Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Constraints on dark matter annihilation in the Large Magellanic Cloud from multiple low-frequency radio observations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Low-frequency radio observations of the Large Magellanic Cloud place upper limits on dark matter annihilation, excluding cross sections above roughly $10^{-23}$ to $10^{-21}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$ for masses of 10–1000 GeV.

desk verdict A well-intentioned but statistically flawed attempt to constrain LMC dark matter with low-frequency radio — the claimed limits are driven by suspect historical data points. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03163 v2 pith:LVLE24YB submitted 2024-12-04 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COhep-ph

Zhanfang Chen , Feng Huang , Taotao Fang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords darkmatterannihilationLargeMagellanicCloudsynchrotronradiationlow-frequencyradioastronomyindirectdetectiongauginocosmicraysradio-infraredcorrelation
topics Dark Matter
open problems 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

Low-frequency radio emission from the Large Magellanic Cloud carries a faint, mostly nonthermal signal that this paper uses to bound dark matter annihilation. The authors fit 19.7 MHz–1.4 GHz flux measurements with two power-law components: cosmic-ray synchrotron radiation with a free spectral index, and a dark-matter-annihilation component whose spectral index is fixed at $-0.75$ from gaugino-annihilation physics. Treating the fitted dark-matter normalization as an upper limit gives $S_{\rm DM}(1.4\,{\rm GHz}) = 98$--$115$ Jy depending on whether thermal free-free emission is included. Converting that flux limit into particle-physics terms with a diffusion-loss model for $e^\pm$ yields exclusion curves in the dark-matter mass vs. annihilation-cross-section plane. If the paper is right, the LMC radio data exclude cross sections above roughly $10^{-23}$ to $10^{-21}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$ for dark-matter masses of 10–1000 GeV, with the lowest frequencies probing the lowest masses.

What carries the argument

The double power-law model $S_{\rm nth} = S_{\rm DM}(\nu/\nu_\star)^{-0.75} + S_{\rm CR}(\nu/\nu_\star)^{-\alpha_{\rm CR}}$, with $\nu_\star = 1.4$ GHz, is the core object: it separates the radio spectrum into a dark-matter piece with a fixed spectral index and a cosmic-ray piece with a free index. A Markov-chain Monte Carlo fit over $S_{\rm DM}$, $S_{\rm CR}$, and $\alpha_{\rm CR}$ (plus a thermal free-free component in one variant) returns the normalization that is then read as an upper limit on DM-induced synchrotron emission. The second piece of machinery is the steady-state transport equation for $e^\pm$ with diffusion and energy losses, solved with a free-escape boundary at 3.5 kpc, which turns the flux limit into a predicted flux for each value of $m_\chi$ and $\langle\sigma v\rangle$. Comparing predicted to allowed flux over a grid of masses and cross sections draws the exclusion curves.

What would settle it

Rerun the identical fit to the same 19.7 MHz–1.4 GHz data with $\alpha_{\rm DM}$ as a free parameter instead of fixing it at 0.75; if the best-fit $\alpha_{\rm DM}$ comes out well below 0.75 with a comparable likelihood, the fixed-slope upper limits are not uniquely determined and the cross-section constraints would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that a two-component spectral decomposition of the LMC's low-frequency radio flux isolates an upper limit on dark-matter-annihilation synchrotron emission. With the dark-matter index fixed at $\alpha_{\rm DM}=0.75$, the best-fit dark-matter normalization at 1.4 GHz is 114.8 Jy without a thermal component and 98.4 Jy with one, and the cosmic-ray component comes out flatter ($\alpha_{\rm CR}\approx0.40$--$0.52$) than the canonical 0.8. These normalizations bound the flux a dark-matter signal could contribute at every frequency, because any excess above the fitted CR component is attributed to DM. Using an analytic diffusion-loss Green's function and a synchrotron emissivity calculation, the paper converts these bounds into exclusion curves for $m_\chi$ vs. $\langle\sigma v\rangle$, finding that lower frequencies give stronger limits on lower-mass dark matter, weaker diffusion gives stronger limits, and stronger magnetic fields give stronger limits.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the LMC's nonthermal radio spectrum is exactly the sum of a single cosmic-ray power law and a dark-matter component with a fixed $\nu^{-0.75}$ slope; if the dark-matter spectrum is flatter or the cosmic-ray component is not a single power law, the derived cross-section limits do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For dark-matter masses between 10 and 1000 GeV, the LMC radio limits exclude annihilation cross sections above roughly $10^{-23}$ to $10^{-21}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$.
  • Including thermal free-free emission tightens the dark-matter normalization by about 17%, from 114.8 Jy to 98.4 Jy at 1.4 GHz.
  • The fitted cosmic-ray spectral index ($\alpha_{\rm CR}\approx0.4$--$0.5$) is flatter than the canonical 0.8, implying the LMC's radio spectrum is flatter than normal galaxies and that radio-IR correlations calibrated on normal galaxies underpredict the cosmic-ray contribution.
  • Lower-frequency radio bands are the most sensitive probe of low-mass dark matter, so future very-low-frequency surveys could push the constraints below the current values.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Letting $\alpha_{\rm DM}$ float in the same fit would test the fixed $-0.75$ slope; a flatter best-fit index would mean the quoted cross-section limits are an artifact of the assumed spectrum.
  • A modern re-measurement of the 19.7 and 45 MHz fluxes would check the steep low-frequency excess that drives the DM-limited low-mass constraints, since those historical points are the ones that push the fitted DM component upward.
  • The same two-component decomposition could be applied to other dwarf irregular galaxies with low-frequency spectra, potentially producing stacked dark-matter limits across a population.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper fits the low-frequency radio spectrum of the Large Magellanic Cloud (19.7 MHz to 1.4 GHz) with a double power-law model consisting of a dark-matter synchrotron component with a fixed spectral index (α_DM = 0.75) and a cosmic-ray synchrotron component with free normalization and spectral index. Using MCMC, the authors obtain best-fit values of S_DM(1.4 GHz) = 114.8 Jy (without thermal emission) and 98.4 Jy (with a thermal component), which they call upper limits on dark-matter-induced synchrotron emission. They then use RX-DMFIT to translate these flux limits into constraints on the dark matter annihilation cross section ⟨σv⟩ as a function of mχ, showing curves for several frequencies and for variations in the diffusion coefficient and magnetic field strength. The central claim is that the LMC radio data exclude cross sections above roughly 10^-23 to 10^-21 cm^3/s for masses 10 to 1000 GeV, with the lowest frequencies most sensitive to low dark matter masses.

Significance. The paper addresses an interesting and timely question: whether low-frequency radio observations of a nearby, massive dwarf galaxy can constrain dark matter annihilation. The use of the updated GLEAM data, the explicit modeling of both cosmic-ray and dark-matter synchrotron components, and the exploration of sensitivity to diffusion and magnetic field parameters are sensible first steps, and the paper makes a falsifiable prediction that future low-frequency surveys could detect a steep dark-matter component. However, the central analysis has two load-bearing problems. First, the quoted 'upper limits' on S_DM are actually MCMC best-fit values, not statistical upper bounds, so the exclusion curves in Figs. 4–6 do not have the claimed meaning. Second, the dark-matter component is driven by pre-GLEAM historical flux measurements that are inconsistent with GLEAM at overlapping frequencies; a GLEAM-only fit could plausibly eliminate the dark-matter component altogether. The fixed α_DM = 0.75 also contradicts the paper's own v1 abstract, which reported a free-index fit of α_DM = 0.21–0.66. Because these issues affect the main result, the paper is not acceptable in its present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II.B, Figs. 1–2] The quantities quoted as 'upper limits' (S_DM = 114.8 Jy and 98.4 Jy at 1.4 GHz) are the best-fit values from the MCMC, not upper limits. The text reports log10 S_DM = 2.06^{+0.17}_{-0.14} and 1.99^{+0.20}_{-0.17}; these are central estimates with 1σ intervals. A proper upper limit must be a quantile of the marginalized posterior, such as a 95% credibility bound, and it must allow for the possibility that the data are consistent with S_DM = 0. Because the exclusion curves in Figs. 4–6 are computed from the single best-fit normalization, they do not have the statistical meaning claimed in Section III.D. This is a load-bearing error: the paper's main result is a set of upper limits, and those limits are not actually computed.
  2. [Section II.A and Table I] The four pre-GLEAM points below or overlapping the GLEAM band (19.7, 45, 85.5, 98.6, and 158 MHz) are inconsistent with GLEAM measurements at the same or nearby frequencies. For example, 98.6 MHz gives 2839±600 Jy versus 1451.6±247.0 Jy at 99 MHz, and 158 MHz gives 1736±490 Jy versus 1350.4±229.6 Jy. Because the fixed dark-matter spectral index (α_DM = 0.75) is steeper than the fitted cosmic-ray index (α_CR = 0.40–0.52), the dark-matter component is the only element of the model that can absorb the excess flux of the historical points. Consequently, the best-fit S_DM is effectively a fit to the systematic offset of the historical data, not a robust constraint on dark-matter-induced synchrotron emission. A fit restricted to the GLEAM data, or a quantitative treatment of the historical data's systematics, is required before any dark-matter limit can be claimed.
  3. [Section II.B, Eq. (3)] The fixed value α_DM = 0.75 is adopted from Tasitsiomi et al. [24], but the previous version of this paper on arXiv reported a free-α_DM fit with α_DM = 0.21–0.66. The current manuscript does not mention or discuss this discrepancy. Since a flatter dark-matter spectrum would substantially reduce the need for a dark-matter component at low frequencies, the choice α_DM = 0.75 is not a harmless convention; it is one of the main determinants of the derived constraints. The authors should either justify the fixed value with the data or treat α_DM as a free parameter and show how the limits depend on it.
  4. [Section II.B, Eq. (5)] The likelihood uses only the quoted 1σ statistical errors of the individual flux measurements. The large scatter between overlapping historical and GLEAM points indicates significant unmodeled systematics, so the MCMC error bars are underestimated. The paper does not include a systematic error floor or a covariance between measurements, and it does not test the robustness of the fit to excluding the pre-GLEAM points. The resulting limits are therefore overconfident even if the best-fit-to-upper-limit issue in the first major comment were fixed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II.B, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is a polynomial in x, not a pure power law, yet the text states that it leads to a ν^-0.75 power-law dependence. Please state the frequency and energy range over which this approximation is valid and show numerically that it holds across the full 19.7 MHz to 1.4 GHz band and the adopted dark matter mass range.
  2. [Table I] The 1400 MHz entry cited to For et al. [23] appears to be outside the GLEAM frequency range (76–227 MHz); please verify the provenance of this data point. In addition, the two 1400 MHz measurements (384±30 Jy and 529±30 Jy) differ by nearly 40%, and the paper does not discuss how this systematic difference is handled.
  3. [Section II.B, Figs. 1–2] The red lines in Figs. 1 and 2 are labeled 'upper limit' in the captions, but they are plotted from the best-fit model. The labels should be corrected to 'best fit' or the plots should show the actual upper-limit curves derived from the posterior.
  4. [Section II.B] The paper does not state the priors used for the MCMC parameters, the chain lengths, or convergence diagnostics. This information is necessary for reproducibility, especially since the authors use interpolation to compute model fluxes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derived DM constraints are external-model conversions of a fitted flux component, not re-statements of the input data.

full rationale

The paper fits the LMC radio data with a double power law, Eq. (3), treating SCR, SDM, and alpha_CR as free parameters while fixing alpha_DM = 0.75 from Tasitsiomi et al. The resulting SDM values (98.4-114.8 Jy) are then converted into m_chi - <sigma v> exclusion curves via RX-DMFIT, using independent inputs (density profiles, magnetic field, diffusion coefficient, distance, and the synchrotron emissivity formalism). This conversion is not definitionally equivalent to the fit: the cross-section limits are computed from a physically separate model that predicts synchrotron flux as a function of m_chi and <sigma v>, and the radio data enter only as an observed flux cap. The paper does not relabel a fitted parameter as an independent prediction of the same data, nor does it invoke a self-citation as the load-bearing justification. The fixed alpha_DM = 0.75 is an external assumption from Tasitsiomi et al., not imported from the authors' own prior work, and the sensitivity to the historical low-frequency points (19.7 and 45 MHz) and the treatment of the best-fit SDM as an upper limit are statistical and soundness concerns, not circularity. No quoted step reduces, by construction, to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The paper assumes standard WIMP annihilation into e± pairs and uses existing astrophysical models for the LMC's dark matter distribution, magnetic field, and diffusion. The main free parameters are the fitted CR and DM spectral normalizations and indices, plus benchmark choices for diffusion and magnetic field.

free parameters (10)
  • α_CR (CR synchrotron spectral index) = 0.40 (no thermal) / 0.52 (with thermal)
    Free parameter in the MCMC fit of Eq. 3; determines the slope of the cosmic-ray radio component.
  • log10 S_CR (CR flux normalization at 1.4 GHz) = 2.55 (no thermal) / 2.38 (with thermal) -> 354.8 / 239.9 Jy
    Free normalization in the fit; also compared with the radio-IR correlation value 177.9 Jy.
  • log10 S_DM (DM flux normalization at 1.4 GHz) = 2.06 (no thermal) / 1.99 (with thermal) -> 114.8 / 98.4 Jy
    Free normalization of the ν^-0.75 DM component; treated as an upper limit without computing a proper credible upper bound.
  • α_DM (DM synchrotron spectral index) = 0.75 (fixed)
    Fixed to the gaugino-annihilation value from Tasitsiomi et al. [24]; the v1 abstract reports α_DM = 0.21-0.66 when left free, so the choice is not data-driven.
  • S_th(1.4 GHz) (thermal free-free normalization) = 136.8 Jy (fixed)
    Adopted from Hassani et al. [32] for the fit with thermal emission; its uncertainty is not propagated.
  • D0 (diffusion coefficient normalization) = 3e27 cm^2/s (benchmark)
    Chosen as an order-of-magnitude scaled-down Milky Way value; varied to 3e26 in Fig. 5.
  • B0 (central magnetic field) = 5 μG (benchmark)
    Chosen as a conservative maximum central LMC field; varied 1-10 μG in Fig. 6; the constraints are highly sensitive to B0.
  • δ (diffusion energy index) = 0.3
    Assumed power-law energy dependence of D(E); no justification specific to the LMC.
  • Uph (ISRF energy density) = 0.539 eV cm^-3
    Fixed local ISRF value from Weingartner & Draine [40]; used in the ICS loss rate.
  • NH (neutral gas density) = 1.3e-6 cm^-3
    Used in the ionization loss rate; this value appears to be a typo (likely should be ~1 cm^-3), but it is subdominant for the energies considered.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper The LMC radio spectrum from 19.7 MHz to 1.4 GHz is a sum of two pure power laws (CR and DM), with no free-free absorption, spectral curvature, or additional components.
    Eq. 3 in Section II.B; the historical data at 19.7 and 45 MHz are much higher than the GLEAM points, requiring a flatter component that is then attributed to DM.
  • domain assumption The DM-induced synchrotron spectrum follows ν^-0.75 over the whole band for gaugino annihilation.
    Section II.B, from Tasitsiomi et al. Fig. 5; the v1 abstract shows the data allow α_DM in 0.21-0.66 when left free.
  • domain assumption The e± transport is described by a spherically symmetric diffusion-loss equation with free-escape boundary at rh=3.5 kpc and a homogeneous effective magnetic field for diffusion.
    Section III.B, Eqs. 16-18; standard treatment from Colafrancesco et al. [37] and McDaniel et al. [41].
  • domain assumption The 8x8 degree integrated LMC flux is equivalent to emission from a spherical region of radius 3.5 kpc at distance 50.1 kpc.
    Section III.C, Eq. 21; needed to connect the fitted integrated flux to the halo model.
  • domain assumption Dark matter density profiles of the LMC (NFW, Hayashi, isothermal, Burkert) with parameters from Siffert et al. [18] are valid.
    Section III.A, Fig. 3; J-factors within 3.5 kpc differ by less than 20% among the profiles.
  • standard math Standard synchrotron emissivity and energy-loss formulas (Eqs. 12-14, 22-25) apply.
    Used in Section III; standard physics from the RX-DMFIT framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on dark matter annihilation in the Large Magellanic Cloud from multiple low-frequency radio observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LVLE24YB

@misc{pith2026241203163,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on dark matter annihilation in the Large Magellanic Cloud from multiple low-frequency radio observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LVLE24YB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03163}
}
abstract

Low-frequency radio emission from the Large Magellanic Cloud~(LMC) is assumed to be dominated by nonthermal synchrotron radiation from energy loss of energetic $e^+/e^-$ in magnetic field. Two different kinds of sources of $e^+/e^-$, dark matter~(DM) annihilation and cosmic rays~(CR) related to massive stars, are taken into account in this paper. We fit the multiple low-frequency radio observations, from 19.7 MHz to 1.4 GHz, with a double power-law model $S_{nth} =S_{DM}(\frac {\nu}{\nu_{\star}})^{-\alpha_{DM}}+S_{CR}( \frac {\nu}{\nu_{\star}})^{-\alpha_{CR}} $. $\nu_{\star}$ is set to be $1.4$ GHz and $S_{CR}$ could be determined from the 24 $\mu m$ luminosity based on the global radio-infrared correlation. Our best fit with a fixed $\alpha_{CR}$ changing from $0.80$ to $0.55$ yields $\alpha_{DM}$ ranging from $0.21$ to $0.66$. Given a fixed value of $\alpha_{CR}$, we derive the upper limits of synchrotron emission induced by dark matter annihilation at different radio frequencies. Larger value of $\alpha_{CR}$ represents for a harder $e^+/e^-$ spectrum from cosmic rays, which leads to a smaller value of $\alpha_{DM}$ and allow less synchrotron emission resulted from dark matter annihilation in lower frequency. Under the same assumption on the magnetic field, we find that the lower the frequency, the stronger the restriction on DM parameter space. Meanwhile, as the peak frequency of synchrotron radiation decrease with the energy of $e^+/e^-$, constraints on DM properties obtained from lower frequency are more severe in the case of DM with lower mass. Future low-frequency radio survey should be considered a promising and powerful way to constrain DM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03163 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The left figure shows the contour of the probability distribution of radio flux with three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The left figure shows the contour of the probability distribution of radio flux with three free [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The left figure depicts the relationship between dark matter distribution and radius, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Constraints on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Tasitsiomi, A., Gaskins, J., & Olinto, A. V. 2004, Astroparticle Physics, 21, 637

    work page 2004

  2. [1]

    J. L. Feng, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48, 495-545 (2010) doi:10.1146/annurev-astro- 082708-101659 [arXiv:1003.0904 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2010

  3. [2]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102528

    Porter, T.A., Johnson, R.P., and Graham, P.W.: 2011, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 49, 155. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102528

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102528 2011

  4. [3]

    2005, Phys

    Bertone G., Hooper D., Silk J. 2005, Phys. Rept. 405, 279

    work page 2005

  5. [4]

    1996, Phys

    Jungman G., Kamionkowski M., Griest K. 1996, Phys. Rept. 267, 195

    work page 1996

  6. [5]

    Regis, L

    M. Regis, L. Richter, S. Colafrancesco, M. Massardi, W. J. G. de Blok, S. Profumo and N. Or- ford, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 448, no.4, 3731-3746 (2015) doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2747 [arXiv:1407.5479 [astro-ph.GA]]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [6]

    Regis, L

    M. Regis, L. Richter, S. Colafrancesco, S. Profumo, W. J. G. de Blok and M. Mas- sardi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 448, no.4, 3747-3765 (2015) doi:10.1093/mnras/stv127 [arXiv:1407.5482 [astro-ph.GA]]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [7]

    Regis, M., Colafrancesco, S., Profumo, S., de Blok, W. J. G., Massardi, M., Laura, R., 2014, JCAP, 10, 016

    work page 2014

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Regis, M., Laura, R., Colafrancesco 2017, JCAP, 07, 025

    2017

  2. [9]

    S., Aguirre, J

    Spekkens, K., Laura, R., Mason, B. S., Aguirre, J. E., Nhan, B 2013, Astrophys. J., 773, 61

    2013

  3. [10]

    B., Voytek, T

    Natarajan, A., Peterson, J. B., Voytek, T. C., Spekkens, K., Mason, B., Aguirre, J., Willman, B. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 3535

    2013

  4. [11]

    Kar A., Mitra S., Mukhopadhyaya B., Choudhury,T. R. 2019, Phys. Rev. D 100, 043002

    2019

  5. [12]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab120

    Basu, A., Roy, N., Choudhuri, S., Datta, K.K., and Sarkar, D.: 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 1605. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab120

    2021 doi

  6. [13]

    W. Q. Guo, Y. Li, X. Huang, Y. Z. Ma, G. Beck, Y. Chandola and F. Huang, Phys. Rev. D107, no.10, 103011 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103011 [arXiv:2209.15590 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    doi:10.1093/pasj/51.4.445

    Sofue, Y.: 1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan,51 , 445. doi:10.1093/pasj/51.4.445

    1999 doi

  8. [15]

    Gammaldi et al

    V. Gammaldi et al. [Fermi-LAT], PoS ICRC2021, 509 (2021) doi:10.22323/1.395.0509 [arXiv:2109.11291 [astro-ph.CO]]. 18

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Regis, J

    M. Regis, J. Reynoso-Cordova, M. D. Filipovi´ c, M. Br¨ uggen, E. Carretti, J. Collier, A. M. Hop- kins, E. Lenc, U. Maio and J. R. Marvil, et al.JCAP 11, no.11, 046 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2021/11/046 [arXiv:2106.08025 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Salucci and A

    P. Salucci and A. Burkert, Astrophys. J. Lett. 537, L9-L12 (2000) doi:10.1086/312747 [arXiv:astro-ph/0004397 [astro-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  11. [18]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17613.x

    Siffert, B.B., Limone, A., Borriello, E., Longo, G., and Miele, G.: 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,410, 2463. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17613.x

    2011

  12. [19]

    Klein, U., Wielebinski, R., Haynes, R.F., and Malin, D.F.: 1989, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 211, 280

    1989

  13. [20]

    Alvarez, H., Aparici, J., and May, J.: 1987, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 176, 25

    1987

  14. [21]

    Mills, B. Y. 1959, Handbuch der Physik, 53, 239

    1959

  15. [22]

    Shain, C. A. 1959, URSI Symp. 1: Paris Symposium on Radio Astronomy, 9, 328

    1959

  16. [23]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1960

    For, B.-Q., Staveley-Smith, L., Hurley-Walker, N., Franzen, T., Kapi´ nska, A.D., Filipovi´ c, M.D., and, ...: 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2743. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1960

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Chan, M. H. & Lee, C. M. 2022, Astrophys. J., 933, 130. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac71a9

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Haynes, R.F., Klein, U., Wayte, S.R., Wielebinski, R., Murray, J.D., Bajaja, E., and, ...: 1991, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 252, 475

    1991

  19. [27]

    Condon, J. J. 1992, Annual Rev. Astron. Astrophys, 30, 575

    1992

  20. [28]

    Berezhko, E. G. 2014, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 256, 23

    2014

  21. [29]

    H., Alonso-Herrero, A., Weiner, B

    Rieke, G. H., Alonso-Herrero, A., Weiner, B. J., et al. 2009, Astrophys. J., 692, 556

    2009

  22. [30]

    D., Babler, B., et al

    Lawton, B., Gordon, K. D., Babler, B., et al. 2010, Astrophys. J., 716, 453

    2010

  23. [31]

    2016, Zenodo Software Release, 2016

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Vousden, W., Price-Whelan, A., et al. 2016, Zenodo Software Release, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society, 510, 11

    Hassani, H., Tabatabaei, F., Hughes, A., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society, 510, 11. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3202

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 462, 563-575 (1996) doi:10.1086/177173 [arXiv:astro-ph/9508025 [astro-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Moore, T

    B. Moore, T. R. Quinn, F. Governato, J. Stadel and G. Lake, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.310, 1147-1152 (1999) doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03039.x [arXiv:astro-ph/9903164 [astro-ph]]. 19

    1999

  27. [35]

    Hayashi, J

    E. Hayashi, J. F. Navarro, J. E. Taylor, J. Stadel and T. R. Quinn, Astrophys. J. 584, 541-558 (2003) doi:10.1086/345788 [arXiv:astro-ph/0203004 [astro-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bonnivard, C

    V. Bonnivard, C. Combet, M. Daniel, S. Funk, A. Geringer-Sameth, J. A. Hinton, D. Maurin, J. I. Read, S. Sarkar and M. G. Walker, et al.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 453, no.1, 849-867 (2015) doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1601 [arXiv:1504.02048 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    & Ullio, P

    Colafrancesco, S., Profumo, S. & Ullio, P. 2006, Astron. Astrophys. 455, 21

    2006

  30. [38]

    Maurin, F

    D. Maurin, F. Donato, R. Taillet and P. Salati, Astrophys. J. 555 (2001), 585-596 doi:10.1086/321496 [arXiv:astro-ph/0101231 [astro-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  31. [39]

    W. R. Webber, M. A. Lee and M. Gupta, Astrophys. J. 390 (1992), 96 doi:10.1086/171262

    1992 doi

  32. [40]

    J. C. Weingartner and B. T. Draine, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 134, 263-282 (2001) doi:10.1086/320852 [arXiv:astro-ph/9907251 [astro-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  33. [41]

    2017, JCAP, 9, 027

    McDaniel, A., Jeltema, T., Profumo, S., & Storm, E. 2017, JCAP, 9, 027

    2017

  34. [42]

    2015, Phys

    Cholis, I., Hooper, D., & Linden, T. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 083507

    2015

  35. [43]

    E., Splettstoesser, M., & Profumo, S

    Storm, E., Jeltema, T. E., Splettstoesser, M., & Profumo, S. 2017, Astrophys. J., 839, 33

    2017

  36. [44]

    2015, Physical Review Letters, 115, 231301

    Ackermann, M., Albert, A., Anderson, B., et al. 2015, Physical Review Letters, 115, 231301

    2015

  37. [45]

    Chi, X., & Wolfendale, A. W. 1993, Nature (London), 362, 610 20

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.