Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Model-independent dark matter detection with the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Model-independent mixture infers dark matter annihilation ratios; CTAO projection reaches below thermal relic for 0.3-2.5 TeV.

desk verdict A useful multi-channel Bayesian framework for CTAO dark matter searches, but the abstract overclaims the ratio-recovery demonstration and the Dirichlet priors are unspecified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17172 v2 pith:BLPLAHLV submitted 2024-12-22 astro-ph.HE

Liam Pinchbeck , Csaba Balazs , Eric Thrane This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords darkmatterannihilationgamma-rayastronomyCherenkovTelescopeArrayObservatoryDirichletmixturemodelBayesianinferenceratiosGalacticCentreindirectdetection
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

This paper proposes a search for annihilating dark matter that does not commit to a specific particle candidate. Instead of fitting a single final state such as $W^+W^-$ or $\tau^+\tau^-$, the authors treat the annihilation ratios of seven standard-model channels as free parameters in a nested Dirichlet mixture model and infer them from $\gamma$-ray event data. In a simulated 525-hour CTAO observation of the Galactic Centre with an injected $5\sigma$ signal, the abstract states that the five dominant channels are reconstructed to within 95% credibility; the body demonstrates that the signal fraction, dark matter mass, and $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ are recovered, with the dominant $W^+W^-$ channel localised away from zero. In a background-only simulation the same framework yields projected upper limits on $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ below the thermal relic value for masses around 0.3-2.5 TeV. A successful run on real data would let one search constrain broad classes of dark matter models and test any proposed model's predicted annihilation ratios.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a nested Dirichlet mixture model: at each node of a tree, a Dirichlet prior assigns probabilities to a set of mutually exclusive event categories, so the weights are continuous and sum to one. The top node splits all events into signal and background; a second node splits the background into charged cosmic-ray misidentification, interstellar diffuse emission, and localised sources; a third splits localised sources into inner and outer regions; and a seven-component node splits the signal into dark-matter annihilation channels. The likelihood for an individual event is the weighted sum of the signal and background likelihoods, with each component marginalised over true energy and position through the CTAO instrument response functions. This construction replaces the choice of a specific particle model with a set of free mixture weights, which is what makes the search model-independent. The posterior is obtained with nested sampling inside the GammaBayes pipeline.

What would settle it

Reproduce the simulated $10^8$-event, 525-hour CTAO observation with the public GammaBayes code and compute posterior credible intervals for all seven annihilation ratios; the paper's Figure 7 shows the $W^+W^-$ weight localised and excluding zero at about $3\sigma$ while the other six channels remain near the Dirichlet prior, so the abstract's claim that five dominant channels are reconstructed to within 95% credibility can be checked directly from those posteriors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single Bayesian mixture model can serve as a model-independent template for indirect dark matter searches. The paper builds a tree of Dirichlet priors: a two-component split of all events into signal and background, a three-component split of the background into charged cosmic-ray misidentification, interstellar diffuse emission, and localised sources (the last further split into inner and outer Galactic-Centre regions), and a seven-component Dirichlet prior over the annihilation ratios $B_f$ for $W^+W^-$, $ZZ$, $HH$, $t\bar t$, $b\bar b$, $\tau^+\tau^-$, and $gg$. Because the $B_f$ are free parameters, no particle model is assumed. The per-event likelihood is marginalised over true energy and sky position using CTAO's energy dispersion, point-spread function, and effective area, and the posterior is sampled with nested sampling inside the GammaBayes pipeline. In the injected-signal simulation the true $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ and $m_\chi$ fall inside the $1\sigma$ posterior contours, and in the background-only simulation the 95% upper limits on $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ fall below the thermal relic value over part of the mass range.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the interstellar emission background model, a Fermi-LAT Pass 8 morphology with a power-law spectrum, is accurate in the Galactic Centre region; if that diffuse emission is mis-modeled, the error could be absorbed into the inferred dark matter signal and bias the recovered annihilation ratios.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detection would not just establish dark matter annihilation; it would produce posterior distributions for the relative rates into each standard-model channel, directly identifying the dominant final states.
  • Because any concrete dark matter model predicts a specific set of annihilation ratios, the credible regions from this method give a ready-made Bayesian model comparison without running a separate search for each candidate.
  • The projected sensitivity below the thermal relic value shows that a model-independent search can remain competitive with single-channel searches, so generality does not necessarily cost discovery reach.
  • The tree structure is modular, so additional background components, additional signal channels, or a continuous mass scan can be added without changing the inference machinery.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the event-level likelihood is built from generic instrument response functions, the same mixture tree could be applied to other gamma-ray observatories, such as Fermi-LAT or future ground-based arrays, by swapping in their IRFs; this is not demonstrated in the paper but follows directly from the formalism.
  • A direct systematic stress test would be to run the pipeline on simulated data with a deliberately perturbed interstellar-emission model; the shift in the recovered annihilation ratios would quantify the diffuse-background uncertainty the paper flags in Appendix B.3.
  • Introducing a discrete parameter that scales the J-factor as $\rho^2$ (annihilation) or $\rho$ (decay) would extend the same tree to dark matter decay searches, building on the paper's stated future-work direction.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Bayesian mixture-model framework, implemented in the GammaBayes pipeline, for inferring dark matter annihilation ratios (branching fractions) from gamma-ray event data without assuming a single particle model. The authors simulate 10^8 CTAO events toward the Galactic Centre with 5×10^5 injected dark matter events from a Z2 scalar singlet model, and show that the total signal fraction is recovered at a 5σ credible level. They use the same framework to project 95% upper limits on the velocity-weighted annihilation cross-section ⟨σv⟩ for masses between 0.1 and 100 TeV, claiming sensitivity below the thermal relic cross-section for 525 hours of observation.

Significance. If the five-channel reconstruction claim could be substantiated, this would be a valuable addition to indirect-detection methodology: it would allow model-agnostic channel decomposition and model comparison. The closed-loop simulation study is reproducible in principle (public IRFs, GammaBayes pipeline), and the sensitivity projection is an instructive demonstration. However, the central quantitative claim in the abstract is not supported by the paper's own figure; as it stands, the paper demonstrates total-signal detection and partial channel discrimination (one channel localized) rather than five-channel reconstruction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4; Fig. 7] The abstract states that 'Given a 5σ signal, we reconstruct the annihilation ratios for five dominant channels to within 95% credibility.' This is contradicted by the paper's own results. The Fig. 7 caption reports that only the W+W- channel is localized (around 0.48, versus the injected 0.606) and excludes zero only at 3σ, while the other channels 'cannot be resolved away from zero' and 'follow the prior distribution.' Thus the demonstration shows reconstruction of, at most, one channel, and even that reconstruction is visibly offset from the injected value. If 'within 95% credibility' is intended as a coverage statement, no coverage analysis is presented; if it is intended as a statement about posterior width, Fig. 7 shows the opposite. Moreover, the injected signal in Table 1 has only four non-zero channels (WW, ZZ, HH, tt), so a claim of reconstructing 'five dominant channels' is not even matched by the demonstration. This claim must be either substantiated with a new demonstration (e.g., higher statistics or a different injection that actually resolves five channels) or revised.
  2. [Eq. (3.3); Section 3] The values of the Dirichlet hyperparameters α are never specified for any of the four priors. Since the Dirichlet parameters control the prior on the annihilation ratios, and since Fig. 7 indicates that most posterior distributions 'follow the prior,' it is impossible to assess how much of the reported channel reconstruction is driven by the prior rather than the data. Please provide the α vectors used in the analysis and, ideally, a test of prior sensitivity (e.g., a uniform α=1 prior versus a mildly informative prior).
  3. [Section 5; Appendix B.3] The projected sensitivity in Fig. 9 is obtained by injecting and fitting with the same interstellar emission model. As the authors acknowledge in Appendix B.3, the diffuse background near the Galactic Centre is not fully understood and could bias a result. Because no systematic uncertainty from background mismodeling is included in the projected ⟨σv⟩ limits, the real-world sensitivity may be optimistic. Even if a full systematic treatment is out of scope, the caveat should be stated prominently in Section 5, or an injection with a deliberately mismodeled background should be used to quantify the bias.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Section 5] The abstract in the manuscript states that sensitivity below the thermal relic is achieved for masses between 0.3-2.5 TeV, whereas the quoted abstract in the submission says 0.3-5 TeV; please ensure the stated range matches Fig. 9 and the final text.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption states that the simulation includes 10^5 dark matter events, while Section 4 states 5×10^5; the number in the caption is inconsistent with the stated signal fraction of 0.005.
  3. [Section 4] The paper states that the signal is a '5σ' detection based on the 5σ credible interval for the signal fraction; since this is a Bayesian credible interval, the label '5σ' could be confused with a frequentist significance, so the terminology should be clarified.
  4. [Fig. 7 caption] The phrase 'based on anecdotal testing' is informal and should be replaced with a quantitative statement, such as the expected local evidence or a second simulation with ten times the data.
  5. [Section 5] The text refers to '2 σ credibility contour values' but Fig. 9 shows 95% credibility upper limits; please make the correspondence between the contour level and the reported limits explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the annihilation-ratio recovery is a free-parameter inference on simulated data, not a fit to the claimed result.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a closed-loop simulation study, not a circular argument. True annihilation ratios (Table 1) are imposed externally by choosing a Z2 scalar-singlet model, injected into simulated CTAO events, and then recovered by treating the seven Bf as free parameters under a Dirichlet prior (Eqs. 3.1-3.4). The posterior on these ratios is not obtained by fitting the target claim; the likelihood in Eq. 3.4 explicitly uses the data and the free mixture weights. The conversion to a posterior on <sigma v> is obtained by rearranging the standard flux formula (Eq. 2.2) and using posterior samples of mass, signal fraction, and annihilation ratios; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The sensitivity projection in Section 5 is generated from a separate background-only simulation with the signal fraction set to zero, which is a standard sensitivity calculation. The only self-citation, GammaBayes [20], supplies computational machinery (nested sampling and nuisance marginalisation) and does not determine the recovered ratios or the sensitivity limit. Appendix B.3's caveat about the interstellar emission model and Fig. 7's caption admitting that only the W+W- channel is resolved and the others follow the prior concern the strength and validity of the abstract's 'five dominant channels' claim, but they are not examples of circularity: the inference is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The Dirichlet hyperparameters alpha in Eq. 3.3 are not specified, which is a reporting gap, not a circular step. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted and exhibited from the paper's own equations or self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard astrophysical inputs (dark matter profile, local density, background models) and a fixed set of seven annihilation channels. The Dirichlet hyperparameters are the only hand-chosen free parameters, and they are not specified in the text.

free parameters (1)
  • Dirichlet prior hyperparameters alpha = not stated
    The paper states it employs four Dirichlet priors but does not give the alpha values. These choices control the prior width and shrinkage of the annihilation ratios and background weights, and they affect the reported posteriors and limits.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Einasto dark matter density profile with aE=0.17, local density 0.4 GeV/cm^3, and scale radius 20 kpc accurately describes the Milky Way dark matter distribution.
    Used to compute the J-factor in Eq. 2.3, converting signal events to the annihilation cross-section. If the profile is wrong, the derived cross-section limits shift.
  • domain assumption The dark matter annihilation spectra for the seven channels are correctly given by the Poor Particle Physicists Cookbook.
    The signal templates in the mixture model depend on these spectra; errors would bias the recovered channel ratios.
  • domain assumption The interstellar emission background model (Fermi Pass 8 morphology with the Gaggero et al. spectrum) is accurate in the Galactic Centre region.
    The authors note in Appendix B.3 that this component is not completely understood and could bias results. It is a critical background that could be degenerate with the dark matter signal.
  • domain assumption The CTAO prod5 v0.1 instrument response functions are representative of the real observatory.
    The simulated data and projected limits are based on these IRFs; real instrument performance may differ.
  • ad hoc to paper Dark matter annihilation proceeds through exactly these seven standard-model final states: W+W-, ZZ, HH, t+t-, b+b-, tau+tau-, and gg.
    The framework fixes the channel set; other final states or exotic decay modes are not modeled, limiting the claimed model independence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Model-independent dark matter detection with the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BLPLAHLV

@misc{pith2026241217172,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Model-independent dark matter detection with the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BLPLAHLV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17172}
}
abstract

Searches for annihilating dark matter are often designed with a specific dark matter candidate in mind. However, the space of potential dark matter models is vast, which raises the question: how can we search for dark matter without making strong assumptions about unknown physics. We present a model-independent approach for measuring dark matter annihilation ratios and branching fractions with $\gamma$-ray event data. By parameterizing the annihilation ratios for seven different channels, we obviate the need to search for a specific dark matter candidate. To demonstrate our approach, we analyse simulated data using the GammaBayes pipeline. Given a 5$\sigma$ signal, we reconstruct the annihilation ratios for five dominant channels to within 95% credibility. This allows us to reconstruct dark matter annihilation/decay channels without presuming any particular model, thus offering a model-independent approach to indirect dark matter searches in $\gamma$-ray astronomy. This approach shows that for masses between 0.3-5 TeV we can probe values below the thermal relic velocity annihilation weighted cross-section allowing a 2$\sigma$ detection for 525 hours of simulated observation data by the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory of the Galactic Centre.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    CTA Consortium, Sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array to a dark matter signal from the Galactic centre , JCAP 01 (2021) 057 [ 2007.16129]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [20]

    GammaBayes: a Bayesian pipeline for dark matter detection with CTA

    L. ”Pinchbeck, E. Thrane and C. Balazs, GammaBayes: a Bayesian pipeline for dark matter detection with CTA, JCAP 05 (2024) 020 [ 2401.13876]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, History of dark matter , Reviews of Modern Physics 90 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [2]

    Zwicky, Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln , Helv

    F. Zwicky, Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln , Helv. Phys. Acta 6 (1933) 110

    work page 1933

  5. [3]

    Zwicky, Republication of: The redshift of extragalactic nebulae , General Relativity and Gravitation 41 (2009) 207

    F. Zwicky, Republication of: The redshift of extragalactic nebulae , General Relativity and Gravitation 41 (2009) 207

    work page 2009

  6. [4]

    Slatyer, Les houches lectures on indirect detection of dark matter , SciPost Physics Lecture Notes (2022)

    T. Slatyer, Les houches lectures on indirect detection of dark matter , SciPost Physics Lecture Notes (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [5]

    Arcadi, M

    G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre et al., The waning of the wimp? a review of models, searches, and constraints , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 203 [1703.07364]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [6]

    Funk, Indirect detection of dark matter with gamma-rays , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (2015) 12264 [https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1308728111]

    S. Funk, Indirect detection of dark matter with gamma-rays , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (2015) 12264 [https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1308728111]

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1308728111 2015

Show all 38 references
  1. [7]

    School and Workshops on Elementary Particle Physics and Gravity

    E. Prandini, K. Dialektopoulos and J. Striˇ skovi´ c,Gamma rays: propagation and detection , in Proceedings of Corfu Summer Institute 2021 “School and Workshops on Elementary Particle Physics and Gravity” — PoS(CORFU2021) , CORFU2021, Sissa Medialab, Nov., 2022, DOI

    2021

  2. [9]

    CTAO collaboration, Dark matter line searches with the Cherenkov Telescope Array , JCAP 07 (2024) 047 [ 2403.04857]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Cholis, T

    I. Cholis, T. Linden and D. Hooper, A Robust Excess in the Cosmic-Ray Antiproton Spectrum: Implications for Annihilating Dark Matter , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 103026 [ 1903.02549]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Reinert and M.W

    A. Reinert and M.W. Winkler, A Precision Search for WIMPs with Charged Cosmic Rays , JCAP 01 (2018) 055 [ 1712.00002]. – 17 –

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    IceCube collaboration, Search for neutrino lines from dark matter annihilation and decay with IceCube, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 102004 [ 2303.13663]

    2023

  6. [13]

    ANTARES, IceCubecollaboration, Combined search for neutrinos from dark matter self-annihilation in the Galactic Center with ANTARES and IceCube , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 082002 [2003.06614]

    2020

  7. [14]

    Abdalla, F

    H. Abdalla, F. Aharonian, F.A. Benkhali, E. Ang¨ uner, C. Armand, H. Ashkar et al., Search for dark matter annihilation signals in the h.e.s.s. inner galaxy survey , Physical Review Letters 129 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    MAGIC, Fermi-LATcollaboration, Limits to Dark Matter Annihilation Cross-Section from a Combined Analysis of MAGIC and Fermi-LAT Observations of Dwarf Satellite Galaxies , JCAP 02 (2016) 039 [ 1601.06590]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Cirelli, G

    M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. H¨ utsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci et al., Pppc 4 dm id: a poor particle physicist cookbook for dark matter indirect detection , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2011 (2011) 051–051

    2011

  10. [17]

    Ciafaloni, D

    P. Ciafaloni, D. Comelli, A. Riotto, F. Sala, A. Strumia and A. Urbano, Weak corrections are relevant for dark matter indirect detection , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2011 (2011) 019–019

    2011

  11. [18]

    J. Einasto, On the Construction of a Composite Model for the Galaxy and on the Determination of the System of Galactic Parameters , Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata 5 (1965) 87

    1965

  12. [19]

    Baes, Maarten, The einasto model for dark matter haloes , Astronomy and Astrophysics 667 (2022) A47

    2022

  13. [21]

    Gelman, J.B

    A. Gelman, J.B. Carlin, H.S. Stern, D.B. Dunson, A. Vehtari and D.B. Rubin, Bayesian Data Analysis, CRC Press, third ed. (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Acharya et al., Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array, WSP (11, 2018), 10.1142/10986, [ 1709.07997]

    CTA Consortiumcollaboration, B.S. Acharya et al., Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array, WSP (11, 2018), 10.1142/10986, [ 1709.07997]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    de Salas and A

    P.F. de Salas and A. Widmark, Dark matter local density determination: recent observations and future prospects, Reports on Progress in Physics 84 (2021) 104901

    2021

  16. [24]

    Speagle, DYNESTY: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences , MNRAS 493 (2020) 3132 [ 1904.02180]

    J.S. Speagle, DYNESTY: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences , MNRAS 493 (2020) 3132 [ 1904.02180]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Koposov et al., joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.4 , June, 2024

    S. Koposov et al., joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.4 , June, 2024. 10.5281/zenodo.12537467

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Steigman, B

    G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta and J.F. Beacom, Precise relic wimp abundance and its impact on searches for dark matter annihilation , Physical Review D 86 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Observatory and C.T.A

    C.T.A. Observatory and C.T.A. Consortium, CTAO Instrument Response Functions - prod5 version v0.1 , Sept., 2021. 10.5281/zenodo.5499840

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Berge, S

    D. Berge, S. Funk and J. Hinton, Background Modelling in Very-High-Energy gamma-ray Astronomy, Astron. Astrophys. 466 (2007) 1219 [ astro-ph/0610959]

    2007 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Mohrmann, A

    L. Mohrmann, A. Specovius, D. Tiziani, S. Funk, D. Malyshev, K. Nakashima et al., Validation of open-source science tools and background model construction in γ-ray astronomy, Astron. Astrophys. 632 (2019) A72 [ 1910.08088]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gaggero, D

    D. Gaggero, D. Grasso, A. Marinelli, M. Taoso and A. Urbano, Diffuse cosmic rays shining in the galactic center: A novel interpretation of h.e.s.s. and fermi-LAT , Physical Review Letters 119 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Sciascio, Ground-based gamma-ray astronomy: an introduction , Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1263 (2019) 012003

    G.D. Sciascio, Ground-based gamma-ray astronomy: an introduction , Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1263 (2019) 012003. – 18 –

    2019

  24. [32]

    Rowell, Gamma-ray astronomy, in Multimessenger Astronomy in Practice: Celestial Sources in Action, M.D

    G. Rowell, Gamma-ray astronomy, in Multimessenger Astronomy in Practice: Celestial Sources in Action, M.D. Filipovi´ c and N.F.H. Tothill, eds., pp. 7–1 (2021), DOI

    2021

  25. [33]

    Weekes, The atmospheric cherenkov imaging technique for very high energy gamma-ray astronomy, astro-ph/0508253

    T.C. Weekes, The atmospheric cherenkov imaging technique for very high energy gamma-ray astronomy, astro-ph/0508253

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    CTA Consortiumcollaboration, Monte Carlo design studies for the Cherenkov Telescope Array, Astropart. Phys. 43 (2013) 171 [ 1210.3503]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bernlohr, Simulation of Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes with CORSIKA and sim telarray, Astropart

    K. Bernlohr, Simulation of Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes with CORSIKA and sim telarray, Astropart. Phys. 30 (2008) 149 [ 0808.2253]

    2008 arXiv

  28. [36]

    galactic plane survey , Astronomy and Astrophysics 612 (2018) A1

    HESS collaboration, The h.e.s.s. galactic plane survey , Astronomy and Astrophysics 612 (2018) A1

    2018

  29. [37]

    Fermi-LAT collaboration, Development of the Model of Galactic Interstellar Emission for Standard Point-Source Analysis of Fermi Large Area Telescope Data , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 223 (2016) 26 [ 1602.07246]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Fermi-LAT collaboration, Fermi-LAT Observations of the Diffuse γ-Ray Emission: Implications for Cosmic Rays and the Interstellar Medium , ApJ 750 (2012) 3 [ 1202.4039]. – 19 –

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

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