Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Minimal Dark Matter in the sky: updated Indirect Detection probes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Sixteen years of Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data exclude the lower edge of the predicted mass window for the Minimal Dark Matter 5-plet (13.4–13.6 TeV) at 95% confidence, even if the inner Galaxy has a core as large as the bulge.

desk verdict A careful update of MDM 5-plet indirect detection whose lower-mass-window exclusion is plausible but rests on a disputed BSF normalization and a boundary-ignoring profile likelihood. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17607 v1 pith:VMDDCI32 submitted 2025-07-23 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Mohammad Aghaie , Alessandro Dondarini , Giulio Marino , Paolo Panci This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE PACS 95.35.+d95.85.Pw
keywords minimaldarkmatterSU(2)5-pletSommerfeldenhancementbound-stateformationgamma-rayindirectdetectionFermi-LATconstraintsCTAOprospectsthermalrelicmass
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 the simplest viable Minimal Dark Matter candidate — a Majorana SU(2) 5-plet whose only free parameter is its mass — leaves a gamma-ray fingerprint that existing data can already test. After next-to-leading-order corrections, bound-state formation dominates the Milky Way flux near 100 GeV, producing a sharp line at the binding energy $E_b \simeq 73$ GeV together with a continuum. Using 16 years of Fermi-LAT observations of a 16° region around the Galactic center, the authors find that masses in the range $13.4 \lesssim M_\chi \lesssim 13.6$ TeV — the lower edge of the thermal window — are excluded at 95% CL, a conclusion that survives even an inner density core as large as the bulge. The central value 13.7 TeV is borderline, while CTAO observations of the northern dwarf Ursa Major II would need only about 600 hours to probe it. If correct, this turns a nearly parameter-free WIMP hypothesis into a decisively testable target for both current Fermi-LAT data and the next generation of gamma-ray telescopes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the coupled non-relativistic two-body potential $V$ acting on the neutral channels $\{\chi^{++}\chi^{--}, \chi^{+}\chi^{-}, \chi^{0}\chi^{0}\}$, with analytic NLO corrections added to the $W$ and $Z$ exchange terms. From this potential the paper computes Sommerfeld-enhanced annihilation via an $h(r)$ Riccati equation, and the cross section for forming the $1(1s)_3$ bound state through a $p \to s$ electric-dipole transition, using variational wavefunctions for the bound state and a variable-phase method for the scattering state. The gamma-ray spectrum is assembled from three pieces: the annihilation continuum, the monochromatic line at $E_b \simeq 73$ GeV from the capture photon, and the endpoint line at $E_\gamma = M_\chi$ with next-to-leading-log resummation. The Fermi-LAT analysis rescales the predicted cross section by a factor $\kappa$ and profiles over the diffuse and isotropic background normalizations, and the robustness test replaces the Einasto profile by a truncated version with a core radius $r_c$.

What would settle it

An independent first-principles computation of the $1(1s)_3$ bound-state-formation cross section — for example a full matching of the two-body potential without the analytic NLO fitting functions, or a direct numerical evaluation of the $p \to s$ capture rate — that places the peak outside $M_\chi \in [13.4, 13.6]$ TeV, or halves its normalization, would remove both the 73 GeV line and the lower-edge exclusion. A reanalysis of the same 16-year Fermi-LAT data with a more flexible Galactic diffuse background model that pushes the 95% CL upper limit on $\kappa$ above unity across that mass range would falsify the robustness claim directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that NLO corrections to the non-relativistic electroweak potential shift the bound-state-formation cross section of the dominant $1(1s)_3$ state into the thermal mass window, peaking near $M_\chi \simeq 13.5$ TeV. The resulting gamma-ray spectrum contains a line at the binding energy $E_b \simeq 72.94$ GeV and an accompanying continuum that dominates the flux in the hundred-GeV range from the Milky Way halo. A profile-likelihood fit to 16 years of Fermi-LAT data in the RoI16 region excludes $13.4 \lesssim M_\chi \lesssim 13.6$ TeV at 95% CL, and weakening that exclusion down to the predicted cross section would require a central density core much larger than the solar circle, far beyond the bulge-scale cores that observations loosely tolerate. For the central mass the situation is borderline: any core size suffices to lift the limit above the predicted signal. In dwarf spheroidals, whose low velocities suppress the p-wave bound-state formation, only the Sommerfeld-enhanced continuum remains, and the paper finds that roughly 600 hours of CTAO time on Ursa Major II — the best of four northern dwarfs — would exclude the central mass value at 95% CL.

Load-bearing premise

The Fermi-LAT exclusion of the lower edge, and the 73 GeV line that drives it, rest on the NLO-corrected bound-state-formation cross section peaking inside $13.4$-$13.6$ TeV; the paper itself reports that the companion study overestimates this cross section by a factor of two, so its normalization and peak position are not yet settled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the lower-edge exclusion stands, the viable thermal window for the 5-plet narrows to roughly 13.6–14.3 TeV, concentrating future searches on a smaller mass range.
  • The line at $E_b \simeq 73$ GeV plus its continuum is the model's most distinctive signature, and it already sits inside Fermi-LAT's energy range; a future detection of such a feature would be direct evidence of bound-state formation in an electroweak multiplet.
  • Combining the continuum with the endpoint line shortens the CTAO exposure needed to test the model: about 600 hours on Ursa Major II for the central mass, while line-only analyses would need roughly three times longer.
  • The lower-edge exclusion is robust against cored density profiles up to bulge scale; only cores much larger than the solar circle would rescue those masses.
  • The NLL resummation materially lowers the predicted Sommerfeld cross section, so constraints derived without it are overestimated; the paper's treatment gives more conservative limits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper itself reports a factor-of-two spread in the bound-state-formation cross section relative to the concurrent study, the sharp exclusion feature at 13.5 TeV is best read as a prediction to be confirmed by an independent computation rather than a settled boundary.
  • The same NLO-potential plus bound-state machinery transfers to other electroweak multiplets, so the qualitative prediction — a sub-TeV line at the binding energy with an accompanying continuum — is a general test of minimal WIMP-plet models, not just the 5-plet.
  • A dedicated search for a line in the 60–80 GeV band of Fermi-LAT data, exploiting the predicted relation $E_b(M_\chi)$, could corroborate or challenge the bound-state interpretation independently of the diffuse-emission fit.
  • The CTAO forecast scales with the J-factor of the ultra-faint dwarfs; improved stellar kinematics for Ursa Major II would sharpen the roughly 600 hour projection into a firmer, near-term test.
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 presents an updated indirect-detection analysis of the Majorana SU(2) 5-plet Minimal Dark Matter candidate. It recomputes the Sommerfeld-enhanced annihilation cross sections at NLO, computes the bound-state-formation cross section and its velocity dependence, constructs the full gamma-ray spectrum including NLL resummed endpoint contributions, and then uses Fermi-LAT Galactic diffuse data and projected CTAO observations of northern dwarf spheroidals to constrain the model. The headline result is that Fermi-LAT data exclude the lower edge of the thermal mass window, approximately 13.4-13.6 TeV, at 95% CL even when a core as large as the Galactic bulge is allowed in the inner density profile; the paper also forecasts that about 600 hours of CTAO-North time on Ursa Major II could probe the central mass value of 13.7 TeV.

Significance. If the central exclusion survives scrutiny, this is a significant indirect-detection constraint on one of the simplest and most predictive WIMP realizations. The paper has clear strengths: the model side has essentially no free parameters, with kappa used only as a constraint tool rather than fitted to the gamma-ray data; the spectral computation incorporates state-of-the-art NLO and NLL corrections; and the robustness of the exclusion to cored density profiles is explicitly tested. The main load-bearing uncertainties are statistical and theoretical: the negative best-fit kappa in the Fermi-LAT likelihood, the unresolved factor-of-two BSF discrepancy with the concurrent paper [67], and the fixed-velocity approximation for velocity averaging. These affect the exact lower-edge exclusion that is the paper's primary claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1.3, Eq. (3.9), footnote 7] The profile-likelihood upper limits on kappa are built from an unconstrained maximum that is allowed to occur at negative kappa. For M_chi = 13.7 TeV the reported best fit is {kappa_hat, A_iso_hat, A_diff_hat} = {-0.5, 4.2, 0.9}. A negative kappa corresponds to subtracting the DM template from the data; as a DM signal normalization this is unphysical, and the Poisson mean in Eq. (3.8) is not a meaningful physical prediction if the DM contribution is taken to be negative. Because the test statistic in Eq. (3.9) is measured relative to this unphysical maximum, the TS for all physical kappa >= 0 carries a large offset, and the Wilks-based threshold TS = 2.71 can produce an artificially low upper limit. The correct procedure is to constrain kappa >= 0 and use a boundary-corrected statistic, for example the likelihood-ratio test of Rolke et al. [60]. This issue directly affects the kappa(M_chi) curve in Fig. 5 and the claimed robust exclusion of 13.4-13.6 TeV; the analysis should be redone with kappa >= 0 and the revised exclusion curve reported.
  2. [Sec. 2.4] The velocity-averaged annihilation cross section is replaced by a fixed-velocity evaluation, with the paper stating 'langle sigma v rangle identical to sigma v evaluated at v = v_rel' for v_rel = 10^-3 in the Milky Way and v_rel ~ 10 km/s in dSphs. This is not a controlled approximation for the cross sections considered here: both the Sommerfeld-enhanced annihilation and the p-wave BSF cross section have narrow resonant features (e.g., the SE resonance near 12.2 TeV and the BSF peak near 13.5 TeV), so evaluating at a single representative velocity can mis-estimate the effective rate by an amount that depends on the width of the resonance and the width of the velocity distribution. The authors should either perform the full integral over the relative-velocity distribution or provide a quantitative estimate of the induced error. This approximation affects the normalization of the Fermi-LAT signal and the CTAO projections, and thus the robustness of the central exclusion.
  3. [Sec. 2.2, Sec. 4, Ref. [67]] The BSF cross section, which is the main driver of the low-energy signal and of the exclusion dip near 13.5 TeV, has an unresolved normalization and peak-position uncertainty. The paper states that the concurrent analysis [67], using the same method, overestimates the BSF cross section by a factor of two, but it does not provide a numerical comparison or an error budget to adjudicate the discrepancy. Additionally, the NLO potential fitting functions from Ref. [33], used in Eq. (2.3), are adopted without an estimate of their fitting accuracy, even though the NLO shift is what moves the BSF peak into the thermal window. A factor-of-two reduction in the BSF rate or a modest shift of its peak position could weaken or remove the claimed 13.4-13.6 TeV exclusion. The authors should quantify this systematic uncertainty or resolve the discrepancy with [67] before the central claim can be considered robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.4 and Fig. 2] The text says that the left panel of Fig. 2 shows the cross sections as a function of v_rel, but the caption describes the left panel as a function of DM mass and the right panel as a function of v_rel; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] There are typos such as 'environoment' for 'environment' and inconsistent spelling of 'Schroedinger'/'Schrödinger'; these should be cleaned up.
  3. [Sec. 3.2.1, Eq. (3.16)] The text says the J-factor is 'marginalized over', but Eq. (3.16) maximizes over J inside the likelihood product; this is a profile treatment, not a marginalization, and the terminology should be made consistent.
  4. [References] Ref. [33] is missing a title and arXiv number, and Ref. [67] contains an apparent typo in the author name ('Xua' should presumably be 'Xu').
  5. [Sec. 3.1.2] The paper notes that the p8r3 template is not recommended for extended-emission analyses and justifies the use by relying only on spectral information; this caveat should be stated more prominently in the main text, since the diffuse emission template is a central background ingredient.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Fermi-LAT exclusion is derived from public data plus independently sourced cross sections; only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation of the thermal-mass window (Ref. [6], Panci co-author) is present.

  1. other [Sec. 2.3 (Thermal mass); Sec. 1; Refs. [6], [12]; Sec. 3.1.3 footnote 7]
    "The freeze-out prediction of the 5-plet mass was computed in [6, 38], including both Sommerfeld enhancement and BSF in the annihilation cross section, with further refinement of the theory uncertainty carried out in [12]. The resulting value for the quintuplet thermal mass is Mχ = 13.7+0.6−0.3 TeV"

    Minor self-citation only: the thermal window framing the headline claim is imported from Ref. [6], co-authored by present author Panci, not recomputed here. Not load-bearing: (1) the window is independently corroborated by Refs. [12] (Bottaro & Redigolo), [17] and [38], none involving the present authors, and by concurrent [67], with which the paper states general consistency; (2) the exclusion curve κ(Mχ)<1 (Fig. 5) is computed over the full 12–15 TeV mass grid from public Fermi-LAT data and public background templates, so it does not reduce to the self-cited window; (3) κ is a constraint tool, not a fitted prediction. The negative best-fit κ̂≈−0.5 (footnote 7, Sec. 3.1.3) is a statistical-validity caveat, not a definitional equivalence.

full rationale

The central Fermi-LAT derivation is self-contained. The DM spectrum (Eqs. 3.1–3.4) is built from: SE cross sections computed in this paper with the NLO potential functions of an independent author (Ref. [33]); BSF cross sections following the independent computations of Refs. [37] and [36] (Bottaro is not an author of this paper); and the NLL endpoint resummation from Ref. [41]. The observed counts come from 830 weeks of public Fermi-LAT data with public diffuse-emission templates (gll_iem_v07, iso_P8R3) and the 4FGL catalog; dSph J-factors are taken from the CTAO collaboration [51] and Ref. [52]. No parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction: κ rescales the theoretically fixed ⟨σv⟩, and the data determine its 95% upper limit; the exclusion criterion κ95<1 tests the measured flux against the theory normalization. The 5-plet selection does not import a uniqueness theorem from the present authors, citing instead Cirelli/Strumia et al. Self-citations do occur (Refs. [6], [24], [42], [50], [66] include Panci), but each is either independently corroborated ([6]'s thermal window by [12],[17],[38],[67]), superseded by this analysis ([24] is the older constraint being updated), or a standard public code/method also used by external groups ([42], [50], [51]). These do not carry the derivation. The flagged footnote-7 negative κ best-fit and the use of TS=2.71 with an unconstrained maximum are statistical-validity concerns rather than circular reasoning, and the paper itself flags the contested BSF normalization when comparing with [67] (Sec. 4). Score 2 reflects the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citation; the exclusion claim is not forced by construction or by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free model parameters are fitted to the indirect-detection data: the model has only M_chi, which is scanned across the thermal window, and the fitted quantities are background normalizations and the constraint tool kappa. The thermal mass window and the astrophysical inputs are assumed from prior literature, some with strong author overlap. No new particles or forces are introduced; the 1(1s)_3 bound state is a state of the existing multiplet.

free parameters (4)
  • Adiff = best-fit {kappa, Aiso, Adiff} ≈ {-0.5, 4.2, 0.9}
    Scales the Galactic diffuse emission template in the binned Poisson likelihood (Eq. 3.8).
  • Aiso = ≈ 4.2 (best fit)
    Scales the isotropic diffuse template in the same likelihood.
  • kappa = best-fit ≈ -0.5 for M_chi=13.7 TeV; 95% CL upper limit 1.06
    Rescales the predicted DM annihilation cross-section to derive an upper bound; allowing negative values is unphysical and indicates degeneracy with backgrounds.
  • energy window [52,398] GeV = 52-398 GeV
    Chosen by hand to avoid the Galactic Center excess (lower bound) and maximize sensitivity (upper bound); the authors verify small shifts change bounds by less than 8%, so the impact on the central claim is modest.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption MDM: SM plus a single Majorana SU(2) 5-plet with Y=0; stability from accidental symmetry
    Model definition, Sec. 1 and Eq. (2.1), from Refs. [1-4].
  • domain assumption Thermal mass window M_chi = 13.7 +0.6/-0.3 TeV
    Taken from Refs. [6,12] (overlapping authors); not recomputed in this paper, but it defines the target region.
  • domain assumption NLO potential corrections deltaV_NLO from Ref. [33] are valid for M_chi >> m_Z
    Used in Eq. (2.3); the paper states applicability requires M_chi >> m_Z.
  • standard math NLL resummation and SCET spectral results from Refs. [37,41,43-45]
    Used for the endpoint spectrum in Eqs. (3.1)-(3.4); the paper cites these results without re-deriving them.
  • domain assumption Einasto profile with alpha=0.17, rs=20 kpc, rho(r_sun)=0.4 GeV/cm^3
    Adopted for the inner Galaxy; from Refs. [47-49].
  • ad hoc to paper langle sigma v rangle ≡ sigma v |_{v=v_rel} with v_rel=10^-3 (MW), 10 km/s (dSphs)
    Sec. 2.4: the Maxwell average is replaced by the value at the peak of the relative-velocity distribution; not quantified.
  • standard math PPPC4DM spectra of Ref. [42] for continuum photons
    Used in Eq. (3.2).
  • domain assumption dSph J-factors from Jeans modeling in Refs. [51,52]
    Tab. 1; treated as Gaussian systematic in the CTAO analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Minimal Dark Matter in the sky: updated Indirect Detection probes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VMDDCI32

@misc{pith2026250717607,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Minimal Dark Matter in the sky: updated Indirect Detection probes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VMDDCI32}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17607}
}
abstract

Minimal Dark Matter is among the simplest and most predictive Dark Matter frameworks, with the Majorana SU(2) 5-plet as its smallest accidentally stable real representation. We present a comprehensive reassessment of its indirect-detection signals. The $\gamma$-ray flux from both Sommerfeld-enhanced annihilations and bound-state formation is calculated, incorporating next-to-leading-order corrections and next-to-leading-log resummation of the relevant electroweak effects. In the Milky Way halo, bound-state formation dominates the flux near 100 GeV. The corresponding low-energy spectrum is used to place constraints based on Fermi-LAT observations of Galactic diffuse emission, while the high-energy part of the spectrum is employed to forecast the required observation time for several of the Milky Way's dwarf spheroidal galaxies using the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory (CTAO). Fermi-LAT data strongly disfavor the lower edge of the thermal mass window, even under conservative assumptions about the inner Galaxy density profile. Furthermore, several hundred hours of forthcoming CTAO observations of northern dwarfs should be sufficient to probe the central mass value.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Self-consistent computation of pair production from non-relativistic effective field theories in the Keldysh-Schwinger formalism

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Self-consistent four-point functions in NR EFT with Keldysh-Schwinger formalism render Sommerfeld unitarization temperature-dependent and keep bound states on-shell in out-of-equilibrium decay even with finite-width B...

  2. Weak corrections to Minimal Dark Matter annihilations

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    One-loop weak corrections to fermionic MDM annihilation cross sections are computed, with IR divergences canceling in the s-wave and 5% effects in doublet, triplet, and quintuplet cases.

  3. Minimal Dark Matter: Generalized Framework and Direct-Detection Sensitivity

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For Higgs-coupled minimal dark matter, the 3M2D, 5M4D, and 7M6D combinations can have direct-detection cross sections below the neutrino floor, so next-generation direct detection cannot fully exclude the model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [67]

    B. R. Safdi and W. L. XuarXiv:2507.15934. – 24 –

    work page arXiv

  2. [60]

    W. A. Rolke, A. M. Lopez, and J. ConradNucl. Instrum. Meth. A 551 (2005) 493–503, [physics/0403059]

    arXiv 2005

  3. [33]

    Urban Journal of High Energy Physics 2021 (Oct., 2021)

    K. Urban Journal of High Energy Physics 2021 (Oct., 2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [1]

    Cirelli, N

    M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo, and A. StrumiaNuclear Physics B 753 (Oct., 2006) 178–194

    work page 2006

  5. [2]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and M. TamburiniNuclear Physics B 787 (Dec., 2007) 152–175. – 21 –

    work page 2007

  6. [3]

    Minimal Dark Matter predictions for galactic positrons, anti-protons, photons

    M. Cirelli, R. Franceschini, and A. StrumiaNucl. Phys. B 800 (2008) 204–220, [arXiv:0802.3378]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  7. [4]

    Cirelli and A

    M. Cirelli and A. StrumiaNew Journal of Physics 11 (Oct., 2009) 105005

    work page 2009

  8. [5]

    Del Nobile, M

    E. Del Nobile, M. Nardecchia, and P. PanciJCAP 04 (2016) 048, [arXiv:1512.05353]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 67 references
  1. [6]

    Bottaro, D

    S. Bottaro, D. Buttazzo, M. Costa, R. Franceschini, P. Panci, D. Redigolo, and L. VittorioEur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022), no. 1 31, [arXiv:2107.09688]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Panci PoS CORFU2023 (2024) 033, [arXiv:2405.05087]

    P. Panci PoS CORFU2023 (2024) 033, [arXiv:2405.05087]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Bottaro, D

    S. Bottaro, D. Buttazzo, M. Costa, R. Franceschini, P. Panci, D. Redigolo, and L. VittorioEur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022), no. 11 992, [arXiv:2205.04486]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Hisano, S

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, and M. M. NojiriPhys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 031303, [hep-ph/0307216]

    2004 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Hisano, S

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. Nagai, O. Saito, and M. SenamiPhys. Lett. B 646 (2007) 34–38, [hep-ph/0610249]

    2007 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Arkani-Hamed, D

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. WeinerPhysical Review D 79 (Jan., 2009)

    2009

  7. [12]

    Bottaro and D

    S. Bottaro and D. RedigoloarXiv:2305.01680

    arXiv

  8. [13]

    K. Blum, R. Sato, and T. R. SlatyerJCAP 06 (2016) 021, [arXiv:1603.01383]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Mitridate, M

    A. Mitridate, M. Redi, J. Smirnov, and A. StrumiaJCAP 05 (2017) 006, [arXiv:1702.01141]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Cirelli, P

    M. Cirelli, P. Panci, K. Petraki, F. Sala, and M. TaosoJCAP 05 (2017) 036, [arXiv:1612.07295]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [16]

    Harz and K

    J. Harz and K. PetrakiJHEP 07 (2018) 096, [arXiv:1805.01200]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [17]

    I. M. Bloch, S. Bottaro, D. Redigolo, and L. VittorioarXiv:2410.02723

    arXiv

  13. [18]

    Cirelli, F

    M. Cirelli, F. Sala, and M. TaosoJHEP 10 (2014) 033, [arXiv:1407.7058]. [Erratum: JHEP 01, 041 (2015)]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [19]

    Ostdiek Phys

    B. Ostdiek Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 055008, [arXiv:1506.03445]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Hisano, K

    J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata, N. Nagata, and T. TakesakoJHEP 07 (2011) 005, [arXiv:1104.0228]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Cirelli, E

    M. Cirelli, E. Del Nobile, and P. PanciJCAP 10 (2013) 019, [arXiv:1307.5955]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [22]

    Hisano, S

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri, and O. SaitoPhys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 015007, [hep-ph/0407168]

    2005 arXiv

  18. [23]

    Hisano, K

    J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata, and N. NagataJHEP 06 (2015) 097, [arXiv:1504.00915]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [24]

    Cirelli, T

    M. Cirelli, T. Hambye, P. Panci, F. Sala, and M. TaosoJCAP 10 (2015) 026, [arXiv:1507.05519]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [25]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and M. TamburiniNucl. Phys. B 787 (2007) 152–175, [arXiv:0706.4071]

    2007 arXiv

  21. [26]

    Actis et al.Exper

    CT A ConsortiumCollaboration, M. Actis et al.Exper. Astron. 32 (2011) 193–316, [arXiv:1008.3703]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [27]

    CT A ConsortiumCollaboration, B. S. Acharya et al.,Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array. WSP, 11, 2018

    2018

  23. [28]

    https://www.ctao.org/emission-to-discovery/array-sites/ctao-south/

    Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory,Ctao-south: Southern hemisphere array site , 2025. https://www.ctao.org/emission-to-discovery/array-sites/ctao-south/

    2025

  24. [29]

    https://www.ctao.org/emission-to-discovery/array-sites/ctao-north/

    Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory,Ctao-north: Northern hemisphere array site , 2025. https://www.ctao.org/emission-to-discovery/array-sites/ctao-north/. – 22 –

    2025

  25. [30]

    Gherghetta, G

    T. Gherghetta, G. F. Giudice, and J. D. WellsNucl. Phys. B 559 (1999) 27–47, [hep-ph/9904378]

    1999 arXiv

  26. [31]

    J. L. Feng, T. Moroi, L. Randall, M. Strassler, and S.-f. SuPhys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 1731–1734, [hep-ph/9904250]

    1999 arXiv

  27. [32]

    Cheng, B

    H.-C. Cheng, B. A. Dobrescu, and K. T. MatchevNucl. Phys. B 543 (1999) 47–72, [hep-ph/9811316]

    1999 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Garcia-Cely, A

    C. Garcia-Cely, A. Ibarra, A. S. Lamperstorfer, and M. H. TytgatJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015 (Oct., 2015) 058–058

    2015

  29. [35]

    Asadi, M

    P. Asadi, M. Baumgart, P. J. Fitzpatrick, E. Krupczak, and T. R. SlatyerJCAP 02 (2017) 005, [arXiv:1610.07617]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Bottaro, A

    S. Bottaro, A. Strumia, and N. VignaroliJHEP 06 (2021) 143, [arXiv:2103.12766]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Baumgart, N

    M. Baumgart, N. L. Rodd, T. R. Slatyer, and V. VaidyaJHEP 01 (2024) 158, [arXiv:2309.11562]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Mitridate, M

    A. Mitridate, M. Redi, J. Smirnov, and A. StrumiaJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2017 (May, 2017) 006–006

    2017

  33. [39]

    Piffl et al.Astron

    T. Piffl et al.Astron. Astrophys. 562 (2014) A91, [arXiv:1309.4293]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [40]

    A. W. McConnachieAstron. J. 144 (2012) 4, [arXiv:1204.1562]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Baumgart, T

    M. Baumgart, T. Cohen, I. Moult, N. L. Rodd, T. R. Slatyer, M. P. Solon, I. W. Stewart, and V. VaidyaJHEP 03 (2018) 117, [arXiv:1712.07656]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Cirelli, G

    M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. Hutsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci, M. Raidal, F. Sala, and A. Strumia JCAP 03 (2011) 051, [arXiv:1012.4515]. [Erratum: JCAP 10, E01 (2012)]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [43]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, and I. W. StewartPhys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 114020, [hep-ph/0011336]

    2001 arXiv

  38. [44]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. StewartPhys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 054022, [hep-ph/0109045]

    2002 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Bauer, T

    M. Bauer, T. Cohen, R. J. Hill, and M. P. SolonJHEP 01 (2015) 099, [arXiv:1409.7392]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Ackermann et al.Phys

    F ermi-LA TCollaboration, M. Ackermann et al.Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 082002, [arXiv:1305.5597]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [47]

    J. F. Navarro, A. Ludlow, V. Springel, J. Wang, M. Vogelsberger, S. D. M. White, A. Jenkins, C. S. Frenk, and A. HelmiMon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 402 (2010) 21, [arXiv:0810.1522]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Catena and P

    R. Catena and P. UllioJCAP 08 (2010) 004, [arXiv:0907.0018]

    2010 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Salucci, F

    P. Salucci, F. Nesti, G. Gentile, and C. F. MartinsAstron. Astrophys. 523 (2010) A83, [arXiv:1003.3101]

    2010 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Lefranc, G

    V. Lefranc, G. A. Mamon, and P. PanciJCAP 09 (2016) 021, [arXiv:1605.02793]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Abe et al.JCAP 07 (2024) 047, [arXiv:2403.04857]

    CT AOCollaboration, S. Abe et al.JCAP 07 (2024) 047, [arXiv:2403.04857]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [52]

    K. K. Boddy, J. Kumar, A. B. Pace, J. Runburg, and L. E. StrigariPhys. Rev. D 102 (2020), no. 2 023029, [arXiv:1909.13197]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [53]

    K. M. Górski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wandelt, F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelman Astrophys. J. 622 (2005) 759–771, [astro-ph/0409513]

    2005 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Ackermann et al.Phys

    F ermi-LA TCollaboration, M. Ackermann et al.Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015), no. 12 122002, [arXiv:1506.00013]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Ballet, T

    F ermi-LA TCollaboration, J. Ballet, T. H. Burnett, S. W. Digel, and B. Lott arXiv:2005.11208. – 23 –

    2005 arXiv

  50. [56]

    https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/software/aux/4fgl/Galactic_ Diffuse_Emission_Model_for_the_4FGL_Catalog_Analysis.pdf

    Fermi-LAT Collaboration,Galactic Interstellar Emission Model for the 4FGL Catalog Analysis , fermi-lat technical note, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 2019. https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/software/aux/4fgl/Galactic_ Diffuse_Emission_Model_for_the_4FGL_Catalog_...

    2019

  51. [57]

    Gammaldi, J

    F ermi-LA TCollaboration, V. Gammaldi, J. Pérez-Romero, J. Coronado-Blázquez, M. Di Mauro, E. Karukes, M. A. Sánchez-Conde, and P. Salucci.PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 509, [arXiv:2109.11291]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Goodenough and D

    L. Goodenough and D. HooperarXiv:0910.2998

    arXiv

  53. [59]

    Acero et al.Astrophys

    F ermi-LA TCollaboration, F. Acero et al.Astrophys. J. Suppl. 223 (2016), no. 2 26, [arXiv:1602.07246]

    2016 arXiv

  54. [61]

    T. K. Chan, D. Kereš, J. Oñorbe, P. F. Hopkins, A. L. Muratov, C. A. Faucher-Giguère, and E. Quataert Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 454 (2015), no. 3 2981–3001, [arXiv:1507.02282]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Hooper Phys

    D. Hooper Phys. Dark Univ. 15 (2017) 53–56, [arXiv:1608.00003]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Portail, C

    M. Portail, C. Wegg, and O. GerhardMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 450 (Apr., 2015) L66–L70

    2015

  57. [64]

    P. J. McMillanMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 465 (Oct., 2016) 76–94

    2016

  58. [65]

    Cherenkov telescope array observatory, performance

    Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory, “Cherenkov telescope array observatory, performance.” https://www.ctao.org/for-scientists/performance

  59. [66]

    Lefranc, E

    V. Lefranc, E. Moulin, P. Panci, F. Sala, and J. SilkJCAP 09 (2016) 043, [arXiv:1608.00786]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.