophys. 503, 817 (2009), arXiv:0906.1247 [astro-ph.GA]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [49]

    Aharonian et al

    F. Aharonian et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), Exploring a SNR/Molecular Cloud Association Within HESS J1745-303, Astron. Astrophys. 483, 509 (2008), arXiv:0803.2844 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Abdalla et al

    H. Abdalla et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), The H.E.S.S. Galactic plane survey, Astron. Astrophys. 612, A1 (2018), arXiv:1804.02432 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Abdalla et al

    H. Abdalla et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), Search for Dark Matter Annihilation Signals in the H.E.S.S. Inner Galaxy Survey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 111101 (2022), arXiv:2207.10471 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022

  42. [52]

    Abdallah et al

    H. Abdallah et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), Search for dark matter annihilations towards the inner Galactic halo from 10 years of observations with H.E.S.S, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 111301 (2016), arXiv:1607.08142 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Abdallah et al

    H. Abdallah et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), Search for γ-Ray Line Signals from Dark Matter Annihilations in the Inner Galactic Halo from 10 Years of Observations with H.E.S.S., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 201101 (2018), arXiv:1805.05741 [astro- ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Jaeckel and M

    J. Jaeckel and M. Spannowsky, Probing MeV to 90 GeV axion-like particles with LEP and LHC, Phys. Lett. B 753, 482 (2016), arXiv:1509.00476 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [55]

    Anastassopoulos et al

    V. Anastassopoulos et al. (CAST Collaboration), New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction, Nature Phys. 13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [56]

    O’Hare, cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits, https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/ (2020)

    C. O’Hare, cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits, https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/ (2020)

    2020

  47. [57]

    M. J. Dolan, T. Ferber, C. Hearty, F. Kahlhoefer, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, Revised constraints and Belle II sensitivity for visible and invisible axion-like particles, JHEP 12, 094, [Erratum: JHEP 03, 190 (2021)], arXiv:1709.00009 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [58]

    Armengaud et al

    E. Armengaud et al. (EDEL WEISS Collaboration), Searches for electron interactions induced by new physics in the EDEL WEISS-III Germanium bolometers, Phys. Rev. D 98, 082004 (2018), arXiv:1808.02340 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [59]

    Agostini et al

    M. Agostini et al. (GERDA Collaboration), First Search for Bosonic Superweakly Interacting Massive Particles with Masses up to 1 MeV/ c2 with GERDA, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 011801 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 129, 089901 (2022)], arXiv:2005.14184 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [60]

    D¨ obrich, J

    B. D¨ obrich, J. Jaeckel, and T. Spadaro, Light in the beam dump - ALP production from decay photons in proton beam- dumps, JHEP 05, 213, [Erratum: JHEP 10, 046 (2020)], arXiv:1904.02091 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [61]

    J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Search for a Dark Photon in e+e− Collisions at BaBar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 201801 (2014), arXiv:1406.2980 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  52. [62]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, European Physical Journal C 71, 1554 (2011), 1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.