Signatures of Dipolar Dark Matter on Indirect Detection

A. Avilez-L\'opez; A. Carrillo-Monteverde; C. Arellano-Celiz; J. E. Barradas-Guevara; J. L. D\'iaz-Cruz; O. F\'elix-Beltr\'an

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Signatures of Dipolar Dark Matter on Indirect Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dipole dark matter with equal electric and magnetic moments survives cosmological bounds only if its dipole moment is below 0.44×10^-16 e cm and its mass is near 500 GeV.

desk verdict Routine dipole-DM constraint update, but the headline numbers don't follow from the paper's own equations. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05695 v3 pith:KVRA34IP submitted 2019-08-15 hep-ph

C. Arellano-Celiz , A. Avilez-López , J. E. Barradas-Guevara , A. Carrillo-Monteverde , J. L. Díaz-Cruz , O. Félix-Beltrán This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph PACS 14.80.Bn12.60.Fr95.30.Cq95.35.+d

keywords darkmattermagneticdipolemomentelectricfermionicannihilationcross-sectionrelicabundancecosmicmicrowavebackgroundgamma-rayline

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

This paper argues that a neutral fermion carrying permanent electric and magnetic dipole moments can be a cold-dark-matter candidate, and that cosmological data are strong enough to corner it. Starting from the effective coupling $\chi\bar\chi\gamma$, the authors compute the annihilation cross-section for $\chi\bar\chi\to\gamma\gamma$, then impose two constraints: the measured cold-dark-matter relic density and the cosmic-microwave-background limit on energy injection at recombination. The two constraints together single out, for comparable electric and magnetic moments, a magnetic dipole moment no larger than about $0.44\times 10^{-16}$ e cm and a mass around 500 GeV. The consequence is that a purely phenomenological operator becomes a concrete, testable prediction: annihilation produces a mono-energetic photon line at $E_\gamma=m_\chi$.

What carries the argument

$M_{16}=M/10^{-16}$ e cm is the dimensionless magnetic dipole moment and $f=D_{16}/M_{16}$ the electric-to-magnetic ratio. The central formula is the thermally averaged cross-section $$\langle\sigma_{\rm ann}v_{\rm rel}\rangle = \tilde c_0\, m_{\rm GeV}^2\, M_{16}^4\left[6(1+$6f^{2}$+$f^{4}$)+\frac{6}{x}(3+$2f^{2}$+$3f^{4}$)\right]\,{\rm $cm^{3}$\,$s^{{-1}}$}$$ with $\tilde c_0=1.71423\times10^{-30}$ and $x\simeq22$. It is obtained from the effective dipole operator $\mathcal{L}=-\frac{i}{2}\bar\chi\sigma^{\mu\nu}(M+D\gamma_5)\chi F_{\mu\nu}$ by evaluating the $t$- and $u$-channel amplitudes for $\chi\bar\chi\to\gamma\gamma$ and expanding in the non-relativistic limit, with $\langle v^2_{\rm rel}\rangle=6/x$. Because the bracket $H(f,x)$ is order one, mass and dipole moment control the magnitude of the annihilation rate, which is what allows relic-density and CMB constraints to be converted into direct bounds on $M_{16}$ and $m_\chi$.

What would settle it

Perform a dedicated search for a gamma-ray line at $E_\gamma=m_\chi\simeq500$ GeV in a dark-matter-dominated target; a non-detection at an effective cross-section of order $2.7\times10^{-25}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$ would exclude the equal-moment point $M_{16}^*=0.44$. Alternatively, compute the $t$- and $u$-channel amplitudes for $\chi\bar\chi\to\gamma Z$ and $\chi\bar\chi\to\gamma H$; if either cross-section is comparable to $\gamma\gamma$, the CMB bound used in the paper no longer yields the same allowed mass range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the parameter space of dipole dark matter is closed off from above. For the $\gamma\gamma$ annihilation channel and $f\equiv D_{16}/M_{16}\sim 1$, the thermally averaged cross-section scales as $\langle\sigma v\rangle \propto m_\chi^2 M_{16}^4 H(f,x)$. Requiring this to match the observed relic abundance fixes a lower bound on mass for each dipole moment, while the CMB energy-injection bound fixes an upper bound. These bounds meet at $M_{16}^*=0.44$ and $m_\chi^*\approx 500$ GeV, so models with $M_{16}>0.44$ are excluded, and the only surviving equal-moment models sit in a narrow band around 500 GeV. More generally, allowing $f$ to vary relaxes the cutoff and broadens the allowed mass window.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that dark matter is a single thermal relic whose freeze-out is described by the standard relation $\Omega h^2\simeq 3\times10^{-26}/\langle\sigma_{\rm ann}v_{\rm rel}\rangle$ at decoupling $x=22$, with $\chi\bar\chi\to\gamma\gamma$ the only relevant annihilation channel; if another channel dominates or the thermal history differs, the quoted 0.44 cutoff and 500 GeV window shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the equal-moment case is the one nature realizes, dipole dark matter annihilates to a sharp gamma-ray line at $E_\gamma=m_\chi\simeq500$ GeV, a direct observable signature.
For $f=1$, any magnetic dipole moment above $0.44\times10^{-16}$ e cm is ruled out by the combination of relic density and CMB data, independent of mass.
For masses of order $10^2$ GeV, the required electric dipole moment is about $10^{-16}$ e cm, placing the model in a range that accelerator and direct-detection experiments could in principle probe.
Allowing $D_{16}\neq M_{16}$ (free $f$) relaxes the mass and dipole constraints substantially, so the 500 GeV window is specific to the $f\approx1$ assumption.
The paper's Table II gives a ladder of allowed electric-dipole ranges for masses from 6 GeV to 20 TeV, so the surviving parameter space is not a single point but a sequence of narrow windows.

Reading between the lines

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

If the $\chi\bar\chi\to\gamma Z$ and $\chi\bar\chi\to\gamma H$ channels are not negligible, the quoted bounds would shift; computing those amplitudes is a direct test the paper leaves for future work.
The assumed freeze-out parameter $x=22$ is a standard shortcut; solving the full Boltzmann equation would check whether $M_{16}^*=0.44$ and $m_\chi^*\simeq500$ GeV survive without that assumption.
Because the same dipole operator also generates spin-dependent scattering with nuclei, direct-detection experiments could independently confirm or exclude the surviving equal-moment region.
Since the required annihilation rate at $m_\chi\simeq500$ GeV is near $2.7\times10^{-25}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$, a gamma-ray line search at that energy with upcoming telescopes is a practical, near-term test.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a routine application of the known dipole-dark-matter annihilation cross-section to Planck-era relic and CMB bounds. That extension is legitimate and the authors are candid about reusing prior results. But the central numbers quoted in the abstract and conclusions—M*16=0.44 and m*χ≈500 GeV—do not follow from the paper's own equations.

What's good: the derivation from the effective Lagrangian is standard. They give the amplitude, the thermally averaged cross-section, and the f=D/M parametrization, and they cite Sigurdson et al. and Barger et al. rather than pretending the cross-section is new. The assumptions (γγ channel dominates, x≈22, f≈1) are stated openly. The overall strategy—combine relic density with a fitted CMB bound—would be a reasonable way to get rough constraints if the algebra were right.

Soft spots, in order of severity. First, Eq. (14) is not the solution of Eq. (13). Solving Eq. (13) gives mlow/GeV ≈ 382/(M16^2 √H), not the printed expression; Eq. (16) is also off by roughly a factor of five relative to Eq. (15). Second, the headline numbers fail a direct consistency check: with f=1, x=22, M16=0.44 and mχ=500 GeV, Eq. (17) gives ⟨σv⟩≈8×10^-25 cm^3/s, and Eq. (1) then gives Ωh^2≈0.04, far below Planck. Using the corrected formulas, the allowed-mass intersection is around 125–640 GeV depending on which upper-bound expression is used, and the corresponding cutoff is not 0.44. So the main quantitative claims are not reproducible from the manuscript. Third, the two abstracts contradict each other: one says O(10^2) GeV and the other says mχ≤10 GeV. Fourth, the fitted CMB line is used without uncertainty propagation and the posterior sampling is described too briefly to reproduce. These last two are minor if the big issues are fixed.

The paper is not a new physics result; it is a constraint update. I would not cite it until the arithmetic is corrected. But the underlying topic is serious and the errors are the kind a careful referee can pin down, so I would not desk-reject it out of hand—I would send it to a referee with instructions to check the algebra. If the authors fix the equations and the abstract, a shorter corrected version could be worth considering.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a Dirac fermion dark-matter candidate with magnetic and electric dipole moments. It computes the χχ→γγ annihilation cross section and its thermal average, then uses the standard relic-abundance relation (Eq. 1) together with CMB energy-injection constraints (Sec. III A) to constrain the dipole moments and the dark-matter mass. For f ≡ D16/M16 ≈ 1, the authors claim an upper cutoff M16^* ≈ 0.44 (in units of 10^-16 e cm) and an allowed mass window around 500 GeV, and they present posterior distributions for mχ from a χ² analysis against the Planck cold-dark-matter density. The central quantitative claims are currently not reproducible from the paper's own equations: Eq. (14) does not follow from Eq. (13), and Eq. (17) evaluated at the quoted best-fit values gives a relic abundance that is inconsistent with the quoted Planck value.

Significance. The paper addresses a relevant question and provides an explicit analytic expression for the χχ→γγ cross section in the dipole dark-matter model, together with a simple pipeline for translating relic-density and CMB line constraints into bounds on (mχ, M16, f). The derivation of the thermally averaged cross section is presented in sufficient detail to be checked, and the use of publicly available cosmological constraints is a strength. If the final numbers were reliable, M16^* ≈ 0.44 and mχ ∼ 500 GeV would be useful targets for indirect-detection searches. However, because the printed equations are internally inconsistent, the headline results cannot be trusted as they stand; the paper would be significant after a corrected derivation and rerun of the affected figures.

major comments (3)

[III A, Eqs. (13) and (14)] Equation (14) does not follow algebraically from Eq. (13). Solving 2.5×10^-25 = \tilde c0 (m_low/GeV)^2 M16^4 H(f) with \tilde c0 = 1.71423×10^-30 gives m_low/GeV = 381.9/(M16^2 sqrt(H(f))), not the printed expression (1.95×10^-15/M16)^2 H(f)^-1/2. For f = 1 and x = 22, H = 48(1+1/22) = 50.18, so the correct lower mass at M16 = 0.44 is approximately 279 GeV, and combining this with Eq. (16) gives an intersection at M16^* ≈ 0.66 and m ≈ 126 GeV, rather than M16^* = 0.44 and m ≈ 500 GeV. Because the cutoff and the 500 GeV window are the paper's headline results, the central claims are not reproducible from the manuscript's own formulas.
[III B, Eq. (17) and Fig. 6] For f = 1, Eq. (17) gives ⟨σv⟩ = 48 \tilde c0 m_GeV^2 M16^4 (1+1/x). At the claimed values M16 = 0.44, mχ = 500 GeV and x = 22, this yields ⟨σv⟩ ≈ 8.1×10^-25 cm^3/s, and Eq. (1) gives Ωcdm h^2 ≈ 3×10^-26 / (8.1×10^-25) ≈ 0.037, which is about a factor of three below the Planck value 0.12 quoted in the paper. Thus the statement that mχ^* ∼ 500 GeV is consistent with the relic density at the cutoff dipole moment is inconsistent with the paper's own formulas; the relic-abundance-only mass at M16 = 0.44 is approximately 280 GeV. This discrepancy must be resolved and Figs. 2, 5, and 6 recomputed.
[III A, Eq. (15)] The CMB constraint is introduced through the fitted line fe⟨σannvrel⟩ = (4×10^-28 cm^3 s^-1) m_GeV with no uncertainty band and no statement of the range or data used for the fit. The sharp cutoff M16^* is obtained from the equality of this fitted line with the relic-abundance line, so the absence of an uncertainty on Eq. (15) makes the headline cutoff numerically underdetermined. In addition, the numerical coefficient in Eq. (16), (5.84)^4, corresponds to inserting fe ≈ 0.2 in the derivation, but the text never makes this choice explicit.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The abstract in the manuscript text states that an electric dipole moment ∼ 10^-16 e cm is required for small masses, mχ ≤ 10 GeV, while the arXiv abstract and the conclusions state masses of O(10^2) GeV with m^* ∼ 500 GeV; these statements should be reconciled with the final results.
[II A, text after Eq. (2)] The sentence beginning 'For low energies such that γ-energy and DDM mass relation Eγ/mχ...' is incomplete and should be rephrased to state the intended relation between Eγ and mχ.
[III B, Fig. 4 caption and text] The caption says the plot shows the residual abundance for D16 = 3, while the surrounding text describes f = 0, 1, 2 with M16 running between 1 and 3; the caption and text should be made consistent about the parameter values actually plotted.
[References and overall text] Some references are incomplete or redundant, e.g. Ref. [6] lacks journal information and Refs. [7] and [9] appear identical; a careful bibliography cleanup is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis constrains a first-principles cross-section with external cosmological data.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is self-contained: the annihilation cross-section is computed analytically from the effective Lagrangian in Eq. (2), and the resulting thermally averaged cross-section is then compared with external constraints (the standard relic-density relation Eq. (1), the Planck cold-dark-matter density, and the CMB energy-injection bounds taken from Refs. [50,51]). The parameters M16 and m_chi are not defined in terms of the claimed outputs; instead, the measured relic abundance and the CMB limits are used as data to constrain the model parameters. The quoted cut-off M*16=0.44 and the ~500 GeV mass window are presented as the intersection of two independently motivated bounds, not as quantities fitted to reproduce themselves. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited upper bound D16=M16<=3 comes from Sigurdson et al. [22], and the CMB constraints come from Kawasaki/Nakayama/Sekiguchi and Masi, none of which are the present authors. The use of the same relic-density measurement both to draw the lower bound and to compute a posterior distribution is ordinary parameter inference, not circular prediction. I note for completeness that there appear to be algebraic inconsistencies in the printed equations, particularly Eq. (14) relative to Eq. (13), but those are correctness concerns, not circularity, and do not change the fact that the derivation is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particle or force; M and D are operator coefficients of an existing effective Lagrangian. The main external inputs are the relic density target, CMB limits from the literature, and the freeze-out parameter x.

free parameters (3)

Magnetic dipole moment M16 (M in units of 10^-16 e cm) = Constrained range; f = 1 cutoff M16* = 0.44; general models up to M16 ~ 3
Coefficient of the dipole operator in Eq. (2). The cross-section and all bounds scale as M16^4, and M16 is scanned rather than predicted by the model.
Electric dipole moment D16 (D in units of 10^-16 e cm), encoded through f = D16/M16 = f = 1 for Table II; f = 0.8, 1.0, 1.2 shown in Figure 5; f = 0, 1, 2 in Figure 4
Also from Eq. (2). The relative strength f shifts the allowed mass window and relaxes the M16 cutoff when varied.
Freeze-out parameter x = mχ/T at decoupling = 22
Set to a standard WIMP value in Section II after Eq. (11), called the magical number. Results depend on x through H(f,x).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Standard thermal freeze-out and the relation Ω h^2 ≈ 3 x 10^-26 / <σann vrel> with x = 22
Eq. (1) converts the observed relic density into a target annihilation cross-section. Section II assumes this standard one-component WIMP scenario.
domain assumption The γγ annihilation channel is the most relevant cosmological channel
Section II states "we assume that the γγ channel is the most relevant in the cosmological scenario [25]". If γZ or γH channels contribute significantly, the derived bounds change.
domain assumption Validity of the effective dipole Lagrangian Eq. (2) at the relevant energies
The Lagrangian is a low-energy effective operator; the paper does not derive it from a UV-complete model, so the cross-section is only as valid as the EFT cutoff.
ad hoc to paper The fitted CMB limit fe<σann vrel> = 4 x 10^-28 m_GeV represents the constraints of Refs. [50,51]
Equation (15) is a power-law fit to CMB exclusion limits and is used to derive m_up and M16*. It has no uncertainty and may not capture the shape of the original constraints.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Signatures of Dipolar Dark Matter on Indirect Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KVRA34IP

@misc{pith2026190805695,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Signatures of Dipolar Dark Matter on Indirect Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KVRA34IP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05695}
}

abstract

In this work we study the annihilation of fermionic dark matter, considering it as a neutral particle with non-vanishing magnetic ($M$) and electric ($D$) dipole moments. Effective cross section of the process $\chi \overline{\chi} \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ is computed starting from a general form of the coupling $\chi \overline{\chi} \gamma$ in the framework of an extension of the Standard Model. By taking into account the annihilation of dark matter pairs into mono-energetic photons, we found that for masses of $O(10^2)$ GeV, an electric dipole moment $\sim 10^{-16}\, \textrm{e cm}$ is required to satisfy the current relic density inferences. Additionally, in order to pin down models viable to describe the physics of dark matter in the early Universe, we also constrain our model according to recent measurements of the temperature anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and report constraints to the electric and magnetic dipole moments for a range of masses within our model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05695 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Solid lines delimit regions of exclusion in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Level-contours for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Blue, purple and magenta regions correspond to the theoretically predicted regions of the DM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. 1D projection posterior distributions for the DM mass for the following values of the elec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The DM relative energy density. The red stripe shows the nowadays relative density of DM inferred [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[1]

Naturally, the purpose is to identify the regions of highest likelihood in accordance to the latest bounds to the DM relative density inferred from Planck

General Case: D⁄=M In this section we study the regions of the DDM space of parameters inside wide ranges of values of mχ. Naturally, the purpose is to identify the regions of highest likelihood in accordance to the latest bounds to the DM relative density inferred from Planck. Before that, with the aim of getting an idea of the extent sensitivity of Ωcdm...

work page
[2]

Therefore, the annihilation eﬀective cross-section expression by the relative thermally averaged speed for the process χχ→γγ is: ⟨σannvrel⟩ =48˜c0m2 GeVD4 16 [ 1 + 1 x ] cm3s−1

Equal electric and magnetic dipole moments f = 1 Now let us consider, that D16 =M16 under the assumption that both electrical and magnetic dipole moments are the same order of magnitude. Therefore, the annihilation eﬀective cross-section expression by the relative thermally averaged speed for the process χχ→γγ is: ⟨σannvrel⟩ =48˜c0m2 GeVD4 16 [ 1 + 1 x ] ...

work page
[3]

Zwicky, Helv

F. Zwicky, Helv. Phys. Acta 6, 110 (1933), [Gen. Rel. Grav.41,207(2009)]

1933
[4]

V. C. Rubin, J. Burley, A. Kiasatpoor, B. Klock, G. Pease, E. Rutscheidt, and C. Smith, Phys 67, 491 (1962)

work page 1962
[5]

P. J. E. Peebles, Nat. Astron. 1, 0057 (2017), arXiv:1701.05837 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[6]

Roos, Journal of Modern Physics 3, 1152 (2012)

M. Roos, Journal of Modern Physics 3, 1152 (2012)

work page 2012
[7]

Bergstr¨ om, Reports on Progress in Physics 63, 793 (2000)

L. Bergstr¨ om, Reports on Progress in Physics 63, 793 (2000)

work page 2000
[8]

Bertone, D

G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk,

work page

Show all 57 references

[10]

Fornengo, 36th COSPAR Scientiﬁc Assembly Beijing, China, July 16-23, 2006, Adv

N. Fornengo, 36th COSPAR Scientiﬁc Assembly Beijing, China, July 16-23, 2006, Adv. Space Res. 41, 2010 (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0612786 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[11]

Jungman, M

G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. 267, 195 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380 [hep-ph]

1996 arXiv
[12]

M. S. Turner, BNL Workshop: Axions 1989:0001-38, Phys. Rept. 197, 67 (1990)

1990
[13]

L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D95, 043541 (2017)

2017
[14]

G. D. Starkman, A. Gould, R. Esmailzadeh, and S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3594 (1990)

1990
[15]

E. D. Carlson, M. E. Machacek, and L. J. Hall, The Astrophysical Journal 398, 43 (1992)

1992
[16]

D. N. Spergel and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3760 (2000)

2000
[17]

Gould, B

A. Gould, B. T. Draine, R. W. Romani, and S. Nussinov, Phys. Lett. B238, 337 (1990)

1990
[18]

Davidson, S

S. Davidson, S. Hannestad, and G. Raﬀelt, JHEP 05, 003 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0001179 [hep-ph]

2000 arXiv
[19]

S. L. Dubovsky, D. S. Gorbunov, and G. I. Rubtsov, JETP Lett. 79, 1 (2004), [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.79,3(2004)], arXiv:hep-ph/0311189 [hep-ph]

2004 arXiv
[20]

J. H. Heo, Phys. Lett. B693, 255 (2010), arXiv:0901.3815 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[21]

J. H. Heo, Phys. Lett. B702, 205 (2011), arXiv:0902.2643 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[22]

Masso, S

E. Masso, S. Mohanty, and S. Rao, Phys. Rev. D80, 036009 (2009), arXiv:0906.1979 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[23]

Profumo and K

S. Profumo and K. Sigurdson, Phys. Rev. D75, 023521 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0611129 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[24]

Sigurdson, M

K. Sigurdson, M. Doran, A. Kurylov, R. R. Caldwell, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 70, 083501 (2004)

2004
[25]

Barger, W.-Y

V. Barger, W.-Y. Keung, and D. Marfatia, Phys. Lett. B696, 74 (2011)

2011
[26]

Lattanzi and J

M. Lattanzi and J. I. Silk, Phys. Rev. D79, 083523 (2009)

2009
[27]

Bringmann and C

T. Bringmann and C. Weniger, Phys. Dark Univ. 1, 194 (2012). 18

2012
[28]

Petricca et al

F. Petricca et al. (CRESST), in (TAUP 2017) Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, July 24-28, 2017 (2017) arXiv:1711.07692 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[29]

A. H. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST), (2019), arXiv:1904.00498 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[30]

Alfonsi (XENON), 37th Int

M. Alfonsi (XENON), 37th Int. Conf. on High Enegy Phys. (ICHEP 2014): Valencia, Spain, July 2-9, 2014, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 273-275, 373 (2016)

2016
[31]

Essig, T

R. Essig, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D96, 043017 (2017), arXiv:1703.00910 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[32]

Agnese et al

R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. D92, 072003 (2015), arXiv:1504.05871 [hep-ex]

2015 arXiv
[33]

S. J. Witte and G. B. Gelmini, JCAP 1705, 026 (2017), arXiv:1703.06892 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[34]

Bernabei et al., in 18th Lomonosov Conf

R. Bernabei et al., in 18th Lomonosov Conf. on Elem. Part. Phys.: Moscow, Russia, August 24-30, 2017 (2019) pp. 318–327

2019
[35]

Adhikari et al

G. Adhikari et al. (COSINE-100, The Sogang Phenomenology Group), JCAP 1906, 048 (2019), arXiv:1904.00128 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[36]

S. Baum, K. Freese, and C. Kelso, Phys. Lett. B789, 262 (2019), arXiv:1804.01231 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[37]

C. E. Aalseth et al. (CoGeNT), Phys. Rev. D88, 012002 (2013), arXiv:1208.5737 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[38]

J. H. Davis, C. McCabe, and C. Boehm, JCAP 1408, 014 (2014), arXiv:1405.0495 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[39]

C. E. Aalseth et al. (CoGeNT), (2014), arXiv:1401.3295 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[40]

A. U. Abeysekara et al., Astropart. Phys. 50-52, 26 (2013), arXiv:1306.5800 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[41]

E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, Front. Phys. 69, 1 (1990)

1990
[42]

Bergstrm, Reports on Progress in Physics 63, 793 (2000)

L. Bergstrm, Reports on Progress in Physics 63, 793 (2000)

2000
[43]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), (2018), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[44]

Anninos, Living Reviews in Relativity 1 (2001), 10.12942/lrr-2001-2

P. Anninos, Living Reviews in Relativity 1 (2001), 10.12942/lrr-2001-2

2001 doi
[45]

Arkani-Hamed, D

N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 79, 015014 (2009)

2009
[46]

Padmanabhan and D

N. Padmanabhan and D. P. Finkbeiner, Phys. Rev. D 72, 023508 (2005)

2005
[47]

Funk, Sackler Colloquium: Dark Matter Universe: On the Threshhold of Discovery Irvine, (2013), 10.1073/pnas.1308728111, [Proc

S. Funk, Sackler Colloquium: Dark Matter Universe: On the Threshhold of Discovery Irvine, (2013), 10.1073/pnas.1308728111, [Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.112,2264(2015)], arXiv:1310.2695 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[48]

(HAWC Collaboration), Phys

Abeysekara et al. (HAWC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 90, 122002 (2014)

2014
[49]

J. D. Wells, (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9404219 [hep-ph]

1994 arXiv
[50]

Cannoni, Eur

M. Cannoni, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 137 (2016), arXiv:1506.07475 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[51]

Drees, H

M. Drees, H. Iminniyaz, and M. Kakizaki, Phys. Rev. D 76, 103524 (2007)

2007
[52]

Masi, European Physical Journal Plus 130, 69 (2015)

N. Masi, European Physical Journal Plus 130, 69 (2015)

2015
[53]

Kawasaki, K

M. Kawasaki, K. Nakayama, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Lett. B756, 212 (2016)

2016
[54]

M. S. Madhavacheril, N. Sehgal, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D89, 103508 (2014)

2014
[55]

Kanzaki, M

T. Kanzaki, M. Kawasaki, and K. Nakayama, Prog. Theor. Phys. 123, 853 (2010)

2010
[56]

Barreiro, O

T. Barreiro, O. Bertolami, and P. Torres, Phys. Rev. D78, 043530 (2008), arXiv:0805.0731 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[57]

Steigman, B

G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D86, 023506 (2012), arXiv:1204.3622 [hep- ph]. 19

2012 arXiv
[58]

C. L. Bennett, D. Larson, J. L. Weiland, N. Jarosik, G. Hinshaw, N. Odegard, K. M. Smith, R. S. Hill, B. Gold, M. Halpern, E. Komatsu, M. R. Nolta, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, E. Wollack, J. Dunk- ley, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, G. S. Tucker, and E. L. Wright, The Astrophysi...

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Naturally, the purpose is to identify the regions of highest likelihood in accordance to the latest bounds to the DM relative density inferred from Planck

General Case: D⁄=M In this section we study the regions of the DDM space of parameters inside wide ranges of values of mχ. Naturally, the purpose is to identify the regions of highest likelihood in accordance to the latest bounds to the DM relative density inferred from Planck. Before that, with the aim of getting an idea of the extent sensitivity of Ωcdm...

work page

[2] [2]

Therefore, the annihilation eﬀective cross-section expression by the relative thermally averaged speed for the process χχ→γγ is: ⟨σannvrel⟩ =48˜c0m2 GeVD4 16 [ 1 + 1 x ] cm3s−1

Equal electric and magnetic dipole moments f = 1 Now let us consider, that D16 =M16 under the assumption that both electrical and magnetic dipole moments are the same order of magnitude. Therefore, the annihilation eﬀective cross-section expression by the relative thermally averaged speed for the process χχ→γγ is: ⟨σannvrel⟩ =48˜c0m2 GeVD4 16 [ 1 + 1 x ] ...

work page

[3] [3]

Zwicky, Helv

F. Zwicky, Helv. Phys. Acta 6, 110 (1933), [Gen. Rel. Grav.41,207(2009)]

1933

[4] [4]

V. C. Rubin, J. Burley, A. Kiasatpoor, B. Klock, G. Pease, E. Rutscheidt, and C. Smith, Phys 67, 491 (1962)

work page 1962

[5] [5]

P. J. E. Peebles, Nat. Astron. 1, 0057 (2017), arXiv:1701.05837 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017

[6] [6]

Roos, Journal of Modern Physics 3, 1152 (2012)

M. Roos, Journal of Modern Physics 3, 1152 (2012)

work page 2012

[7] [7]

Bergstr¨ om, Reports on Progress in Physics 63, 793 (2000)

L. Bergstr¨ om, Reports on Progress in Physics 63, 793 (2000)

work page 2000

[8] [8]

Bertone, D

G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk,

work page