Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A fresh pass over electron and positron flux data extends dark matter annihilation and decay exclusions to 10^16 GeV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 10:04 UTC pith:5OUFROUA

load-bearing objection A competent but uneven update of cosmic-ray e± DM limits; the headline 10^16 GeV extension rests on an unjustified equivalence between gamma-ray and e± air-shower responses. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.11700 v2 pith:5OUFROUA submitted 2025-10-13 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Revisiting the limits on dark matter annihilation cross-section and decay lifetime in light of electron and positron fluxes

Nagisa Hiroshima , Kazunori Kohri , Partha Kumar Paul , Narendra Sahu This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords dark matterindirect detectioncosmic-ray electronspositron fluxannihilation cross-sectiondecay lifetimegamma-ray limitsair-shower experiments
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the observed cosmic-ray electron and positron fluxes, combined with gamma-ray upper limits that also constrain electron–positron pairs, place some of the strongest existing bounds on dark matter annihilation and decay. It derives 95% C.L. exclusion limits on the annihilation cross-section for stable dark matter between 500 GeV and 10^14 GeV, and on the decay lifetime for unstable dark matter up to 10^16 GeV, across five final states: W+W−, b bbar, μ+μ−, τ+τ−, and e+e−. The central result is that electron and positron data now rival and often beat gamma-ray and neutrino searches, especially for masses above 10^5 GeV, and extend the probed range to 10^16 GeV for the first time. If correct, the updated exclusion map sharpens the target region for thermal dark matter and rules out many heavy dark matter models.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the combined data from CALET, AMS-02, H.E.S.S., HAWC, GRAPES-3, DAMPE, and CASA-MIA yield new 95% C.L. upper limits on the dark matter annihilation cross-section and lower limits on the decay lifetime. The headline exclusions: for a 1 TeV dark matter particle annihilating to muon pairs, cross-sections above ~10^-24 cm^3/s are disfavored; for decaying dark matter of the same mass, lifetimes below ~10^27 s are excluded. At higher masses, H.E.S.S. electron data dominate above ~2 TeV, HAWC dominates between ~10^5 and 10^11 GeV, and CASA-MIA dominates beyond 10^11 GeV, with limits extending to 10^16 GeV for decaying dark matter. The paper claims this i

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the semi-analytic solution of the galactic diffusion–loss equation for electrons and positrons: dark matter annihilation or decay injects e± spectra, the particles propagate through the Galaxy with energy losses and diffusion, and the resulting flux at Earth is compared with data. The key interpretive step is that air-shower gamma-ray experiments (HAWC, GRAPES-3, CASA-MIA) cannot distinguish gamma-ray primaries from electron–positron pairs, so their gamma-ray upper limits are treated as direct upper bounds on the e+e− flux. The analysis uses the NFW-min halo profile and a parameterized background model, and computes chi-square limits relative to the data.

Load-bearing premise

The high-mass exclusions rest on treating gamma-ray upper limits from ground-based air-shower detectors as identical to electron–positron limits; if those detectors respond differently to photon and electron/positron primaries, the most stringent constraints do not follow from the data.

What would settle it

Recompute the HAWC, GRAPES-3, and CASA-MIA upper limits using the electron/positron air-shower response instead of the photon response; if the resulting limits are weaker by more than a factor of a few, the paper's dominant high-mass exclusions do not follow from the data.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • For a 1 TeV dark matter particle annihilating to muon pairs, cross-sections above roughly 10^-24 cm^3/s are now disfavored at 95% C.L.; for decaying dark matter of the same mass, lifetimes below about 10^27 s are excluded.
  • H.E.S.S. electron data give the strongest annihilation limits above ~2 TeV, and exclude muonic decay lifetimes below ~10^30 s for a 10 TeV particle.
  • For dark matter masses between 10^5 and 10^11 GeV, electron/positron flux limits are competitive with gamma-ray and neutrino constraints; beyond 10^11 GeV they become the most stringent, and for decaying dark matter they dominate across 10^3–10^9 GeV.
  • The e+e−-based limits extend indirect-detection reach to masses up to 10^16 GeV, a region previously covered only by a few studies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the gamma-ray limits from air-shower detectors really do double as electron–positron limits, the same logic can be applied to next-generation ground-based observatories, which would push the exclusion reach beyond 10^16 GeV.
  • The background model is a simple parameterization; incorporating a detailed pulsar and supernova remnant model could shift the sub-TeV limits where AMS-02 dominates, so those low-mass bounds should be read as model-dependent.
  • The NFW-min halo profile is deliberately conservative; adopting a more concentrated profile would strengthen the high-mass limits, meaning the quoted exclusions are a floor for the assumed halo.
  • A cross-check against neutrino searches for the same final states would test the consistency of the propagation model and the background treatment; disagreement would signal a systematic in one of the analyses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives 95% C.L. constraints on dark matter annihilation and decay into e+e−, μ+μ−, τ+τ−, b-bbar, and W+W−, using cosmic-ray electron/positron spectra from CALET, AMS-02, DAMPE, and H.E.S.S., together with gamma-ray upper limits from HAWC, GRAPES-3, and CASA-MIA. A semi-analytic diffusion model with fixed propagation and halo parameters is used to compute the DM contribution, and a chi-square fit against each dataset yields upper limits on <σv> for 500 GeV–1e14 GeV and lower limits on τ for 1e3–1e16 GeV. The main claimed results are that AMS-02/CALET dominate below ~TeV, H.E.S.S. is competitive at multi-TeV, and HAWC/CASA-MIA provide the strongest constraints for masses above ~1e5–1e11 GeV, with exclusions up to 1e16 GeV.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would extend indirect-detection constraints on heavy dark matter to masses up to 1e16 GeV and provide a useful cross-check against gamma-ray and neutrino searches. The use of HDMSpectra for electroweak-corrected injection spectra and the inclusion of multiple recent datasets are strengths. The low-mass constraints from CALET/AMS-02/DAMPE are based on a standard and transparent chi-square pipeline. However, the high-mass constraints, which are a central part of the paper's novelty, rest on an assumption about gamma-ray air-shower experiments that is not justified in the manuscript. Reproducibility is also hampered by an incomplete parameter list in the halo-function fit.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section I and Figs. 2–4] The high-mass exclusions (M_DM ≳ 1e5 GeV) are driven by treating HAWC, GRAPES-3, and CASA-MIA gamma-ray upper limits as direct upper limits on the e+ + e− flux. The manuscript states in the Introduction that these experiments 'cannot distinguish gamma-ray from e+ + e− pairs.' This is not a sufficient justification. Published gamma-ray limits are derived after detector-specific event selection and background modeling; if the analyses subtract or model the electromagnetic primary background (as is common for air-shower arrays), the quoted limit constrains photons only. If, instead, electrons and positrons are included in the signal region, the effective area for e± differs from that for photons and must be folded in. No response function, acceptance ratio A_e/A_γ, or cross-check is provided. Even an order-unity error in this conversion propagates directly into the derived <σv> and τ limits
  2. [Section II A, Eq. (7)] The halo function I(λ_D) is defined in Eq. (7) with parameters a0, a1, a2, b1, b2, c1, c2, and a3, but the text immediately following lists only a0=0.5, a1=0.774, a2=-0.448, b1=0.096, b2=192.8, c1=0.211, c2=33.88. The value of a3 is missing. Since I(λ_D) appears in the flux formula (5) and directly affects all derived limits, this omission makes the central calculation irreproducible and needs to be corrected.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (9), and Section II B, Eq. (8)] The chi-square in Eq. (9) uses only the data uncertainties σ, with the astrophysical background fixed to Eq. (8) or to the background model of CALET [11]. No nuisance parameters are introduced for background normalization, propagation parameters (δ, K0, L), or energy-scale systematics. In addition, the background model used for CALET, AMS-02, and DAMPE is derived from fits to the same cosmic-ray data; using it as a fixed background in a DM fit to those same datasets can bias the limits. The paper should at least assess how the limits shift under plausible variations of the background and propagation parameters, or include them as nuisance parameters in the fit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II A] The text says 'b(E) in Eq. (4)' when defining the energy-loss relation; Eq. (4) is the unitarity bound. This should refer to Eq. (1) or Eq. (5).
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption first calls the background a 'gray curve' and later a 'gray shaded region'; the text also refers to both. Please make the figure/caption terminology consistent.
  3. [Reference [16]] The GRAPES-3 reference is incomplete: 'M. M. et al., Proceedings of Science (31st International Cosmic Ray Conference), (2009)' lacks a title, collaboration author list, and article identifier. A full citation is needed.
  4. [Throughout] Minor notation and typographical issues: 'HESS' vs 'H.E.S.S.' is inconsistent; 'gravitational lensing, bullet clusters' should be 'the Bullet Cluster'; and the phrase 'for a typical DM mass of 1 TeV, we get <σv> > O(10^-24) cm^3/s is disfavored' is awkwardly worded (the inequality direction should be stated as an upper limit on <σv>).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the DM exclusions are obtained by direct chi-square fitting to external data with explicit propagation and background models.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a standard constraint procedure, not a prediction from first principles that secretly re-uses its input. The DM-induced e± flux is computed from Eq. (5) with an explicit diffusion model (NFW-min), injection spectra from HDMSpectra, and additive astrophysical backgrounds from Eq. (8) or Ref. [11]. The limits on ⟨σv⟩ and τ_DM are then obtained by minimizing the chi-square in Eq. (9), where 'data' are measured fluxes, 'model' is the DM contribution, and 'background' is an independently parameterized astrophysical component. Thus ⟨σv⟩ and τ_DM are free parameters constrained by data, not quantities defined in terms of the target result. The use of the CALET background model from [11] is external to this paper; even if that model was calibrated to the same cosmic-ray data, adding a DM signal on top and testing whether the sum is excluded is a legitimate and conservative way to set limits, not a self-definitional reduction. The treatment of HAWC, GRAPES-3, and CASA-MIA gamma-ray upper limits as e+e− limits is an explicit physical assumption ('they cannot distinguish gamma-ray from e+ + e− pairs'); if incorrect, this would be an experimental-interpretation error, not a circular step, because the gamma-ray limits are not defined in terms of the DM e± flux within this paper. The only self-citations ([29], [32]) are contextual references to prior related work and do not carry the derivation. No quoted equation reduces to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The derivation is self-contained with respect to the stated external data and propagation model.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis imports a chain of established but unvalidated ingredients: diffusion/energy-loss parameters, halo profile, background flux models, and the identification of gamma-ray air-shower limits with e+e− flux. The only new fit parameters are the constrained quantities themselves, so the ledger mostly records external assumptions whose systematics are not propagated.

free parameters (4)
  • Local dark matter density (n_DM or ρ_⊙) = not stated (commonly 0.3 GeV/cm^3)
    The flux in Eq. (5) scales as (n_DM)^2 for annihilation and n_DM for decay; the paper never quotes the assumed value. The derived limits scale inversely with this quantity.
  • Halo-function parameters a0, a1, a2, b1, b2, c1, c2, a3 = a0=0.5, a1=0.774, a2=-0.448, b1=0.096, b2=192.8, c1=0.211, c2=33.88; a3 missing
    Chosen from [41,48], but the text omits a3 and lists b2=192.8, which makes the Gaussian term vanish; if the intended b2 is 1.928, limits shift. This prevents exact reproduction.
  • Background flux normalizations in Eq. (8) = Coefficients 0.16, 11, 3.2, ... etc.
    Taken from [51]; no uncertainty is assigned. The CALET/AMS-02/DAMPE background is taken from [11] and already includes all pulsars, so the DM signal is constrained on top of a background that was tuned to the same data.
  • Propagation parameters δ, K0, L = δ=0.55, K0=0.00595 kpc^2/Myr, L=1 kpc
    The 'min' model; chosen as conservative but not varied. Propagation systematic uncertainty is not propagated into limits.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Steady-state diffusion equation with homogeneous diffusion coefficient and continuous energy loss describes e± propagation.
    Adopted from [40,41] without modification; no convection/reacceleration or source distribution uncertainties.
  • ad hoc to paper Gamma-ray air-shower upper limits from HAWC, GRAPES-3, CASA-MIA are equivalent to e+e− flux upper limits because 'they cannot distinguish gamma-ray from e+ + e− pairs'.
    Introduction; this equivalence is asserted, not derived, and is load-bearing for high-mass constraints.
  • domain assumption Background fluxes from [11] and Eq. (8) (including all pulsar contributions) correctly describe the astrophysical e± background.
    Section II B; any error in background normalization appears directly in limits.
  • standard math Self-conjugate DM gives the factor 1/2 in Eq. (2).
    Standard assumption; non-self-conjugate DM would change limits by a factor of 2.
  • domain assumption HDMSpectra fragmentation spectra (with electroweak corrections) are accurate for heavy DM.
    Ref. [50] used for all channels; errors in spectra affect limits.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11253 in / 16455 out tokens · 133050 ms · 2026-08-04T10:04:14.103756+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the limits on dark matter annihilation cross-section and decay lifetime in light of electron and positron fluxes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5OUFROUA

@misc{pith2026251011700,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the limits on dark matter annihilation cross-section and decay lifetime in light of electron and positron fluxes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5OUFROUA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.11700}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We revisit the upper bound on the annihilation cross-section, $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ of a stable dark matter (DM) of mass $500-10^{14}$ GeV by considering five different channels: $W^+W^-$, $b\bar{b}$, $\mu^+\mu^-$, $\tau^+\tau^-$, and $e^+e^-$. We use the observed electron and positron fluxes from CALET, DAMPE, HESS, positron flux from AMS-02, and gamma-ray flux from HAWC, GRAPES-3, CASA-MIA to constrain the annihilation cross-section. We also consider unstable DM of mass $10^3-10^{16}$~GeV decaying to $W^+W^-$, $b\bar{b}$, $\mu^+\mu^-$, $\tau^+\tau^-$, and $e^+e^-$ and derive the corresponding lower bound on the DM lifetime, $\tau_{\rm DM}$. We find that the latest AMS-02 data provide the most stringent constraints on $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ for DM masses below 2 TeV, while HESS yields the strongest limits for $M_{\rm DM}\gtrsim2$ TeV. The HESS gives a much more stringent limit on the DM lifetime, excluding $\tau_{\rm DM\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-}\lesssim\mathcal{O}(10^{30})$ s for a 10 TeV mass of DM. The limits on $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ derived from the $e^+e^-$ flux are competitive with those from $\gamma$-ray and neutrino observations for DM masses in the range $10^5$--$10^{11}$ GeV, and become the most stringent beyond this range. For decaying DM, the $e^+e^-$ flux provides the strongest constraints on the DM lifetime over the mass range $10^3$--$10^9$ GeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.11700 by Kazunori Kohri, Nagisa Hiroshima, Narendra Sahu, Partha Kumar Paul.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. 95% C.L. limits on DM annihilation cross-section ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. 95% C.L. limits on DM annihilation cross-section ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Minimal Freeze-in Dark Matter: Reviving electroweak doublet dark matter with Boltzmann suppressed freeze-in

    hep-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Electroweak SU(2)_L doublet fermion dark matter with mass above 10^10 GeV (or 300 GeV if pseudo-Dirac) is produced by Boltzmann-suppressed freeze-in above the reheat temperature and evades direct detection while never...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 40 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Zwicky, Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln, Helv

    F. Zwicky, Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln, Helv. Phys. Acta6, 110 (1933)

    1933

  2. [2]

    V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford, Jr., Rotation of the An- dromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions, Astrophys. J.159, 379 (1970)

    1970

  3. [3]

    Clowe, M

    D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky, A direct em- pirical proof of the existence of dark matter, Astrophys. J. Lett.648, L109 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608407

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Bertone and T

    G. Bertone and T. Tait, M. P., A new era in the search for dark matter, Nature562, 51 (2018), arXiv:1810.01668 [astro-ph.CO]. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Profumo, L

    S. Profumo, L. Giani, and O. F. Piattella, An Introduc- tion to Particle Dark Matter, Universe5, 213 (2019), arXiv:1910.05610 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Bergstrom, J

    L. Bergstrom, J. Edsjo, and G. Zaharijas, Dark matter interpretation of recent electron and positron data, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 031103 (2009), arXiv:0905.0333 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  9. [9]

    Ibarra, D

    A. Ibarra, D. Tran, and C. Weniger, Indirect Searches for Decaying Dark Matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 1330040 (2013), arXiv:1307.6434 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    T. R. Slatyer, Indirect dark matter signatures in the cos- mic dark ages. I. Generalizing the bound on s-wave dark matter annihilation from Planck results, Phys. Rev. D 93, 023527 (2016), arXiv:1506.03811 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    Adrianiet al.(CALET), Direct Measurement of the Spectral Structure of Cosmic-Ray Electrons+Positrons in the TeV Region with CALET on the International Space Station, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Aguilaret al.(AMS), The Alpha Magnetic Spectrom- eter (AMS) on the international space station: Part II — Results from the first seven years, Phys

    M. Aguilaret al.(AMS), The Alpha Magnetic Spectrom- eter (AMS) on the international space station: Part II — Results from the first seven years, Phys. Rept.894, 1 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    Alemanno (DAMPE), Latest results from the DAMPE space mission, in56th Rencontres de Moriond on Very High Energy Phenomena in the Universe(2022) arXiv:2209.06014 [astro-ph.HE]

    F. Alemanno (DAMPE), Latest results from the DAMPE space mission, in56th Rencontres de Moriond on Very High Energy Phenomena in the Universe(2022) arXiv:2209.06014 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Aharonianet al.(H.E.S.S.), High-Statistics Mea- surement of the Cosmic-Ray Electron Spectrum with H.E.S.S., Phys

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

    arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Albertet al.(HA WC), Limits on the Diffuse Gamma- Ray Background above 10 TeV with HA WC, (2022), arXiv:2209.08106 [astro-ph.HE]

    A. Albertet al.(HA WC), Limits on the Diffuse Gamma- Ray Background above 10 TeV with HA WC, (2022), arXiv:2209.08106 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    M. M. et al., Proceedings of Science (31st International Cosmic Ray Conference), (2009)

    2009

  17. [17]

    M. C. Chantellet al.(CASA-MIA), Limits on the isotropic diffuse flux of ultrahigh-energy gamma radi- ation, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 1805 (1997), arXiv:astro- ph/9705246

    arXiv 1997

  18. [18]

    Hooper, P

    D. Hooper, P. Blasi, and P. D. Serpico, Pulsars as the Sources of High Energy Cosmic Ray Positrons, JCAP 01, 025, arXiv:0810.1527 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Fang, X.-J

    K. Fang, X.-J. Bi, P.-F. Yin, and Q. Yuan, Two-zone dif- fusion of electrons and positrons from Geminga explains the positron anomaly, Astrophys. J.863, 30 (2018), arXiv:1803.02640 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Kohri, K

    K. Kohri, K. Ioka, Y. Fujita, and R. Yamazaki, Can we explain AMS-02 antiproton and positron excesses simul- taneously by nearby supernovae without pulsars or dark matter?, PTEP2016, 021E01 (2016), arXiv:1505.01236 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    Blasi and P

    P. Blasi and P. D. Serpico, High-energy antiprotons from old supernova remnants, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 081103 (2009), arXiv:0904.0871 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  22. [22]

    Mertsch and S

    P. Mertsch and S. Sarkar, AMS-02 data confront ac- celeration of cosmic ray secondaries in nearby sources, Phys. Rev. D90, 061301 (2014), arXiv:1402.0855 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Mertsch, A

    P. Mertsch, A. Vittino, and S. Sarkar, Explaining cos- mic ray antimatter with secondaries from old super- nova remnants, Phys. Rev. D104, 103029 (2021), arXiv:2012.12853 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Di Mauro, F

    M. Di Mauro, F. Donato, and S. Manconi, Novel interpretation of the latest AMS-02 cosmic-ray elec- tron spectrum, Phys. Rev. D104, 083012 (2021), arXiv:2010.13825 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Feng, R.-Z

    L. Feng, R.-Z. Yang, H.-N. He, T.-K. Dong, Y.-Z. Fan, and J. Chang, AMS-02 positron excess: new bounds on dark matter models and hint for primary electron spectrum hardening, Phys. Lett. B728, 250 (2014), arXiv:1303.0530 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  26. [26]

    Boudaud, J

    M. Boudaud, J. Lavalle, and P. Salati, Novel cosmic- ray electron and positron constraints on MeV dark matter particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 021103 (2017), arXiv:1612.07698 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    Abeet al.(MAGIC), Search for Gamma-Ray Spectral Lines from Dark Matter Annihilation up to 100 TeV to- ward the Galactic Center with MAGIC, Phys

    H. Abeet al.(MAGIC), Search for Gamma-Ray Spectral Lines from Dark Matter Annihilation up to 100 TeV to- ward the Galactic Center with MAGIC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 061002 (2023), arXiv:2212.10527 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Abdallaet al.(H.E.S.S.), Search for Dark Matter An- nihilation Signals in the H.E.S.S

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

    arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    D. Song, N. Hiroshima, and K. Murase, Search for heavy dark matter from dwarf spheroidal galaxies: lever- aging cascades and subhalo models, JCAP05, 087, arXiv:2401.15606 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Cheng, Y.-F

    J.-G. Cheng, Y.-F. Liang, and E.-W. Liang, Search for the gamma-ray spectral lines with the DAMPE and the Fermi-LAT observations, Phys. Rev. D108, 063015 (2023), arXiv:2308.16762 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Calore, M

    F. Calore, M. Cirelli, L. Derome, Y. Genolini, D. Maurin, P. Salati, and P. D. Serpico, AMS-02 antiprotons and dark matter: Trimmed hints and robust bounds, SciPost Phys.12, 163 (2022), arXiv:2202.03076 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Kohri, P

    K. Kohri, P. K. Paul, and N. Sahu, Super heavy dark matter origin of the PeV neutrino event: KM3-230213A, Phys. Rev. D112, L031703 (2025), arXiv:2503.04464 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Boehm, R

    C. Boehm, R. Laha, and T. N. Maity, LHAASO Galac- tic Planeγ-rays Strongly Constrain Heavy Dark Matter, (2025), arXiv:2509.07982 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Athronet al.(GAMBIT), Global fits of GUT-scale SUSY models with GAMBIT, Eur

    P. Athronet al.(GAMBIT), Global fits of GUT-scale SUSY models with GAMBIT, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 824 (2017), arXiv:1705.07935 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    Cohen, K

    T. Cohen, K. Murase, N. L. Rodd, B. R. Safdi, and Y. Soreq,γ-ray Constraints on Decaying Dark Mat- ter and Implications for IceCube, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 021102 (2017), arXiv:1612.05638 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    S. Das, K. Murase, and T. Fujii, Revisiting ultrahigh- energy constraints on decaying superheavy dark mat- ter, Phys. Rev. D107, 103013 (2023), arXiv:2302.02993 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Chianese, D

    M. Chianese, D. F. G. Fiorillo, R. Hajjar, G. Miele, S. Morisi, and N. Saviano, Heavy decaying dark mat- ter at future neutrino radio telescopes, JCAP05, 074, arXiv:2103.03254 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    P. P. Kronberg, Extragalactic magnetic fields, Rept. Prog. Phys.57, 325 (1994)

    1994

  39. [39]

    Zhang and G

    L. Zhang and G. Sigl, Dark Matter Signatures in the Anisotropic Radio Sky, JCAP09, 027, arXiv:0807.3429 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    I. V. Moskalenko and A. W. Strong, Production and propagation of cosmic ray positrons and electrons, As- trophys. J.493, 694 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9710124. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  41. [41]

    Delahaye, R

    T. Delahaye, R. Lineros, F. Donato, N. Fornengo, and P. Salati, Positrons from dark matter annihilation in the galactic halo: Theoretical uncertainties, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063527 (2008), arXiv:0712.2312 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

    Griest and M

    K. Griest and M. Kamionkowski, Unitarity Limits on the Mass and Radius of Dark Matter Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 615 (1990)

    1990

  43. [43]

    Hui, Unitarity bounds and the cuspy halo prob- lem, Phys

    L. Hui, Unitarity bounds and the cuspy halo prob- lem, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 3467 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0102349

    arXiv 2001

  44. [44]

    J. F. Beacom, N. F. Bell, and G. D. Mack, General Up- per Bound on the Dark Matter Total Annihilation Cross Section, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 231301 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0608090

    arXiv 2007

  45. [45]

    S. P. Martin, A Supersymmetry primer, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.18, 1 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9709356

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  46. [46]

    Frumkin, E

    R. Frumkin, E. Kuflik, I. Lavie, and T. Silverwater, Roadmap to Thermal Dark Matter beyond the Weakly Interacting Dark Matter Unitarity Bound, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 171001 (2023), arXiv:2207.01635 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Hisano, S

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, O. Saito, and M. Senami, Heavy wino-like neutralino dark matter annihilation into antiparticles, Phys. Rev. D73, 055004 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0511118

    arXiv 2006

  48. [48]

    Cirelli, R

    M. Cirelli, R. Franceschini, and A. Strumia, Mini- mal Dark Matter predictions for galactic positrons, anti-protons, photons, Nucl. Phys. B800, 204 (2008), arXiv:0802.3378 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  49. [49]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  50. [50]

    C. W. Bauer, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Webber, Dark mat- ter spectra from the electroweak to the Planck scale, JHEP06, 121, arXiv:2007.15001 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  51. [51]

    E. A. Baltz and J. Edsjo, Positron propagation and fluxes from neutralino annihilation in the halo, Phys. Rev. D 59, 023511 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9808243

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  52. [52]

    Steigman, B

    G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta, and J. F. Beacom, Precise Relic WIMP Abundance and its Impact on Searches for Dark Matter Annihilation, Phys. Rev. D86, 023506 (2012), arXiv:1204.3622 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [53]

    Saikawa and S

    K. Saikawa and S. Shirai, Precise WIMP Dark Mat- ter Abundance and Standard Model Thermodynamics, JCAP08, 011, arXiv:2005.03544 [hep-ph]. 8 Appendix A: Annihilation cross-section and lifetime constraints forb ¯b,e +e−,µ +µ−,τ +τ − channels Here, we present the constraints on DM annihilation and lifetime for several other final states. 102 104 106 108 1010...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005