Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Identifying dark matter signals by the radio continuum spectral data of the cool-core cluster RX J1720.1+2638

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dark matter annihilation best explains the radio halo of RX J1720.1+2638.

desk verdict A transparent but statistically weak case that dark matter annihilation explains the radio halo of RX J1720.1+2638; worth a look for the method but not enough to shift the field. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17977 v1 pith:6H6ER6RF submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

Man Ho Chan , Chak Man Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.CO
keywords darkmatterannihilationsynchrotronradiationgalaxyclustersradiocontinuumcool-coreclusterRXJ1720.1+2638indirectdetectionhalo
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

The paper claims that the radio continuum spectrum of the 70-kpc central halo of the cool-core galaxy cluster RX J1720.1+2638 is best described by synchrotron radiation from dark matter annihilation, with a preferred dark matter mass of $m=15$ GeV annihilating through the $\tau$ channel or $m=110$ GeV through the $b$-quark channel. It reaches this conclusion by fitting six radio flux measurements with a cosmic-ray-only model, a dark-matter-only model, and a combined model, comparing them with the Akaike and Bayesian information criteria. The dark-matter-only fit edges out the cosmic-ray power-law fit by $\Delta \mathrm{AIC}\approx 2$, which the authors interpret as the cosmic-ray model being only about 36% as probable to be the best model. If correct, this would be a positive indirect signal of dark matter annihilation in a galaxy cluster core, though the authors note the data are coarse and cosmic-ray emission remains a viable explanation.

What carries the argument

The core of the model is the equilibrium electron and positron spectrum $dn_e/dE = \langle\sigma v\rangle[\rho_{\mathrm{DM}}(r)]^2/(2m^2 b_T(E,r)) \int_E^m (dN_{e,\mathrm{inj}}/dE')\,dE'$, which converts the annihilation rate into a steady-state population of radiating particles, with $b_T(E,r)$ the combined synchrotron, inverse-Compton, bremsstrahlung, and Coulomb cooling rate. This is folded with the synchrotron power $P_{\mathrm{syn}}(\nu)$ and integrated over the $r_h=70$ kpc halo to predict the radio flux $S_{\mathrm{DM}}(\nu)$. The annihilation signal is proportional to the square of the dark matter density, so the choice of the NFW profile, fitted to the hydrostatic mass outside 100 kpc and extrapolated inward, is the load-bearing component.

What would settle it

Measure the central dark matter density of RX J1720.1+2638 by gravitational lensing or by a hydrostatic analysis that accounts for the cold fronts and sloshing, then recompute the dark-matter-only synchrotron flux; if the true central density is above the NFW extrapolation, the required cross section drops below the quoted values, and if it is below, the DM-only fit worsens. Alternatively, obtain a radio spectrum with more than six frequency points: if the spectrum continues as a pure power law without the curvature predicted by the $m=15$ GeV $\tau$ or $m=110$ GeV $b$ channels, the DM-only model would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the six radio flux densities of the central radio halo of RX J1720.1+2638 between 0.317 and 8.44 GHz, the paper finds that a synchrotron model with all emission originating from dark matter annihilation gives the lowest AIC and BIC values among all tested models. The best fits are $m=15$ GeV via the $\tau$ channel and $m=110$ GeV via the $b$ channel (NFW profile, $B_0=24.6\,\mu$G, $\eta=0.5$), with best-fit cross sections of $469\times 10^{-26}$ and $3882\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s respectively. The authors conclude that the dark-matter-only model is likely to be the best model, implying that dark matter annihilation dominates the central radio emission of the cluster, while acknowledging that the cosmic-ray power-law model also provides a good fit.

Load-bearing premise

The dark matter density inside the 70-kpc radio halo is extrapolated from an NFW profile fitted only outside 100 kpc, even though the cluster core is out of hydrostatic equilibrium, so the central density that dominates the signal is uncertain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the dark-matter-only interpretation is correct, the central radio halos of cool-core clusters become promising targets for indirect dark matter detection, complementing gamma-ray and cosmic-ray searches.
  • The best-fit masses and channels agree with earlier radio analysis of the Large Magellanic Cloud ($b$ channel, 50\,GeV to 280\,GeV) and the Galactic Centre gamma-ray excess ($\tau$ channel, about 10\,GeV), suggesting the same annihilation scenarios could appear across different targets.
  • The large best-fit cross sections, roughly $10^2$ to $10^4$ times the thermal relic value, would require a velocity-dependent annihilation cross section or an additional boost from substructures, motivating joint analyses across structures with different velocity dispersions.
  • The effective boost factor inside 70 kpc is only 1.31 to 1.44, so the conclusion is not sensitive to substructure modeling, which strengthens the case if the central density profile is correct.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would be to measure the dark matter density profile inside 70 kpc using weak or strong lensing; this region dominates the annihilation signal, so an NFW extrapolation that is too high by a factor of two would double the predicted flux and lower the fitted cross section by a factor of four.
  • The information-criterion comparison rests on only six flux points; a Bayesian model comparison with priors on $m$ and $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ would show whether the $\Delta\mathrm{AIC}\approx 2$ preference is robust.
  • If the DM-only claim is correct, other cool-core clusters with small radio halos should exhibit a similar spectral curvature set by the annihilation channel, and a survey of such halos with LOFAR and GMRT could confirm the pattern.
  • The radio data used here are integrated over the 70-kpc halo; spatially resolved spectral index maps could separate a centrally peaked annihilation signal from a flatter cosmic-ray population.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes the radio continuum spectrum of the central ~70 kpc halo of the cool-core cluster RX J1720.1+2638, using six flux measurements between 0.317 and 8.44 GHz. The authors model the emission as either synchrotron from cosmic-ray electrons (in one of three analytic spectral forms), from dark-matter annihilation (via e, mu, tau, or b channels with NFW, Einasto, or Moore dark-matter profiles), or a combination of both. They use AIC and BIC to rank the models. The main claim is that a dark-matter-only model gives the best fit, with preferred parameters m = 15 GeV in the tau channel or m = 110 GeV in the b channel, and that the dark-matter-only model is 'likely to be the best model' over a cosmic-ray power law, though the absolute quality of all fits is poor and the dark-matter interpretation requires very large annihilation cross sections.

Significance. If the claim were robust, it would provide evidence for dark-matter annihilation in a cool-core cluster halo, adding to a small set of possible radio dark-matter detections. The paper applies established synchrotron dark-matter models to a new object and makes a quantitative model comparison with AIC/BIC. Its strengths include a clear presentation of the modelling equations, a test of three dark-matter density profiles, and an explicit acknowledgment of the limitations of the cosmic-ray template set and the velocity-dependence caveat. However, the significance is limited because the evidence is statistically weak (Delta AIC ~ 2), the absolute chi-square values indicate poor fits, and the analysis hinges on an unvalidated extrapolation of the dark-matter density profile into the cluster core, as the paper itself acknowledges. The results are best viewed as a tentative hint rather than a positive detection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Tables 2 and 3] The dark-matter flux in Eq. (13) integrates rho_DM(r)^2 out to r_h ~ 70 kpc, yet the adopted NFW profile is fitted only to the hydrostatic mass profile outside r >= 100 kpc. The text states that 'Significant deviation between the NFW profile and hydrostatic profile can be found in r < 70 kpc, which has almost covered the region of the central radio halo.' Since the annihilation signal is strongly core-weighted, the predicted flux and the fitted cross section scale directly with the uncertain core density. The three adopted profiles already yield best-fit cross sections spanning nearly two orders of magnitude for the b channel (from 155 x 10^-26 cm^3/s for Moore to 9977 x 10^-26 cm^3/s for Einasto, Table 3). A cored or differently normalized profile could change both the normalization and the spectral shape, potentially altering the model ranking. The authors should quantify this systematic by, for example, testing a range of core-density normalizations/slopes, normalizing the profile to the hydrostatic value at an intermediate radius, or using an independent core-mass constraint from lensing or gas dynamics.
  2. [Sec. 3, Tables 2 and 3] All tested models give poor absolute fits: the CR power law has chi^2 = 22.20 with N-k = 4 degrees of freedom, and the best DM-only model has chi^2 = 20.15 with 4 degrees of freedom, corresponding to chi^2/dof ~ 5. Neither model is statistically consistent with the data at the nominal error bars. The model-selection criteria therefore choose the least inadequate model, and a Delta AIC of 2.04 between the DM-only and CR-only models is at best weak evidence. The paper should show the residuals, discuss possible underestimated systematic errors (e.g., different beam sizes or flux-scale offsets among the GMRT, VLA, and LOFAR data), and temper the claim that the radio spectrum is 'best accounted' by dark-matter annihilation.
  3. [Sec. 3, Table 3; Sec. 4] The best-fit annihilation cross sections are extremely large: for the NFW profile, <sigma v> = 3.9 x 10^-23 cm^3/s for the b channel (m = 110 GeV) and 4.7 x 10^-24 cm^3/s for the tau channel (m = 15 GeV), both orders of magnitude above the thermal relic value and above typical gamma-ray or CMB limits. The paper mentions that velocity-dependent annihilation could reconcile these values with dwarf-spheroidal constraints, but it does not demonstrate that any concrete velocity-dependent model actually reproduces both the cluster radio signal and the dwarf gamma-ray limits. Without a quantitative example, the large cross sections remain a major physics concern that weakens the dark-matter interpretation.
  4. [Sec. 3, Eq. (6)-(7) and Table 3] The magnetic field parameters are fixed to two extreme sets (eta, B0) = (0.5, 24.6 microG) and (1.0, 16.2 microG), but only the former set is reported in the main results. Since B(r) enters both the synchrotron power and the cooling rate, the shape and normalization of the predicted spectrum can depend on these parameters. The authors should present the best-fit results for both bracketing sets and show explicitly that the AIC/BIC differences and the preferred masses are insensitive to this choice, rather than asserting that the effect is small.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The abstract says 'the radio spectral data can be best accounted by the synchrotron emission due to dark matter annihilation', but the body correctly notes that cosmic-ray emission can also provide a good explanation. The wording should be softened to match the statistical evidence, which is a Delta AIC of about 2.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (3)] The cooling rate expression in Eq. (3) is written in units of 10^-16 GeV/s, but the individual terms contain different powers of E, B, and n; a brief statement of the units of each physical quantity would help avoid confusion.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (14)-(15)] The boost factor calculation uses r_vir and f_boost but the definitions of r_vir and the normalization of rho_sub(r) are implicit; explicitly stating that r_vir is the virial radius and that the integral in Eq. (15) normalizes the subhalo mass distribution would improve clarity.
  4. [Sec. 3, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7] The figure captions do not specify which dark-matter density profile is used for each panel beyond the text; adding the profile name to each panel or caption would make the figures self-contained.
  5. [Sec. 4, Discussion] The velocity-dependence discussion cites a single reference (Kiriu, Kumar & Runburg 2022) but does not state the functional form or the scale of the required suppression/enhancement. A concrete example (e.g., p-wave annihilation with a given velocity scaling) would strengthen the argument that the derived cross sections are not in conflict with existing limits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The derivation is self-contained: the DM radio flux uses external injection spectra and an X-ray-calibrated density profile, with the radio data entering only as the fitted target.

full rationale

The central radio flux model (Eqs. 1-13) is built from external inputs: the injection spectra are taken from Cirelli et al. (2011), the magnetic field and thermal electron density from X-ray fits (Cavagnolo et al. 2009; Kunz et al. 2011), and the dark matter density profile is fitted to the hydrostatic mass profile outside r >= 100 kpc, not to the radio data. The two fitted parameters, dark matter mass m and annihilation cross section <sigma v>, are varied against the six radio flux measurements through Eq. (18), and the AIC/BIC comparison is a standard fit comparison rather than a prediction derived from the same data. No step defines the dark matter model in terms of the radio spectrum being fitted. The several citations to the authors' earlier radio dark-matter studies (Chan & Lee 2019, 2022, 2024) are background references for the general method and are not load-bearing for this cluster's derivation. The paper itself flags a real limitation in Section 2: 'Significant deviation between the NFW profile and hydrostatic profile can be found in r < 70 kpc, which has almost covered the region of the central radio halo.' This is a physical extrapolation uncertainty that affects the fitted cross section, but it is not circular because the density profile is not constructed to reproduce the radio spectrum. Thus no circular step reduces a claimed prediction to its inputs.

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

The paper's central claim rests on several fitted or uncertain parameters: the dark matter mass and cross section are fitted directly to the radio data, while the magnetic field amplitude/scaling and the dark matter density profile are taken from uncertain external scalings and extrapolated fits. The model assumes WIMP annihilation, hydrostatic equilibrium outside the core, negligible diffusion, and a specific magnetic field profile. These assumptions are standard in the literature but are not independently verified for this particular cluster, and they directly influence the predicted flux and the resulting dark matter parameters.

free parameters (6)
  • dark matter particle mass m = 15 GeV (tau channel) or 110 GeV (b channel) for NFW; see Table 3
    Scanned over a grid (roughly 5 to 500 GeV) to minimize chi-square. It is a free parameter in the DM-only and combined fits.
  • dark matter annihilation cross section <sigma v> = 4.69e-24 cm3/s (tau), 3.88e-23 cm3/s (b) for NFW; see Table 3
    Fitted per mass as the normalization of the DM signal. Values are orders of magnitude above the thermal relic cross section.
  • central magnetic field B0 = 16.2-24.6 microgauss (two extremes)
    Derived from the scaling relation in Eq. (7) with epsilon=0.5 to 1.0. It is not directly measured and affects the overall flux normalization.
  • magnetic field scaling index eta = 0.5 or 1.0 (extremes)
    Index in the B(r) profile (Eq. 6). The paper says the impact on chi-square is small, but it changes the radial weighting of the emission.
  • NFW scale density and scale radius = rho_s=8.26e5 M_sun/kpc^3, r_s=423 kpc
    Fitted to the hydrostatic mass profile outside r>=100 kpc (Section 2). These values are extrapolated into the 70 kpc radio halo region, where they are most uncertain.
  • cosmic-ray power-law parameters S0 and alpha = not explicitly quoted in text; best fit used for comparison
    Free parameters in the baseline CR-only model (Eq. 21). They are fitted to the same radio data and used in the AIC comparison.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hot gas in the cluster is in hydrostatic equilibrium outside the core (r>=100 kpc), allowing the dark matter density profile to be derived from X-ray data via Eq. (9).
    The authors explicitly state the cluster deviates from hydrostatic equilibrium inside the core and that the hydrostatic profile is inaccurate for r<70 kpc. They still use the NFW fit to this outer profile as the DM distribution in the radio halo region.
  • domain assumption Electron diffusion is negligible because the cooling time is much shorter than the diffusion time, so the equilibrium spectrum in Eq. (4) holds.
    The estimate uses D=1e28 cm2/s and a 1 GeV electron; lower-energy electrons (which produce lower-frequency radio emission) have longer cooling times, and the diffusion approximation may be less accurate there.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field follows the thermal electron density with a normalization given by the Kunz et al. scaling relation (Eq. 7).
    B(r) is not directly measured in this cluster; the scaling relation and the uncertain index eta determine the synchrotron emissivity profile.
  • domain assumption Dark matter is a WIMP that self-annihilates, with injection spectra taken from Cirelli et al. (2011).
    The particle physics model is taken as input from prior literature; the paper does not test alternatives to the WIMP annihilation hypothesis.
  • domain assumption The radio halo emission is spherically symmetric and is integrated over the cluster's dark matter distribution out to r_h=70 kpc.
    Used in Eq. (13). The cluster shows a sloshing spiral and non-axisymmetric features, so spherical symmetry is an approximation.
  • standard math The Akaike and Bayesian information criteria are valid for model comparison with N=6 data points and up to k=4 free parameters.
    The AICc correction term in Eq. (19) becomes 2k(k+1)/(N-k-1)=40 for k=4, N=6, which makes the AIC comparison unreliable. This is a statistical assumption that the paper does not justify for such a small sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying dark matter signals by the radio continuum spectral data of the cool-core cluster RX J1720.1+2638." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6H6ER6RF

@misc{pith2026241117977,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying dark matter signals by the radio continuum spectral data of the cool-core cluster RX J1720.1+2638},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6H6ER6RF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17977}
}
abstract

Investigating the signals of dark matter annihilation is one of the most popular ways to understand the nature of dark matter. In particular, many recent studies are focussing on using radio data to examine the possible signals of dark matter revealed in galaxies and galaxy clusters. In this article, we investigate on the spectral data of the central radio halo of the cool-core cluster RX J1720.1+2638. We show that the radio spectral data can be best accounted by the synchrotron emission due to dark matter annihilation via $\tau$ lepton channel (with dark matter mass $m=15$ GeV) or $b$ quark channel (with dark matter mass $m=110$ GeV), although using the very coarse spectral data with notable errors. Despite the fact that cosmic-ray emission can also provide a good explanation for the observed radio spectrum, our results suggest a possible positive evidence for dark matter annihilation revealed in the form of radio emission in RX J1720.1+2638 cluster.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17977 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. The NFW profile (red), Einasto profile (green), Moore profile (blue), and hydrostatic profile (black) for the dark matter density in RX J1720.1+2638. 0.1 1 10 ν (GHz) 1 10 100 1000 S (mJy) 0.1 1 10 ν (GHz) 1 10 100 1000 0.1 1 10 1 10 100 1000 S (mJy) power-law form Rephaeli form In-situ form [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The radio spectra for the best-fit scenarios of the CR￾only model. Top left: the power-law form; Top right: the Rephaeli form; Bottom: the in-situ form. The data with 1σ uncertainties are extracted from Giacintucci et al. (2014). Biffi V. et al., 2016, Astrophys. J., 827, 112 Bonafede A., Feretti L., Murgia M., Govoni F., Giovannini G., Dallacasa D., Dolag K., Taylor G. B., 2010, Astron. Astrophys., 513, A30 Bringma… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. χ 2 against m for four different annihilation channels (all following the NFW profile). Top left: the DM-only model; Top right: the combined model with the thermal annihilation cross sec￾tion (k = 3); Bottom: the combined model with the annihilation cross section being a free parameter (k = 4). 0.1 1 10 ν (GHz) 1 10 100 1000 0.1 1 10 ν (GHz) 1 10 100 1000 S (mJy) 0.1 1 10 1 10 100 1000 0.1 1 10 1 10 100 1000 S (mJy)… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The radio spectra for the best-fit scenarios of the DM￾only model (all following the NFW profile and B0 = 24.6 µG). Top left: e channel with m = 5 GeV; Top right: µ channel with m = 10 GeV; Bottom left: τ channel with m = 15 GeV; Bottom right: b channel with m = 110 Ge…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Keeley R

    Abazajian K. N., Keeley R. E., 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 083514

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Ackermann M. et al. , 2015, Astrophys. J., 809, L4

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Aguilar M. et al. , 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 081102

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Albert A. et al. , 2017, Astrophys. J., 834, 110

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    W., Schmidt, R

    Allen S. W., Schmidt, R. W., Fabian, A. C., 2001, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 328, L37

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Ambrosi G. et al. , 2017, Nature, 552, 63

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Anderson C. S. et al. , 2021, Publ. Astron. Soc. Aus., 38, 020

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Ando S., Ishiyama T., Hiroshima N., 2019, Galaxies, 7, 68

    work page 2019

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Arcadi G. et al. , 2024, arXiv:2403.15860

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Beck G., Sarkis M., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 023006

    2023

  3. [11]

    Biava N. et al. , 2021, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 508, 3995

    2021

  4. [12]

    Biava N. et al. , 2024, Astron. Astrophys., 686, A82

    2024

  5. [13]

    Biffi V. et al. , 2016, Astrophys. J., 827, 112

    2016

  6. [14]

    B., 2010, Astron

    Bonafede A., Feretti L., Murgia M., Govoni F., Giovannini G., Dallacasa D., Dolag K., Taylor G. B., 2010, Astron. Astrophys., 513, A30

    2010

  7. [15]

    E., Kahlhoefer F., Matuszak J., 2024, J

    Bringmann T., Gonzalo T. E., Kahlhoefer F., Matuszak J., 2024, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 05, 065

    2024

  8. [16]

    L., Safdi B

    Buschmann M., Rodd N. L., Safdi B. R., Chang L. J., Mishra-Sharma S., Lisanti M., Macias O., 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 023023

    2020

  9. [17]

    McCabe C., Weniger C., 2015, Phys

    Calore F., Cholis I. McCabe C., Weniger C., 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 063003

    2015

  10. [18]

    W., Donahue M., Voit G

    Cavagnolo K. W., Donahue M., Voit G. M., Sun M., 2009, Astrophys. J. Supp., 182, 12

    2009

  11. [19]

    Astrophys., 49, 137

    Cavaliere A., Fusco-Femiano R., 1976, Astron. Astrophys., 49, 137

    1976

  12. [20]

    Astrophys., 70, 677

    Cavaliere A., Fusco-Femiano R., 1978, Astron. Astrophys., 70, 677

    1978

  13. [21]

    Cirelli M. et al. , 2011, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 03, 051

    2011

  14. [22]

    H., Lee C

    Chan M. H., Lee C. M., 2022, Astrophys. J., 933, 130

    2022

  15. [23]

    H., Yeung C

    Chan M. H., Yeung C. F., Cui L., Leung C. S., 2021, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 501, 5692

    2021

  16. [24]

    H., Lee C

    Chan M. H., Lee C. M., Cui L., Chang N., Leung C. S., 2024, Astrophys. J., 962, 141

    2024

  17. [25]

    H., Lee C

    Chan M. H., Lee C. M., 2019, Phys. Dark Univ., 26, 100355

    2019

  18. [26]

    H., Lee C

    Chan M. H., Lee C. M., Ng C.-Y., Leung C. S., 2020, Astrophys. J., 900, 126

    2020

  19. [27]

    H., B\"ohringer H., Ikebe Y., Zhang Y.-Y., 2007, Astron

    Chen Y., Reiprich T. H., B\"ohringer H., Ikebe Y., Zhang Y.-Y., 2007, Astron. Astrophys., 466, 805

    2007

  20. [28]

    Davari, Z., Rahvar, S., 2021, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 507, 3387

    2021

  21. [29]

    Daylan T. et al. , 2016, Phys. Dark Univ., 12, 1

    2016

  22. [30]

    J., 239, L93

    Dennison B., 1980, Astrophys. J., 239, L93

    1980

  23. [31]

    E., 2022, Phys

    Egorov A. E., 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 023023

    2022

  24. [32]

    E., Pierpaolo E., 2013, Phys

    Egorov A. E., Pierpaolo E., 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 023504

    2013

  25. [33]

    A., Owen F

    Eilek J. A., Owen F. N., 2002, Astrophys. J., 567, 202

    2002

  26. [34]

    Einasto J., 1965, Trudy Inst. Astroz. Alma-Ata, 51, 87

    1965

  27. [35]

    Ettori S., 2000, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 318, 1041

    2000

  28. [36]

    L., 2023, SciPost Phys

    Feng J. L., 2023, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes, 71

    2023

  29. [37]

    J., 712, 147

    Fermi-LAT Collaboration, 2010, Astrophys. J., 712, 147

    2010

  30. [38]

    Fukuda H., Moroi T., Niki A., Wei S.-F., 2024, JHEP, 02, 214

    2024

  31. [39]

    A., Venturi T., Mazzotta P., Bourdin H., 2014, Astrophys

    Giacintucci S., Markevitch M., Brunetti G., ZuHone J. A., Venturi T., Mazzotta P., Bourdin H., 2014, Astrophys. J., 795 73

    2014

  32. [40]

    Govoni F. et al. , 2017, Astron. Astrophys., 603, A122

    2017

  33. [41]

    Grand R. J. J., White S. D. M., 2022, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 511, L55

    2022

  34. [42]

    Hudson D. S. et al. , 2010, Astron. Astrophys., 513, A37

    2010

  35. [43]

    J., 1977, Astrophys

    Jaffe W. J., 1977, Astrophys. J., 212, 1

    1977

  36. [44]

    Jim e nez-Bail o n E., Lozada-Mu n oz M., Aguerri J. A. L., 2013, Astronomische Nachrichten, 334, 377

    2013

  37. [45]

    R., Tingay S., 2019, Phys

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

    2019

  38. [46]

    Kiriu K., Kumar J., Runburg J., 2022, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 11, 030

    2022

  39. [47]

    W., Schekochihin A

    Kunz M. W., Schekochihin A. A., Cowley S. C., Binney J. J., Sanders J. S., 2011, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 410, 2446

    2011

  40. [48]

    Lavis N., Sarkis M., Beck G., Knowles K., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123536

    2023

  41. [49]

    J., 675, L9

    Mazzotta P., Giacintucci S., 2008, Astrophys. J., 675, L9

    2008

  42. [50]

    & Lake G., 1999, Mon

    Moore B., Quinn T., Governato F., Stadel J. & Lake G., 1999, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 310, 1147

    1999

  43. [51]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, Astrophys. J., 490, 493

    1997

  44. [52]

    Okoli, C., Afshordi, N., 2016, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 456, 3068

    2016

  45. [53]

    W., 2005, Astron

    Pointecouteau E., Arnaud M., Pratt G. W., 2005, Astron. Astrophys., 435, 1

    2005

  46. [54]

    Regis M., Reynoso-Cordova J., Filipovi\'c M. D. et al. , 2021, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 11, 046

    2021

  47. [55]

    J., 227, 364

    Rephaeli Y., 1979, Astrophys. J., 227, 364

    1979

  48. [56]

    Savini F. et al. , 2019, Astron. Astrophys., 622, A24

    2019

  49. [57]

    1987, Astron

    Schlickeiser R., Sievers A., and Thiemann, H. 1987, Astron. Astrophys., 182, 21

    1987

  50. [58]

    et al, 2008, MNRAS, 391, 685

    Springel V. et al, 2008, MNRAS, 391, 685

    2008

  51. [59]

    F., 2012, Phys

    Steigman G., Dasgupta B., Beacom J. F., 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 023506

    2012

  52. [60]

    E., Profumo S., Rudnick L., 2013, Astrophys

    Storm E., Jeltema T. E., Profumo S., Rudnick L., 2013, Astrophys. J., 768, 106

    2013

  53. [61]

    , Klein U., Wielebinski R., 2003, Astron

    Thierbach M. , Klein U., Wielebinski R., 2003, Astron. Astrophys., 397, 53

    2003

  54. [62]

    J., de Gasperin F., Akamatsu H., Br\"uggen M., Feretti L., Kang H., Stroe A

    van Weeren R. J., de Gasperin F., Akamatsu H., Br\"uggen M., Feretti L., Kang H., Stroe A. Zandanel F., 2019, Sp. Sci. Rev., 215, 16

    2019

  55. [63]

    Vikhlinin A. et al. , 2006, Astrophys. J., 640, 691

    2006

  56. [64]

    S., Fragione G., 2022, Astrophys

    Ye C. S., Fragione G., 2022, Astrophys. J., 940, 162

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.