REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by
The paper searches for neutrinos from dark matter annihilation or decay at the Galactic Center using 9.28 years of IceCube-DeepCore data and reports no significant signal, setting the strongest neutrino-telescope limits on GeV-scale dark ma
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 →
T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash
2026-08-04 00:24 UTC pith:BS7JVNPF
load-bearing objection A careful IceCube limit setter that improves GeV-scale DM limits, but the 'strongest neutrino telescope' claim is missing the KM3NeT comparison and the unmeasured sub-TeV Galactic Plane flux is a real caveat. the 2 major comments →
Search for GeV-scale Dark Matter from the Galactic Center with IceCube-DeepCore
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
The central claim is that the Galactic Center does not emit a detectable flux of GeV-to-TeV neutrinos from dark matter annihilation or decay. After fitting a binned Poisson likelihood to reconstructed energy and angular distance from the Galactic Center, the best-fit signal fraction is consistent with zero for every tested mass, channel, and halo profile. The paper therefore reports null results and converts them into constraints: for annihilation into neutrino lines, the 90% C.L. upper limits on ⟨σv⟩ reach a few times 10^-25–10^-24 cm^3/s, and for decay the lower limits on the lifetime reach 10^26 s. The strongest neutrino-line limits are the world-leading ones for DM masses from a few tens
What carries the argument
The analysis's key object is the two-dimensional probability density over reconstructed energy and opening angle from the Galactic Center, built for signal from simulation and for background by randomizing right ascension of the data (time-scrambling). The signal fraction ξ is the only fitted parameter; the limits on ⟨σv⟩ and lifetime follow from converting ξ through the expected event rate. The RA-scrambled background is what makes the search robust to many systematic errors, because it uses the data themselves rather than a Monte Carlo background prediction.
Load-bearing premise
The background template is built by scrambling the right ascension of the observed events, which is unbiased only if every non-dark-matter background, including the recently discovered diffuse neutrino emission from the Galactic Plane, is uniform in right ascension; the paper extrapolates that Galactic Plane flux from TeV energies down to GeV with an unverified power law.
What would settle it
Measure the diffuse neutrino flux from the Galactic Plane at energies between roughly 15 and 200 GeV—for example with the future IceCube-Upgrade or another high-statistics GeV-neutrino detector. If the measured flux exceeds the extrapolation used here (the TeV best-fit power law extended without a break), then the background-subtraction procedure would misestimate the null expectation, and the reported upper limits on dark matter annihilation and decay would need revision.
If this is right
- The limits exclude at 90% C.L. a large class of thermal-relic dark matter models annihilating into neutrino lines, assuming the NFW profile.
- Near 10 GeV, the constraints improve on the previous IceCube bounds by about an order of magnitude.
- The neutrino-line lower limits on dark matter lifetime (up to 10^26 s) are the strongest from any neutrino telescope and world-leading in the tens-to-hundreds GeV range.
- For cored (Burkert) halo profiles, the annihilation limits weaken by roughly a factor of 3–5, but the decay-lifetime limits are only mildly affected.
- The null result is consistent with the background-only hypothesis, so it does not support the dark matter interpretation of the Fermi GeV excess.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- If the diffuse neutrino flux from the Galactic Plane at energies below 1 TeV is larger than the extrapolated TeV best-fit spectrum used here, the RA-scrambling background template would be biased and the derived limits would shift; a direct measurement of that flux at 15–200 GeV would settle this.
- Because energy information is largely diluted in the scrambled background, the sensitivity of this search comes mainly from angular direction; an analysis that models the energy spectrum of backgrounds explicitly could improve limits for all channels, not just the line channels.
- The same data-driven method could be applied to other dark-matter-dense targets such as dwarf spheroidal galaxies, where the astrophysical J-factor is lower but the background is cleaner and more isotropic.
- With the future IceCube-Upgrade, the threshold will drop, likely extending this kind of search to dark matter masses below 5 GeV where current limits disappear.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper presents a search for GeV-scale dark matter (DM) annihilation and decay signals from the Galactic Center using 9.28 years of IceCube-DeepCore data. The analysis uses a binned Poisson likelihood in reconstructed energy and opening angle, with a data-driven RA-scrambled background and a single fitted signal fraction. No significant excess is found; the best post-trial significance is 1.08σ for 201.6 GeV DM annihilating to b¯b. The paper then derives 90% C.L. upper limits on the annihilation cross-section (order 10^-24 cm^3/s) and lower limits on the decay lifetime (up to 10^26 s) for masses from 5 GeV to 8 TeV, across several channels and two halo profiles. It claims order-of-magnitude improvement over previous IceCube limits at ~10 GeV and world-leading neutrino-telescope constraints for GeV-scale DM.
Significance. If the results hold, they constitute a solid improvement in neutrino-telescope sensitivity to sub-TeV DM, particularly in the 10–100 GeV mass range, and provide a useful benchmark for future GeV-scale searches. The analysis uses a standard likelihood framework, validates the post-trial significance with 10,000 scrambled pseudo-trials, and evaluates detector systematics through dedicated varied simulations. The main risk to the central claim is the treatment of the recently discovered Galactic-Plane diffuse neutrino flux, which is not RA-uniform, is unmeasured below 1 TeV, and is spatially concentrated toward the Galactic Center—the same region targeted by the DM search.
major comments (2)
- [Sec. II and Sec. IV (Eqs. 4–6)] The RA-scrambling background B_scr is unbiased only if every non-DM background is uniform in right ascension. The paper itself identifies the Galactic-Plane (GP) diffuse flux as non-uniform (Sec. II), but justifies its smallness by quoting a global event fraction of 0.01%–0.05% obtained from an unmeasured extrapolation of the TeV spectrum. This global fraction is not the relevant quantity: the DM search concentrates on small Ψ_reco and low E_reco, where the GP—concentrated along the plane containing the Galactic Center—can have a substantially larger relative normalization. The paper does not report the GP fraction inside the signal region for either the π0 or KRA_γ template, so the claim that GP is negligible is not established by the presented numbers.
- [Sec. V (Eq. 8)] The GP robustness tests quote up to 30% changes in median sensitivity for different GP templates and normalizations, including leaving g free. This is within the quoted 1σ statistical band, but it is not a demonstration that the observed result and the derived limits are unaffected. The paper does not repeat the actual data fit with Eq. (8)—for g fixed to the two model predictions and for g free—to show the shifts in the best-fit signal fraction, post-trial significance, and 90% C.L. limits. The concluding statement that the analysis is ‘insensitive’ to the GP contribution is therefore stronger than what is demonstrated. A 30% shift in limits could affect the claimed world-leading status in some mass ranges, and should be quantified directly on the observed data.
minor comments (4)
- [Eqs. (1)–(2)] The notation for J(Ψ) and D(Ψ) is ambiguous: Eq. (2) integrates over the solid angle Ω, making J cumulative within a cone, while Eq. (1) labels the flux as a function of Ψ. Clarify whether J(Ψ) is intended per unit solid angle (with the Ω integration omitted) and confirm that the signal PDF normalization is derived from the differential J-factor. The text should be explicit about how the Clumpy output is used in the response-matrix convolution.
- [Eqs. (5)–(6)] The signal-subtraction likelihood requires a parameter constraint that is not stated. For large ξ, in bins where ξS_scr_i exceeds B_scr_i, the expected count μ_i in Eq. (3) can become negative, which is unphysical for a Poisson mean. The paper should state explicitly that ξ is constrained to [0,1] (as is later done for ξ+g in Eq. (8)) and describe how bins with non-positive μ_i are treated in the likelihood and in the q_ξ computation.
- [Figs. 9–10 and Ref. [26]] The KM3NeT result [26] is cited in the Introduction but is not included or discussed in the comparison figures. If the paper claims the strongest neutrino-telescope limits, the comparison should either include KM3NeT or explain why it is not shown. Otherwise the world-leading statement is incomplete.
- [General] Minor wording: ‘Wilk’s theorem’ should be ‘Wilks’ theorem.’ The phrase ‘significantly smaller than the statistical fluctuation’ (Sec. V) is misleading for a 30% deviation against a 1σ band that spans a factor ~0.6–2; suggest ‘within the 1σ statistical band.’ The reconstructed-energy range is quoted as 1–1000 GeV in Sec. II but the abstract emphasizes 15–200 GeV; clarify the selection’s designed band.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the search is a standard likelihood fit of a signal fraction to data, with the background built from RA-scrambled data and an explicit signal-subtraction correction.
full rationale
The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The DM signal expectation is computed from independent inputs: the halo J/D-factors (Eq. 1-2) with profiles from Ref. [46], neutrino energy spectra from χaroν/PYTHIA-8.2 and EW-corrected spectra [48,49], and a MC-based response matrix. The background is data-driven via RA-scrambling (Sec. IV), but the signal-subtraction prescription in Eq. 5 explicitly prevents a potential signal from being absorbed into the background: B_i = (B_scr_i − ξ S_scr_i)/(1−ξ), and Eq. 6 then gives f = ξS + B_scr − ξS_scr. This is a self-consistent statistical model, not a definition of the result. The only fitted parameter is the signal fraction ξ; no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. Upper limits are obtained with the standard likelihood-ratio q_ξ (Eq. 9) after validating the χ² approximation with pseudo-experiments. The Galactic-Plane diffuse flux is an acknowledged, unmeasured background component in the signal region; the paper tests it with explicit nuisance-parameter variations in Eq. 8 (Sec. V) and finds at most ~30% sensitivity changes, then omits it from the final hypothesis for the reasons stated. This is a limitation and a systematic uncertainty, not circular reasoning. Self-citations to previous IceCube analyses [23,34-36,40] provide the event sample, reconstruction, and the RA-scrambling method, but those are prior published, externally validated results; the central null result and the presented limits are computed in this paper from the data and MC described here. No step reduces to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing appeal is made to an unverified self-citation.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
free parameters (2)
- Signal fraction ξ =
Fitted per mass/channel/profile; see Appendix Tables I-VII
- Galactic Plane fraction g =
Set to 0 in nominal limits; tested as fixed model prediction or free nuisance parameter in systematics
axioms (5)
- domain assumption Dark matter is assumed to be a Majorana particle, setting k=2 in the annihilation flux formula.
- domain assumption The Milky Way DM halo is bracketed by NFW and Burkert profiles with parameters from Nesti & Salucci [46].
- domain assumption RA-scrambled data provide an unbiased background estimate, i.e., all non-DM backgrounds are uniform in right ascension.
- domain assumption The neutrino spectra from annihilation/decay channels are correctly given by χaroν/PYTHIA and EW-corrected calculations [48,49].
- standard math Neutrino oscillations over astrophysical distances are averaged with standard oscillation parameters.
read the original abstract
Models describing dark matter as a novel particle often predict that its annihilation or decay into Standard Model particles could produce a detectable neutrino flux in regions of high dark matter density, such as the Galactic Center. In this work, we search for these neutrinos using $\sim$9 years of IceCube-DeepCore data with an event selection optimized for energies between 15 GeV to 200 GeV. We considered several annihilation and decay channels and dark matter masses ranging from 15 GeV up to 8 TeV. No significant deviation from the background expectation from atmospheric neutrinos and muons was found. The most significant result was found for a dark matter mass of 201.6 GeV annihilating into a pair of $b\bar{b}$ quarks assuming the Navarro-Frenk-White halo profile with a post-trial significance of $1.08 \;\sigma$. We present upper limits on the thermally-averaged annihilation cross-section of the order of $10^{-24}~\mathrm{cm}^3 \mathrm{s}^{-1}$, as well as lower limits on the dark matter decay lifetime up to $10^{26}~\mathrm{s}$ for dark matter masses between 5 GeV up to 8 TeV. These results strengthen the current IceCube limits on dark matter masses above 20 GeV and provide an order of magnitude improvement at lower masses. In addition, they represent the strongest constraints from any neutrino telescope on GeV-scale dark matter and are among the world-leading limits for several dark matter scenarios.
Figures
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Possible High-Energy Neutrino Emission from Dark Matter Annihilation in the Disrupting Dwarf Galaxy Bo\"{o}tes~III
IceCube data analysis yields a 3.1 sigma excess consistent with dark matter annihilation into neutrinos from the dwarf galaxy Bootes III at 26.5 TeV mass.
-
The potential of diffuse Galactic Ridge neutrino measurements to constrain dark matter
ANTARES Galactic Ridge upper limits yield competitive dark-matter annihilation/decay bounds, the first neutrino-based branon constraints, and a negative KM3NeT forecast for the thermal relic cross-section.
-
Galactic Center gamma-ray excess from a generic triaxial halo
Fermi-LAT fits show the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess keeps its spectrum and cuspiness under triaxial/tilted dark matter halo templates, but its morphology prefers a flipped-tilt halo and disfavors a stellar-halo profile.
-
Nearly Degenerate Majorana Dark Matter and Its Self-Interactions in a Gauged $U(1)_{L_\mu - L_\tau}$ Model
A gauged U(1)_{Lμ-Lτ} model generates nearly degenerate Majorana dark matter whose self-interactions via a light scalar mediator set the relic density, resolve core-cusp anomalies, and fit LZ direct detection plus muo...
-
The potential of diffuse Galactic Ridge neutrino measurements to constrain dark matter
ANTARES Galactic Ridge neutrino measurements can constrain annihilating and decaying dark matter for various masses and profiles while comparing to astrophysical backgrounds, with forecasts for future observatories.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
M. Persic, P. Salucci, and F. Stel, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.281, 27 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9506004
Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996
-
[2]
V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford, Jr., Astrophys. J.159, 379 (1970)
1970
-
[3]
Zwicky, Astrophys
F. Zwicky, Astrophys. J.86, 217 (1937)
1937
-
[4]
M. J. Jeeet al., Astrophys. J.661, 728 (2007), arXiv:0705.2171 [astro-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
-
[5]
M. J. Jee and J. A. Tyson, Astrophys. J.691, 1337 (2009), arXiv:0810.0709 [astro-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
-
[6]
P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.571, A16 (2014), arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
-
[7]
G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 045002 (2018), arXiv:1605.04909 [astro-ph.CO]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
-
[8]
M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
-
[9]
G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
-
[10]
G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mam- brini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 203 (2018), arXiv:1703.07364 [hep-ph]. 12 FIG. 8. 90% C.L. upper limits on the thermally-averaged self-annihilation cross-section⟨συ⟩(upper)and lower limit on lifetime τ(lower)of DM as a function of its mass for both the NFW(left)and Burk...
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
-
[11]
P´ erez de los Heros, Symmetry12, 1648 (2020), arXiv:2008.11561 [astro-ph.HE]
C. P´ erez de los Heros, Symmetry12, 1648 (2020), arXiv:2008.11561 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
-
[12]
J. M. Gaskins, Contemp. Phys.57, 496 (2016), arXiv:1604.00014 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
-
[13]
T. Daylan, D. P. Finkbeiner, D. Hooper, T. Linden, S. K. N. Portillo, N. L. Rodd, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Dark Univ.12, 1 (2016), arXiv:1402.6703 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
-
[14]
Ajelloet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys
M. Ajelloet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys. J.819, 44 (2016), arXiv:1511.02938 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
-
[15]
Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys
M. Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys. J.840, 43 (2017), arXiv:1704.03910 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
-
[16]
D. Hooper, SciPost Phys. Proc.12, 006 (2023), arXiv:2209.14370 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
-
[17]
Murgia, Ann
S. Murgia, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70, 455 (2020)
2020
-
[18]
I. Cholis, Y.-M. Zhong, S. D. McDermott, and J. P. Surdutovich, Phys. Rev. D105, 103023 (2022), arXiv:2112.09706 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
-
[19]
S. Caron, C. Eckner, L. Hendriks, G. J´ ohannesson, R. Ruiz de Austri, and G. Zaharijas, JCAP06, 013 (2023), arXiv:2211.09796 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
-
[20]
I. Holst and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D111, 023048 (2025), arXiv:2403.00978 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
-
[21]
C. A. Arg¨ uelles, A. Diaz, A. Kheirandish, A. Olivares- Del-Campo, I. Safa, and A. C. Vincent, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035007 (2021), arXiv:1912.09486 [hep-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
-
[22]
C. A. Arg¨ uelles, D. Delgado, A. Friedlander, A. Kheiran- dish, I. Safa, A. C. Vincent, and H. White, Phys. Rev. D108, 123021 (2023), arXiv:2210.01303 [hep-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
-
[23]
R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Phys. Rev. D108, 102004 (2023), arXiv:2303.13663 [astro-ph.HE]
arXiv 2023
-
[24]
Abeet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys
K. Abeet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. D102, 072002 (2020), arXiv:2005.05109 [hep-ex]. 13 FIG. 9. Sensitivity and upper limits on the thermally-averaged cross-section for theν eνe channel(left)andτ¯τchannel(right) compared to previous IceCube results [23, 28, 29], as well as Super-Kamiokande [24], ANTARES [25], and the gamma-ray telescopes HESS [62], ...
arXiv 2020
-
[25]
A. Albertet al.(ANTARES), Phys. Lett. B805, 135439 (2020), arXiv:1912.05296 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
-
[26]
Aielloet al.(KM3NeT), JCAP03, 058 (2025), arXiv:2411.10092 [astro-ph.HE]
S. Aielloet al.(KM3NeT), JCAP03, 058 (2025), arXiv:2411.10092 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
-
[27]
M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), JINST12, P03012 (2017), arXiv:1612.05093 [astro-ph.IM]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
-
[28]
M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Eur. Phys. J. C76, 531 (2016), arXiv:1606.00209 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
-
[29]
M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Eur. Phys. J. C77, 627 (2017), arXiv:1705.08103 [hep-ex]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
-
[30]
R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Phys. Rev. D84, 022004 (2011), arXiv:1101.3349 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
-
[31]
M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Eur. Phys. J. C78, 831 (2018), arXiv:1804.03848 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
-
[32]
M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), JINST15, P06032 (2020), arXiv:2002.00997 [physics.ins-det]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
-
[33]
Abbasiet al.(IceCube), JINST19, P06026 (2024), arXiv:2403.02470 [astro-ph.HE]
R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), JINST19, P06026 (2024), arXiv:2403.02470 [astro-ph.HE]
arXiv 2024
-
[34]
R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Phys. Rev. D108, 012014 (2023), arXiv:2304.12236 [hep-ex]
arXiv 2023
-
[35]
R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 091801 (2025), arXiv:2405.02163 [hep-ex]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
-
[36]
R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Eur. Phys. J. C82, 807 (2022), arXiv:2203.02303 [hep-ex]
arXiv 2022
-
[37]
R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A618, 139–152 (2010), arXiv:1002.2442v1
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
-
[38]
R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A601, 294 (2009), arXiv:0810.4930 [physics.ins-det]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
-
[39]
Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Astropart
R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Astropart. Phys.35, 615 (2012), arXiv:1109.6096 [astro-ph.IM]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
-
[40]
Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science380, adc9818 (2023), arXiv:2307.04427 [astro-ph.HE]
R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science380, adc9818 (2023), arXiv:2307.04427 [astro-ph.HE]
arXiv 2023
-
[41]
F. S. Queiroz, W. Rodejohann, and C. E. Yaguna, Phys. Rev. D95, 095010 (2017), arXiv:1610.06581 [hep-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
-
[42]
M. Benito, A. Cuoco, and F. Iocco, JCAP03, 033 (2019), arXiv:1901.02460 [astro-ph.GA]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
-
[43]
W. J. G. de Blok, Adv. Astron.2010, 789293 (2010), arXiv:0910.3538 [astro-ph.CO]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
-
[44]
A. Burkert, Astrophys. J. Lett.447, L25 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9504041
Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995
-
[45]
J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, ApJ 462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025 [astro-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996
-
[46]
F. Nesti and P. Salucci, JCAP07, 016 (2013), arXiv:1304.5127 [astro-ph.GA]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
-
[47]
M. H¨ utten, C. Combet, and D. Maurin, Comput. Phys. Commun.235, 336 (2019), arXiv:1806.08639 [astro- ph.CO]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
-
[48]
Q. Liu, J. Lazar, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, and A. Kheirandish, JCAP10, 043 (2020), arXiv:2007.15010 [hep-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
-
[49]
C. W. Bauer, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Webber, JHEP06, 121 (2021), arXiv:2007.15001 [hep-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
-
[50]
I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and A. Zhou, JHEP09, 178 (2020), arXiv:2007.14792 [hep-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
-
[51]
tommyod/kdepy: Kernel density estimation in python,
T. Odland, “tommyod/kdepy: Kernel density estimation in python,” (2018)
2018
-
[52]
G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
-
[53]
S. S. Wilks, Annals Math. Statist.9, 60 (1938)
1938
-
[54]
In the following subsections, we discuss the best-fit hy- pothesis and the limits on DM thermally-averaged cross- section and lifetime, given the absence of a significant excess
of Wilk’s theorem [53],q ξ = 1.64 is chosen for the computation ofξ 90. In the following subsections, we discuss the best-fit hy- pothesis and the limits on DM thermally-averaged cross- section and lifetime, given the absence of a significant excess. A. Best-fit result The best-fit scenario corresponds to the annihilation of DM with mass of 201.6 GeV into...
-
[55]
Chernoff, Annals Math
H. Chernoff, Annals Math. Statist.25, 573 (1954)
1954
-
[56]
Cowan,Statistical data analysis(Oxford University Press, USA, 1998)
G. Cowan,Statistical data analysis(Oxford University Press, USA, 1998)
1998
-
[57]
E. Gross and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C70, 525 (2010), arXiv:1005.1891 [physics.data-an]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
-
[58]
C. El Aisati, M. Gustafsson, and T. Hambye, Phys. Rev. D92, 123515 (2015), arXiv:1506.02657 [hep-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
-
[59]
G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D86, 023506 (2012), arXiv:1204.3622 [hep-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
-
[60]
D. Bose, T. N. Maity, and T. S. Ray, JCAP05, 001 (2022), arXiv:2108.12420 [hep-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
-
[61]
T. T. Q. Nguyen and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D107, 115016 (2023), arXiv:2212.12547 [hep-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
-
[62]
J. F. Acevedo, J. Bramante, Q. Liu, and N. Tyagi, JCAP 03, 028 (2025), arXiv:2404.10039 [hep-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
-
[63]
H. Abdallaet al.(H.E.S.S.), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 111101 (2022), arXiv:2207.10471 [astro-ph.HE]
arXiv 2022
-
[64]
M. L. Ahnenet al.(MAGIC, Fermi-LAT), JCAP02, 039 (2016), arXiv:1601.06590 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
-
[65]
Albertet al.(HA WC), Astrophys
A. Albertet al.(HA WC), Astrophys. J.853, 154 (2018), arXiv:1706.01277 [astro-ph.HE]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
-
[66]
Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), The Astrophysical Journal761, 91 (2012), arXiv:1205.6474 [astro-ph.CO]
M. Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), The Astrophysical Journal761, 91 (2012), arXiv:1205.6474 [astro-ph.CO]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
-
[67]
Ishihara (IceCube), PoSICRC2019, 1031 (2021), arXiv:1908.09441 [astro-ph.HE]
A. Ishihara (IceCube), PoSICRC2019, 1031 (2021), arXiv:1908.09441 [astro-ph.HE]. VIII. APPENDIX The following tables report, for each DM channel, the 90% C.L. limits, the best-fit number of signal events alongside with the significance of each tested scenario, expressed as a z-score. 15 Annihilation Decay NFW Burkert NFW Burkert mχ ˆns ⟨σv⟩ 90% u.l. z-sco...
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.