Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Galactic gamma-ray data can constrain gravitationally produced decaying dark matter to couplings below 10^-30.

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

2026-08-03 17:19 UTC pith:VQ7OATBG

load-bearing objection Decay constraints on gravitational DM are solid; the oscillation bound is a load-bearing error that the paper's own lifetime condition contradicts. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.09997 v2 pith:VQ7OATBG submitted 2025-12-10 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Constraining Gravitational Dark Matter with LHAASO and Fermi-LAT

Basabendu Barman , Arindam Das , Prantik Sarmah , Rakesh Kumar SivaKumar This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.CO PACS 95.35.+d95.85.Pw
keywords gravitational dark matterUV freeze-indiffuse Galactic gamma-ray emissionLHAASOFermi-LATdecaying dark matterdark photon oscillationkinetic mixing
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.

The paper claims that diffuse Galactic gamma-ray observations by LHAASO and Fermi-LAT are sensitive enough to constrain dark matter produced only through gravitational interactions during reheating and later decaying into photons. For three benchmark candidates (dark photon, right-handed neutrino, pseudo–Nambu–Goldstone boson), the combined data force the effective coupling to the visible sector below 10^-30 for masses above the TeV scale, while a non-minimally coupled scalar is limited to roughly 10^-10 and below. The same data, through photon–dark photon oscillations, exclude kinetic mixing above about 10^-3 for dark photon masses above 10 GeV, closing a region not previously covered by laboratory experiments. If correct, these bounds make Galactic gamma-ray telescopes the most sensitive probe of ultra-feeble couplings in this mass range.

Core claim

For each of four dark-matter candidates produced by gravity (vector dark photon, right-handed neutrino, pseudo–Nambu–Goldstone boson, non-minimally coupled scalar), the paper computes the gamma-ray flux from dark-matter decay in the Milky Way using the standard line-of-sight integral over the NFW density profile and the per-decay photon spectra, then compares with the diffuse emission measured by Fermi-LAT (GeV–TeV) and LHAASO (TeV–PeV). The central result is that the upper limits on the coupling to the visible sector reach ε, the RHN Yukawa coupling, and C_ii/f_φ ≲ 10^-30–10^-31 for dark-matter masses ≳ TeV, and ξ ≲ 10^-10–10^-14 for the non-minimally coupled scalar. Using the averaged conv

What carries the argument

The central object is the decaying-dark-matter gamma-ray flux integral ϕ(E) = D/(4π m τ) dN/dE, where D = ∫ ρ_NFW ds over the inner Galactic plane (≈ 3×10^19 GeV/cm²) and dN/dE is the photon spectrum per decay. For the oscillation case, the machinery is the averaged kinetic-mixing conversion probability P_{X→γ} = 2ε², combined with the incoming dark photon flux Φ_X = D/(4π m_X τ_U). The gravitational production rate γ ∝ T^8/M_P^4 fixes the reheating temperature needed for the observed relic abundance, linking the particle physics couplings to early-Universe cosmology.

Load-bearing premise

The dark-photon oscillation constraint assumes the incoming dark photon flux is Φ_X = D/(4π m_X τ_U), the flux a species decaying with the age of the Universe would produce; a stable dark photon population converts with probability 2ε² along the line of sight, and using the correct stable-population flux could change the bound by orders of magnitude.

What would settle it

Compute the expected gamma-ray intensity from a stable dark photon dark-matter population by integrating the local number density n_X(s) times the conversion probability per unit length (≈ 2ε² once the oscillation length is exceeded) along the line of sight toward the inner Galactic plane, and compare the resulting bound on ε with the paper's ε ≲ 10^-3; if the corrected bound differs by more than an order of magnitude, the oscillation exclusion is driven by the flux normalization rather than the data.

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

If this is right

  • If the bounds hold, theories in which TeV–PeV dark matter is produced gravitationally and decays to photons with couplings above ~10^-30 are excluded; only models with such ultra-feeble couplings remain viable.
  • The oscillation limit ε ≲ 10^-3 for m_X ≳ 10 GeV closes a dark-photon mass window that colliders and beam dumps cannot reach, making gamma-ray telescopes the primary probe of that parameter space.
  • Because the constraints depend on the decay channel, a better measurement of the diffuse Galactic gamma-ray spectrum could in principle distinguish which final states dominate the decay.
  • For the non-minimally coupled scalar, the bound ξ ≲ 10^-10 at TeV mass directly limits gravitational-strength interactions between the dark scalar and Standard Model particles.
  • The constraints are conservative in the sense that adding conventional astrophysical sources such as supernova remnants and pulsars to the diffuse emission model would strengthen the bounds, as the paper notes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The oscillation bound in Fig. 2 rests on treating a stable dark photon population as if it decayed with a Hubble-time lifetime; a proper line-of-sight conversion integral for a stable relic could shift the ε limit by orders of magnitude, so the exclusion should be checked against the full propagation treatment.
  • Since the gravitational production rate fixes the reheating temperature for a given mass and spin, these gamma-ray bounds can be reinterpreted as upper limits on the reheating temperature for each benchmark scenario if the dark matter is to remain unobserved.
  • The same flux formalism applies to axion-like particles with two-photon couplings or to other feebly interacting particles produced gravitationally, so the approach likely extends beyond the four candidates considered here.
  • A future detection of a spectral cutoff or line-like feature in the diffuse Galactic gamma-ray spectrum could be cross-checked against the predicted shape from gravitational dark-matter decay, turning the constraint into a discovery channel.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives constraints on gravitationally produced decaying dark matter using LHAASO and Fermi-LAT diffuse Galactic gamma-ray observations. Four benchmark models are considered: a kinetically mixed dark photon, a heavy right-handed neutrino, a pNGB coupled to electroweak gauge bosons, and a non-minimally coupled scalar. The authors use a standard DM-decay flux formula with an NFW halo profile and compute photon spectra with HDMSpectra to set upper limits on the relevant couplings, and they add a separate photon–dark-photon oscillation constraint. The claimed results are extremely small couplings (≲10^-30) for heavy DM and a new oscillation-based exclusion of kinetic mixing ε≳10^-3 for m_X≳10 GeV.

Significance. If the decay-mode constraints in Fig. 1 hold, the paper provides useful, model-specific bounds on gravitational DM portals using public data and a standard decay-flux pipeline. The production framework is taken from the literature and the gamma-ray data are external, so I do not see a circularity problem. The main weakness is the oscillation analysis: it applies a decay-flux normalization to a stable species and excludes a region where the dark photon would already have decayed, so the Fig. 2 claim is unsupported as it stands. The Fig. 1 constraints are nevertheless valuable and worth publishing after a substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Photon–dark photon oscillation, Eq. (9)] Eq. (9) sets Φ_X = D/(4π m_X τ_U), which is the standard flux for a decaying species (Eq. 17). But in this section P_{X→γ} in Eq. (29) is a dimensionless conversion probability after averaging, not a decay rate. For a stable dark-photon DM population, the photon flux is a line-of-sight integral involving ρ_DM/m_X and the differential conversion probability dP/dz, not D/(4π m_X τ_U). No derivation of the integrated conversion flux is given, and the insertion of τ_U is unjustified. The Fig. 2 bound is therefore not derived from the stated physics.
  2. [Photon–dark photon oscillation, Fig. 2] Fig. 2 excludes ε≳10^-3 for m_X≳10 GeV. However, Eq. (8) gives τ_X ~ 10^-17 s at m_X = 10 GeV and ε = 10^-3, so the excluded dark photons would have decayed long before the present epoch and cannot constitute the DM population assumed in Eq. (9). The gray τ_X < τ_U region in Fig. 1 would in fact cover essentially the entire oscillation-excluded area. The oscillation constraint must be restricted to dark photons with τ_X > τ_U and must use a correct propagation/absorption treatment; otherwise the claim of closing previously unconstrained parameter space is unsupported.
  3. [Gravity induced DM decay, Eqs. (13)–(15)] The non-minimally coupled scalar benchmark is not self-contained: the Jordan-frame action in Eq. (13) does not display the scalar S kinetic/mass term or the explicit ξ M_P S R coupling used in the text, and the production rate γ_S = ξ^4 T^8/M_P^4 that leads to Eq. (15) is introduced without derivation. Since the lower-right panel of Fig. 1 and the corresponding abstract claim depend on these inputs, the authors should provide the complete action and either derive or precisely cite the origin of γ_S and Eq. (15).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (13)] Eq. (13) contains typographical inconsistencies (e.g., the '/∂ω' term) and lacks the S kinetic/mass terms; please re-check the displayed action.
  2. [Fig. 1 and 'combined' constraints] The statistical procedure behind the 'combined LHAASO and Fermi-LAT' constraints is not described. Please state the confidence level, binning, and background treatment, or cite the exact analysis chain used to produce the blue curves.
  3. [Abstract and Fig. 1] The abstract's claim '≲O(10^-30) for DM masses ≳O(TeV)' is too broad: the figure and text quote O(10^-26) at O(1 PeV) for the dark photon and RHN, with 10^-30 applying at much larger masses. Please qualify the mass range.
  4. [Heading and cross-reference] Sec. II heading contains the typo 'electoweak'. Also, the cross-reference in Eq. (9) to 'Sec. I for details' should refer to the appendix containing the conversion-probability derivation.
  5. [Fig. 2] Fig. 2 would be much more informative if the τ_X = τ_U curve were overlaid, so the reader can see which excluded region corresponds to dark photons that survive to the present.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the constraints are derived from external LHAASO/Fermi-LAT observations and standard decay/flux calculations; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central constraints are obtained by comparing the observed diffuse Galactic gamma-ray flux from LHAASO and Fermi-LAT to model fluxes computed from standard decay spectra and line-of-sight integrals, e.g. Eq. (17), with no parameter fitted to the quantity being predicted. The gravitational production rates and asymptotic yields (Eqs. (2)-(4)) are taken from published literature, including some papers by the present authors, but these are independent, parameter-free results with external support and are not the target of the paper's predictions. The decay widths in Eqs. (8), (10), (12), and (14) are standard textbook/EFT results. The photon-dark photon oscillation treatment in Sec. I derives P_{X->gamma} from a Schrodinger-like mixing formalism; the later use of Phi_X = D/(4 pi m_X tau_U) for the oscillating flux is arguably a physical-normalization concern rather than a circular reduction, because it does not make the predicted bound equivalent to an assumed input by construction. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely from the authors' prior work in a load-bearing way. Self-citations such as [17], [19], [34], and [35] provide supporting framework, but the main limits rest on external gamma-ray data and independent physics calculations. Therefore, under the required standard, no circularity is established; score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to the gamma-ray data; the constraints are derived by comparing DM decay flux to observed flux. The production/decay formulas and halo profile are external inputs. The most fragile input is the oscillation flux normalization, which we flag separately.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Radiation-dominated reheating with instantaneous thermalization at temperature T_rh; gravitational 2-to-2 production rate γ(T) = k T^8 / M_P^4.
    Eqs. (1)-(4); standard UV freeze-in framework, but assumes no entropy injection or modified expansion after reheating.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way DM distribution follows an NFW profile with R_C=11 kpc, ρ_⊙=0.43 GeV/cm^3, R_⊙=8.3 kpc.
    Eq. (16); bounds on flux depend on the line-of-sight integral D.
  • domain assumption The observed LHAASO and Fermi-LAT diffuse gamma-ray flux is an upper limit to any DM decay contribution (astrophysical sources ignored), and the photon spectrum is given by HDMSpectra.
    Results section; if foregrounds were modeled, constraints would strengthen, so this is conservative. HDMSpectra [41] is used.
  • ad hoc to paper The pNGB couples only to SM gauge bosons with coefficients C_ii/f_φ; fermion/higgs couplings are neglected.
    Eqs. (12), (31)-(33); simplifying choice that affects the decay spectra and thus the bounds.
  • domain assumption The non-minimally coupled scalar's production rate scales as ξ^4 T^8/M_P^4 and its decay rates as ξ^2 m_S^3/M_P^2, assuming the conformal transformation in Eq. (13).
    Eqs. (13)-(15); taken from prior literature by the authors (Refs. [18,19]).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10778 in / 28152 out tokens · 294355 ms · 2026-08-03T17:19:58.716812+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We use diffuse Galactic high energy gamma ray data from LHAASO and Fermi-LAT to constrain gravitationally produced decaying dark matter (DM). Focusing on four benchmark candidates: a dark photon, a heavy right-handed neutrino (RHN), a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson (pNGB), and a non-minimally coupled scalar we derive bounds on the DM mass and its couplings to the visible sector. For dark photons, RHNs, and pNGBs, the combined data constrain the relevant interaction strength to $\lesssim\mathcal{O}(10^{-30})$ for DM masses $\gtrsim\mathcal{O}$(TeV), while the non-minimally coupled scalar is limited to $\lesssim\mathcal{O}(10^{-10})$. Moreover, photon-dark photon oscillations yield strong constraints for massive dark photon beyond 10 GeV, closing a region of parameter space previously left unconstrained.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.09997 by Arindam Das, Basabendu Barman, Prantik Sarmah, Rakesh Kumar SivaKumar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Bounds on DM coupling and mass depending on different benchmark scenarios. Within the gray shaded region the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Bounds on kinetic mixing parameter (ε) with respect to dark photon mass (mX) from oscillation conversion. Combined bounds from LHAASO and Fermi-LAT are shown by the thick black solid line. We show existing limits from di-lepton searches at low energy scattering, high energy collider and fixed target experiments: A1 [23] (darker red), LHCb [24] (gray), CMS [25] (cyan), BaBar [26] (lighter red), NA48/2 [27] … view at source ↗

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. Too Heavy to Hide: Gamma-Ray Constraints on Annihilating Dark Matter beyond Unitarity

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Gamma-ray upper limits from five high-energy observatories constrain the annihilation cross sections of composite dark matter in the mass range 10^5--10^12 GeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 35 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    UltraViolet Freeze-in,

    F. Elahi, C. Kolda, and J. Unwin, “UltraViolet Freeze-in,”JHEP03(2015) 048,arXiv:1410.6157 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  2. [3]

    The Dawn of FIMP Dark Matter: A Review of Models and Constraints,

    N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuominen, and V. Vaskonen, “The Dawn of FIMP Dark Matter: A Review of Models and Constraints,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32no. 27, (2017) 1730023,arXiv:1706.07442 [hep-ph]. [4]LHAASOCollaboration, Z. Caoet al., “Measurement of Ultra-High-Energy Diffuse Gamma-Ray Emission of the Galactic Plane from 10 TeV to 1 PeV with L...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [6]

    Galactic Diffuseγ-Ray Emission from GeV to PeV Energies in Light of Up-to-date Cosmic-Ray Measurements,

    R. Zhang, X. Huang, Z.-H. Xu, S. Zhao, and Q. Yuan, “Galactic Diffuseγ-Ray Emission from GeV to PeV Energies in Light of Up-to-date Cosmic-Ray Measurements,”Astrophys. J.957no. 1, (2023) 43, arXiv:2305.06948 [astro-ph.HE]. [7]F ermi-LA TCollaboration, W. B. Atwoodet al., “The Large Area Telescope on the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope Mission,”Astrophys. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [8]

    LHAASO Galactic Planeγ-rays Strongly Constrain Heavy Dark Matter,

    C. Boehm, R. Laha, and T. N. Maity, “LHAASO Galactic Planeγ-rays Strongly Constrain Heavy Dark Matter,”arXiv:2509.07982 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  5. [9]

    Gravitational Effects on Inflaton Decay,

    Y. Ema, R. Jinno, K. Mukaida, and K. Nakayama, “Gravitational Effects on Inflaton Decay,”JCAP05 (2015) 038,arXiv:1502.02475 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [10]

    Planckian Interacting Massive Particles as Dark Matter,

    M. Garny, M. Sandora, and M. S. Sloth, “Planckian Interacting Massive Particles as Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. Lett.116no. 10, (2016) 101302, arXiv:1511.03278 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [11]

    Pure Gravitational Dark Matter, Its Mass and Signatures,

    Y. Tang and Y.-L. Wu, “Pure Gravitational Dark Matter, Its Mass and Signatures,”Phys. Lett. B758 (2016) 402–406,arXiv:1604.04701 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [12]

    Gravitational particle production in oscillating backgrounds and its cosmological implications,

    Y. Ema, R. Jinno, K. Mukaida, and K. Nakayama, “Gravitational particle production in oscillating backgrounds and its cosmological implications,”Phys. Rev. D94no. 6, (2016) 063517,arXiv:1604.08898 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [13]

    Theory and Phenomenology of Planckian Interacting Massive Particles as Dark Matter,

    M. Garny, A. Palessandro, M. Sandora, and M. S. Sloth, “Theory and Phenomenology of Planckian Interacting Massive Particles as Dark Matter,”JCAP 02(2018) 027,arXiv:1709.09688 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [14]

    On Thermal Gravitational Contribution to Particle Production and Dark Matter,

    Y. Tang and Y.-L. Wu, “On Thermal Gravitational Contribution to Particle Production and Dark Matter,” Phys. Lett. B774(2017) 676–681,arXiv:1708.05138 8 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [15]

    Spin-2 Portal Dark Matter,

    N. Bernal, M. Dutra, Y. Mambrini, K. Olive, M. Peloso, and M. Pierre, “Spin-2 Portal Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. D97no. 11, (2018) 115020,arXiv:1803.01866 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [16]

    Gravitational portals in the early Universe,

    S. Clery, Y. Mambrini, K. A. Olive, and S. Verner, “Gravitational portals in the early Universe,”Phys. Rev. D105no. 7, (2022) 075005,arXiv:2112.15214 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [17]

    Gravitational SIMPs,

    B. Barman and N. Bernal, “Gravitational SIMPs,” JCAP06(2021) 011,arXiv:2104.10699 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [18]

    Gravitational portals with nonminimal couplings,

    S. Clery, Y. Mambrini, K. A. Olive, A. Shkerin, and S. Verner, “Gravitational portals with nonminimal couplings,”Phys. Rev. D105no. 9, (2022) 095042, arXiv:2203.02004 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [19]

    Gravity as a portal to reheating, leptogenesis and dark matter,

    B. Barman, S. Cl´ ery, R. T. Co, Y. Mambrini, and K. A. Olive, “Gravity as a portal to reheating, leptogenesis and dark matter,”JHEP12(2022) 072, arXiv:2210.05716 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [20]

    The role of vectors in reheating,

    M. A. G. Garcia, K. Kaneta, W. Ke, Y. Mambrini, K. A. Olive, and S. Verner, “The role of vectors in reheating,”JCAP06(2024) 014,arXiv:2311.14794 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [21]

    Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,

    B. Holdom, “Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,” Phys. Lett. B166(1986) 196–198

    1986

  18. [22]

    The Dark Photon,

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi, “The Dark Photon,”arXiv:2005.01515 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  19. [23]

    Search at the Mainz Microtron for Light Gauge Bosons Decaying intoe +e− Pairs,

    H. Merkelet al., “Search at the Mainz Microtron for Light Gauge Bosons Decaying intoe +e− Pairs,”Phys. Rev. Lett.112(2014) 221802,arXiv:1404.5502. [24]LHCbCollaboration, R. Aaijet al., “Search for Dark Photons Produced in 13 TeV pp Collisions,”Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 061801,arXiv:1710.02867. [25]CMSCollaboration, “Search for a Narrow Resonance Decaying ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [28]

    A Search for Short-Lived Axions in an Electron-Beam–Dump Experiment,

    E. M. Riordanet al., “A Search for Short-Lived Axions in an Electron-Beam–Dump Experiment,”Phys. Rev. Lett.59(1987) 755

    1987

  21. [29]

    New Exclusion Limits for Dark Gauge Forces from Beam-Dump Data,

    J. Bl¨ umlein and F. Brunner, “New Exclusion Limits for Dark Gauge Forces from Beam-Dump Data,”Phys. Lett. B701(2011) 155–159,arXiv:1104.2747

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [30]

    New Bounds on Dark Gauge Forces from Proton Bremsstrahlung Data,

    J. Bl¨ umlein and F. Brunner, “New Bounds on Dark Gauge Forces from Proton Bremsstrahlung Data,” Phys. Lett. B731(2014) 320–326,arXiv:1311.3870

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [31]

    Constraints on Dark Photons from CHARM,

    S. N. Gninenko, “Constraints on Dark Photons from CHARM,”Phys. Lett. B713(2012) 244–248, arXiv:1204.3583

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  24. [32]

    Illuminating Dark Photons with High-Energy Colliders,

    D. Curtin, R. Essig, S. Gori, and J. Shelton, “Illuminating Dark Photons with High-Energy Colliders,”JHEP02(2015) 157,arXiv:1412.0018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  25. [33]

    Secluded U(1) Below the Weak Scale,

    M. Pospelov, “Secluded U(1) Below the Weak Scale,” Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 095002,arXiv:0811.1030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  26. [34]

    Hunting for heavy Z’ with IceCube neutrinos and gravitational waves,

    B. Barman, A. Das, S. Jyoti Das, and M. Merchand, “Hunting for heavy Z’ with IceCube neutrinos and gravitational waves,”Phys. Rev. D112no. 3, (2025) 035035,arXiv:2502.13217 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [35]

    What KM3-230213A event may tell us about the neutrino mass and dark matter,

    B. Barman, A. Das, and P. Sarmah, “What KM3-230213A event may tell us about the neutrino mass and dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D112no. 7, (2025) 075014,arXiv:2504.01447 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [36]

    A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering,

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, “A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering,” Astrophys. J.490(1997) 493–508, arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  29. [37]

    The Inner structure of Lambda-CDM halos 3: Universality and asymptotic slopes,

    J. F. Navarro, E. Hayashi, C. Power, A. Jenkins, C. S. Frenk, S. D. M. White, V. Springel, J. Stadel, and T. R. Quinn, “The Inner structure of Lambda-CDM halos 3: Universality and asymptotic slopes,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.349(2004) 1039, arXiv:astro-ph/0311231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  30. [38]

    Galactic models with massive corona. I - Method. II - Galaxy,

    J. Einasto and U. Haud, “Galactic models with massive corona. I - Method. II - Galaxy,”aap223no. 1-2, (Oct., 1989) 89–106

    1989

  31. [39]

    Empirical models for Dark Matter Halos. I. Nonparametric Construction of Density Profiles and Comparison with Parametric Models,

    A. W. Graham, D. Merritt, B. Moore, J. Diemand, and B. Terzic, “Empirical models for Dark Matter Halos. I. Nonparametric Construction of Density Profiles and Comparison with Parametric Models,”Astron. J.132 (2006) 2685–2700,arXiv:astro-ph/0509417

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  32. [40]

    The Structure of Dark Matter Halos in Dwarf Galaxies,

    A. Burkert, “The Structure of Dark Matter Halos in Dwarf Galaxies,”apjl447(July, 1995) L25–L28, arXiv:astro-ph/9504041 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  33. [41]

    Dark matter spectra from the electroweak to the Planck scale,

    C. W. Bauer, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Webber, “Dark matter spectra from the electroweak to the Planck scale,”JHEP06(2021) 121,arXiv:2007.15001 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [42]

    The Search for Feebly Interacting Particles,

    G. Lanfranchi, M. Pospelov, and P. Schuster, “The Search for Feebly Interacting Particles,”Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71(2021) 279–313,arXiv:2011.02157 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [43]

    Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles,

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, “Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles,”Phys. Rev. D37(Mar, 1988) 1237–1249.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.37.1237

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.37.1237 1988

  36. [44]

    Photon-dark photon conversion with multiple level crossings,

    N. Brahma, A. Berlin, and K. Schutz, “Photon-dark photon conversion with multiple level crossings,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 9, (2023) 095045,arXiv:2308.08586 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [45]

    Dark photon-photon resonance conversion of GRB221009A through extra dimension,

    M. A. Ismail, C. S. Nugroho, and Q. M. B. Soesanto, “Dark photon-photon resonance conversion of GRB221009A through extra dimension,”Phys. Lett. B 866(2025) 139531,arXiv:2409.17498 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [46]

    ALPs Effective Field Theory and Collider Signatures,

    I. Brivio, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, K. Mimasu, J. M. No, R. del Rey, and V. Sanz, “ALPs Effective Field Theory and Collider Signatures,”Eur. Phys. J. C77no. 8, (2017) 572,arXiv:1701.05379 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [47]

    Collider Probes of Axion-Like Particles,

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm, “Collider Probes of Axion-Like Particles,”JHEP12(2017) 044, arXiv:1708.00443 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [48]

    The Low-Energy Effective Theory of Axions and ALPs,

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, and A. Thamm, “The Low-Energy Effective Theory of Axions and ALPs,”JHEP04(2021) 063, arXiv:2012.12272 [hep-ph]. [49]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, R. L. Workman and Others, “Review of particle physics,”Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2024no. 8, (2024) 083C01.https://pdg.lbl.gov/2024/reviews/...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021