Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Galactic Center excess is more compatible with a triaxial, tilted dark matter halo than with a triaxial stellar halo, and the gamma-ray data prefer a flipped orientation of the leading tilted-halo benchmark.

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

2026-08-02 21:23 UTC pith:TRN55646

load-bearing objection Careful robustness study of GCE morphology under triaxial/tilted DM halo templates, but the abstract's DM-vs-stars claim overreaches because the standard boxy/nuclear bulge MSP templates are not in the comparison. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.20252 v2 pith:TRN55646 submitted 2026-02-23 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-ph

Galactic Center gamma-ray excess from a generic triaxial halo

Leo Qiyuan Hu , Ilias Cholis , Yi-Ming Zhong This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-ph
keywords Galactic Center Excesstriaxial dark matter halodark matter annihilationFermi-LATgamma-ray morphologymillisecond pulsarscuspinesstilted halo
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.

The paper asks whether the long-studied gamma-ray glow at the Milky Way's center could come from annihilating dark matter in a halo that is triaxial and tilted relative to the Galactic disk. Using Fermi-LAT observations and a library of 80 models for the Milky Way's diffuse gamma-ray emission, the authors compare candidate spatial templates for the excess. They find the excess's spectrum and inner-cusp slope are robust to halo shape, but its morphology can distinguish shapes: a triaxial halo with a flipped yaw angle is systematically preferred over the spherical template, and all dark matter halo templates beat a triaxial stellar-halo template. Because a stellar-halo morphology is the expected signature of a millisecond-pulsar origin, the result supports the dark matter annihilation interpretation, contingent on the inner halo having the assumed tilt and flattening.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Galactic Center Excess is more consistent with emission from a triaxial, tilted dark matter halo than with either a spherical dark matter halo or a triaxial, tilted stellar halo. Concretely, when the halo's principal axes are rotated by a yaw of -24 degrees and a pitch of 25 degrees (the 'flipped' variant of a benchmark drawn from stellar-halo studies), the fit to Fermi-LAT data improves by about 600 in 2 Delta log-likelihood relative to the unflipped benchmark, a preference that holds across all 80 diffuse-emission models and for cuspiness values 1.0, 1.2, and 1.3. The stellar-halo template, by contrast, fits only if its inner cuspiness is 2.0 or larger

What carries the argument

The central object is a generalized triaxial halo density profile with concentric ellipsoidal shells parameterized by axis ratios p and q and oriented by yaw and pitch rotations. The annihilation signal is the line-of-sight integral of density squared through this ellipsoid, evaluated for benchmark shapes taken from stellar-halo and stellar-stream studies, plus a flipped variant of the small-yaw benchmark. Comparing these templates in fits to Fermi-LAT data, the analysis isolates which morphological feature of the excess is robust (spectrum and cuspiness) and which is discriminating (overall shape and orientation).

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the triaxial halo's axis ratios and tilt angles, measured from stellar tracers at Galactocentric radii of 4 to 10 kiloparsecs or larger, remain unchanged in the inner few kiloparsecs where the gamma-ray excess is produced; if the inner halo is twisted or differently oriented, the template preferences could be an artifact.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the dark matter halo's shape inside 3 kiloparsecs—for example, from the orbital precession of a stellar stream passing near the Galactic center, or from a joint kinematic fit that maps the halo orientation as a function of radius—would settle the claim. If the inner halo proves aligned with the disk or has a yaw angle of +24 degrees rather than the preferred -24 degrees, the flipped-benchmark preference would disappear and the morphological argument for a dark matter origin would lose its support.

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

If this is right

  • If the excess is dark matter annihilation in a tilted triaxial halo, the inner Milky Way dark matter distribution is measurably non-spherical, and gamma-ray morphology can serve as a probe of halo shape at radii below 3 kiloparsecs.
  • The spectral and cuspiness robustness means past and future GCE spectral studies remain valid even if the halo is triaxial and tilted; only the spatial template choice matters for morphology.
  • The preference for the flipped benchmark over the unflipped one implies the sign of the halo's yaw angle is constrained by the GCE, adding a new observable for halo orientation.
  • A stellar-halo (millisecond-pulsar) origin is disfavored unless the inner stellar halo is as steep as gamma = 2 or more, which conflicts with stellar-kinematic inferences and morphologically degenerates with dark matter annihilation.
  • The systematic preference holds across all tested diffuse-emission models and cuspiness values, indicating the morphological discrimination is not an artifact of a particular Galactic diffuse background model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The flipped-benchmark preference hints that the inner halo's orientation may differ from the orientation inferred at larger radii from stellar streams; a natural next step is a joint gamma-ray and stellar-kinematic fit allowing the yaw and pitch to vary with radius, i.e., a twisted halo.
  • The discriminatory power of the method could sharpen with future gamma-ray observatories that have better angular resolution, potentially distinguishing the predicted elongation direction of the flipped benchmark from alternative orientations at high significance.
  • If the halo is indeed tilted, earlier analyses that found a nearly spherical GCE may have been viewing a projection effect; re-examining the residual small-scale structure under the tilted template could clarify whether any clumpy, pulsar-like component remains.
  • The paper's template comparison treats the halo shape parameters as fixed; a fully Bayesian fit that marginalizes over axis ratios and angles could quantify how strongly the data themselves constrain the triaxiality and tilt, rather than just ranking fixed benchmarks.

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 fits Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data in a 40x40 degree ROI around the Galactic Center with a library of 80 Galactic diffuse emission (GDE) models to test whether the Galactic Center Excess (GCE) morphology is compatible with dark matter annihilation from a triaxial, possibly tilted halo. It constructs generalized NFW templates with an ellipsoidal radius and considers untilted triaxial halos, tilted halos with literature-based benchmark parameters (BM I and BM II), a 'flipped' variant of BM I with negative yaw, and a spherical halo. The authors find that the GCE spectrum and inner cuspiness (gamma ~ 1.2-1.3) are robust across halo shapes and GDE models, while the morphology statistically prefers flipped BM I over spherical, BM I, and BM II. They also fit the GCE with a triaxial stellar-halo profile and report that the best-fit stellar cuspiness is >=2.0, which they argue is in tension with stellar-kinematics constraints and effectively makes the stellar template indistinguishable from the DM-annihilation morphology. The abstract concludes that the GCE is more compatible with originating from a triaxial tilted dark matter halo than from a triaxial tilted stellar halo.

Significance. If correct, the paper would extend GCE morphology studies to constrain the three-dimensional shape and orientation of the inner dark matter halo, using the GCE as a probe. The main strengths are the systematic use of 80 GDE models, the consistency of the spectral and cuspiness results across halo configurations, the use of independent stellar-kinematics benchmarks for the halo shapes, and the explicit reproducibility-oriented pipeline (gcepy, Dynesty plus HMC, cross-checked with differential evolution). The paper also states its caveats about the r < 3 kpc extrapolation and about possible twisted halos. However, the central claim about the DM-versus-stars comparison is currently supported only against a smooth ellipsoidal stellar-halo template, not against the boxy/nuclear bulge morphology associated with the leading non-DM (millisecond pulsar) interpretation. The ad hoc 'flipped BM I' template and the fixed point-estimate halo parameters also weaken the morphological-discrimination claim. The robustness of the spectrum and cuspiness is solid, but the halo-shape preference claims require additional checks.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Figs. 3-5; Sec. V] The DM-versus-stars comparison uses only a smooth, cuspy, triaxial stellar-halo profile (BM I) as the stellar template. The leading astrophysical alternative to DM annihilation attributes the GCE to unresolved millisecond pulsars whose spatial distribution is expected to trace the boxy bulge plus nuclear bulge, not a smooth stellar halo. The introduction cites these bulge models and Ref. [22] evaluates them, but they are not included in the current analysis. Therefore the abstract's statement that the GCE is 'more compatible with originating from a triaxial and tilted halo of dark matter than originating from a triaxial and tilted halo of stars' does not yet address the MSP interpretation; it only compares two ellipsoidal templates. The conclusion's MSP-related sentence is likewise not supported by the presented fits. I ask the authors to either add the boxy bulge + nuclear bulge templat
  2. [Sec. II, Table I; Sec. IV, Fig. 4] The halo shape parameters p, q, yaw, and pitch are fixed to point estimates from stellar-kinematics studies that probe r >= 4-10 kpc, without propagating the quoted uncertainties (Table II gives typical 1-sigma errors of several degrees and a few percent in p and q). The claimed template preferences have 2 Delta ln L ~ 150-600, but the morphological differences induced by the parameter uncertainties may be comparable to or larger than this range. The authors should test how the ranking of flipped BM I, spherical, BM I, and BM II changes when p, q, yaw, and pitch are varied within their quoted uncertainties, or at least show that the preferences are robust to such variations.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4; Sec. II, Table I] The preferred 'flipped BM I' template is introduced ad hoc, with a negative yaw angle that does not correspond to a published benchmark from the stellar-kinematics literature. Because the flipped template is the best-fit morphology, and because the difference from regular BM I is sizable (2 Delta ln L ~ 600), it is important to demonstrate that this preference is not absorbing morphological features of unmodeled boxy or nuclear bulge emission. Combining this with the absence of bulge templates in the comparison (first major comment) is essential before claiming that the GCE morphology can discriminate among dark matter halo orientations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] 'Oury-axis' should read 'Our y-axis'. Also, the y-axis label should specify that the plotted quantity is -2 Delta ln L relative to the best-fit GDE model.
  2. [Sec. II, after Eq. (4)] The caveat that halo parameters are measured at r >= 4-10 kpc and may differ at r < 3 kpc is placed in a footnote. Given its importance for the main conclusion, it should be stated prominently in the main text.
  3. [Sec. II, coordinate setup] The Sun is placed at x_sun = (-8.5 kpc, 0, 0) while r_sun is defined as the positive Galactocentric distance; this sign convention is a bit confusing and should be clarified explicitly (e.g., 'the Sun is at negative X in the adopted Galactocentric frame').
  4. [Sec. III and Table III] The mask notation '4FGLDR4 + L20' is used without definition. Define the 'L20' component or spell out the mask criteria in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: halo template shapes are fixed by external stellar-kinematics benchmarks and only normalizations are fitted, so the DM-vs-stellar preference is a genuine fit outcome.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The GCE templates are constructed from a generalized triaxial NFW profile (Eqs. 1-3) with axis ratios and orientation angles fixed to external stellar-kinematics benchmarks (Refs. [85,88]; Table I). These parameters are not fitted to the Fermi-LAT GCE data; the only fitted quantities are the template normalizations c_T^j in each energy bin (Eqs. 5-6). The comparison among spherical, BM I, flipped BM I, BM II, and stellar-halo templates is therefore an outcome of the gamma-ray fit, not a construction of it. The paper explicitly caveats that the inner-halo configuration may differ from the outer-halo benchmarks ('the halo at smaller radii (r<3 kpc) could, in principle, have a different tilt and flattening') and defers a joint inference of halo shape from GCE morphology to future work, which further separates the input assumptions from the claimed preference. The omission of boxy/nuclear bulge templates from the DM-vs-stellar-halo comparison is a scope limitation relevant to the MSP debate, but it is not a circularity: the stellar-halo template tested is not defined in terms of the gamma-ray best fit. Self-citations to Refs. [11,22,69] supply the GDE library and pipeline, but these models are independent foreground templates, not functions of the GCE morphology fitted here. No prediction reduces to a fitted parameter or a self-citation by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on modeling choices: a generalized triaxial NFW profile, the ansatz that annihilation traces ρ^2, aligned ellipsoidal shells, benchmark shapes from outer-halo stellar kinematics, and the completeness of the 80-model GDE library. No new particles or forces are introduced. The free parameters are mostly template normalizations and cusp slopes; the halo shape parameters are fixed, not fitted.

free parameters (6)
  • DM cuspiness γ = best-fit 1.2–1.3; scanned 0.9–1.5
    Inner slope of the generalized triaxial NFW profile; fit to Fermi-LAT data for each GDE model and halo orientation (Sec. IV, Figs. 3, 9).
  • Stellar halo cuspiness γ_s.h. = best-fit ≥2.0; scanned 1.3–2.0
    Inner slope of the stellar halo template; forced to high values to mimic DM ρ^2 morphology (Sec. IV, Fig. 5).
  • Halo shape parameters (p, q, yaw, pitch) = BM I: (0.81,0.73,24°,25°); BM II: (0.95,0.65,97°,56°); flipped I: (0.81,0.73,−24°,25°)
    Fixed to point estimates from Refs. [85,88] rather than fitted; the morphological rankings depend on these values and their uncertainties are not propagated (Sec. II, Table I).
  • Scale radius r_s = 20 kpc
    Fixed by hand for the generalized NFW profile; changes the inner line-of-sight-integrated morphology if varied (Sec. II).
  • Template normalizations c_T^j = not tabulated; one per template per energy bin
    Normalizations of π0, ICS, bremsstrahlung, Fermi bubbles, isotropic, and GCE templates fitted per energy bin (Eq. 5); standard nuisance parameters.
  • Ellipticity ϵ = best-fit 0.8–1.5 for most GDE models
    Empirical angle-compression parameter used in Fig. 6 to characterize GCE morphology; fitted to data, not derived from halo theory.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Dark matter annihilation signal scales as ρ_DM^2(re)
    Used to build GCE templates from halo density (Secs. II, IV, footnote 3). If the GCE comes from decay or another process, the templates change.
  • domain assumption Ellipsoidal shells are concentric, aligned, and untwisted with reflection symmetry
    Assumed in Eq. (2) and Sec. II; caveated in Sec. V that simulations show twisted isodensity contours.
  • domain assumption Benchmark halo shapes inferred from stellar tracers at r≥4–10 kpc apply at r≲3 kpc
    Load-bearing for the morphology comparison; explicitly caveated in Sec. II footnote 2 and Sec. V.
  • domain assumption The 80-model GDE library of Ref. [11] brackets the true Galactic diffuse emission
    All conclusions are tested over this library; if the true background lies outside it, the rankings could change (Secs. III–IV).
  • domain assumption Local dark matter density is 0.4 GeV/cm^3
    Adopted from Refs. [98,99] to normalize ρ_s; only rescales the annihilation cross-section, not the morphology (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption Generalized triaxial NFW profile form (Eq. 1) is a valid density model
    Profile of Binney & Tremaine / Lee & Suto used; not derived from simulation or first principles in this paper.
  • standard math Rotation composition identity R_x'' R_y' R_z = R_Z R_Y R_X
    Appendix A derives the active/passive rotation equivalence; standard rotation algebra.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17543 in / 14218 out tokens · 137274 ms · 2026-08-02T21:23:12.704855+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent studies of Galactic surveys, such as Gaia, have revealed that the Milky Way's gravitational potential comes from a matter distribution that is triaxial and rotated with respect to the Galactic center-Sun axis. This, in turn, could mean that the dark matter halo also shares these properties. In this work, by fitting to the Fermi-LAT gamma-ray observations, we test the compatibility of the morphology of the Galactic Center Excess (GCE) from dark matter annihilation with a triaxial dark matter halo. In particular, we consider both untilted triaxial halos and halos whose principal axes are tilted with respect to the Galactic disk. In our fits of the Fermi-LAT data, by testing over a large library of galactic diffuse emission models, we quantify how the halo triaxiality and tilt affect the line-of-sight-integrated annihilation signal and, consequently, the preferred GCE spatial templates. We find that the GCE spectrum and inner cuspiness are robust against variations in the triaxiality and tilt of the dark matter halo. However, in terms of its overall morphology, the GCE in the gamma-ray data can discriminate between choices for the dark matter halo's triaxiality and tilt. Finally, we find that the GCE is more compatible with originating from a triaxial and tilted halo of dark matter than originating from a triaxial and tilted halo of stars, a result important for understanding the GCE's origin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.20252 by Ilias Cholis, Leo Qiyuan Hu, Yi-Ming Zhong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 3D view of the tilted triaxial halo of BM I (red) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: GCE count maps for a spherical dark matter halo (left), tilted halo BM I (middle left), tilted halo BM II (middle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The morphology of the GCE for all 80 GDE models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We assume that the GCE follows the stellar halo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The GCE spectrum in our 40◦ × 40◦ masked region of interest, assuming a triaxial and tilted dark matter profile with the assumptions of Ref. [85] (BM I), with γ = 1.2. The GCE flux is allowed to be negative in the fit, which occurs for a few models at energies below 0.7 GeV. The magenta lines show the best-fit normalization of the GCE for the five GDE models that give the best overall fit to the Fermi-LAT … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tilted triaxial halos in Tab. II. We show halos in Groups I and II in the upper and lower rows, respectively, with a 3D view (View 1, left column) and a view from the Sun to the GC (View 2, right column). For each halo, we set the elliptical radius to be rmin of the model. The setup is the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: As with Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.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. Producing the GeV Galactic Center Excess via Cosmic Ray-Dark Matter Scattering

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Cosmic ray protons scattering off dark matter produce the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess through inelastic up-scattering followed by decay or direct elastic 2-to-3 photon production.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 93 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    [85], reports yaw and pitch angles of −24.33◦+4.94◦ −5.51◦ and−25.39 ◦+3.11◦ −3.20◦ , respectively

    Ref. [85], reports yaw and pitch angles of −24.33◦+4.94◦ −5.51◦ and−25.39 ◦+3.11◦ −3.20◦ , respectively. Their values follow a passive rotation convention, which is the same as our convention. However, they define right-handed rotation as negative angles and left-handed rotation as positive angles, which is opposite to our sign convention. We therefore in...

  2. [2]

    [91], reports yaw of−26.9 ◦+1.0◦ −1.0◦ and pitch of −43.8◦+0.7◦ −0.7◦

    Ref. [91], reports yaw of−26.9 ◦+1.0◦ −1.0◦ and pitch of −43.8◦+0.7◦ −0.7◦ . As in Ref. [85], these angles are given in the passive rotation convention, but the right- handed rotation is defined to be negative. To match our active convention, the yaw and pitch angle has been flipped to 26.9 ◦+1.0◦ −1.0◦ and 43.8 ◦+0.7◦ −0.7◦ , respec- tively. 5 We thank A...

  3. [3]

    head” and “tail

    Ref. [89], reports a yaw of 204 ◦ and then a pitch of 43 ◦+22◦ −8◦ (βdm). Their convention and ours are different in two aspects: (1) the definition of posi- tive pitch (left-handed) is opposite to ours (right- handed), and (2) their yaw definition has a 180 ◦ offset to ours. Given that we do not distinguish the “head” and “tail” of the triaxial halo, a y...

  4. [4]

    [90], reports a yaw of−89 ◦+2◦ −1◦ , adopting the same positive rotation angle convention as ours

    Ref. [90], reports a yaw of−89 ◦+2◦ −1◦ , adopting the same positive rotation angle convention as ours. However, their right-handed Galactocentric coor- dinate system places the Sun on the positiveX- axis, whereas ours places it on the negativeX-axis. This requires translating the yaw angle to 89◦+1◦ −2◦ to match our convention. No translation of the pitc...

  5. [5]

    We re- fer the reader to [89] for a comparison between the models of [86] and those of [89] and [88]

    Other studies, such as [86], parametrize the orienta- tion of the tilted halo by specifying the direction of its principal axes in heliocentric coordinates (ℓ, b), rather than using yaw and pitch angles. We re- fer the reader to [89] for a comparison between the models of [86] and those of [89] and [88]. Appendix C: Energy bins and the point-source mask W...

  6. [6]

    Gordon and O

    C. Gordon and O. Macias, Phys. Rev. D88, 083521 (2013), 1306.5725, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 049901 (2014)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Calore, I

    F. Calore, I. Cholis, and C. Weniger, JCAP03, 038 (2015), 1409.0042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Zhouet al., Phys

    B. Zhouet al., Phys. Rev. D91, 123010 (2015), 1406.6948

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Ajelloet al., Astrophys

    Fermi-LAT, M. Ajelloet al., Astrophys. J.819, 44 (2016), 1511.02938

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Model 2 Dark Matter 10−30 0.95+0.06 −0.04 0.65+0.05 −0.05 z[97◦+11◦ −8◦ ]→y ′[56◦+8◦ −8◦ ] 1.0

  11. [11]

    Cholis, Y.-M

    I. Cholis, Y.-M. Zhong, S. D. McDermott, and J. P. Sur- dutovich, Phys. Rev. D105, 103023 (2022), 2112.09706

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Gehrels, and P

    GLAST Facility Science Team, N. Gehrels, and P. Michelson, Astroparticle Physics11, 277 (1999)

    1999

  13. [13]

    Goodenough and D

    L. Goodenough and D. Hooper, (2009), 0910.2998

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  14. [14]

    Vitale and A

    V. Vitale and A. Morselli, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:0912.3828 (2009), 0912.3828

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  15. [15]

    Hooper and L

    D. Hooper and L. Goodenough, Phys. Lett.B697, 412 (2011), 1010.2752

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  16. [16]

    K. N. Abazajian, JCAP1103, 010 (2011), 1011.4275

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  17. [17]

    Agrawal, B

    P. Agrawal, B. Batell, P. J. Fox, and R. Ha˜ rnik, JCAP 05, 011 (2015), 1411.2592

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    Berlin, S

    A. Berlin, S. Gori, T. Lin, and L. i.-T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D92, 015005 (2015), 1502.06000

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    Ackermannet al., Astrophys

    Fermi-LAT, M. Ackermannet al., Astrophys. J.840, 43 (2017), 1704.03910

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Karwin, S

    C. Karwin, S. Murgia, T. M. P. Tait, T. A. Porter, and P. Tanedo, Phys. Rev. D95, 103005 (2017), 1612.05687

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    Di Mauro, Phys

    M. Di Mauro, Phys. Rev. D103, 063029 (2021), 2101.04694

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Zhong and I

    Y.-M. Zhong and I. Cholis, Phys. Rev. D109, 123017 (2024), 2401.02481

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Alemannoet al., (2025), 2512.23458

    F. Alemannoet al., (2025), 2512.23458

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Hooper and T

    D. Hooper and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D84, 123005 (2011), 1110.0006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  25. [25]

    Hooper and T

    D. Hooper and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Dark Univ.2, 118 (2013), 1302.6589

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    Daylanet al., Phys

    T. Daylanet al., Phys. Dark Univ.12, 1 (2016), 1402.6703

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Calore, I

    F. Calore, I. Cholis, C. McCabe, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. D91, 063003 (2015), 1411.4647

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [28]

    Gautamet al., Nature Astron.6, 703 (2022), 2106.00222

    A. Gautamet al., Nature Astron.6, 703 (2022), 2106.00222

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Macias, M

    O. Macias, M. Pohl, C. Gordon, and P. Coleman, Sci- Post Phys. Proc.12, 049 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Hooper, I

    D. Hooper, I. Cholis, T. Linden, J. Siegal-Gask ˜ins, and T. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D88, 083009 (2013), 1305.0830

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    Cholis, D

    I. Cholis, D. Hooper, and T. Linden, (2014), 1407.5583

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    R. K. Leane and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 241101 (2019), 1904.08430

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Zhong, S

    Y.-M. Zhong, S. D. McDermott, I. Cholis, and P. J. Fox, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 231103 (2020), 1911.12369

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    K. N. Abazajian and M. Kaplinghat, Phys. Rev. D86, 083511 (2012), 1207.6047, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 129902 (2013)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    Petrovi´ c, P

    J. Petrovi´ c, P. D. Serpico, and G. Zaharijas, JCAP02, 023 (2015), 1411.2980

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  36. [36]

    S. K. Lee, M. Lisanti, B. R. Safdi, T. R. Slatyer, and W. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 051103 (2016), 1506.05124

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  37. [37]

    Bartels, E

    R. Bartels, E. Storm, C. Weniger, and F. Calore, Nature Astron.2, 819 (2018), 1711.04778

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Murgia, Ann

    S. Murgia, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70, 455 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Choliset al., JCAP12, 005 (2015), 1506.05119

    I. Choliset al., JCAP12, 005 (2015), 1506.05119

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    E. D. Ramirez, Y. Sun, M. R. Buckley, S. Mishra- Sharma, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D111, 063065 (2025), 2410.21367

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Christy, E

    K. Christy, E. J. Baxter, and J. Kumar, JCAP07, 066 (2024), 2402.04549

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Manconi, C

    S. Manconi, C. Eckner, F. Calore, and F. Donato, (2025), 2511.03350

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Cholis, D

    I. Cholis, D. Hooper, and T. Linden, JCAP06, 043 (2015), 1407.5625

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    McDanielet al., Phys

    A. McDanielet al., Phys. Rev. D109, 063024 (2024), 2311.04982

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Buschmannet al., Phys

    M. Buschmannet al., Phys. Rev. D102, 023023 (2020), 2002.12373

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Hooper and T

    D. Hooper and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D105, 103013 (2022), 2104.00014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    F. List, Y. Park, N. L. Rodd, E. Schoen, and F. Wolf, (2025), 2507.17804

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Petrovi´ c, P

    J. Petrovi´ c, P. D. Serpico, and G. Zaharijas, JCAP10, 052 (2014), 1405.7928

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    Carlson and S

    E. Carlson and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D90, 023015 (2014), 1405.7685

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  50. [50]

    Cholis, T

    I. Cholis, T. Linden, and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D102, 103019 (2020), 2001.08749

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Krommydas and I

    I. Krommydas and I. Cholis, Phys. Rev. D107, 023003 (2023), 2210.04903

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    Zhuet al., Phys

    C.-R. Zhuet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 231101 (2022), 2204.03767

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Cuoco, M

    A. Cuoco, M. Kr¨ amer, and M. Korsmeier, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 191102 (2017), 1610.03071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    Steigman, B

    G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D86, 023506 (2012), 1204.3622

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  55. [55]

    Cholis, T

    I. Cholis, T. Linden, and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D99, 103026 (2019), 1903.02549

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    C. M. Karwinet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 023027 (2021), 2010.08563

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Cholis and I

    I. Cholis and I. Krommydas, Phys. Rev. D110, 103032 (2024), 2408.11421

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Bringmann, M

    T. Bringmann, M. Vollmann, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. D90, 123001 (2014), 1406.6027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  59. [59]

    Hooper, T

    D. Hooper, T. Linden, and P. Mertsch, JCAP03, 021 (2015), 1410.1527

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  60. [60]

    Cirelli, D

    M. Cirelli, D. Gaggero, G. Giesen, M. Taoso, and A. Ur- bano, JCAP12, 045 (2014), 1407.2173

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  61. [61]

    Keith, D

    C. Keith, D. Hooper, and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D107, 103001 (2023), 2212.08080

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    A. L. Miller and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 081401 (2023), 2301.10239. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    M.-Y. Lei, B. Zhou, and X. Huang, (2025), 2511.15793

    arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Abbasiet al., (2025), 2511.00918

    IceCube, R. Abbasiet al., (2025), 2511.00918

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    M.-Y. Cui, Q. Yuan, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and Y.-Z. Fan, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 191101 (2017), 1610.03840

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    Maciaset al., Nature Astron.2, 387 (2018), 1611.06644

    O. Maciaset al., Nature Astron.2, 387 (2018), 1611.06644

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  67. [67]

    Berlin, J

    A. Berlin, J. W. Foster, D. Hooper, and G. Krnjaic, (2025), 2504.12372

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Hooper, G

    D. Hooper, G. Krnjaic, D. Rocha, and S. Roy, (2025), 2507.22975

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Roux and J

    J.-S. Roux and J. M. Cline, Phys. Rev. D112, 095028 (2025), 2508.06373

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Y. Hu, C. Cesarotti, and T. R. Slatyer, (2025), 2509.08043

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Di Mauro and B

    M. Di Mauro and B. Xie, Phys. Rev. D113, 015034 (2026), 2510.08677

    arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    A. H. G. Peter, M. Rocha, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.430, 105 (2013), 1208.3026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  73. [73]

    Despali, G

    G. Despali, G. Tormen, and R. K. Sheth, MNRAS431, 1143 (2013), 1212.4157

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  74. [74]

    K. T. E. Chua, A. Pillepich, M. Vogelsberger, and L. Hernquist, MNRAS484, 476 (2019), 1809.07255

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    M. M. Muru, J. Silk, N. I. Libeskind, S. Gottloeber, and Y. Hoffman, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 161005 (2025), 2508.06314

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Abbateet al., (2025), 2512.16155

    SKAO Pulsar Science Working Group, F. Abbateet al., (2025), 2512.16155

    arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.329, 61 (2002), astro-ph/0105113

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  78. [78]

    Maciaset al., JCAP09, 042 (2019), 1901.03822

    O. Maciaset al., JCAP09, 042 (2019), 1901.03822

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    Coleman, D

    B. Coleman, D. Paterson, C. Gordon, O. Macias, and H. Ploeg, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.495, 3350 (2020), 1911.04714

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  80. [80]

    S. D. McDermott, Y.-M. Zhong, and I. Cholis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.522, L21 (2023), 2209.00006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.