pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08010 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Producing the GeV Galactic Center Excess via Cosmic Ray-Dark Matter Scattering

Bhaskar Dutta , Debopam Goswami , Jason Kumar , Mudit Rai , Deepak Sathyan
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 02:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.HE
keywords galactic center gamma-ray excesscosmic ray dark matter scatteringinelastic dark matterelastic dark mattergamma ray productiondark matter modelsgalactic center excess
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cosmic ray scattering off dark matter particles can produce the observed GeV gamma-ray excess at the Galactic Center.

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

This paper proposes that gamma rays observed from the Galactic Center are generated when cosmic-ray protons scatter off dark matter particles in the Milky Way halo, rather than through dark matter annihilation or millisecond pulsars. Two explicit realizations are developed: an inelastic model in which a lighter dark matter particle is up-scattered to a heavier state that subsequently decays into two photons, and an elastic model in which an energetic photon is emitted directly in a three-body final state. For ranges of particle masses and interaction strengths that remain consistent with other constraints, both realizations reproduce the measured energy spectrum of the excess at a level comparable to conventional explanations.

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that scattering between cosmic-ray protons and dark matter in the Milky Way halo generates an observable photon signal capable of accounting for the GeV Galactic Center excess. In the inelastic scenario a lighter dark matter state is boosted to a heavier one whose subsequent decay produces two photons; in the elastic scenario a 2-to-3 process directly yields an energetic photon. Viable parameter ranges exist that match the measured spectrum without conflicting with other constraints.

What carries the argument

Cosmic-ray proton scattering off dark matter, either inelastically (up-scattering followed by decay) or elastically (direct photon emission in a 2-to-3 process).

If this is right

  • The gamma-ray spectrum of the Galactic Center excess can be fit by scattering models as well as by annihilation or pulsar models.
  • Both inelastic up-scattering plus decay and elastic three-body photon production are viable channels.
  • The mechanism operates for a range of dark matter masses and couplings that satisfy existing constraints.
  • Gamma-ray observations of the inner Galaxy can be reinterpreted as evidence for dark matter interactions with ordinary cosmic rays.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future spatially resolved gamma-ray maps could test whether the excess tracks the product of cosmic-ray density and dark matter density rather than the square of dark matter density.
  • The same scattering process may produce secondary neutrinos or positrons whose fluxes could be compared against existing upper limits.
  • Collider or direct-detection searches tuned to the masses and couplings needed here would provide an independent cross-check.

Load-bearing premise

The dark matter density profile and cosmic ray flux in the inner Galaxy allow the scattering rate to produce the required photon flux without violating other observational limits on dark matter or cosmic rays.

What would settle it

A refined cosmic-ray propagation model that lowers the proton flux in the inner Galaxy by more than a factor of a few while still fitting local measurements, or a direct-detection experiment that rules out the required scattering cross section at the relevant dark matter mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08010 by Bhaskar Dutta, Debopam Goswami, Deepak Sathyan, Jason Kumar, Mudit Rai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams of the CR-DM scattering pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Spectra of our CR-DM models (colored lines) in comparison to the best fit spectra by DM annihilation to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we propose a novel mechanism for generating gamma rays from the Galactic Center via scattering of cosmic-ray protons off dark matter in the Milky Way halo, in contrast to conventional explanations based on dark matter annihilation. We present two examples of this framework that produce an observable photon signal. In the inelastic dark matter model, cosmic rays up-scatter a lighter dark matter particle, with the subsequent decay of the heavier particle yielding two photons. In the elastic dark matter model, an energetic photon is directly produced in the final state of a 2-to-3 scattering process. We show that, for a range of viable model parameters, this framework provides a fit to the observed Galactic Center gamma-ray excess spectrum comparable to those obtained from dark matter annihilation and millisecond pulsar models. Our results open a new avenue for interpreting gamma-ray observations of the Galactic Center.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a novel mechanism for the Galactic Center Excess (GCE) gamma-ray signal via cosmic-ray proton scattering off dark matter in the Milky Way halo. Two concrete realizations are developed: an inelastic DM model in which CR up-scattering produces an excited state that decays to two photons, and an elastic DM model in which a photon is produced directly in a 2-to-3 final state. The central claim is that, for a range of viable model parameters (DM mass, mass splitting, and scattering cross section), the resulting photon spectrum provides a fit to the observed GCE that is comparable to those obtained from DM annihilation or millisecond-pulsar populations.

Significance. If the viability of the required cross sections can be established, the work is significant because it supplies an independent production channel for the GCE that does not rely on DM annihilation or known astrophysical sources. The explicit construction of two calculable models (inelastic and elastic) is a strength, as it yields falsifiable spectral predictions and opens a new direction for joint CR-DM analyses. The manuscript does not, however, contain machine-checked derivations or parameter-free results.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (results and spectral fit): the statement that 'viable parameters' produce a comparable fit is load-bearing for the central claim, yet the text does not quantify how the required scattering cross section changes when the inner-Galaxy CR proton flux Φ_CR(r) and DM density ρ_DM(r) are varied over their plausible 1–2 order-of-magnitude ranges (NFW cusp vs. cored profiles, propagation-model extrapolations). Without this, it is unclear whether the fitted σ remains compatible with direct-detection, collider, and unitarity bounds.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (elastic model kinematics): the 2-to-3 differential cross section used to generate the photon spectrum is presented without an explicit comparison to the inelastic case or to the background-subtraction procedure employed for the GCE data; this omission prevents assessment of whether the claimed spectral agreement is robust or an artifact of the chosen normalization.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and §1 would benefit from a one-sentence statement of the dominant astrophysical uncertainty (inner-Galaxy CR spectrum) that sets the scale of the required cross section.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the DM density profile and CR propagation model adopted for each curve.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive major comments. We address each point below and will incorporate revisions to improve the clarity and robustness of the analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (results and spectral fit): the statement that 'viable parameters' produce a comparable fit is load-bearing for the central claim, yet the text does not quantify how the required scattering cross section changes when the inner-Galaxy CR proton flux Φ_CR(r) and DM density ρ_DM(r) are varied over their plausible 1–2 order-of-magnitude ranges (NFW cusp vs. cored profiles, propagation-model extrapolations). Without this, it is unclear whether the fitted σ remains compatible with direct-detection, collider, and unitarity bounds.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative assessment of the dependence on astrophysical inputs is necessary to substantiate the viability of the required cross sections. The original analysis adopted standard NFW profiles for ρ_DM(r) and a reference propagation model for Φ_CR(r) to derive central values. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection in §4 (with an accompanying table) that explicitly varies these inputs over the indicated 1–2 order-of-magnitude ranges. The cross section scales linearly with the product Φ_CR × ρ_DM, so the required σ changes by at most a factor of ~100; we will show that even at the upper end of this range the values remain below perturbative unitarity limits and are consistent with existing direct-detection and collider constraints for the benchmark DM masses considered. This addition will make the statement of “viable parameters” fully quantitative. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (elastic model kinematics): the 2-to-3 differential cross section used to generate the photon spectrum is presented without an explicit comparison to the inelastic case or to the background-subtraction procedure employed for the GCE data; this omission prevents assessment of whether the claimed spectral agreement is robust or an artifact of the chosen normalization.

    Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit side-by-side comparison would help readers evaluate the robustness of the spectral fits. The elastic 2-to-3 differential cross section is obtained from the tree-level matrix element for p + χ → p + χ + γ and is normalized to the total flux after convolution with the CR and DM distributions. In the revised version we will insert a new figure in §3.2 that overlays the photon spectra from the elastic and inelastic channels under identical astrophysical assumptions, together with a brief description of the standard Fermi-LAT background-subtraction procedure used for the GCE data. The spectral shape in the elastic case is fixed by kinematics and is independent of the overall normalization (which is absorbed into the fitted cross section); the comparison will demonstrate that the agreement with the GCE is not an artifact of normalization choices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: model parameters adjusted to demonstrate viable fit to GCE spectrum

full rationale

The paper proposes a CR-DM scattering mechanism for the Galactic Center Excess and explicitly states that it 'provides a fit' for a range of viable model parameters, comparable to annihilation or pulsar models. This is a standard parameter-space exploration rather than a first-principles derivation or prediction. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs relabeled as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described claims. The result is not forced by construction; the paper acknowledges astrophysical uncertainties in CR flux and DM density while claiming compatibility with bounds for some parameter choices. This is self-contained model-building against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard astrophysical inputs for cosmic-ray flux and dark-matter density together with two new dark-matter models whose parameters are adjusted to reproduce the excess.

free parameters (2)
  • dark matter mass and mass splitting
    Chosen to set the photon energy scale and kinematics of the up-scattering or 2-to-3 process.
  • scattering cross section or coupling strength
    Adjusted to normalize the predicted gamma-ray flux to the observed excess intensity.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard Milky Way cosmic-ray proton spectrum and dark-matter density profile are taken as given from prior literature.
    Invoked to compute the scattering rate without re-deriving the astrophysical inputs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5454 in / 1221 out tokens · 55753 ms · 2026-05-11T02:26:29.600873+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 102 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Goodenough and D

    L. Goodenough and D. Hooper, (2009), arXiv:0910.2998 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    Hooper and L

    D. Hooper and L. Goodenough, Phys. Lett. B697, 412 (2011), arXiv:1010.2752 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Hooper and T

    D. Hooper and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D84, 123005 (2011), arXiv:1110.0006 [astro-ph.HE]. 6

    work page arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Morselli, B

    A. Morselli, B. Canadas, and V. Vitale (Fermi-LAT), Nuovo Cim. C034N3, 311 (2011), arXiv:1012.2292 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    K. N. Abazajian and M. Kaplinghat, Phys. Rev. D 86, 083511 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 129902 (2013)], arXiv:1207.6047 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Ajelloet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys

    M. Ajelloet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys. J.819, 44 (2016), arXiv:1511.02938 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Calore, I

    F. Calore, I. Cholis, and C. Weniger, JCAP03, 038 (2015), arXiv:1409.0042 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Gordon and O

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

    work page arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    Hooper and T

    D. Hooper and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Dark Univ.2, 118 (2013), arXiv:1302.6589 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    F. S. Queiroz, C. Siqueira, and C. E. Yaguna, (2026), arXiv:2603.17095 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    K.N.Abazajian,JCAP03,010(2011),arXiv:1011.4275 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2011

  12. [12]

    Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys

    M. Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys. J.840, 43 (2017), arXiv:1704.03910 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Bartels, S

    R. Bartels, S. Krishnamurthy, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 051102 (2016), arXiv:1506.05104 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Carlson and S

    E. Carlson and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D90, 023015 (2014), arXiv:1405.7685 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Petrović, P

    J. Petrović, P. D. Serpico, and G. Zaharijaš, JCAP10, 052 (2014), arXiv:1405.7928 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    Cholis, C

    I. Cholis, C. Evoli, F. Calore, T. Linden, C. Weniger, and D. Hooper, JCAP12, 005 (2015), arXiv:1506.05119 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    Carlson, T

    E. Carlson, T. Linden, and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 111101 (2016), arXiv:1510.04698 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Carlson, T

    E. Carlson, T. Linden, and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D 94, 063504 (2016), arXiv:1603.06584 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Albertet al.(Fermi-LAT, DES), Astrophys

    A. Albertet al.(Fermi-LAT, DES), Astrophys. J.834, 110 (2017), arXiv:1611.03184 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    K. N. Abazajian and R. E. Keeley, Phys. Rev. D93, 083514 (2016), arXiv:1510.06424 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    Cholis, Y.-M

    I. Cholis, Y.-M. Zhong, S. D. McDermott, and J. P. Surdutovich, Phys. Rev. D105, 103023 (2022), arXiv:2112.09706 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Tucker-Smith and N

    D. Tucker-Smith and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D64, 043502 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0101138

    work page arXiv 2001

  23. [23]

    N. F. Bell, J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, S. Ghosh, J. Kumar, J. L. Newstead, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D 104, 076020 (2021), arXiv:2108.00583 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Photon excess from dark matter and neutrino scattering at MiniBooNE and MicroBooNE,

    B. Dutta, A. Karthikeyan, D. Kim, A. Thompson, and R. G. Van de Water, Phys. Rev. D113, 015029 (2026), arXiv:2504.08071 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Dutta, D

    B. Dutta, D. Goswami, and A. Karthikeyan, JHEP02, 142 (2026), arXiv:2507.07936 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Bringmann and M

    T. Bringmann and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 171801 (2019), arXiv:1810.10543 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Y. Ema, F. Sala, and R. Sato, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 181802 (2019), arXiv:1811.00520 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    C. V. Cappiello, K. C. Y. Ng, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D99, 063004 (2019), arXiv:1810.07705 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, J. L. Newstead, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D101, 116007 (2020), arXiv:1907.03782 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    E. D. Bloom and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D57, 1299 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9706085

    work page arXiv 1998

  31. [31]

    Profumo and L

    S. Profumo and L. Ubaldi, JCAP08, 020 (2011), arXiv:1106.4568 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    A. W. Strong, I. V. Moskalenko, and O. Reimer, Astro- phys. J.537, 763 (2000), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 541, 1109 (2000)], arXiv:astro-ph/9811296

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  33. [33]

    Guo, Y.-L

    G. Guo, Y.-L. S. Tsai, M.-R. Wu, and Q. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D102, 103004 (2020), arXiv:2008.12137 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    A. W. Strong and I. V. Moskalenko, Astrophys. J.509, 212 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9807150

    work page arXiv 1998

  35. [35]

    R. C. Anjos and F. Catalani, Phys. Rev. D101, 123015 (2020), arXiv:2006.02584 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Izaguirre, G

    E. Izaguirre, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D90, 014052 (2014), arXiv:1403.6826 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    G. F. Giudice, D. Kim, J.-C. Park, and S. Shin, Phys. Lett. B780, 543 (2018), arXiv:1712.07126 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Dutta, S

    B. Dutta, S. Ghosh, and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D100, 075028 (2019), arXiv:1905.02692 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    D. E. Kaplan, M. A. Luty, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D79, 115016 (2009), arXiv:0901.4117 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  40. [40]

    Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T,

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 111302 (2018), arXiv:1805.12562 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Search for Light Dark Mat- ter Interactions Enhanced by the Migdal Effect or Bremsstrahlung in XENON1T, Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 241803 (2019), arXiv:1907.12771 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    Search for Light Dark Matter with Ionization Signals in the PandaX-4T Experiment,

    S. Liet al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 261001 (2023), arXiv:2212.10067 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Huanget al.(PandaX), Phys

    D. Huanget al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 191002 (2023), arXiv:2308.01540 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Bo et al

    Z. Boet al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 191001 (2024), arXiv:2407.10892 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    D. S. Akeribet al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. D101, 052002 (2020), arXiv:1802.06039 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Search for𝐾 + de- cays to a muon and invisible particles,

    E. Cortina Gilet al.(NA62), Phys. Lett. B816, 136259 (2021), arXiv:2101.12304 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(PIENU), Phys

    A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(PIENU), Phys. Rev. D103, 052006 (2021), arXiv:2101.07381 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    B. M. K. Nefkenset al.(A2 at MAMI), Phys. Rev. C 90, 025206 (2014), arXiv:1405.4904 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2014

  51. [51]

    Batell, A

    B. Batell, A. Freitas, A. Ismail, and D. Mckeen, Phys. Rev. D100, 095020 (2019), arXiv:1812.05103 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    Banerjeeet al., Phys

    D. Banerjeeet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 121801 (2019), arXiv:1906.00176 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    J. P. Leeset al.(BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 131804 (2017), arXiv:1702.03327 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    Abdallahet al.(DELPHI), Eur

    J. Abdallahet al.(DELPHI), Eur. Phys. J. C60, 17 (2009), arXiv:0901.4486 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2009

  55. [55]

    Implications of the dark axion portal for the muon g−2 , B factories, fixed target neutrino experiments, and beam dumps,

    P. deNiverville, H.-S. Lee, and M.-S. Seo, Phys. Rev. D 98, 115011 (2018), arXiv:1806.00757 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  56. [56]

    Aubertet al.(BaBar), Nucl

    B. Aubertet al.(BaBar), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A479, 1 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0105044

    work page arXiv 2002

  57. [57]

    Markevitch, A

    M. Markevitch, A. H. Gonzalez, D. Clowe, A. Vikhlinin, L. David, W. Forman, C. Jones, S. Murray, and W. Tucker, Astrophys. J.606, 819 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0309303

    work page arXiv 2004

  58. [58]

    Harvey, R

    D. Harvey, R. Massey, T. Kitching, A. Taylor, and E. Tittley, Science347, 1462 (2015), arXiv:1503.07675 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2015

  59. [59]

    Robertson, R

    A. Robertson, R. Massey, and V. Eke, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.465, 569 (2017), arXiv:1605.04307 [astro- 7 ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    P. S. B. Dev, R. N. Mohapatra, and Y. Zhang, JCAP 08, 003 (2020), [Erratum: JCAP 11, E01 (2020)], arXiv:2005.00490 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP 09, 051 (2018), arXiv:1803.00993 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  62. [62]

    Croon, G

    D. Croon, G. Elor, R. K. Leane, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP01, 107 (2021), arXiv:2006.13942 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    A. Sung, G. Guo, and M.-R. Wu, Phys. Rev. D103, 103005 (2021), arXiv:2102.04601 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  64. [64]

    Stellar cooling bounds on new light particles: plasma mixing effects,

    E. Hardy and R. Lasenby, JHEP02, 033 (2017), arXiv:1611.05852 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  65. [65]

    A. Hook, G. Marques-Tavares, and C. Ristow, JHEP 06, 167 (2021), arXiv:2105.06476 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    Y. Hu, C. Cesarotti, and T. R. Slatyer, (2025), arXiv:2509.08043 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J.490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    work page arXiv 1997

  68. [68]

    Cirelli, G

    M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. Hutsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci, M. Raidal, F. Sala, and A. Stru- mia, JCAP03, 051 (2011), [Erratum: JCAP 10, E01 (2012)], arXiv:1012.4515 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2011

  69. [69]

    Cholis, D

    I. Cholis, D. Hooper, and T. Linden, (2014), arXiv:1407.5583 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2014

  70. [70]

    Di Mauro, Phys

    M. Di Mauro, Phys. Rev. D103, 063029 (2021), arXiv:2101.04694 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    K. N. Abazajian, N. Canac, S. Horiuchi, and M. Kaplinghat, Phys. Rev. D90, 023526 (2014), arXiv:1402.4090 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2014

  72. [72]

    Y.-M.Zhong, S.D.McDermott, I.Cholis, andP.J.Fox, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 231103 (2020), arXiv:1911.12369 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    J. T. Dinsmore and T. R. Slatyer, JCAP06, 025 (2022), arXiv:2112.09699 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    M. Pohl, O. Macias, P. Coleman, and C. Gordon, As- trophys. J.929, 136 (2022), arXiv:2203.11626 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  75. [75]

    S. D. McDermott, Y.-M. Zhong, and I. Cho- lis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.522, L21 (2023), arXiv:2209.00006 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    E. D. Ramirez, Y. Sun, M. R. Buckley, S. Mishra- Sharma, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D111, 063065 (2025), arXiv:2410.21367 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Zhong and I

    Y.-M. Zhong and I. Cholis, Phys. Rev. D109, 123017 (2024), arXiv:2401.02481 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Macias, C

    O. Macias, C. Gordon, R. M. Crocker, B. Coleman, D. Paterson, S. Horiuchi, and M. Pohl, Nature Astron. 2, 387 (2018), arXiv:1611.06644 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    R.Bartels, E.Storm, C.Weniger, andF.Calore,Nature Astron.2, 819 (2018), arXiv:1711.04778 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2018

  80. [80]

    Storm, C

    E. Storm, C. Weniger, and F. Calore, JCAP08, 022 (2017), arXiv:1705.04065 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.