Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Boosted dark matter from semi-annihilations in the galactic center

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Semi-annihilating dark matter in the Galactic Center could produce a boosted flux that current detectors can already probe far beyond cosmic-ray limits.

desk verdict A solid new boosted-DM signal from the Galactic Center, but the headline reach depends on an unstated s-wave assumption the authors never justify. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12117 v2 pith:LUZBWELL submitted 2025-01-21 hep-ph

Boris Betancourt Kamenetskaia , Motoko Fujiwara , Alejandro Ibarra , Takashi Toma This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d
keywords darkmattersemi-annihilationboostedgalacticcenterdirectdetectionsub-GeVXENONnTDUNE
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that dark matter particles that set their relic abundance through semi-annihilation—two dark matter particles merging into one dark matter particle plus one Standard Model particle—are still doing so today in the Galactic Center, producing a fast, mono-energetic boosted dark matter flux toward Earth. For a benchmark semi-annihilation cross-section of $\langle\sigma v\rangle = 10^{-26}\,\mathrm{cm^3/s}$, that flux would let current direct-detection experiments probe dark matter-proton scattering cross-sections several orders of magnitude below existing cosmic-ray-boosted dark matter limits, and let future DARWIN and DUNE experiments reach $10^{-38}$ to $10^{-37}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ for sub-GeV masses. The reason the signal is strong is that each semi-annihilation gives the outgoing dark matter particle a fixed kinetic energy of $m_\chi/4$, producing recoil spectra with a sharp cut-off that are easy to distinguish from backgrounds and from other boosting mechanisms.

What carries the argument

The central object is the semi-annihilation process $\chi\chi\to\chi\nu$, whose defining signature is a mono-energetic boosted dark matter flux: every outgoing dark matter particle carries kinetic energy $T_\chi=m_\chi/4$. The paper's rate calculation combines this flux with the differential nuclear recoil rate, splitting the scattering into coherent and incoherent parts to handle momentum transfers comparable to the nucleus size, and includes attenuation of the flux through the Earth's crust, which sets an upper bound on the dark matter-proton cross-section that each experiment can probe. A key formula is the minimum detectable dark matter mass from the recoil threshold, which explains why XENONnT only becomes sensitive above $m_\chi\sim20$ MeV, CRESST above $\sim2$ MeV, and MiniBooNE above $\sim200$ MeV.

What would settle it

Measure or independently bound the present-day semi-annihilation cross-section in the Galactic Center, for example through the associated neutrino flux at Super-Kamiokande or through a full thermal freeze-out calculation of the relic abundance, and compare the resulting flux with the rate assumed here; if the true cross-section is an order of magnitude below $10^{-26}\,\mathrm{cm^3/s}$, the XENONnT reach drops by an order of magnitude and the claimed discovery window narrows accordingly. Alternatively, a null result at DARWIN at the projected $\sigma_p\sim10^{-38}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ sensitivity for $m_\chi\sim30$ MeV would contradict the prediction for the benchmark cross-section.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the same semi-annihilation process that can set the dark matter relic abundance, $\chi\chi\to\chi\nu$, continues at a significant rate in the Galactic Center today and generates a flux of boosted dark matter particles with kinetic energy $T_\chi=m_\chi/4$ and an associated neutrino flux with energy $3m_\chi/4$. For $\langle\sigma v\rangle = 10^{-26}\,\mathrm{cm^3\,s^{-1}}$, the flux is $\Phi_{\mathrm{BDM}}\simeq 3.2\times 10^{-3}\,(m_\chi/100\,\mathrm{MeV})^{-2}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$, enough to produce tens of events in a ton-scale xenon detector at $m_\chi\sim100\,\mathrm{MeV}$. Using data from XENONnT, CRESST-II and MiniBooNE, the paper derives constraints on the spin-independent dark matter-proton cross-section: XENONnT reaches $\sigma_p\sim10^{-36}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ at $m_\chi\sim30\,\mathrm{MeV}$, about five orders of magnitude stronger than cosmic-ray boosted dark matter limits, while MiniBooNE gives $\sigma_p\sim10^{-28}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ at $m_\chi\sim300\,\mathrm{MeV}$. Projected sensitivities of DARWIN ($\sigma_p\sim10^{-38}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ at $30\,\mathrm{MeV}$) and DUNE ($\sigma_p\sim10^{-37}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ at $300\,\mathrm{MeV}$) would close in on the parameter space of sub-GeV dark matter models.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark semi-annihilation cross-section $\langle\sigma v\rangle=10^{-26}\,\mathrm{cm^3/s}$ is assumed to be the rate currently taking place in the Galactic Center and is asserted, without a freeze-out calculation, to be in the ballpark of the value that gives the observed dark matter abundance; since the predicted flux is proportional to this cross-section, every limit and projected sensitivity shrinks or grows linearly with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • XENONnT's current null result already excludes dark matter-proton scattering cross-sections down to $\sigma_p\sim10^{-36}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ for $m_\chi\sim30$ MeV, up to five orders of magnitude below cosmic-ray boosted dark matter limits.
  • CRESST-II provides the best sensitivity in the $2$-$30$ MeV window, reaching $\sigma_p\sim10^{-31}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$, comparable to cosmic-ray boosted dark matter constraints.
  • MiniBooNE excludes $\sigma_p$ down to $\sim10^{-28}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ near $m_\chi\sim300$ MeV, complementing existing bounds rather than ruling out new parameter space.
  • DARWIN and DUNE are projected to reach $\sigma_p\sim10^{-38}$ and $10^{-37}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ respectively, probing most of the sub-GeV region from 30 MeV to 1 GeV.
  • For dark matter masses above about 10 GeV the standard halo flux overwhelms the semi-annihilation component, so the new sensitivity is confined to sub-GeV masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the predicted flux scales linearly with the semi-annihilation cross-section, all quoted limits and projections would shift proportionally if the true Galactic Center value of $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ differs from $10^{-26}\,\mathrm{cm^3/s}$; the paper asserts this is in the ballpark required by thermal freeze-out but does not derive it.
  • The mono-energetic recoil spectrum with a sharp cut-off at $T_\chi=m_\chi/4$ is a distinctive fingerprint that future experiments could use to discriminate semi-annihilation boosting from cosmic-ray or blazar boosting.
  • The irreducible neutrino counterpart of the semi-annihilation, at $E_\nu=3m_\chi/4$, could be searched for at DUNE simultaneously with the dark matter signal, offering a cross-check on the same cross-section.
  • Taking into account the time-dependent path of the Galactic Center through the Earth as seen from a fixed detector, and the non-uniform density of the Earth, would strengthen the attenuation-based upper limits on $\sigma_p$, widening the excluded region.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies sub-GeV dark matter in scenarios where the relic density is set by the semi-annihilation process χχ→χν. It computes the monochromatic boosted-DM flux from the Galactic Center, the resulting nuclear recoil rate in direct and neutrino detectors, and derives constraints on the spin-independent DM-proton cross section from XENONnT, CRESST-II, and MiniBooNE, together with projections for DARWIN and DUNE. For the benchmark semi-annihilation cross section ⟨σ_{2→1}v⟩ = 10^{-26} cm^3/s, the paper finds that XENONnT could probe σp down to about 10^{-36} cm^2 at mχ ≈ 30 MeV, roughly five orders of magnitude stronger than current cosmic-ray-boosted DM constraints, with DARWIN and DUNE reaching about 10^{-38} cm^2 and 10^{-37} cm^2, respectively.

Significance. If the assumed present-day semi-annihilation rate is realized, the proposed search is a genuinely new way to access sub-GeV DM and complements existing limits. The rate calculation is internally consistent: the flux integral, coherent/incoherent scattering treatment, and Earth-attenuation bounds are clearly documented, and the current limits are derived from published null results. However, the headline sensitivities scale linearly with an assumed cross section whose connection to the thermal relic abundance is asserted rather than demonstrated and whose velocity dependence is not specified. These points must be resolved before the quantitative reach can be considered robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4 and Eq. (4)] The statement that ⟨σ_{2→1}v⟩ = 10^{-26} cm^3/s “leads via thermal freeze-out to a DM abundance in the ballpark of the observed value” is not supported by any calculation or reference in the manuscript. Since Φ_BDM in Eq. (4) is linear in this cross section, every exclusion curve and projected sensitivity in Fig. 2 inherits this assumption. The authors should either include the freeze-out calculation (the Boltzmann equation for semi-annihilation and the resulting relic abundance as a function of ⟨σ_{2→1}v⟩ and mχ) or, if the benchmark is intended as a phenomenological input, remove the relic-abundance claim and state explicitly that the results are conditional on a chosen present-day cross section.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eqs. (2)-(4)] The flux from the Galactic Center is evaluated with the same ⟨σ_{2→1}v⟩ that is later tied to the thermal relic density. For a spin-1/2 DM particle, the semi-annihilation χχ→χν can be p-wave; in that case the present-day velocity in the GC (v ∼ 10^{-3} c) suppresses the rate relative to freeze-out (v ∼ 0.3 c) by roughly (v/v_f)^2 ∼ 10^{-5}. Since all results scale linearly with Φ_BDM, the XENONnT reach at mχ ∼ 30 MeV would move from σp ∼ 10^{-36} cm^2 to about 10^{-31} cm^2, i.e., on top of the existing CRDM constraint, and the claimed improvement would disappear. The manuscript never specifies the partial wave or an explicit operator for χχ→χν. Please state the velocity dependence of the assumed cross section, or qualify the headline results as valid only for an s-wave process.
  3. [Appendix A, DUNE paragraph] The DUNE projection in Fig. 2 is not reproducible from the text. The signal number Nsig is never defined in the DUNE paragraph: if the signal is DM-nucleus scattering in argon, the relevant recoil energies are of order keV, while the stated energy range [50 MeV, 10 GeV] and solid angle ΔΩ = 0.668 refer to the atmospheric-neutrino background calculation; if the signal is instead the semi-annihilation neutrino flux, the sensitivity should not be displayed as a limit on σp. Please define the signal event selection, detection efficiency, and energy window used for the DUNE curve.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase “sensitivity … can be several orders of magnitude larger than current constraints” is ambiguous; “stronger than” or “better than” would more accurately convey that the probed cross sections are smaller.
  2. [Fig. 2] In the legend, the entries for CMB and gas cloud cooling appear as the merged label “CMBGas cloud cooling”; this should be corrected to two separate entries.
  3. [Sec. 3, DUNE discussion] The DUNE sensitivity estimate relies on Ref. [21] for the analysis setup, but the present paper should state at least briefly which selection is applied to the DM scattering signal and how the atmospheric neutrino background is suppressed, so that the projected reach is understandable without consulting the earlier work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central limits are conditional sensitivities for a fixed semi-annihilation cross-section, derived from external null data; the only mild concern is a minor self-cited DUNE background estimate and an unsupported relic-abundance assertion.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The boosted flux in Eq. (4) is computed directly from the assumed Galactic-Center semi-annihilation cross-section and an NFW profile, and the limits in Fig. 2 are obtained by comparing the predicted event rate from Eqs. (5)-(17) with published null results from XENONnT, CRESST-II, and MiniBooNE, and by scaling XENONnT for DARWIN and using an atmospheric-neutrino background for DUNE. No parameter is fitted to the data being 'predicted'; the benchmark ⟨σ2→1v⟩ = 10^-26 cm3/s is an explicit input, and the paper states that the limits are derived assuming this value. The assertion in Sec. 4 that this benchmark 'leads via thermal freeze-out to a DM abundance in the ballpark of the observed value' is not accompanied by a freeze-out calculation, but that is an unsupported soundness claim rather than a circular one. The DUNE background estimate cites Ref. [21] by a co-author, yet the formula and its ingredients are stated in the paper and this citation does not drive the main XENONnT/CRESST constraints; at most it is a minor self-citation with no load-bearing reduction. The comparison to cosmic-ray boosted DM limits uses external work [14]. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the paper warrants a low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on a fixed semi-annihilation cross-section benchmark and an assumed NFW profile; no new dynamical entities are introduced. The main free input is the benchmark cross-section, which all limits scale with linearly.

free parameters (2)
  • semi-annihilation cross-section <sigma v> = 1e-26 cm3/s (benchmark)
    Chosen as a typical value and stated to be in the ballpark of the thermal relic value, but the freeze-out calculation is not shown. All limits scale linearly with it (Eq. (4), Sec. 3).
  • DARWIN sensitivity scaling factor = 270
    Projected DARWIN reach is obtained by rescaling XENONnT limits by a factor 270 rather than a full simulation (Appendix A).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dark matter is a spin-1/2 particle undergoing chi chi -> chi nu semi-annihilation with a massless neutrino.
    This is the model under study (Sec. 1); the kinematics T_chi = m_chi/4 follows from this assumption.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way dark matter halo follows an NFW profile with rho_s = 0.184 GeV/cm3, r_s = 24.42 kpc, r_sun = 8.33 kpc.
    Used to compute the Galactic Center flux (Eqs. (1)-(3)); a cored profile would reduce the flux.
  • ad hoc to paper The semi-annihilation cross-section <sigma v> = 1e-26 cm3/s is in the ballpark of the value needed for the observed relic abundance.
    Asserted in the abstract and conclusions without a shown freeze-out calculation; it is a load-bearing input for all limits.
  • domain assumption Scattering can be decomposed into coherent and incoherent parts with the Bednyakov-Naumov model (Eqs. (7)-(9)).
    A phenomenological model adopted from refs. [32,33] to handle loss of coherence at large momentum transfer, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The DM velocity dispersion in the Galactic Center is neglected, so the boosted flux is monoenergetic at T_chi = m_chi/4.
    Used in Eq. (2); in a realistic halo the line would be broadened, which could soften the threshold behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boosted dark matter from semi-annihilations in the galactic center." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LUZBWELL

@misc{pith2026250112117,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boosted dark matter from semi-annihilations in the galactic center},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LUZBWELL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12117}
}
abstract

In some scenarios, the dark matter relic abundance is set by the semi-annihilation of two dark matter particles into one dark matter particle and one Standard Model particle. These semi-annihilations might still be occurring today in the Galactic Center at a significant rate, generating a flux of boosted dark matter particles. We investigate the possible signals of this flux component in direct detection and neutrino experiments for sub-GeV dark matter masses. We show that for typical values of the semi-annihilation cross-section, the sensitivity of current experiments to the spin-independent dark matter-proton scattering cross-section can be several orders of magnitude larger than current constraints from cosmic-ray boosted dark matter. We also argue that the upcoming DARWIN and DUNE experiments may probe scattering cross-sections as low as $10^{-37}\,{\rm cm}^2$ for masses between 30 MeV and 1 GeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12117 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Recoil spectra for the elastic scattering of DM o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Excluded regions for the spin-independent DM-proton cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Dark Matter Heating of Compact Stars Beyond Capture: A Relativistic Framework for Energy Deposition by Particle Beams

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new relativistic formalism computes capture and energy deposition of directed particle beams in compact stars, applied to blazar-boosted dark matter heating of white dwarfs and neutron stars.

  2. Dark matter spikes with strongly self-interacting particles

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Number-changing dark matter self-interactions can significantly deplete dark matter spikes around supermassive black holes, while the 2 to 1 semi-annihilation generally preserves the spike structure.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    E. D. Carlson, M. E. Machacek, L. J. Hall, Self-interacting dark matter, Astrophys. J. 398 (1992) 43–52. doi:10.1086/171833

    doi:10.1086/171833 1992

  2. [2]

    Hochberg, E

    Y . Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. V olansky, J. G. Wacker, Mechanism for thermal relic dark matter of strongly interacting massive particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 171301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.171301. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113. 171301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.171301 2014

  3. [3]

    Bernal, X

    N. Bernal, X. Chu, J. Pradler, Simply split strongly interacting massive particles, Phys. Rev. D 95 (11) (2017) 115023. arXiv:1702.04906, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.115023

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    S.-Y . Ho, T. Toma, K. Tsumura, A Radiative Neutrino Mass Model with SIMP Dark Matter, JHEP 07 (2017) 101. arXiv:1705.00592, doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2017)101

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Hochberg, E

    Y . Hochberg, E. Kuflik, R. Mcgehee, H. Murayama, K. Schutz, Strongly interacting massive particles through the axion portal, Phys. Rev. D 98 (11) (2018) 115031. arXiv:1806.10139, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.98.115031

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Herms, A

    J. Herms, A. Ibarra, T. Toma, A new mechanism of sterile neutrino dark matter production, JCAP 06 (2018) 036. arXiv:1802.02973, doi:10. 1088/1475-7516/2018/06/036

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Arcadi, O

    G. Arcadi, O. Lebedev, S. Pokorski, T. Toma, Real Scalar Dark Matter: Relativistic Treatment, JHEP 08 (2019) 050. arXiv:1906.07659, doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2019)050

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Smirnov, J

    J. Smirnov, J. F. Beacom, New Freezeout Mechanism for Strongly Inter- acting Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (13) (2020) 131301. arXiv: 2002.04038, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.131301

    arXiv 2020

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Hambye, Hidden vector dark matter, JHEP 01 (2009) 028

    T. Hambye, Hidden vector dark matter, JHEP 01 (2009) 028. arXiv: 0811.0172, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/01/028

    2009 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hambye, M

    T. Hambye, M. H. G. Tytgat, Confined hidden vector dark matter, Phys. Lett. B 683 (2010) 39–41. arXiv:0907.1007, doi:10.1016/ j.physletb.2009.11.050

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Arina, T

    C. Arina, T. Hambye, A. Ibarra, C. Weniger, Intense Gamma-Ray Lines from Hidden Vector Dark Matter Decay, JCAP 03 (2010) 024. arXiv: 0912.4496, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/03/024

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    D’Eramo, J

    F. D’Eramo, J. Thaler, Semi-annihilation of Dark Matter, JHEP 06 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Yin, Highly-boosted dark matter and cuto ff for cosmic-ray neutrinos through neutrino portal, EPJ Web Conf

    W. Yin, Highly-boosted dark matter and cuto ff for cosmic-ray neutrinos through neutrino portal, EPJ Web Conf. 208 (2019) 04003.arXiv:1809. 08610, doi:10.1051/epjconf/201920804003

    2019

  6. [14]

    Bringmann, M

    T. Bringmann, M. Pospelov, Novel direct detection constraints on light dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (17) (2019) 171801. arXiv:1810. 10543, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.171801

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Y . Ema, F. Sala, R. Sato, Light Dark Matter at Neutrino Experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (18) (2019) 181802. arXiv:1811.00520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.181802

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Agashe, Y

    K. Agashe, Y . Cui, L. Necib, J. Thaler, (In)direct Detection of Boosted Dark Matter, JCAP 10 (2014) 062. arXiv:1405.7370, doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2014/10/062

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. Kopp, J. Liu, X.-P. Wang, Boosted Dark Matter in IceCube and at the Galactic Center, JHEP 04 (2015) 105. arXiv:1503.02669, doi:10. 1007/JHEP04(2015)105

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J.-W. Wang, A. Granelli, P. Ullio, Direct Detection Constraints on Blazar- Boosted Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (22) (2022) 221104. arXiv: 2111.13644, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.221104

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Emken, Solar reflection of light dark matter with heavy mediators, Phys

    T. Emken, Solar reflection of light dark matter with heavy mediators, Phys. Rev. D 105 (6) (2022) 063020. arXiv:2102.12483, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.105.063020

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Toma, Distinctive signals of boosted dark matter from its semianni- hilation, Phys

    T. Toma, Distinctive signals of boosted dark matter from its semianni- hilation, Phys. Rev. D 105 (4) (2022) 043007. arXiv:2109.05911, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.043007

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M. Aoki, T. Toma, Simultaneous detection of boosted dark matter and neutrinos from the semi-annihilation at DUNE, JCAP 02 (2024) 033. arXiv:2309.00395, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/02/033

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Aprile, et al., First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys

    E. Aprile, et al., First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (4) (2023) 041003.arXiv: 2303.14729, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041003

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Angloher, et al., Results on light dark matter particles with a low- threshold CRESST-II detector, Eur

    G. Angloher, et al., Results on light dark matter particles with a low- threshold CRESST-II detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (1) (2016) 25. arXiv: 1509.01515, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3877-3

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo, et al., The MiniBooNE Detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 599 (2009) 28–46. arXiv:0806.4201, doi:10.1016/j. nima.2008.10.028

    2009 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, S. D. M. White, The Structure of cold dark matter halos, Astrophys. J. 462 (1996) 563–575. arXiv:astro-ph/ 9508025, doi:10.1086/177173

    1996 doi

  18. [26]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, S. D. M. White, A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering, Astrophys. J. 490 (1997) 493–508. arXiv: astro-ph/9611107, doi:10.1086/304888

    1997 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bergstrom, P

    L. Bergstrom, P. Ullio, J. H. Buckley, Observability of gamma-rays from dark matter neutralino annihilations in the Milky Way halo, Astropart. Phys. 9 (1998) 137–162. arXiv:astro-ph/9712318, doi:10.1016/ S0927-6505(98)00015-2

    1998 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M. S. Turner, Cosmic and Local Mass Density of Invisible Axions, Phys. Rev. D 33 (1986) 889–896. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.33.889

    1986 doi

  21. [29]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, J. Silk, Particle dark matter: Evidence, candi- dates and constraints, Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279–390. arXiv:hep-ph/ 0404175, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    Cirelli, G

    M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. Hutsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci, M. Raidal, F. Sala, A. Strumia, PPPC 4 DM ID: A Poor Particle Physi- cist Cookbook for Dark Matter Indirect Detection, JCAP 03 (2011) 051, [Erratum: JCAP 10, E01 (2012)]. arXiv:1012.4515, doi:10.1088/ 1475-75...

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Abe, et al., Indirect search for dark matter from the Galactic Center and halo with the Super-Kamiokande detector, Phys

    K. Abe, et al., Indirect search for dark matter from the Galactic Center and halo with the Super-Kamiokande detector, Phys. Rev. D 102 (7) (2020) 072002. arXiv:2005.05109, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.072002

    2020

  24. [32]

    V . A. Bednyakov, D. V . Naumov, Coherency and incoherency in neutrino- nucleus elastic and inelastic scattering, Phys. Rev. D 98 (5) (2018) 053004. arXiv:1806.08768, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.053004

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    V . A. Bednyakov, D. V . Naumov, I. V . Titkova, On the Possibility of Separating Coherent and Incoherent (Anti)neutrino Scattering on Nuclei, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 84 (3) (2021) 314–327. doi:10.1134/ S1063778821030066

    2021

  26. [34]

    C. F. Perdrisat, V . Punjabi, M. Vanderhaeghen, Nucleon Electromag- netic Form Factors, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 59 (2007) 694–764. arXiv: hep-ph/0612014, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2007.05.001

    2007 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Angeli, A consistent set of nuclear rms charge radii: properties of the radius surface R(N,Z), Atom

    I. Angeli, A consistent set of nuclear rms charge radii: properties of the radius surface R(N,Z), Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 87 (2) (2004) 185–

    2004

  28. [36]

    Angloher, et al., Results on MeV-scale dark matter from a gram- scale cryogenic calorimeter operated above ground, Eur

    G. Angloher, et al., Results on MeV-scale dark matter from a gram- scale cryogenic calorimeter operated above ground, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (9) (2017) 637. arXiv:1707.06749, doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-017-5223-9

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Aprile, et al., First Dark Matter Search Results from the XENON1T Experiment, Phys

    E. Aprile, et al., First Dark Matter Search Results from the XENON1T Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (18) (2017) 181301. arXiv:1705. 06655, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.181301

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    W. L. Xu, C. Dvorkin, A. Chael, Probing sub-GeV Dark Matter-Baryon Scattering with Cosmological Observables, Phys. Rev. D 97 (10) (2018) 103530. arXiv:1802.06788, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103530

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    K. K. Rogers, C. Dvorkin, H. V . Peiris, Limits on the Light Dark Mat- ter–Proton Cross Section from Cosmic Large-Scale Structure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (17) (2022) 171301. arXiv:2111.10386, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.128.171301

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Bhoonah, J

    A. Bhoonah, J. Bramante, F. Elahi, S. Schon, Calorimetric Dark Matter Detection With Galactic Center Gas Clouds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (13) (2018) 131101. arXiv:1806.06857, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 121.131101

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Wulandari, J

    H. Wulandari, J. Jochum, W. Rau, F. von Feilitzsch, Neutron flux under- ground revisited, Astropart. Phys. 22 (2004) 313–322. arXiv:hep-ex/ 0312050, doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.07.005

    2004 doi

  34. [42]

    Angloher, et al., Description of CRESST-II data (1 2017)

    G. Angloher, et al., Description of CRESST-II data (1 2017). arXiv: 1701.08157. 6

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Angloher, et al., Limits on momentum-dependent asymmetric dark matter with CRESST-II, Phys

    G. Angloher, et al., Limits on momentum-dependent asymmetric dark matter with CRESST-II, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2) (2016) 021303.arXiv: 1601.04447, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.021303

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo, et al., Updated MiniBooNE neutrino oscilla- tion results with increased data and new background studies, Phys. Rev. D 103 (5) (2021) 052002. arXiv:2006.16883, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.103.052002

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bringmann, J

    T. Bringmann, J. Edsj ¨o, P. Gondolo, P. Ullio, L. Bergstr ¨om, Dark- SUSY 6 : An Advanced Tool to Compute Dark Matter Properties Nu- merically, JCAP 07 (2018) 033. arXiv:1802.03399, doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2018/07/033

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Aalbers, et al., DARWIN: towards the ultimate dark matter de- tector, JCAP 11 (2016) 017

    J. Aalbers, et al., DARWIN: towards the ultimate dark matter de- tector, JCAP 11 (2016) 017. arXiv:1606.07001, doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2016/11/017

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    R. Acciarri, et al., Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, V olume 2: The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF (12 2015).arXiv: 1512.06148

    2015

  40. [48]

    Honda, M

    M. Honda, M. Sajjad Athar, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara, S. Midorikawa, Atmospheric neutrino flux calculation using the NRLMSISE-00 atmo- spheric model, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2) (2015) 023004.arXiv:1502.03916, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023004

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Andreopoulos, et al., The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator, Nucl

    C. Andreopoulos, et al., The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614 (2010) 87–104. arXiv:0905.2517, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2009.12.009. 7

    2010 arXiv

  42. [109]

    arXiv:1003.5912, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)109

    2010 arXiv

  43. [206]

    doi:10.1016/j.adt.2004.04.002

    2004 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.