Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Rotating baryonic dark halos

T0 review · 5 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 The paper claims that Planck temperature maps of the Sombrero galaxy show a north-south asymmetry of up to about 65 microkelvin in the halo, frequency-independent and consistent with Doppler rotation of a baryonic halo component.

desk verdict A new CMB temperature asymmetry measurement toward M104, but the claimed 0.2% significance is built on correlated rings and a post hoc orientation choice, so the detection as stated does not hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07937 v1 pith:C4HYT3CL submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.GA

F. De Paolis , A.V. Gurzadyan , A.A. Nucita , V.G. Gurzadyan , A. Qadir , A. Kashin , A. Amekhyan , S. Sargsyan
show 3 more authors
Ph. Jetzer G. Ingrosso N. Tahir
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords M104SombrerogalaxyPlanckCMBdatagalactichalorotationDopplereffecttemperatureasymmetrybaryonicdarkmattercosmicmicrowavebackgroundedge-ongalaxies
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Using Planck satellite temperature maps, this paper tries to show that the Sombrero galaxy (M104) has a halo-scale microwave asymmetry: one side of the galaxy is consistently hotter than the other by up to about $65\,\mu$K out to roughly $1^\circ$ from the center. The asymmetry is nearly the same at 70, 100, 143, and 217 GHz, which the paper reads as the frequency independence expected of a Doppler shift from bulk rotation, and it is absent in 360 control fields with the same geometry. Treating the four radial rings as independent trials gives a cumulative probability below $0.2\%$ that the north-south pattern is a random fluctuation of the cosmic microwave background. If this is right, microwave data can reveal and map rotating baryonic material in the halos of nearby edge-on galaxies, a complement to optical and radio probes.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the quadrant temperature-asymmetry comparison. The Planck field around M104 is split into four quadrants A1–A4, and the mean temperature of one opposite pair is subtracted from the other in four concentric radial rings ($0.2^\circ$, $0.4^\circ$, $0.6^\circ$, $1.0^\circ$). Variant 1 compares the north-south quadrants (A1+A4 against A2+A3) and Variant 2 compares the east-west quadrants (A3+A4 against A1+A2); 360 control fields at the same galactic latitude, spaced one degree apart, give the random-fluctuation baseline. The Doppler identification is carried by the frequency independence of the asymmetry: a bulk rotation of emitting clouds shifts the CMB temperature by the same fractional amount at 70–217 GHz, whereas most foreground emission mechanisms vary with frequency. This isolates a rotation signal from CMB noise and foregrounds without needing a detailed emission model.

What would settle it

Recompute the Variant 1 asymmetry on the same Planck maps with the aperture placed at a fine grid of position angles and latitudes, then ask what fraction of random sky positions show a north-south contrast of $\sim65\,\mu$K; if that fraction is not below $0.2\%$, the reported cumulative probability is an artifact of orientation choice and the Doppler attribution loses its statistical basis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Variant 1 north-south temperature asymmetry toward M104—the mean temperature of quadrants A1+A4 minus A2+A3—is real, extends from about $25\,\mu$K at $0.2^\circ$ to a peak of about $65\,\mu$K within $0.6^\circ$, and then declines toward $1^\circ$. The signal appears in all four Planck bands and in the foreground-reduced SMICA map, while 360 same-latitude control fields show no comparable asymmetry. The paper attributes this to the Doppler effect of a rotating halo component and quotes a cumulative probability of about $1.8\times10^{-3}$ (below $0.2\%$) for Variant 1, with the less regular east-west Variant 2 at about $3.1\times10^{-2}$. Interpreted through the cold-cloud model, the asymmetry implies a lower bound on M104's dynamical mass of roughly $3\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ out to about 100 kpc, in line with independent estimates, and the more complex Variant 2 behavior is presented as evidence that the halo has several kinematic components.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the four per-ring chance probabilities can be treated as independent and that the north-south direction was fixed before inspecting the data; if the rings are correlated or the direction was chosen after the fact, the claimed <0.2% significance collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A real Doppler asymmetry would mean the M104 halo contains coherently moving material out to roughly 100 kpc, well beyond the visible galaxy.
  • Under the cold-cloud interpretation, the implied dynamical mass of about $3\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ within 100 kpc would bring the halo mass into line with independent determinations based on tracers such as globular clusters and X-ray gas.
  • The same quadrant method, already applied to other nearby edge-on galaxies, would become a model-independent probe of halo kinematics that does not require knowing the emission mechanism in detail.
  • The frequency independence across the Planck bands and SMICA would favor Doppler rotation over dust, synchrotron, and thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich foregrounds for the north-south signal.
  • The irregular east-west Variant 2 asymmetry implies the halo is not a single rotating disk, supporting the view that M104 is a composite system with multiple kinematic components.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quoted cumulative probability multiplies four per-ring probabilities as if they were independent, but the rings are nested and CMB fluctuations are correlated across them; a covariance-aware calculation would probably raise the chance probability, and no statistical penalty has been applied for the fact that the north-south direction was chosen after inspecting the data.
  • Frequency independence by itself does not prove Doppler rotation: any foreground with a flat spectrum over 70–217 GHz and a spatial gradient across the galaxy would produce a similar asymmetry, so a 353 GHz check or cross-correlation with CO, HI, or X-ray maps would sharpen the attribution.
  • If M104's halo really holds rotating cold baryonic clouds at the implied mass scale, similar apertures should detect the effect in other edge-on galaxies, while the three galaxies in the earlier sample that showed no asymmetry suggest the phenomenon is not universal.
  • A decisive control experiment would place the aperture at many random orientations and latitudes and count how often a $\sim65\,\mu$K north-south contrast appears; that distribution, not the quoted per-ring p-values, would settle whether the signal is a rare fluctuation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Planck temperature maps towards the Sombrero galaxy (M104) and reports a north-south temperature asymmetry of up to ~65 microK within 0.6 degrees, which the authors claim is frequency-independent and consistent with the Doppler effect from a rotating baryonic dark halo. They quote a cumulative probability of less than 0.2% for the asymmetry being a random CMB fluctuation, based on per-ring probabilities in four nested apertures, and use the amplitude of the asymmetry to derive a dynamical mass of M104 out to ~100 kpc under an assumed cloud optical depth. The paper concludes that the detection confirms the authors' method for mapping dark halos in nearby edge-on galaxies.

Significance. If the claims were correct, this would be a novel probe of baryonic dark matter in galactic halos and an important extension of the kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich technique to galaxy scales. The paper uses publicly available Planck data, describes a control-field comparison, and is transparent about the independence assumption in the probability calculation, which is commendable. However, the statistical significance is not established as presented: the per-ring probabilities are not independent, the choice of the north-south variant is post hoc, and the control fields are not independent realizations. The mass estimate further depends on an assumed optical depth from the authors' own previous work. These issues undermine the central claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.2, probability calculation] The cumulative probability of 1.8×10^-3 is obtained by multiplying the per-ring probabilities 0.30, 0.31, 0.11, and 0.26 for the nested apertures R0.2, R0.4, R0.6, and R1.0. Because these apertures are concentric and enclose one another, the same CMB fluctuation contributes to all four measurements; the rings are strongly correlated, not independent, as the text itself acknowledges with 'assuming independent probabilities.' A valid joint probability requires the covariance between rings or a simulation-based null test; without it, the quoted <0.2% is not a meaningful significance for the asymmetry.
  2. [§2.2, Variant selection and look-elsewhere] The paper tests two variants, Variant 1 (A1+A4 vs A2+A3) and Variant 2 (A1+A2 vs A3+A4), and reports the stronger signal for Variant 1. Since Variant 1 was not specified a priori, this is a post hoc selection that introduces a further trial factor. The same group has previously searched for microwave asymmetries toward M31, Cen A, M82, M33, and M81, so the effective number of independent trials is at least several times larger than one. Even if the per-ring probabilities were independent, the global probability of finding an asymmetry of the reported magnitude somewhere in this family of analyses is much larger than 0.2%.
  3. [§2.2, control fields] The 360 control fields are spaced by 1 degree in Galactic longitude at b≈51°, which corresponds to an angular separation of about 0.6 degrees, comparable to the CMB correlation length. These fields are therefore not independent realizations of the null hypothesis; the effective number of independent control regions is far smaller than 360. The statement that the control fields show an asymmetry 'consistent with zero' is based on the plotted means and errors, but the error bars themselves are likely correlated. A quantitative null test using a properly decorrelated set of control fields, or a simulation-based estimate of the covariance, is needed.
  4. [§3, Eq. (1), mass estimate] The dynamical mass in Eq. (1) depends on the inverse square of the effective cloud optical depth τ_eff, for which the paper adopts 'a few ×10^-3' from Tahir et al. (2019), i.e., from the authors' own previous work. The quoted value M_dyn ≈ 3×10^12 M☉ is therefore not a model-independent measurement but a re-parameterization of the assumed τ_eff. Since the same unverified cloud model underlies both the mass estimate and the interpretation of the asymmetry, the agreement with earlier mass determinations is not an independent confirmation. The authors should present the mass as conditional on τ_eff and discuss the sensitivity of the conclusion to this parameter.
  5. [§2.2, frequency independence] The claim of frequency independence of the asymmetry is supported only by visual inspection of Figs. 3 and 4. The four Planck bands have different beam sizes and noise levels, so a quantitative test (e.g., a chi-square consistency check across frequencies, or a fit with a common amplitude) is necessary to exclude frequency-dependent foreground contamination. The abstract's statement that the asymmetry is 'frequency-independent' is currently an assertion rather than a demonstrated result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] The reference to Gurzadyan (2018) as an unpublished Master's essay is not a standard citable source; the negative results for M63, M64, M65, M66 should be documented in a published form.
  2. [Introduction and §2.1] There are several typographical errors: 'non-Guassianity' should be 'non-Gaussianity'; 'FHWM' should be 'FWHM'; 'i = 830' should be 'i = 83°'; 'LiteBird' and 'Polarbear' should be 'LiteBIRD' and 'POLARBEAR'.
  3. [§3, Eq. (1)] The units in Eq. (1) should be specified consistently (ΔT in µK, R in kpc), and τ_eff should be defined explicitly before its first use in the mass estimate.
  4. [Fig. 2 and §2.2] The paper would benefit from a figure showing the quadrant definitions (A1-A4) and the orientation of the galactic rotation axis, to allow the reader to assess the physical interpretation of the asymmetry.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The M104 asymmetry measurement itself is independent against Planck maps and control fields, but the paper's mass estimate and method validation import load-bearing values from the same group's prior work.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, Eq. (1)]
    "Expected values for τeff are about a few 10−3 (Tahir et al. 2019), meaning that the M104 dynamical mass out to ∼ 100 kpc is seen to be Mdyn≃ 3× 10^12 M⊙, in agreement with other measurements (see, e.g., Tempel & Tenjes 2006)."

    The dynamical mass derived in Eq. (1) is not an independent measurement: it is a conversion of the detected ΔT using the effective cloud optical depth τeff taken from Tahir et al. 2019, whose authors overlap with the present paper (Tahir, De Paolis, Qadir, Nucita). No independent constraint on τeff is provided in this work, so the quoted 'agreement' of Mdyn with other measurements reduces to an assumed self-cited input rather than a test of the cold-cloud model. Because this mass estimate is presented as a conclusion about the baryonic dark halo content, the self-citation is load-bearing for that specific claim.

  2. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "In view of our previous analysis of the dark halos of nearby galaxies, this finding confirms the efficiency of the method used in revealing and mapping the dark halos around relatively nearby edge-on galaxies."

    The 'method' is the same temperature-asymmetry analysis previously applied by the same group to M31, Cen A, M82, M33, and M81 in the cited earlier papers. The M104 detection is then announced as a confirmation of the efficiency of that method, meaning the method is validated by its own repeated applications without an independent, externally fixed test of the procedure. This is not load-bearing for the raw M104 asymmetry measurement, which is benchmarked against Planck maps and control fields, but it is a self-referential validation loop for the broader claim that the method reliably maps dark halos.

full rationale

The core detection claim—the north–south temperature asymmetry in M104 with a claimed cumulative random probability below 0.2%—is not circular by construction: it is derived from public Planck maps, compared to 360 control fields, and checked for frequency independence. The per-ring probabilities (0.30, 0.31, 0.11, 0.26) and their multiplication rest on an independence assumption that is statistically questionable for nested apertures, and the Variant 1 choice is post hoc, but these are concerns about statistical validity and trial factors, not about the derivation being equivalent to its inputs. However, two load-bearing elements do depend on self-citations: the dynamical mass estimate uses τeff from the authors' own Tahir et al. 2019 paper, and the abstract's statement that the finding 'confirms the efficiency of the method' relies on the same group's previous applications of that method rather than on an external validation. These self-citations do not force the measured asymmetry itself, so the central claim retains independent content, but they lift the circularity score above a minor level.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central measurement relies on public Planck maps, so it is not invented, but the interpretation as a rotating cold baryonic halo and the mass estimate both depend on assumptions and a self-cited free parameter (tau_eff) that are not independently constrained in this paper.

free parameters (1)
  • tau_eff (effective cloud optical depth) = a few x 10^-3 (from Tahir et al. 2019)
    Used in equation (1) to convert the measured temperature asymmetry into a halo mass; the paper gives no independent measurement, and the result Mdyn ~ 3e12 M_sun depends directly on this assumed value.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The observed frequency-independent asymmetry is produced by the Doppler effect of a rotating cold gas component in the M104 halo.
    Introduced in Sections 2.2 and 3; the paper acknowledges other emission mechanisms could contribute, so this is a key assumption for the interpretation.
  • ad hoc to paper The four concentric rings used for the significance estimate are statistically independent.
    Needed to multiply per-ring probabilities into 1.8e-3; the rings are concentric and likely share correlated CMB and foreground fluctuations.
  • domain assumption Control fields at the same Galactic latitude but different longitudes are unaffected by the same foregrounds or CMB fluctuations as the M104 field.
    Used to claim the signal is specific to M104; no quantitative distribution of the control asymmetries is shown, only that they are consistent with zero.
invented entities (1)
  • Rotating cold baryonic halo component (gas clouds) around M104
    purpose: To explain the microwave temperature asymmetry via Doppler shift.
    The entity is inherited from earlier work by the same authors; this paper provides no independent falsifiable handle outside its own analysis and the assumed tau_eff.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rotating baryonic dark halos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C4HYT3CL

@misc{pith2026190807937,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rotating baryonic dark halos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C4HYT3CL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07937}
}
abstract

Galactic halos are of great importance for our understanding of both the dark matter nature and primordial non-Gaussianity in the perturbation spectrum, a powerful discriminant of the physical mechanisms that generated the cosmological fluctuations observed today. In this paper we analyze {\it Planck} data towards the galaxy M104 (Sombrero) and find an asymmetry in the microwave temperature which extends up to about $1 \degr$ from the galactic center. This frequency-independent asymmetry is consistent with that induced by the Doppler effect due to the galactic rotation and we find a probability of less than about $0.2\%$ that it is due to a random fluctuation of the microwave background. In addition, {\it Planck} data indicate the relatively complex dynamics of the M104 galactic halo, and this appears to be in agreement with previous studies. In view of our previous analysis of the dark halos of nearby galaxies, this finding confirms the efficiency of the method used in revealing and mapping the dark halos around relatively nearby edge-on galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07937 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sombrero galaxy in the visible band. The white circle traces the distance of 0.1 0 around the galaxy center at coordinates RA: 12h 39m59.4 s , Dec: −110 390 2300 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sombrero galaxy in the 143 GHz Planck band. The inner and outer circles mark the galactocentric distances of 0.1 0 and 1 0 , respectively. 2. The M104 Sombrero galaxy 2.1. M104: generalities The galaxy M104, also known as the Sombrero galaxy (or NGC 4594), is a majestic galaxy located in the Virgo con￾stellation at a distance of about 9.55 Mpc from Earth (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Temperature asymmetry toward (first panel) the M104 galaxy in µK (with the standard errors) of the Variant 2 (A1A2 - A3A4), in the four considered Planck bands (see text for details) within four radial distances of 0.2 0 (R0.2), 0.4 0 (R0.4), 0.6 0 (R0.6) and 1 0 (R1.0); and (second panel) the same for the 360 control fields with the same geometry equally spaced at one degree distance from each other in Galactic lon… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of the position of the eight outermost globular clusters observed in the M104 galaxy (for details see Bridges et al. (2007)). The inner circle traces the visible part of the Sombrero galaxy while the outer circle is at a radius of 0.4 0 . 2) equally spaced at one …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ahmed, Z

    Abazajian, K.N., Adshead, P. Ahmed, Z. et al. 2016, preprint arXiv:1610.02743

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Akiba, Y., Anthony, A.E

    Ade, P.A.R. Akiba, Y., Anthony, A.E. et al. (The Polarbear Collaboration) 2014, ApJ 794, 171

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Adam, R., Ade, P.A.R., Aghanim, N. et al. 2016, A&A 594, A1

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Ade, P.A.R., Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y. et al. 2016, A&A 594, A16

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    & Wise, M.B

    An, H., McAneny, M., Ridgway, A.K. & Wise, M.B. 2017, PRD 97. 123528

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    & Raghunathan, S

    Baxter, E.J., Sherwin, B.D. & Raghunathan, S. 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 6, 1

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Particle dark matter , Cambridge University Press, Cabridge, UK (2013)

    Bertone, G. Particle dark matter , Cambridge University Press, Cabridge, UK (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Bridges, T.J., Ashman, K.M., Zepf, S.E. et al. 1997, MNRAS 284, 376

    work page 1997

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Bridges, T.J., Rhode, K.L., Zepf, S.E. et al. 2007, ApJ 658, 980

    2007

  2. [10]

    & Ostriker, J.P

    Cen, R. & Ostriker, J.P. 1999, ApJ 514, 1

    1999

  3. [11]

    & Ostriker, J.P

    Cen, R. & Ostriker, J.P. 2006, ApJ 650, 560

    2006

  4. [12]

    & Mannheim, K

    Chluba, J. & Mannheim, K. 2002, A&A 396, 419

    2002

  5. [13]

    & Roncadelli, M

    De Paolis, F., Ingrosso, G., Jetzer, Ph. & Roncadelli, M. 1995a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 14

  6. [14]

    & Roncadelli, M

    De Paolis, F., Ingrosso, G., Jetzer, Ph. & Roncadelli, M. 1995b, A&A 295, 567

  7. [15]

    De Paolis, F., Ingrosso, G., Jetzer, Ph. et al. 1995c, A&A, 299, 647

  8. [16]

    1998, ApJ 500, 59

    De Paolis, F., Ingrosso, G., Jetzer, Ph & Roncadelli, M. 1998, ApJ 500, 59

    1998

  9. [17]

    De Paolis, F., Gurzadyan, V.G., Ingrosso, G. et al. 2011, A&A, 534, id. L8

    2011

  10. [18]

    De Paolis, F., Gurzadyan, V.G., Nucita, A.A. et al. 2014, A&A, 565, id. L3

    2014

  11. [19]

    De Paolis, F., Gurzadyan, V.G., Nucita, A.A. et al. 2015, A&A 580. L8

    2015

  12. [20]

    De Paolis, F., Gurzadyan, V.G., Nucita, A.A. et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A57

    2016

  13. [21]

    1998, ApJ 509, L41

    Draine, B.T. 1998, ApJ 509, L41

    1998

  14. [22]

    & Nulsen, P.E.J

    Fabian, A.C. & Nulsen, P.E.J. 1994, MNRAS 269, 33

    1994

  15. [23]

    Finelli, F., Bucher, M., Ach\'ucarro, A. et al. 2018, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 4, 16

    2018

  16. [24]

    Fraser-McKelvie, A. et al. 2011, MNRAS 415, 961

    2011

  17. [25]

    & S\'anchez-Janssen, R

    Gadotti, D.A. & S\'anchez-Janssen, R. 2012, MNRAS 423 877

    2012

  18. [26]

    & Silk, J

    Gerhard, O. & Silk, J. 1995, ApJ 472, 34

    1995

  19. [27]

    G \'o rski, K.M., Hivon, E., Banday, A.J. et al. 2005, ApJ 622, 759

    2005

  20. [28]

    Gupta, A. et al. 2012, ApJ 756, L8

    2012

  21. [29]

    2018, Master degree essay, DAMTP, Univ

    Gurzadyan, A.V. 2018, Master degree essay, DAMTP, Univ. Cambridge, unpublished

    2018

  22. [30]

    Gurzadyan, V.G., Allahverdyan, A.E., Ghahramanyan, T. et al. 2009, A&A 497, 343

    2009

  23. [31]

    Gurzadyan, V.G., Kashin, A.L., Khachatryan, H. et al. 2014, A&A 566, A135

    2014

  24. [32]

    Gurzadyan, V.G., De Paolis, F, Nucita, A. et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A77

    2015

  25. [33]

    Gurzadyan, V.G., De Paolis, F, Nucita, A. et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A131

    2018

  26. [34]

    2019, Eur

    Gurzadyan, V.G. 2019, Eur. Phys. J Plus 134, 14

    2019

  27. [35]

    Hazumi, M., Borrill, J., Chinone, Y. et al. 2012, Proc. SPIE 8442, 844219

    2012

  28. [36]

    & Nitta, S

    Igarashi, A., Mori, M. & Nitta, S. 2014, MNRAS 444, 1177

    2014

  29. [37]

    & Drory, N

    Jardel, J.R., Gebhardt, K., Fabricius, M. & Drory, N. 2011, ApJ 739, 21

    2011

  30. [38]

    Kogut, A., Fixsen, D.J., Chuss, D.T. et al. 2011, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 7, 25

    2011

  31. [39]

    2013, ApJ 764, L31

    Kravtsov, A.V. 2013, ApJ 764, L31

    2013

  32. [40]

    Li, Z., Spitler, L.R., Jones, C. et al. 2010, ApJ 721, 1368

    2010

  33. [41]

    et al 2011, ApJ 730, 84

    Li, Z., Jones, C., Forman, W.R. et al 2011, ApJ 730, 84

    2011

  34. [42]

    et al., preprint arXiv:1712.08619 (2017)

    Lim, S. et al., preprint arXiv:1712.08619 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    , von Hausyger, S

    Liu, H. , von Hausyger, S. & Naselsky, P. 2017, Phys. Rev. D 95, 103517

    2017

  36. [44]

    & Riotto, A

    Moradinezhad Dizgah, A., Dodelson, S. & Riotto, A. 2013, Phys. Rev. D 88, 063513

    2013

  37. [45]

    & Liska, M.T.P

    Nieuwenhuizen T.M., van Heusden, E.F.G. & Liska, M.T.P. 2012, Physica Scripta T151, 014085

    2012

  38. [46]

    & Martinet, L

    Pfenniger, D., Combes, F. & Martinet, L. 1994, A&A 285 79

    1994

  39. [47]

    & Kamionkowski, M

    Schmidt, F. & Kamionkowski, M. 2010, Phys.Rev. D 82, 103002

    2010

  40. [48]

    Somerville, R.S. et al. 2018, MNRAS 473, 2714

    2018

  41. [49]

    & Nucita, A.A

    Tahir, N., De Paolis, F., Qadir, A. & Nucita, A.A. 2019, IJMPD 28, 1950088

    2019

  42. [50]

    & Tenjes, P

    Tempel, E. & Tenjes, P. 2006, MNRAS 371, 1269

    2006

  43. [51]

    & Bender, R

    Wagner, S.J., Dettmar, R.J. & Bender, R. 1989, A&A 215, 243

    1989

  44. [52]

    & Wardle, M

    Walker, M. & Wardle, M. 1998, ApJ 498, L125

    1998

  45. [53]

    2004, Phys

    Weinberg, S. 2004, Phys. Rev. D 70, 083522

    2004

Pith tools

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