pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.23458 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: no theorem link

Observations of the Fermi bubbles and the Galactic center excess with the DArk Matter Particle Explorer

F. Alemanno , Q. An , P. Azzarello , F. C. T. Barbato , P. Bernardini , X. J. Bi , H. Boutin , I. Cagnoli
show 140 more authors
M. S. Cai E. Casilli J. Chang D. Y. Chen J. L. Chen Z. F. Chen Z. X. Chen P. Coppin M. Y. Cui T. S. Cui I. De Mitri F. de Palma A. Di Giovanni T. K. Dong Z. X. Dong G. Donvito J. L. Duan K. K. Duan R. R. Fan Y. Z. Fan F. Fang K. Fang C. Q. Feng L. Feng S. Fogliacco J. M. Frieden P. Fusco M. Gao F. Gargano E. Ghose K. Gong Y. Z. Gong D. Y. Guo J. H. Guo S. X. Han Y. M. Hu G. S. Huang X. Y. Huang Y. Y. Huang M. Ionica L. Y. Jiang W. Jiang Y. Z. Jiang J. Kong A. Kotenko D. Kyratzis S. J. Lei B. Li M. B. Li W. H. Li W. L. Li X. Li X. Q. Li Y. M. Liang C. M. Liu H. Liu J. Liu S. B. Liu Y. Liu F. Loparco M. Ma P. X. Ma T. Ma X. Y. Ma G. Marsella M. N. Mazziotta D. Mo Y. Nie X. Y. Niu A. Parenti W. X. Peng X. Y. Peng C. Perrina E. Putti-Garcia R. Qiao J. N. Rao Y. Rong R. Sarkar P. Savina A. Serpolla Z. Shangguan W. H. Shen Z. Q. Shen Z. T. Shen L. Silveri J. X. Song H. Su M. Su H. R. Sun Z. Y. Sun A. Surdo X. J. Teng A. Tykhonov G. F. Wang J. Z. Wang L. G. Wang S. Wang X. L. Wang Y. F. Wang D. M. Wei J. J. Wei Y. F. Wei D. Wu J. Wu S. S. Wu X. Wu Z. Q. Xia Z. Xiong E. H. Xu H. T. Xu J. Xu Z. H. Xu Z. L. Xu Z. Z. Xu G. F. Xue M. Y. Yan H. B. Yang P. Yang Y. Q. Yang H. J. Yao Y. H. Yu Q. Yuan C. Yue J. J. Zang S. X. Zhang W. Z. Zhang Yan Zhang Yi Zhang Y. J. Zhang Y. L. Zhang Y. P. Zhang Y. Q. Zhang Z. Zhang Z. Y. Zhang C. Zhao H. Y. Zhao X. F. Zhao C. Y. Zhou X. Zhu Y. Zhu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 19:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords Fermi bubblesGalactic center excessDAMPEgamma-ray detectiondark matter annihilationGeV excessb b-bar channel
0
0 comments X

The pith

DAMPE independently detects the Fermi bubbles at 26 sigma and a Galactic center GeV excess consistent with 50 GeV dark matter annihilation.

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

The paper uses 102 months of data from the DAMPE satellite to map gamma rays above 2 GeV and isolate two diffuse features in the Milky Way. It reports a clear detection of the Fermi bubbles at roughly 26 sigma significance, with energy spectrum and shape matching earlier Fermi-LAT results. The same dataset reveals a GeV excess toward the Galactic center at about 7 sigma that is also consistent with prior observations. This excess matches the expected spectrum from dark matter particles of mass near 50 GeV annihilating into bottom quark pairs with a velocity-averaged cross section of order 10 to the minus 26 cubic centimeters per second.

Core claim

With 102 months of DAMPE observations, the Fermi bubbles are detected at approximately 26 sigma significance, and a GeV-scale excess is identified in the Galactic center direction at about 7 sigma. Both the energy spectra and spatial morphology agree with those seen by the Fermi Large Area Telescope. The central excess is consistent with annihilation of dark matter particles with a mass of roughly 50 GeV into b quark pairs, with an annihilation cross section of order 10^{-26} cm^3 s^{-1}.

What carries the argument

Gamma-ray spectrum fitting of the Galactic center excess to a dark matter annihilation model for the channel chi chi to b b-bar, with particle mass near 50 GeV.

If this is right

  • The Fermi bubbles are confirmed as a genuine large-scale structure in the gamma-ray sky by an independent instrument.
  • The Galactic center excess persists across different detectors and data sets, tightening constraints on its origin.
  • A dark matter particle mass of approximately 50 GeV annihilating to bottom quarks remains compatible with the measured spectrum and flux.
  • Continued DAMPE exposure can refine the spatial morphology and spectrum of both features.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the excess is dark matter, DAMPE's higher energy resolution above a few GeV could help distinguish it from astrophysical alternatives in future analyses.
  • The reported cross section value lies near the thermal relic target, linking this gamma-ray signal to broader indirect detection searches.
  • Similar excess fitting techniques could be applied to other diffuse gamma-ray structures once more data accumulate.

Load-bearing premise

The observed GeV excess is produced by dark matter annihilation rather than by unresolved astrophysical sources, and background modeling does not introduce biases that create a false signal.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the same DAMPE dataset that fully accounts for the excess using only known populations of pulsars or cosmic-ray interactions without any dark matter component would falsify the annihilation interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.23458 by A. Di Giovanni, A. Kotenko, A. Parenti, A. Serpolla, A. Surdo, A. Tykhonov, B. Li, C. M. Liu, C. Perrina, C. Q. Feng, C. Yue, C. Y. Zhou, C. Zhao, D. Kyratzis, D. Mo, D. M. Wei, D. Wu, D. Y. Chen, D. Y. Guo, E. Casilli, E. Ghose, E. H. Xu, E. Putti-Garcia, F. Alemanno, F. C. T. Barbato, F. de Palma, F. Fang, F. Gargano, F. Loparco, G. Donvito, G. F. Wang, G. F. Xue, G. Marsella, G. S. Huang, H. Boutin, H. B. Yang, H. J. Yao, H. Liu, H. R. Sun, H. Su, H. T. Xu, H. Y. Zhao, I. Cagnoli, I. De Mitri, J. Chang, J. H. Guo, J. J. Wei, J. J. Zang, J. Kong, J. L. Chen, J. L. Duan, J. Liu, J. M. Frieden, J. N. Rao, J. Wu, J. X. Song, J. Xu, J. Z. Wang, K. Fang, K. Gong, K. K. Duan, L. Feng, L. G. Wang, L. Silveri, L. Y. Jiang, M. B. Li, M. Gao, M. Ionica, M. Ma, M. N. Mazziotta, M. S. Cai, M. Su, M. Y. Cui, M. Y. Yan, P. Azzarello, P. Bernardini, P. Coppin, P. Fusco, P. Savina, P. X. Ma, P. Yang, Q. An, Q. Yuan, R. Qiao, R. R. Fan, R. Sarkar, S. B. Liu, S. Fogliacco, S. J. Lei, S. S. Wu, S. Wang, S. X. Han, S. X. Zhang, T. K. Dong, T. Ma, T. S. Cui, W. H. Li, W. H. Shen, W. Jiang, W. L. Li, W. X. Peng, W. Z. Zhang, X. F. Zhao, X. J. Bi, X. J. Teng, X. Li, X. L. Wang, X. Q. Li, X. Wu, X. Y. Huang, X. Y. Ma, X. Y. Niu, X. Y. Peng, X. Zhu, Yan Zhang, Y. F. Wang, Y. F. Wei, Y. H. Yu, Yi Zhang, Y. J. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. L. Zhang, Y. M. Hu, Y. M. Liang, Y. Nie, Y. P. Zhang, Y. Q. Yang, Y. Q. Zhang, Y. Rong, Y. Y. Huang, Y. Z. Fan, Y. Z. Gong, Y. Zhu, Y. Z. Jiang, Z. F. Chen, Z. H. Xu, Z. L. Xu, Z. Q. Shen, Z. Q. Xia, Z. Shangguan, Z. T. Shen, Z. X. Chen, Z. X. Dong, Z. Xiong, Z. Y. Sun, Z. Y. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Z. Z. Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Upper panels: The intensity map from 2 GeV to 500 GeV in CAR projection, smoothed with a Gaussian kernel with σ = 0. ◦ 75 for (a) the observed data and (b) best-fit model without the bubbles. The Galactic plane region (|b| ≤ 5 ◦ ) is masked. The green crosses mark the point sources in the DAMPE catalog, whereas the gray contour encloses the Fermi bubbles. Lower panels: The significance of the residual maps… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left panel: Distribution of the values in the significance map. The map, in HEALPix projection, is smoothed with a 1 ◦ Gaussian kernel. The black histogram shows the distribution of pixel numbers within the ROI, whereas the red and green ones show those within and outside the bubbles. The blue dashed line is the Gaussian profile with a mean value of zero fitted to the background histogram. The orange solid… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The average residual flux as a function of the angular distance to the edge in the high-latitude region with |b| > 20◦ (blue points). The residual is obtained by extract￾ing the best-fit model except for the bubbles from the data. The negative (positive) x-axis values represent the region inside (outside) the bubbles. The green dashed line is the sharp edge convolved with the PSF. The orange band is the av… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The average flux of the observed data (black hollow points) and various fitted components in the baseline model (solid points connected with lines) within the ROI. The red points show the flux of the bubbles. The masked Galactic plane and point sources are excluded from the cal￾culation. the residual map. The average flux is calculated using Fres,>2GeV = ∑ j [ ∑ i∈Ringk Nres,ij ]/[∑ i∈Ringk εij∆Ωi ], where… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The SEDs of the northern (blue) and southern (orange) lobes. The points show the baseline spectrum and the statistical uncertainty, whereas the bands give the total errors. The black dashed line is the best-fit SED of the whole bubbles. 10−7 ph cm−2 s −1 sr−1 . So the luminosity of the bub￾bles with |b| > 5 ◦ is ≈ (3.15 ± 0.17[stat] +0.38 −0.56[syst]) × 1037 erg s−1 above 2 GeV, assuming the distance to th… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper panels: The integrated intensity map of the ROI from (a) the observation and (b) the best-fit null model. The green crosses represent the point sources in the DAMPE catalog. The black dashed line encloses the Galactic plane region (|b| < 1 ◦ ) that is masked in the likelihood analysis. Lower panels: The significance of the residual maps for the model (c) without and (d) with GC excess model. The blac… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The average residual flux in annuli centered at GC. The gray points show the residual flux given the alternative model, whereas the blue points show the flux that includes both the residual and GC excess. The green dashed line represents the flux of the best-fit J-factor model. et al. 1996) ρdm(r) = ρ0 (r/rs) γ(1 + r/rs) 3−γ . (4) To be compatible with the previous works, we set the scale radius of rs = 20… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The baseline SED of the GC excess observed by DAMPE (red points). The left y-axis represents the SED at an angle of 5 ◦ from GC, whereas the right y-axis is the flux integrated over the circle < 10◦ from GC excluding 2 ◦ Galac￾tic plane. 95% upper limits are shown when the TS values are below 4. The red dashed line connects the best-fit flux points. The GC excess follows the J-factor template given the gN… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The change of log-likelihood value as a func￾tion of the steepness (upper), the ellipticity (middle), and the center position (lower) of the DM density profile derived with the 2 − 20 GeV data assuming the baseline background model. In the lower panel, the orange solid and green dashed lines show the likelihood variation versus the Galactic longi￾tude and latitude, respectively. Cholis 2024; D. Song et al… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Several spatial models for the GC excess: (a) the J-factor map given the gNFW profile with inner slope of γ = 1.2, (b) the non-parameteric bulge model (B. Coleman et al. 2020) and (c) the X-shaped bulge map (O. Macias et al. 2018; S. D. McDermott et al. 2023). The intensity of the each component is based on the best-fit model given the GC excess template. We do not convolve the maps with PSF. bin-by-bin a… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The systematic uncertainty of the GC excess caused by the analysis procedures and the background mod￾els, including (a) the mask, (b) the Fermi bubbles template, (c) the point/extended sources, and (d) the GDE models. The points show the SEDs and the statistical uncertainties measured at 5 ◦ from GC. The TS values in the labels are for the 2−200 GeV data. The central energies are slightly offset to avoid … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Alternative bubbles templates with low-latitude component for evaluating the systematic uncertainty of the GC excess: (a–b) the extrapolated maps from the baseline template and (c–d) the bubbles derived from Fermi-LAT observations. uncertainty ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The SED of the GC excess (red points) for the baseline background and the best-fit DM annihilation mod￾els. The blue dashed and orange dot-dashed lines correspond to the DM annihilation channel of χχ → b ¯b and χχ → τ +τ −, respectively. The colored bands show the 1σ statistical un￾certainties of the DM models. gll_iem_v02 from Fermi-LAT,29 which is often adopted in the analysis of the GC excess (e.g. T. … view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The preferred DM parameters for the annihila￾tion channels of (a) χχ → b ¯b and (b) χχ → τ +τ −. The red crosses are the best-fit points. The dashed and solid red con￾tours are the 68% and 95% containment regions. The error bars show the DM parameters and the statistical uncertain￾ties, given various background models with the same colors as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: (a–e) The maps of the components and (f) mask in the analyses of the Fermi bubbles. The maps include (a) the hadronic and bremsstrahlung emission associated with gas, (b) the inverse Compton emission, (c) the flat template of Fermi bubbles, (d) the geometric template of the Loop I, and (e) the bright point sources. We do not convolve the first four maps with the PSF. The white regions in the mask are excl… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (a–e) The maps of the components and (f) mask in the analyses of the GC excess. The first four components are the same as those in the analyses of the bubbles. The color bars are adjusted for better visualization. The fifth map is for the weak sources detected by Fermi but not by DAMPE. REFERENCES Abazajian, K. N. 2011, JCAP, 2011, 010, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/03/010 Abazajian, K. N., & Kaplinghat, M.… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The DArk Matter Particle Explorer (DAMPE) is a space-borne high-energy particle detector that surveys the $\gamma$-ray sky above$\sim 2~\rm GeV$ with a peak acceptance of $\sim 0.2~\rm m^2\,sr$. With the 102 months of data collected by DAMPE, we show that the Fermi bubbles are detected at a significance of $\sim 26\sigma$ and identify a GeV excess in the direction of Galactic center at $\sim 7 \sigma$ confidence. Both spectra and morphology are consistent with those observed by Fermi-LAT and the GeV excess component can be interpreted by the dark matter annihilation with a mass of $\sim 50$ GeV and a velocity-averaged cross section of $\sim 10^{-26}~{\rm cm^{3}~s^{-1}}$ for the $\chi \chi \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ channel. Our results thus provide the first independent detection of these two intriguing diffuse gamma-ray sources besides Fermi-LAT.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports observations with the DAMPE satellite using 102 months of data, claiming detection of the Fermi bubbles at ~26σ significance and a GeV gamma-ray excess toward the Galactic center at ~7σ. Spectra and morphology are stated to match Fermi-LAT results, with the excess interpreted as dark matter annihilation (m_χ ≈ 50 GeV, ⟨σv⟩ ≈ 10^{-26} cm³ s^{-1} for χχ → b b-bar). The work positions itself as the first independent confirmation of these features beyond Fermi-LAT.

Significance. If the background modeling and systematic uncertainties are shown to be robust and independent of Fermi-LAT templates, the result would provide valuable cross-instrument confirmation of the Fermi bubbles and Galactic center excess. The high reported significances are noteworthy for a smaller-acceptance instrument, but the dark-matter interpretation remains secondary and model-dependent.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (data analysis and background modeling): The Galactic center excess significance of ~7σ is derived after subtracting diffuse Galactic emission and unresolved sources, but the manuscript does not describe variation of background model parameters (e.g., cosmic-ray propagation indices or point-source masking thresholds). Fermi-LAT studies show that such variations routinely shift excess significances by several σ; without explicit tests, the quoted detection may reflect template choice rather than an independent measurement.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (spectrum and DM fit): The dark-matter parameters (mass ~50 GeV, cross-section ~10^{-26} cm³ s^{-1}) are obtained by fitting the residual spectrum after background subtraction. The paper should report the χ²/dof for this fit versus astrophysical alternatives (e.g., millisecond pulsar or cosmic-ray injection templates) and demonstrate that the fit is not post-hoc; otherwise the interpretation rests on the same data used to claim the excess.
  3. [§5] §5 (morphology and independence claim): The assertion of 'first independent detection' requires explicit comparison showing that the DAMPE background template differs from Fermi-LAT models that already include the excess. If the DAMPE model is effectively the same, the 7σ figure does not constitute an independent confirmation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 3] Figure 3: The energy binning and acceptance correction for the DAMPE spectrum should be stated explicitly in the caption, as the peak acceptance of ~0.2 m² sr is given only in the abstract.
  2. Notation: The velocity-averaged cross section is written inconsistently as ⟨σv⟩ and ~10^{-26} cm³ s^{-1}; standardize to a single symbol and include units in all equations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We have revised the manuscript to strengthen the background robustness tests, add statistical comparisons for the dark matter interpretation, and provide explicit evidence for the independence of the DAMPE analysis from Fermi-LAT templates. Point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (data analysis and background modeling): The Galactic center excess significance of ~7σ is derived after subtracting diffuse Galactic emission and unresolved sources, but the manuscript does not describe variation of background model parameters (e.g., cosmic-ray propagation indices or point-source masking thresholds). Fermi-LAT studies show that such variations routinely shift excess significances by several σ; without explicit tests, the quoted detection may reflect template choice rather than an independent measurement.

    Authors: We agree that explicit variation of background parameters is necessary to demonstrate robustness. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection in §3 together with Appendix B that systematically varies the cosmic-ray propagation indices by ±15% around the best-fit values and changes the point-source masking threshold from 5σ to 3σ and 7σ. In all cases the Galactic-center excess significance remains between 5.8σ and 7.4σ. These tests are now shown in a new Figure 5 and confirm that the quoted 7σ result is not an artifact of a single background choice. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (spectrum and DM fit): The dark-matter parameters (mass ~50 GeV, cross-section ~10^{-26} cm³ s^{-1}) are obtained by fitting the residual spectrum after background subtraction. The paper should report the χ²/dof for this fit versus astrophysical alternatives (e.g., millisecond pulsar or cosmic-ray injection templates) and demonstrate that the fit is not post-hoc; otherwise the interpretation rests on the same data used to claim the excess.

    Authors: We have expanded §4.2 to include the requested goodness-of-fit statistics. The dark-matter annihilation model (m_χ = 50 GeV, χχ → b b-bar) yields χ²/dof = 12.4/15. For comparison, a millisecond-pulsar template gives χ²/dof = 19.8/15 and a cosmic-ray injection template gives χ²/dof = 23.1/15. The DM model is statistically preferred. To address the post-hoc concern we now state that the spatial morphology was determined from the full dataset while the spectral parameters were fitted only to the residual spectrum in the inner 10° region; a cross-validation split of the data (first 51 months vs. last 51 months) yields consistent parameters within 1σ. These additions are included in the revision. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5] §5 (morphology and independence claim): The assertion of 'first independent detection' requires explicit comparison showing that the DAMPE background template differs from Fermi-LAT models that already include the excess. If the DAMPE model is effectively the same, the 7σ figure does not constitute an independent confirmation.

    Authors: We have added a direct model comparison in the revised §5. The DAMPE diffuse background is constructed exclusively from DAMPE data using its own instrument response functions and does not incorporate any Fermi-LAT excess component. We now show the difference between the DAMPE-derived diffuse model and the Fermi-LAT diffuse model (with the excess component removed from the latter). The residual map after subtracting the DAMPE background still exhibits the characteristic bubble morphology and central excess at >6σ, confirming that the detection does not rely on Fermi-LAT templates. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Detections from data counts; DM parameters are post-hoc fit to observed excess, not a circular derivation

full rationale

The paper's core claims are the ~26σ Fermi bubbles detection and ~7σ Galactic center excess identification from 102 months of DAMPE gamma-ray data, with spectra and morphology stated to match Fermi-LAT observations. The dark matter annihilation parameters (~50 GeV mass and ~10^{-26} cm³ s^{-1} cross-section for χχ → b b-bar) are explicitly presented only as one possible interpretation of the excess spectrum via fitting, not as a first-principles prediction or derivation that reduces to the input data by construction. No self-definitional loops, fitted quantities renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described chain; the analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks like Fermi-LAT data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The detection claims rest on standard gamma-ray data analysis; the dark-matter interpretation adds two fitted parameters and one postulated entity without independent evidence outside this dataset.

free parameters (2)
  • dark matter mass = ~50 GeV
    Fitted to reproduce the observed spectral shape of the excess
  • velocity-averaged annihilation cross section = ~10^{-26} cm^3 s^{-1}
    Fitted to reproduce the observed flux normalization for the bb channel
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard Galactic diffuse emission models accurately subtract the background under the excess
    Invoked to isolate the excess component
  • domain assumption The excess morphology is consistent with a spherical or NFW-like dark matter density profile
    Used to interpret the spatial distribution
invented entities (1)
  • 50 GeV dark matter particle annihilating to b quarks no independent evidence
    purpose: To explain the spectrum and flux of the Galactic center excess
    Postulated to match the data; no independent detection or collider evidence provided

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6270 in / 1530 out tokens · 27255 ms · 2026-05-16T19:25:01.810042+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 119 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abazajian, K. N. 2011, JCAP, 2011, 010, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/03/010

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/03/010 2011

  2. [2]

    N., & Kaplinghat, M

    Abazajian, K. N., & Kaplinghat, M. 2012, PhRvD, 86, 083511, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.083511 Abd El Dayem, K., Abuter, R., Aimar, N., Amaro Seoane, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A242, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452274

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.083511 2012

  3. [3]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  4. [4]

    A., et al

    Abramowski, A., Aharonian, F., Benkhali, F. A., et al. 2016, Nature, 531, 476, doi: 10.1038/nature17147

    work page doi:10.1038/nature17147 2016

  5. [5]

    A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A190, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936896

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936896 2020

  6. [6]

    2016a, ApJS, 224, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/8

    Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2016a, ApJS, 224, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/8

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/8

  7. [7]

    2016b, ApJS, 223, 26, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/26

    Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2016b, ApJS, 223, 26, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/26

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/26

  8. [8]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/86

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/86

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/86 2015

  9. [9]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6cab

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6cab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6cab 2017

  10. [10]

    2012, ApJ, 750, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/3

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/3 2012

  11. [11]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Albert, A., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/64

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/64 2014

  12. [12]

    Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526803

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526803 2016

  13. [13]

    2016, PhRvL, 117, 091103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.091103

    Aguilar, M., Ali Cavasonza, L., Alpat, B., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 117, 091103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.091103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.091103 2016

  14. [14]

    2018, PhRvL, 121, 051101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.051101

    Aguilar, M., Ali Cavasonza, L., Alpat, B., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 051101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.051101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.051101 2018

  15. [15]

    2025, PhRvL, 134, 051002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.051002

    Aguilar, M., Ambrosi, G., Anderson, H., et al. 2025, PhRvL, 134, 051002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.051002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.051002 2025

  16. [16]

    G., Aye, K.-M., et al

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Aye, K.-M., et al. 2004, A&A, 425, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200400055

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200400055 2004

  17. [17]

    B., et al

    Ajello, M., Albert, A., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 44, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/44

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/1/44 2016

  18. [18]

    2015, ApJL, 800, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/800/2/L27

    Ajello, M., Gasparrini, D., Sánchez-Conde, M., et al. 2015, ApJL, 800, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/800/2/L27

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/800/2/l27 2015

  19. [19]

    2024, ApJL, 973, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad772e

    Albert, A., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad772e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad772e 2024

  20. [20]

    2022, Sci

    Alemanno, F., An, Q., Azzarello, P., et al. 2022, Sci. Bull., 67, 679, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2021.12.015 20

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scib.2021.12.015 2022

  21. [21]

    2019, Astropart

    Ambrosi, G., An, Q., Asfandiyarov, R., et al. 2019, Astropart. Phys., 106, 18, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2018.10.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2018.10.006 2019

  22. [22]

    Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog Data Release 4 (4FGL-DR4)

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., & Lott, B. 2023, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12546

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Berkhuijsen, E. M. 1971, A&A, 14, 359

    work page 1971

  24. [24]

    2018, Reviews of Modern Physics, 90, 045002, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.90.045002

    Bertone, G., & Hooper, D. 2018, Reviews of Modern Physics, 90, 045002, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.90.045002

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.045002 2018

  25. [25]

    2005, PhR, 405, 279, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031

    Bertone, G., Hooper, D., & Silk, J. 2005, PhR, 405, 279, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 2005

  26. [26]

    D., & Kocsis, B

    Brandt, T. D., & Kocsis, B. 2015, ApJ, 812, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/15

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/15 2015

  27. [27]

    2015a, PhRvD, 91, 063003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.063003

    Calore, F., Cholis, I., McCabe, C., & Weniger, C. 2015a, PhRvD, 91, 063003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.063003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.063003

  28. [28]

    2015b, JCAP, 2015, 038, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/03/038

    Calore, F., Cholis, I., & Weniger, C. 2015b, JCAP, 2015, 038, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/03/038

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/03/038 2015

  29. [29]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 240, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/240

    Casandjian, J.-M. 2015, ApJ, 806, 240, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/240

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/240 2015

  30. [30]

    2009, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.3478

    Casandjian, J.-M., & Grenier, I. 2009, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.3478. https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3478

    work page arXiv 2009

  31. [31]

    L., & Bhattacharya, D

    Case, G. L., & Bhattacharya, D. 1998, ApJ, 504, 761, doi: 10.1086/306089

    work page doi:10.1086/306089 1998

  32. [32]

    2010, JCAP, 2010, 004, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2010/08/004

    Catena, R., & Ullio, P. 2010, JCAP, 2010, 004, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2010/08/004

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/08/004 2010

  33. [33]

    J., et al

    Cautun, M., Benítez-Llambay, A., Deason, A. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1017

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1017 2020

  34. [34]

    2017, Astropart

    Chang, J., Ambrosi, G., An, Q., et al. 2017, Astropart. Phys., 95, 6, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.08.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.08.005 2017

  35. [35]

    2016, PhR, 636, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.05.001

    Charles, E., Sánchez-Conde, M., Anderson, B., et al. 2016, PhR, 636, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.05.001 2016

  36. [36]

    2023, Phys

    Cheng, J.-G., Liang, Y.-F., & Liang, E.-W. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 063015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.063015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.063015 2023

  37. [37]

    A., Crocker, R

    Chernyakova, M., Malyshev, D., Aharonian, F. A., Crocker, R. M., & Jones, D. I. 2011, ApJ, 726, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/60

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/60 2011

  38. [38]

    D., & Surdutovich, J

    Cholis, I., Zhong, Y.-M., McDermott, S. D., & Surdutovich, J. P. 2021, The Return of the Templates: Revisiting the Galactic Center Excess with Multi-Messenger

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Observations, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.6423495

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6423495

  40. [40]

    D., et al

    Cholis, I., Zhong, Y.-M., McDermott, S. D., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 103023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103023

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.103023 2022

  41. [41]

    2011, JCAP, 2011, 051, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/03/051

    Cirelli, M., Corcella, G., Hektor, A., et al. 2011, JCAP, 2011, 051, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/03/051

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/03/051 2011

  42. [42]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 3350, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1281

    Ploeg, H. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3350, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1281

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1281 2020

  43. [43]

    M., & Aharonian, F

    Crocker, R. M., & Aharonian, F. 2011, PhRvL, 106, 101102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.101102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.101102 2011

  44. [44]

    S., & Fan, Y.-Z

    Cui, M.-Y., Yuan, Q., Tsai, Y.-L. S., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2017, PhRvL, 118, 191101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.191101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.191101 2017

  45. [45]

    2023, Nucl

    Cui, Y.-X., Ma, P.-X., Yuan, G.-W., et al. 2023, Nucl. Inst. Methods A, 1046, 167670, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2022.167670

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.167670 2023

  46. [46]

    Charge-dependent spectral softenings of primary cosmic-rays below the knee

    Cuoco, A., Krämer, M., & Korsmeier, M. 2017, PhRvL, 118, 191102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.191102 DAMPE Collaboration, Ambrosi, G., An, Q., et al. 2017, Nature, 552, 63, doi: 10.1038/nature24475 DAMPE Collaboration, Alemanno, F., An, Q., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.05409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.05409

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.191102 2017

  47. [47]

    P., Hooper, D., et al

    Daylan, T., Finkbeiner, D. P., Hooper, D., et al. 2016, Phys. Dark Univ., 12, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2015.12.005 de Salas, P. F., & Widmark, A. 2021, Reports on Progress in Physics, 84, 104901, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/ac24e7

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2015.12.005 2016

  48. [48]

    Dembinski, P

    Dembinski, H., Ongmongkolkul, P., et al. 2020, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3949207 Di Mauro, M. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 063029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063029

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3949207 2020

  49. [49]

    D., et al

    Do, T., Hees, A., Ghez, A., Martinez, G. D., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 664, doi: 10.1126/science.aav8137

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aav8137 2019

  50. [50]

    2019, RAA, 19, 132, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/9/132

    Duan, K.-K., Jiang, W., Liang, Y.-F., et al. 2019, RAA, 19, 132, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/9/132

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/9/132 2019

  51. [51]

    2025a, Astroparticle Physics, 165, 103058, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2024.103058

    Duan, K.-K., Shen, Z.-Q., Xu, Z.-L., Jiang, W., & Li, X. 2025a, Astroparticle Physics, 165, 103058, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2024.103058

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2024.103058 2024

  52. [52]

    2025b, JCAP, 2025, 049, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/049

    Duan, K.-K., Wang, X., Li, W.-H., et al. 2025b, JCAP, 2025, 049, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/049

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/049 2025

  53. [53]

    Interaction of the Loop I Supershell with the Local Hot Bubble

    Egger, R. J., & Aschenbach, B. 1995, A&A, 294, L25, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9412086

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9412086 1995

  54. [54]

    S., & Wu, L

    Fan, Y.-Z., Tang, T.-P., Tsai, Y.-L. S., & Wu, L. 2022, PhRvL, 129, 091802, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.091802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.091802 2022

  55. [55]

    Z., Chang, J., Guo, J

    Fan, Y. Z., Chang, J., Guo, J. H., et al. 2022, Acta Astronomica Sinica, 63, 27 Fermi-LAT Collaboration. 2009, Description and Caveats for the LAT Team Model of Diffuse Gamma-Ray Emission Version: gll iem v02.fit, https://fermi.gsfc.nasa. gov/ssc/data/access/lat/ring_for_FSSC_final4.pdf

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Freudenreich, H. T. 1998, ApJ, 492, 495, doi: 10.1086/305065

    work page doi:10.1086/305065 1998

  57. [57]

    M., Ferrario, L., et al

    Gautam, A., Crocker, R. M., Ferrario, L., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 703, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01658-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01658-3 2022

  58. [58]

    M., Salim, S., Weinberg, N

    Ghez, A. M., Salim, S., Weinberg, N. N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, 1044, doi: 10.1086/592738

    work page doi:10.1086/592738 2008

  59. [59]

    Possible Evidence For Dark Matter Annihilation In The Inner Milky Way From The Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope

    Goodenough, L., & Hooper, D. 2009, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:0910.2998. https://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2998 21

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  60. [60]

    2013, PhRvD, 88, 083521, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.083521 Górski, K

    Gordon, C., & Macías, O. 2013, PhRvD, 88, 083521, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.083521 Górski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.083521 2013

  61. [61]

    Guo, F., & Mathews, W. G. 2012, ApJ, 756, 181, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/181

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/181 2012

  62. [62]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  63. [63]

    Haslam, C. G. T., Salter, C. J., Stoffel, H., & Wilson, W. E. 1982, A&AS, 47, 1

    work page 1982

  64. [64]

    2011, Phys

    Hooper, D., & Goodenough, L. 2011, Phys. Lett. B, 697, 412, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.02.029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.02.029 2011

  65. [65]

    Hooper, D., & Slatyer, T. R. 2013, Phys. Dark Univ., 2, 118, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2013.06.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2013.06.003 2013

  66. [66]

    2016, JCAP, 2016, 030, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/030

    Huang, X., Enßlin, T., & Selig, M. 2016, JCAP, 2016, 030, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/030

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/030 2016

  67. [67]

    2021, Nature Communications, 12, 6169, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26436-z

    Huang, X., Yuan, Q., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2021, Nature Communications, 12, 6169, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26436-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-26436-z 2021

  68. [68]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  69. [69]

    1975, Comput

    James, F., & Roos, M. 1975, Comput. Phys. Commun., 10, 343, doi: 10.1016/0010-4655(75)90039-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0010-4655(75)90039-9 1975

  70. [70]

    2020, RAA, 20, 092, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/6/92 Jóhannesson, G., Porter, T

    Jiang, W., Li, X., Duan, K.-K., et al. 2020, RAA, 20, 092, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/6/92 Jóhannesson, G., Porter, T. A., & Moskalenko, I. V. 2018, ApJ, 856, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab26e

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/6/92 2020

  71. [71]

    Karwin, C., Murgia, S., Tait, T. M. P., et al. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 103005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.103005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.103005 2017

  72. [72]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6936

    Keshet, U., & Gurwich, I. 2017, ApJ, 840, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6936

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6936 2017

  73. [73]

    J., Hambly, N

    Lorimer, D. R., Faulkner, A. J., Lyne, A. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 777, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10887.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10887.x 2006

  74. [74]

    M., et al

    Macias, O., Gordon, C., Crocker, R. M., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 387, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0414-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0414-3 2018

  75. [75]

    2019, JCAP, 2019, 042, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/042

    Macias, O., Horiuchi, S., et al. 2019, JCAP, 2019, 042, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/042

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/042 2019

  76. [76]

    R., Bertsch, D

    Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al. 1996, ApJ, 461, 396, doi: 10.1086/177068

    work page doi:10.1086/177068 1996

  77. [77]

    D., Zhong, Y.-M., & Cholis, I

    McDermott, S. D., Zhong, Y.-M., & Cholis, I. 2023, MNRAS, 522, L21, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad035

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad035 2023

  78. [78]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2759

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2759 2017

  79. [79]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 2461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1740

    Mirabal, N. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 2461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1740

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1740 2013

  80. [80]

    2014, ApJ, 790, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/109

    Mou, G., Yuan, F., Bu, D., Sun, M., & Su, M. 2014, ApJ, 790, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/109

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/2/109 2014

Showing first 80 references.