Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The paper argues that CTAO's projected gamma-ray line searches will probe dark matter interaction scales above 10 TeV, up to 67 TeV from the Galactic Centre.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 21:23 UTC pith:XXGAMUWL

load-bearing objection Useful CTAO forecast for gamma-ray-line DM operators, but the headline 67 TeV bound sits outside the EFT's controlled regime. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08050 v1 pith:XXGAMUWL submitted 2025-09-09 hep-ph hep-exhep-th

Constraining Effective Field Theories for dark matter candidates annihilating into gamma-ray lines with CTAO

Lucia Angel , Debasish Borah , Jacinto P. Neto , Farinaldo S. Queiroz , Vitor de Souza This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-th
keywords dark matter annihilationgamma-ray lineseffective field theoryCherenkov Telescope Array Observatoryindirect detectionGalactic Centredwarf spheroidal galaxiesannihilation cross-section
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks what the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory (CTAO) could discover about dark matter that annihilates into monochromatic gamma-ray lines. Using a minimal effective-field-theory description with just two free parameters, the dark matter mass and an interaction scale Λ, the authors convert CTAO's projected line sensitivity toward the Galactic Centre and dwarf spheroidal galaxies into lower bounds on Λ. They claim CTAO will probe scales above 10 TeV, reaching about 67 TeV for the fermionic operator at a dark matter mass of 100 TeV. For scalar dark matter, which produces no direct-detection signal, CTAO would be a discovery channel; for the fermionic operator, xenon experiments already set stronger limits, so CTAO is complementary. The significance is that gamma-ray lines are a nearly background-free 'smoking gun' signature, so these projections define what a future positive or null measurement would mean for the scale of new physics.

Core claim

The central result is a set of projected lower bounds on the effective energy scale Λ for the lowest-order operators that make scalar (S) or fermion (χ) dark matter annihilate into γγ and γZ lines: Λ^{-2} SS* B_{μν}B^{μν}, Λ^{-2} SS* W^a_{μν}W^{a μν}, and Λ^{-1} χ̄γ^{μν}χ B_{μν}. The authors compute the thermally averaged annihilation cross sections, fold in the instrument's ~10% energy resolution through a step function that merges the γγ and γZ lines when their energy separation is unresolved, and convert CTAO's expected 95% C.L. sensitivity into lower limits on Λ. For the Galactic Centre they find Λ_min ≈ 45.65 TeV (S1), 39.73 TeV (S2), and 67.11 TeV (F) at m_X = 100 TeV, with dwarf spher

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the lowest-order effective operators that connect a dark matter bilinear to electroweak field strengths: S1 = Λ^{-2} SS* B_{μν}B^{μν}, S2 = Λ^{-2} SS* W^a_{μν}W^{a μν} for a complex scalar, and F = Λ^{-1} χ̄γ^{μν}χ B_{μν} for a Dirac fermion, together with their dual-tensor partners. These operators fix the annihilation cross sections into γγ and γZ lines, which scale as m_X^2/Λ^4 (and, for the fermion, arise at second order in the operator), and they also generate the continuum and direct-detection rates used for comparison. The calculation's bridge is the flux formula that turns a projected line sensitivity into a bound on Λ, with an energy-resolution step func

Load-bearing premise

The limits rest on the effective interaction being a valid approximation, which requires the cutoff scale Λ to be larger than roughly twice the dark matter mass; the paper's own Table 4 quotes Λ_min values below that threshold at m_X = 100 TeV, so the strongest headline bounds sit where the approximation is not under control.

What would settle it

The cleanest test is to replace the contact operator with a resolved mediator of mass M > 2 m_X and compute the γγ line cross-section at m_X = 100 TeV. If the UV-complete rate falls below CTAO's projected sensitivity while the EFT cross-section exceeds it, then the quoted Λ ≈ 67 TeV bound is an artifact of the truncated expansion. Conversely, if CTAO later detects a line at the flux corresponding to Λ = 67 TeV, the EFT cross-section formula would be supported. Until such a comparison or detection exists, the Λ_min values in Table 4 should be considered EFT projections, not measurements of a fu

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A null CTAO line search toward the Galactic Centre would exclude effective scales Λ ≳ 10 TeV for TeV-scale dark matter, reaching roughly 46 TeV, 40 TeV, and 67 TeV for the S1, S2, and F operators at m_X = 100 TeV.
  • For the scalar operators S1 and S2, which leave no direct-detection signal, CTAO would provide the leading constraint: a detected line would fix the dark matter mass from the photon energy and the interaction scale from the flux.
  • For the fermionic operator, XENON1T, XENONnT, and LUX-ZEPLIN already constrain Λ more strongly than any gamma-ray instrument, so CTAO line searches are complementary rather than decisive for that operator.
  • Including the unresolved γZ line strengthens the projected bounds, since the summed γγ + γZ cross section is larger whenever the energy resolution cannot separate the two lines.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that the headline Λ_min values at m_X = 100 TeV (45.65, 39.73, and 67.11 TeV) all lie below 2 m_X = 200 TeV, so these strongest bounds sit where the contact-operator expansion is not parametrically controlled; a reader should treat them as projections of the truncated EFT rather than as robust constraints on a full ultraviolet theory.
  • The same formalism could be inverted: a future line detection would let one compare γγ and γZ line strengths, whose relative size depends on the electroweak mixing angle (Weinberg angle) and therefore distinguishes the B-field operator from the W-field operator.
  • Because the γγ and γZ lines merge whenever ΔE/E ≳ m_Z^2/(4 m_X^2), an improved energy resolution below the assumed 10% would extend the reach of these projections toward lower dark matter masses, where the two lines are currently blended.
  • For scalar dark matter, where direct detection is blind, a null CTAO line result would push the operator scale into a region that no other current experiment can test; the paper's comparison suggests this is the most promising place to look for a discovery.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses the projected CTAO sensitivity to gamma-ray lines from Ref. [9] to derive lower bounds on the effective cutoff Λ for four dimension-6 scalar dark matter operators (S1–S4) and two dimension-5 fermionic operators (F1, F2), for annihilation into γγ and γZ. It computes thermally averaged cross-sections, adds the γZ contribution depending on the detector energy resolution, and converts the CTAO 95% C.L. line sensitivities into lower limits on Λ for the Galactic Centre and dwarf spheroidal galaxies. It compares these with H.E.S.S. line limits, continuum gamma-ray bounds, and direct-detection limits for the fermionic dipole operator, concluding that CTAO can probe Λ above 10 TeV, up to about 67 TeV.

Significance. If the projected sensitivities and the cross-section formulas are correct, the lower-mass part of the paper provides useful EFT projections for CTAO line searches and a clear comparison with direct-detection and continuum constraints. The use of the public CTAO sensitivity from Ref. [9] is a strength, as is the explicit treatment of the γγ/γZ line separation through the energy resolution. However, the high-mass headline is undercut by the EFT validity condition, and the fermionic cross-sections are not derived in the manuscript. The lower-mass rows (m_X ≲ 10 TeV) are not affected by the validity objection, so the broader conclusion that CTAO will be competitive and complementary is likely to survive a revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Table 4] The EFT validity criterion is misstated for annihilation. For XX→γγ the relevant scale is √s = 2m_X, not m_X as claimed in Sec. 3. Table 4 quotes at m_X=100 TeV, for the GC, Λ_min = 45.65 TeV (S1), 39.73 TeV (S2), and 67.11 TeV (F), all below 2m_X=200 TeV; the corresponding expansion parameters s/Λ² are about 19, 25, and 9. The conclusion in Sec. 7, 'CTAO will be able to probe effective energy scales up to 67 TeV', therefore rests on an uncontrolled contact-operator extrapolation. The m_X ≤ 10 TeV rows mostly satisfy Λ_min > 2m_X and are not affected. Please either restrict the headline claim to the controlled mass range or impose Λ_min > 2m_X as a self-consistency cut and recompute the reach accordingly.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (4.10)–(4.11)] The fermionic γγ and γZ cross-sections are stated without derivation. The text only says 'we have to go to second-order perturbation theory' and then quotes Eqs. (4.10) and (4.11). Since the fermionic limits in Fig. 5 and Table 4 are a central result, the calculation should be shown in an appendix or a direct reference should be given. In particular, the numerical factor 8/π, the cos⁴θ_W dependence, and the phase-space factor in Eq. (4.11) need to be checked. The same comment applies to the assertion that S3 and S4 have the same cross-sections as S1 and S2; that equivalence is not demonstrated.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (4.2)] The normalization of Eq. (4.2) is unclear and dimensionally inconsistent as written: after canceling E3, dσ0/dΩ has the dimensions of a dimensionless quantity divided by v, whereas a two-body cross-section must have mass dimension −2. The final scalar results in Eqs. (4.6)–(4.9) are standard, but the derivation path in the text cannot be reproduced from Eq. (4.2). Please rewrite the formula with an explicit phase-space factor and the standard 1/s or 1/m_X² normalization.
  4. [Section 6, Table 4] No J-factor or CTAO systematic uncertainties are propagated. The limits in Table 4 are quoted to four significant figures, despite the well-known large uncertainty in the Galactic Centre J-factor and the simplifying assumption of the Einasto profile. The paper should state the J-factor values used (from Ref. [9] or otherwise) and either include their uncertainties in the quoted limits or explicitly label the numbers as benchmark values. The statement that dSphs give 'more solid' limits would benefit from a quantitative treatment or at least a caveat.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Table 1] The equivalence of S3/S4 to S1/S2 is asserted in the text but not shown. Since S3/S4 are CP-odd, it would be helpful to display the polarization-summed amplitude or state explicitly that the squared amplitudes coincide for on-shell photons.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (4.10)–(4.11)] The hypercharge of the dark matter particle in the operators F1/F2 is not specified. The cross-section formulas appear to assume unit hypercharge; this should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Section 4, after Eq. (4.11)] The assumption Λ_F1 = Λ_F2 = Λ_F is stated without motivation. A brief comment on the implied symmetry or UV scenario would help the reader assess the generality of the limits.
  4. [Section 6, Fig. 5] The text says 'we also exhibit the current limits from H.E.S.S.' but it is not clear whether panels (a) and (b) include a H.E.S.S. curve; please ensure the legend and the caption match the content.
  5. [General] There are several typos and grammatical issues, e.g., 'curveslopedown' in Sec. 4, 'direct direction' in Sec. 6, and 'the same formalism is applied' should read 'the same formalism is used'. A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the Λ bounds are a direct translation of independent CTAO projected line sensitivities through analytic EFT cross-sections; the high-mass EFT-validity issue is a correctness concern, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's central results are projected lower bounds on the effective energy scale Λ for a set of lowest-order EFT operators. These bounds are obtained by equating analytic annihilation cross-section formulas (Sec. 4, Eqs. 4.6–4.11) to the CTAO projected gamma-ray line sensitivity, which is taken from the separate CTAO collaboration paper [9]. No parameter is fitted to the CTAO curves, and no output of the present paper is fed back into the sensitivity calculation; solving ⟨σv⟩(m_X, Λ) = ⟨σv⟩_CTAO for Λ is a one-to-one translation of an external benchmark into an EFT parameter, not a prediction that reduces to its input by construction. The CTAO sensitivity and Einasto J-factor are imported from external collaboration papers [9, 34], and the H.E.S.S. comparison curve uses [43] only for context, with the underlying data from H.E.S.S. [7]. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The main weaknesses are non-circular: the fermionic cross-section in Eq. (4.10) is asserted rather than derived in detail, and the m_X = 100 TeV rows of Table 4 have Λ_min below 2m_X, so the EFT expansion is not controlled at those benchmarks. These are correctness/validity risks, not circularity, because they do not make the derived limits equivalent to the assumed inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or extra dimensions are introduced; the analysis uses established EFT contact operators. The central claims rest on the chosen operator basis with unit Wilson coefficients, the assumed validity of the EFT at the quoted benchmarks, the public CTAO Alpha sensitivity, and the external direct-detection packages.

free parameters (3)
  • Dark matter mass m_X = scanned from 0.1 to 100 TeV
    Input parameter of the model; all limits are presented as functions of it.
  • Effective scale Λ_O for each operator (S1, S2, F) = not fitted; constrained to lower bounds in Table 4
    Central output of the paper; the EFT interaction strength is encoded in Λ with Wilson coefficients set to unity.
  • Operator Wilson coefficients = 1 (by convention)
    All operators are normalized with coefficient 1 and Λ carries the strength; an arbitrary but conventional choice that sets the meaning of the derived limits.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Standard quantum field theory cross-section calculus, including phase space factors and spin sums.
    Used throughout Section 4 without further proof.
  • domain assumption The dark sector consists of a complex scalar S or a Dirac fermion χ, both singlets under the SM gauge group, with a stabilizing symmetry; Tables 1 and 2 list the complete lowest-order operators producing γγ and γZ lines.
    Section 3 restricts the analysis to these candidates and operator sets.
  • domain assumption The effective field theory is valid at annihilation energies, i.e., Λ is above the typical momentum transfer.
    Section 3 states the momentum transfer is of order m_X, but no validity cut Λ > m_X or Λ > 2 m_X is imposed on the plotted bounds; Table 4 violates this at m_X = 100 TeV.
  • domain assumption CTAO Alpha configuration projected sensitivity from ref. [9] is a faithful description of the future instrument.
    All gamma-ray line forecasts inherit this external sensitivity curve.
  • ad hoc to paper Λ_F1 = Λ_F2 = Λ_F and equivalent equalities for scalar operators; no operator mixing or renormalization running is considered.
    Section 4 states 'We assume Λ_F1 = Λ_F2 = Λ_F throughout.' This simplification affects the relative strength of γγ and γZ lines.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16085 in / 21317 out tokens · 260294 ms · 2026-08-04T21:23:45.412399+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gamma-ray lines constitute a smoking gun signature for annihilating dark matter particles. Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes and satellites have searched for such signals but null results have been reported thus far. We take advantage of the expected gamma-ray flux sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory (CTAO) toward the direction of the Galactic Centre and Dwarf Galaxies and its exquisite energy resolution to derive upper limits on fermionic and scalar dark matter annihilations into gamma-ray lines. We consider the lowest-order effective operators for scalar and fermion dark matter, and derive limits on the energy scale using the recent CTAO projected sensitivity. Putting our findings into perspective with existing limits from direct and indirect detection experiments, we conclude that CTAO will either play a complementary role or be a discovery channel for dark matter signals.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Dark Matter as a Source for Lepton Flavor Violation

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A dark matter fermion is shown to simultaneously explain the relic density, satisfy direct detection and collider bounds, and produce observable rates for muon-to-electron transitions in a viable parameter region.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 16 internal anchors

  1. [8]

    J. W. Foster, Y. Park, B. R. Safdi, Y. Soreq, and W. L. Xu,Search for dark matter lines at the Galactic Center with 14 years of Fermi data,Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 10 103047, [2212.07435]. [9]CT AOCollaboration, S. Abeet. al.,Dark matter line searches with the Cherenkov Telescope Array,JCAP07(2024) 047, [2403.04857]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [10]

    Bringmann and C

    T. Bringmann and C. Weniger,Gamma Ray Signals from Dark Matter: Concepts, Status and Prospects,Phys. Dark Univ.1(2012) 194–217, [1208.5481]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [11]

    J. M. Gaskins,A review of indirect searches for particle dark matter,Contemp. Phys.57(2016), no. 4 496–525, [1604.00014]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [12]

    Pérez de los Heros,Status, Challenges and Directions in Indirect Dark Matter Searches, Symmetry12(2020), no

    C. Pérez de los Heros,Status, Challenges and Directions in Indirect Dark Matter Searches, Symmetry12(2020), no. 10 1648, [2008.11561]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [13]

    K. N. Abazajian, S. Blanchet, and J. P. Harding,Current and Future Constraints on Dark Matter from Prompt and Inverse-Compton Photon Emission in the Isotropic Diffuse Gamma-ray Background,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 043509, [1011.5090]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  6. [14]

    K. N. Abazajian, P. Agrawal, Z. Chacko, and C. Kilic,Conservative Constraints on Dark Matter from the Fermi-LAT Isotropic Diffuse Gamma-Ray Background Spectrum,JCAP11(2010) 041, [1002.3820]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  7. [15]

    On the Relevance of Sharp Gamma-Ray Features for Indirect Dark Matter Searches

    T. Bringmann, F. Calore, G. Vertongen, and C. Weniger,On the Relevance of Sharp Gamma-Ray Features for Indirect Dark Matter Searches,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 103525, [1106.1874]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  8. [16]

    K. N. Abazajian, P. Agrawal, Z. Chacko, and C. Kilic,Lower Limits on the Strengths of Gamma Ray Lines from WIMP Dark Matter Annihilation,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 123543, [1111.2835]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  9. [17]

    K. N. Abazajian and J. P. Harding,Constraints on WIMP and Sommerfeld-Enhanced Dark Matter Annihilation from HESS Observations of the Galactic Center,JCAP01(2012) 041, [1110.6151]. [18]F ermi-LA TCollaboration, M. Ackermannet. al.,Searching for Dark Matter Annihilation from Milky Way Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies with Six Years of Fermi Large Area Telescope Da...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [19]

    M. G. Baring, T. Ghosh, F. S. Queiroz, and K. Sinha,New Limits on the Dark Matter Lifetime from Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies using Fermi-LAT,Phys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 10 103009, [1510.00389]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [20]

    Novel Gamma-ray Spectral Features in the Inert Doublet Model

    C. Garcia-Cely and A. Ibarra,Novel Gamma-ray Spectral Features in the Inert Doublet Model, JCAP09(2013) 025, [1306.4681]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  12. [21]

    F. S. Queiroz, C. E. Yaguna, and C. Weniger,Gamma-ray Limits on Neutrino Lines,JCAP05 (2016) 050, [1602.05966]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [22]

    Extending Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. Limits on Gamma-ray Lines from Dark Matter Annihilation

    S. Profumo, F. S. Queiroz, and C. E. Yaguna,Extending Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. Limits on Gamma-ray Lines from Dark Matter Annihilation,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.461(2016), no. 4 3976–3981, [1602.08501]. [23]H.E.S.S.Collaboration, H. Abdallahet. al.,Search for dark matter annihilations towards the inner Galactic halo from 10 years of observations with H.E.S...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [24]

    Profumo, F

    S. Profumo, F. S. Queiroz, J. Silk, and C. Siqueira,Searching for Secluded Dark Matter with H.E.S.S., Fermi-LAT, and Planck,JCAP03(2018) 010, [1711.03133]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [25]

    F. S. Queiroz and C. Siqueira,Search for Semi-Annihilating Dark Matter with Fermi-LAT, H.E.S.S., Planck, and the Cherenkov Telescope Array,JCAP04(2019) 048, [1901.10494]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [26]

    K. N. Abazajian, S. Horiuchi, M. Kaplinghat, R. E. Keeley, and O. Macias,Strong constraints on thermal relic dark matter from Fermi-LAT observations of the Galactic Center,Phys. Rev. D102 (2020), no. 4 043012, [2003.10416]. – 15 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [27]

    Siqueira, G

    C. Siqueira, G. N. Fortes, A. Viana, and F. S. Queiroz,Indirect Searches for Secluded Dark Matter,PoSICRC2021(2021) 577, [2107.04053]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [28]

    D. Bose, V. R. Chitnis, P. Majumdar, and A. Shukla,Galactic and extragalactic sources of very high energy gamma rays,Eur. Phys. J. ST231(2022), no. 1 27–66, [2201.06789]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [29]

    Arcadi, D

    G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, J. P. Neto, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz,The Waning of the WIMP: Endgame?,2403.15860

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [30]

    Collaboration,CTAO Performance, 2025

    C. Collaboration,CTAO Performance, 2025. https://www.ctao.org/for-scientists/performance/(last access: 2025-09-07)

    work page 2025

  21. [31]

    Ibarra, H

    A. Ibarra, H. M. Lee, S. López Gehler, W.-I. Park, and M. Pato,Gamma-ray boxes from axion-mediated dark matter,JCAP05(2013) 016, [1303.6632]. [Erratum: JCAP 03, E01 (2016)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [32]

    On the sensitivity of CTA to gamma-ray boxes from multi-TeV dark matter

    A. Ibarra, A. S. Lamperstorfer, S. López-Gehler, M. Pato, and G. Bertone,On the sensitivity of CTA to gamma-ray boxes from multi-TeV dark matter,JCAP09(2015) 048, [1503.06797]. [Erratum: JCAP 06, E02 (2016)]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [33]

    Bringmann, L

    T. Bringmann, L. Bergstrom, and J. Edsjo,New Gamma-Ray Contributions to Supersymmetric Dark Matter Annihilation,JHEP01(2008) 049, [0710.3169]. [34]CT ACollaboration, A. Acharyyaet. al.,Sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array to a dark matter signal from the Galactic centre,JCAP01(2021) 057, [2007.16129]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  24. [35]

    Panci,Electroweak Multiplets as Dark Matter candidates: A brief review, 5, 2024.2405.05087

    P. Panci,Electroweak Multiplets as Dark Matter candidates: A brief review, 5, 2024.2405.05087

    arXiv 2024

  25. [36]

    Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory sensitivity to heavy Galactic Cosmic Rays and the shape of particle spectrum

    C. Dubos, P. Sharma, S. Patel, and T. Suomijärvi,Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory sensitivity to heavy Galactic Cosmic Rays and the shape of particle spectrum,JCAP02(2025) 078, [2410.21199]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [37]

    Monte Carlo Performance Studies for the Site Selection of the Cherenkov Telescope Array

    T. Hassan, L. Arrabito, K. Bernlöhr, J. Bregeon, J. Cortina, P. Cumani, F. Di Pierro, D. Falceta-Goncalves, R. G. Lang, J. Hinton, T. Jogler, G. Maier, A. Moralejo, A. Morselli, C. J. Todero Peixoto, and M. Wood,Monte Carlo performance studies for the site selection of the Cherenkov Telescope Array,Astroparticle Physics93(July, 2017) 76–85, [1705.01790]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [38]

    D. G. Cerdeno, M. Peiro, and S. Robles,Enhanced lines and box-shaped features in the gamma-ray spectrum from annihilating dark matter in the NMSSM,JCAP04(2016) 011, [1507.08974]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [39]

    Duerr, P

    M. Duerr, P. Fileviez Perez, and J. Smirnov,Simplified Dirac Dark Matter Models and Gamma-Ray Lines,Phys. Rev. D92(2015), no. 8 083521, [1506.05107]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [40]

    K. K. Boddy, K. R. Dienes, D. Kim, J. Kumar, J.-C. Park, and B. Thomas,Lines and Boxes: Unmasking Dynamical Dark Matter through Correlations in the MeV Gamma-Ray Spectrum, Phys. Rev. D94(2016), no. 9 095027, [1606.07440]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [41]

    F. S. Queiroz and C. E. Yaguna,Gamma-ray lines may reveal the CP nature of the dark matter particle,JCAP01(2019) 047, [1810.07068]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [42]

    K.-C. Yang,A potentially detectable gamma-ray line in the Fermi Galactic center excess — in light of one-step cascade annihilations of secluded (vector) dark matter via the Higgs portal,JHEP 07(2020) 148, [2001.04946]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [43]

    Angel, G

    L. Angel, G. Gambini, L. Guedes, F. S. Queiroz, and V. de Souza,Constraining gamma-ray lines from dark matter annihilation using Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. data,JCAP04(2024) 028, [2311.17827]

    arXiv 2024

  33. [44]

    De La Torre Luque, J

    P. De La Torre Luque, J. Smirnov, and T. Linden,Gamma-ray lines in 15 years of Fermi-LAT data: New constraints on Higgs portal dark matter,Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 4 L041301, [2309.03281]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [45]

    Search for the gamma-ray spectral lines with the DAMPE and the Fermi-LAT observations

    J.-G. Cheng, Y.-F. Liang, and E.-W. Liang,Search for the gamma-ray spectral lines with the DAMPE and the Fermi-LAT observations,Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 6 063015, [2308.16762]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [46]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan,Dark Matter,2406.01705

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [47]

    Beltran, D

    M. Beltran, D. Hooper, E. W. Kolb, and Z. C. Krusberg,Deducing the nature of dark matter from direct and indirect detection experiments in the absence of collider signatures of new physics, Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 043509, [0808.3384]. – 16 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  37. [48]

    J. Fan, M. Reece, and L.-T. Wang,Non-relativistic effective theory of dark matter direct detection, JCAP11(2010) 042, [1008.1591]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [49]

    Goodman, M

    J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. P. Tait, and H.-B. Yu,Constraints on Dark Matter from Colliders,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 116010, [1008.1783]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  39. [50]

    Beltran, D

    M. Beltran, D. Hooper, E. W. Kolb, Z. A. C. Krusberg, and T. M. P. Tait,Maverick dark matter at colliders,JHEP09(2010) 037, [1002.4137]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [51]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers, and Y. Xu,The Effective Field Theory of Dark Matter Direct Detection,JCAP02(2013) 004, [1203.3542]. [52]GAMBITCollaboration, P. Athronet. al.,Thermal WIMPs and the scale of new physics: global fits of Dirac dark matter effective field theories,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021), no. 11 992, [2106.02056]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [53]

    Bhattacharya and J

    S. Bhattacharya and J. Wudka,Effective theories with dark matter applications,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D30(2021), no. 13 2130004, [2104.01788]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [54]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini,Cosmic abundances of stable particles: Improved analysis,Nucl. Phys. B360(1991) 145–179

    1991

  43. [55]

    T. R. Slatyer,Les Houches Lectures on Indirect Detection of Dark Matter,SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes53(2022) 1, [2109.02696]. [56]H.E.S.S.Collaboration, H. Abdallaet. al.,Search for Dark Matter Annihilation Signals in the H.E.S.S. Inner Galaxy Survey,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022), no. 11 111101, [2207.10471]. [57]F ermi-LA TCollaboration, M. Ackermannet. al.,The...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [58]

    J.-Y. Chen, E. W. Kolb, and L.-T. Wang,Dark matter coupling to electroweak gauge and Higgs bosons: an effective field theory approach,Phys. Dark Univ.2(2013) 200–218, [1305.0021]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [59]

    Banks, J.-F

    T. Banks, J.-F. Fortin, and S. Thomas,Direct Detection of Dark Matter Electromagnetic Dipole Moments,1007.5515

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [60]

    Del Nobile,The Theory of Direct Dark Matter Detection: A Guide to Computations, 2104.12785

    E. Del Nobile,The Theory of Direct Dark Matter Detection: A Guide to Computations, 2104.12785

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [61]

    B. J. Kavanagh, P. Panci, and R. Ziegler,Faint Light from Dark Matter: Classifying and Constraining Dark Matter-Photon Effective Operators,JHEP04(2019) 089, [1810.00033]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [62]

    D. G. Cerdeno and A. M. Green,Direct detection of WIMPs,1002.1912

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  49. [63]

    Cirelli, E

    M. Cirelli, E. Del Nobile, and P. Panci,Tools for model-independent bounds in direct dark matter searches,JCAP10(2013) 019, [1307.5955]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  50. [64]

    Bishara, J

    F. Bishara, J. Brod, B. Grinstein, and J. Zupan,Chiral Effective Theory of Dark Matter Direct Detection,JCAP02(2017) 009, [1611.00368]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [65]

    Bishara, J

    F. Bishara, J. Brod, B. Grinstein, and J. Zupan,DirectDM: a tool for dark matter direct detection, 1708.02678

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [66]

    Bishara, J

    F. Bishara, J. Brod, B. Grinstein, and J. Zupan,From quarks to nucleons in dark matter direct detection,JHEP11(2017) 059, [1707.06998]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [67]

    J. Brod, A. Gootjes-Dreesbach, M. Tammaro, and J. Zupan,Effective Field Theory for Dark Matter Direct Detection up to Dimension Seven,JHEP10(2018) 065, [1710.10218]. [Erratum: JHEP 07, 012 (2023)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [68]

    Anand, A

    N. Anand, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. C. Haxton,Weakly interacting massive particle-nucleus elastic scattering response,Phys. Rev. C89(2014), no. 6 065501, [1308.6288]. [69]XENONCollaboration, E. Aprileet. al.,Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018), no. 11 111302, [1805.12562]. – 17 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014