Unidentified Fermi Objects in the view of H.E.S.S. -- Possible Dark Matter Clumps

Aion Viana (for the H.E.S.S. Collaboration); Denys Malyshev; Dorit Glawion; Emmanuel Moulin; Louise Oakes; Lucia Rinchiuso

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Unidentified Fermi Objects in the view of H.E.S.S. -- Possible Dark Matter Clumps

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read If four unassociated Fermi sources are dark matter clumps, their particle must weigh below about 0.4 TeV.

desk verdict A short, honest proceedings paper that turns new H.E.S.S. upper limits on four unassociated Fermi sources into a modest conditional dark-matter mass bound; the missing interloper baseline is real but already acknowledged. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01072 v1 pith:5KDEWWRJ submitted 2019-09-03 astro-ph.HE

Dorit Glawion , Denys Malyshev , Emmanuel Moulin , Louise Oakes , Lucia Rinchiuso , Aion Viana (for the H.E.S.S. Collaboration) This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords unidentifiedgamma-raysourcesdarkmattersubhalosannihilationJ-factorFermi-LATH.E.S.S.very-high-energygammarays3FHLcatalog

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

This paper takes four unassociated, steady, hard-spectrum gamma-ray sources from the Fermi-LAT 3FHL catalog and observes them with H.E.S.S. at very high energies. No source is detected, so the authors combine Fermi-LAT GeV spectra with H.E.S.S. upper limits to derive what a dark-matter-clump interpretation would require. For annihilation into tau pairs at the Fermi-LAT dwarf-spheroidal cross-section limit, each source yields a lower bound on the clump's J-factor. Comparing those bounds with the maximum J-factor expected for any Milky Way dark matter clump gives the paper's central conclusion: such sources can be dark matter clumps only if the dark matter particle mass is below roughly 0.4 TeV. The bound is conditional on the sources having no astrophysical counterpart.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the J-factor, the line-of-sight integral of the dark matter density squared that sets the annihilation flux. The paper uses the observed GeV fluxes and TeV upper limits to fix, for each assumed particle mass, the required J-factor of a clump. Those required values are compared with the maximum J-factor $J_{\max}\sim0.7\times10^{20}$ GeV$^2$ cm$^{-5}$ from numerical simulations of Milky Way substructure, whose cutoff power-law distribution has a strong suppression above that value. This comparison turns lower limits on J into an upper limit on the particle mass.

What would settle it

Detect a multi-wavelength counterpart or variability for any of the four sources; identifying even one as a pulsar or active galactic nucleus would remove the premise that it is a dark matter clump and invalidate the inferred $M_{\mathrm{DM}} \lesssim 0.4$ TeV bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is conditional: unidentified Fermi objects can be clumps of Milky Way dark matter only if $M_{\mathrm{DM}} \lesssim 0.4$ TeV, assuming annihilation into $\tau^+\tau^-$ with the cross-section at the Fermi-LAT dwarf-spheroidal limit. The argument uses the GeV-TeV spectral energy distributions of the four sources to determine the required normalization $\langle\sigma v\rangle J$; with $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ fixed by existing limits, this becomes a lower limit on each clump's J-factor. Comparing the smallest of those limits to $J_{\max}\sim0.7\times10^{20}$ GeV$^2$ cm$^{-5}$, above which cosmological simulations predict far fewer than one Milky Way clump, forces the mass below about 0.4 TeV. The authors state the premise explicitly: the four sources must actually be dark matter clumps rather than astrophysical objects.

Load-bearing premise

The argument breaks if any of the four sources is an ordinary astrophysical object, such as a pulsar or an active galactic nucleus, rather than a dark matter clump, because the paper's mass bound depends entirely on that identification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If dark matter is a WIMP heavier than about 0.4 TeV and annihilates to tau pairs, none of these four sources can be a Milky Way dark matter clump; their GeV emission must be astrophysical.
The H.E.S.S. non-detections are consistent with the dark-matter-clump picture for lighter particles, since the TeV upper limits lie above the flux level needed to explain the GeV signal.
The joint GeV-TeV treatment offers a way to constrain the dark matter particle mass even when no very-high-energy source is detected, as long as the sources' dark matter origin is assumed.
For a future source of this class, the same J-factor comparison can immediately decide whether a dark matter interpretation is plausible for a given assumed mass.

Reading between the lines

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

The same J-factor comparison could be applied to all unassociated hard sources in the 3FHL or future catalogs; a population-level count of how many satisfy the clump condition would test whether the assumption of no astrophysical interlopers is reasonable.
Replacing the sharp $J_{\max}$ cutoff with the full expected clump J-factor distribution would convert the inequality $M_{\mathrm{DM}} \lesssim 0.4$ TeV into a probabilistic upper limit on the mass.
The 0.4 TeV ceiling is specific to the tau-pair annihilation channel and to the adopted cross-section benchmark; other channels would shift the required J-factors and therefore the mass bound.
A deep radio or X-ray search for counterparts to these four sources is a direct way to falsify the interpretation: detecting a pulsar or active galactic nucleus would remove the premise on which the constraint rests.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this one. It is a short ICRC proceedings paper, so the analysis is preliminary and the claims are deliberately conditional. The genuinely new result is the H.E.S.S. upper limits on four 3FHL sources plus the derived statement that, if those sources are dark matter subhalos annihilating to tau pairs, the particle mass has to be below about 0.4 TeV. That bound is not in the literature.

What the paper does well: the conditional logic is clean. The authors fit a DM annihilation spectrum (tau+tau) to the Fermi-LAT SED and the H.E.S.S. upper limits, convert the observed flux into a lower limit on the clump J-factor using the best available cross-section constraints, and compare that to the maximum J-factor expected from simulations. Taking the lowest of the four J lower limits is the right conservative move for the claim "these sources can be clumps only if M below 0.4 TeV". They also state the key assumption explicitly: "Assuming that unidentified Fermi objects indeed originate from dark matter annihilation..." This is not a hidden premise.

The soft spots are in proportion to the paper's modesty. There is no population estimate of how many pulsars or blazars would pass the same selection cuts, so we do not know how likely it is that any of these four are actually clumps. The paper does not pretend otherwise, but that missing baseline limits the astrophysical relevance of the bound. The H.E.S.S. analysis is labeled preliminary, no data are released, and the constraint relies on the tau+tau channel and on one simulated value of Jmax from Hütten et al. A different channel or a different subhalo simulation could shift the 0.4 TeV value. None of these are fatal because the conclusion is a conditional, not a detection claim.

Who gets value? Someone working on indirect DM searches or on unassociated Fermi sources will want these upper limits and the explicit mass cutoff. It is not a paper that changes the field, but it is a legitimate, clearly reasoned step.

I would send it to a referee if it were submitted as a journal article, mostly because the TeV limits are new and the conditional argument is worth checking carefully. For an ICRC proceedings it is about what you expect. My main advice to the editor would be: ask the authors to add an interloper estimate or to soften the "possible clumps" framing accordingly, but do not treat the missing baseline as a fatal flaw given the stated assumption.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This proceedings paper selects unassociated, hard, steady Fermi-LAT 3FHL sources with no multiwavelength counterparts, observes four of them with H.E.S.S., and reports no significant very-high-energy emission, yielding 95% confidence upper limits. Under the explicit assumption that these unidentified objects are dark matter clumps annihilating into tau pairs, the authors fit the Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. spectra with a dark matter annihilation spectrum, use externally published cross-section upper limits to convert the observed flux into lower limits on the clump J-factor, and compare these with the maximum J-factor expected from Milky Way subhalo simulations. They conclude that the unidentified objects can be dark matter clumps only if the dark matter particle mass is below about 0.4 TeV.

Significance. The conditional logic of the paper is internally consistent, and the use of independently published cross-section limits and simulation results avoids circularity in the J-factor comparison. The H.E.S.S. upper limits for these four sources are new and potentially useful for future dark matter searches. If the clump interpretation could be established, the method would provide a novel way to constrain the dark matter particle mass, and the paper makes a concrete, falsifiable prediction for the tau+tau annihilation channel. The main limitation is that the scientific conclusion depends entirely on the four unidentified sources being dark matter subhalos rather than astrophysical objects, a premise that the paper states but does not quantitatively support.

major comments (3)

[§2, Table 1; §5] The central conclusion rests on the premise that the four 3FHL sources are dark matter clumps, but the selection criteria in Table 1 (no association, |b| > 5°, non-variability, power-law index < 2, no multiwavelength counterpart) are also satisfied by gamma-ray pulsars and blazars, which dominate the unassociated 3FHL population. The paper states this assumption in Section 5 but provides no estimate of how many astrophysical interlopers are expected to pass the same cuts among the 178 unassociated sources. Without such a baseline, the J-factor lower limits in Fig. 2 and the resulting M_DM < 0.4 TeV statement cannot be read as a constraint on dark matter; if the sources are pulsars or AGN, the conclusion is irrelevant. The manuscript should either add a population-synthesis estimate of interlopers or explicitly limit the claim to a hypothetical case and discuss the prior probability.
[§5, Fig. 2] Section 5 states that the dark matter spectrum normalization 'was selected to fit the Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. spectral points,' but Section 4 reports only H.E.S.S. upper limits, not spectral points, for all four objects. The fitting procedure (e.g., whether upper limits are treated as measurements, the energy range used, the treatment of the Fermi butterfly and systematic errors) is not described, and no uncertainties are propagated to the J-factor lower limits in Fig. 2. The 0.4 TeV cutoff is therefore not yet reproducible from the text. Please specify the likelihood or chi-square procedure and show the fitted spectra for at least one source, or state explicitly that the Fermi data alone fix the normalization and H.E.S.S. limits are used only as a consistency check.
[§5, Fig. 2] The comparison in Fig. 2 treats Jmax ~ 0.7×10^20 GeV^2 cm^-5 as a hard cutoff, but this quantity is derived from a particular subhalo simulation and concentration model [40] and carries substantial systematic uncertainty. Since the final statement 'only if M_DM ≲ 0.4 TeV' is obtained by the crossing of a lower-limit curve with this line, the sensitivity of the mass cutoff to the assumed Jmax distribution (and to the choice of annihilation channel) should be quantified; otherwise the numerical value of 0.4 TeV is not robust.

minor comments (4)

[§4, before Table 3] The sentence 'The resulting numbers ... are given in Table2' should refer to Table 3, not Table 2.
[Abstract and §3] There are several typographical errors: 'may developed' and 'Athmospheric' should be corrected, and the phrase 'Imaging Athmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes' should be 'Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes.'
[References [17] and [19]] Reference [19] lists the author as 'Strigaro'; the correct name is 'Strigari.' Reference [17] is dated 2008 in the bibliography, but the MAGIC Ursa Major II paper by Ahnen et al. was published in 2018; please correct these entries.
[Fig. 2] The axis label 'J, 10^20 GeV2/cm5' should be 'J in units of 10^20 GeV^2 cm^-5', and the label 'N1 halo expected' should be expanded to 'N≥1 halos expected'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the M_DM < 0.4 TeV bound is a conditional comparison of independently derived J-factor requirements with an external simulation-based Jmax.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) select unassociated, hard, steady Fermi-LAT sources; (ii) observe them with H.E.S.S. and obtain no significant TeV detection, hence derive differential upper limits; (iii) assume each source, if a dark matter clump, emits a fixed annihilation spectrum (tau-tau channel) whose normalization is proportional to <sigma_v> * J and is set to match the Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. spectral points; (iv) using external <sigma_v> limits from Fermi-LAT dwarf spheroidal observations [38] and H.E.S.S. Galactic Center observations [15], convert the fitted normalization into lower limits on the clump J-factor; (v) compare those lower limits with the maximum J-factor Jmax ~ 0.7e20 GeV^2 cm^-5 expected from N-body simulations [40], and conclude that the sources can be dark matter clumps only if M_DM < 0.4 TeV. Each step is independently sourced: the Fermi-LAT spectra and H.E.S.S. upper limits are measurements, the <sigma_v> constraints are external published limits, and Jmax comes from independent cosmological simulations. The fitted normalization is not renamed as a prediction; it is the observed flux under a specific annihilation model. The central claim is explicitly conditional on the unproven assumption that the unidentified sources are dark matter clumps rather than astrophysical objects, but this is a stated premise, not a circular reduction. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing result relies on a self-citation chain. The H.E.S.S. self-citation [15] is an external experimental limit, not an assumption imported to force the conclusion. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's main derived quantity is the J-factor lower limit, obtained by normalizing a fixed annihilation spectrum to the observed Fermi-LAT flux. The central mass constraint rests on three external inputs: the cross-section limit, the simulated clump J-factor distribution, and the assumption that the sources are clumps.

free parameters (1)

DM annihilation spectrum normalization per source (effective J-factor) = not quoted; lower limits shown in Figure 2
The normalization of the tau+tau annihilation spectrum is fitted to the Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. spectral points for each source, producing a lower limit on the J-factor. This is a per-source free parameter.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The four selected 3FHL sources are dark matter subhalos (clumps).
Section 5: 'Assuming that unidentiﬁed Fermi objects indeed originate from dark matter annihilation in the dark matter Milky Way clumps'. This is the hypothesis under test; if false, the mass constraint does not apply.
domain assumption The annihilation cross-section is at the Fermi-LAT dSph limit from [38].
The authors use <sigma v> from [38] to convert flux lower limits to J-factor lower limits; the constraint would shift if the actual cross-section differs.
domain assumption The maximum J-factor of Milky Way clumps is Jmax ~ 0.7e20 GeV2 cm-5 as given by the simulations of Hütten et al. [40].
The final mass cut relies on the simulated clump distribution and the statement that N << 1 clumps have J > Jmax.
domain assumption The annihilation channel is tau+tau.
The DMFit spectrum for tau+tau is used as a representative channel; other channels would give different J-factor limits and mass constraints.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unidentified Fermi Objects in the view of H.E.S.S. -- Possible Dark Matter Clumps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KDEWWRJ

@misc{pith2026190901072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unidentified Fermi Objects in the view of H.E.S.S. -- Possible Dark Matter Clumps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KDEWWRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01072}
}

read the original abstract

There is strong evidence about the existence of unknown dark matter in the Universe. Many different theories about this dark matter exist, but most probably it is made of a new kind of fundamental particle that has to be massive, stable, electrically neutral, and having only weak interaction with standard matter (weakly interacting massive particles). In principle, those particles could produce gamma rays by their annihilation or decay. Therefore, a Gamma-ray signal from a dark matter origin would provide one of the clearest and most concluding evidences for dark matter. High resolution cosmological N-body simulations have shown that dark matter subhalos in the Milky Way halo may developed in the Universe. Those subhalos could pop-up in gamma-ray surveys as unidentified sources. In this paper we present H.E.S.S. observations of unidentified sources selected from Fermi-LAT catalogs. These sources fulfill main features which would characterize a dark matter subhalo, namely, having no obvious counterpart at other wavelengths and being steady hard sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01072 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Preliminary spectral energy distributions of different unidentified Fermi objects observed with Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S.. Red data points, upper limits, and butterflies show the results from the 4FGL [37] catalog. Magenta 95% confidence level upper limits give the results from the H.E.S.S. observations. tified Fermi objects. The tightest constraints on GeV-TeV mass scale dark matter annihilation crosssection were put… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Dark matter clumps interpretation of UFOs allow to put lower limits on J-factors of the clumps. Colored dashed lines present result for individual UFOs objects, while solid black line illustrates minimal among UFOs J-factor. Horizontal dashed line show Jmax – the maximal J-factor for which N ≥ 1 dark matter clumps is present in the Milky Way according to numerical simulations [40]. See text for further details. 6. A… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Detecting dark matter sub-halos in the Galactic plane with the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory
astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

CTAO's Galactic Plane Survey could detect the brightest Milky Way dark matter sub-halo at 5-sigma for TeV-scale WIMPs annihilating to b-quarks with cross section about 3e-25 cm^3/s, roughly ten times the canonical the...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[40]

Hütten et al., 2016, Dark matter substructure modelling and sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array to Galactic dark halos, JCAP, 09, 047 7

work page 2016
[1]

Rept., 405, 279

Bertone et al., 2005, Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rept., 405, 279

work page 2005
[2]

what is the Connection?, Mod

Kane & Watson, 2008, Dark Matter and Lhc:. what is the Connection?, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 23 2103

work page 2008
[3]

Cerdeno & Green, 2010, Direct detection of WIMPs, in Particle Dark Matter: Observations, Models and Searches, Cambridge University Press

work page 2010
[4]

Bertone & Merrit 2005, Dark Matter Dynamics and Indirect Detection, Mod. Phys. Lett.A, 20 1021

work page 2005
[5]

Wess & Zumino, 1974, Supergauge transformations in four dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B, 70, 39

work page 1974
[6]

Rept., 117, 75

Haber & Kane, 1985, The search for supersymmetry: Probing physics beyond the standard model, Phys. Rept., 117, 75

work page 1985
[7]

Bertone et al., 2009, WIMP forest: Indirect detection of a chiral square, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 023512

work page 2009

Show all 40 references

[8]

Bringmann et al., 2008, New gamma-ray contributions to supersymmetric dark matter annihilation, JHEP, 01, 049

2008
[9]

Pieri et al., 2009, Implications of High-Resolution Simulations on Indirect Dark Matter Searches, arXiv[astro-ph.HE]:0908.0195v1

2009 arXiv
[10]

Lee et al., 2009, The gamma-ray-ﬂux PDF from galactic halo substructure, JCAP, 07, 007

2009
[11]

Ando et al., 2008, Can proper motions of dark-matter subhalos be detected?, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 101301

2008
[12]

Baltz et al., 2000, Detection of neutralino annihilation photons from external galaxies, Phys. Rev. D, 61, 023514

2000
[13]

(H.E.S.S

Aharonian et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), 2006, HESS Observations of the Galactic Center Region and Their Possible Dark Matter Interpretation, Phys. Rev. Lett., 97, 221102

2006
[14]

(HESS Collaboration), 2015, Constraints on an Annihilation Signal from a Core of Constant Dark Matter Density around the Milky Way Center with H.E.S.S, PRL, 114, 081301

Abramowski et al. (HESS Collaboration), 2015, Constraints on an Annihilation Signal from a Core of Constant Dark Matter Density around the Milky Way Center with H.E.S.S, PRL, 114, 081301

2015
[15]

(H.E.S.S

Abdallah et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), 2016b, Search for Dark Matter Annihilations towards the Inner Galactic Halo from 10 Years of Observations with H.E.S.S., Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 111301
[16]

(H.E.S.S

Aharonian et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), 2008, Observations of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy by the HESS experiment and search for a dark matter signal, Astropart.Phys., 29, 55

2008
[17]

(MAGIC Collaboration), 2008, Indirect dark matter searches in the dwarf satellite galaxy Ursa Major II with the MAGIC telescopes, JCAP, 03, 009

Ahnen et al. (MAGIC Collaboration), 2008, Indirect dark matter searches in the dwarf satellite galaxy Ursa Major II with the MAGIC telescopes, JCAP, 03, 009

2008
[18]

(MAGIC Collaboration), 2014, Optimized dark matter searches in deep observations of Segue 1 with MAGIC, JCAP, 02, 008

Aleksic et al. (MAGIC Collaboration), 2014, Optimized dark matter searches in deep observations of Segue 1 with MAGIC, JCAP, 02, 008

2014
[19]

Strigaro, 2018, Dark matter in dwarf spheroidal galaxies and indirect detection: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics, 81, 056901

2018
[20]

(HESS Collaboration), 2012, Search for Dark Matter Annihilation Signals from the Fornax Galaxy Cluster with H.E.S.S., ApJ, 750, 123

Aharonian et al. (HESS Collaboration), 2012, Search for Dark Matter Annihilation Signals from the Fornax Galaxy Cluster with H.E.S.S., ApJ, 750, 123

2012
[21]

(MAGIC Collaboration), 2018, Constraining dark matter lifetime with a deep gamma-ray survey of the Perseus galaxy cluster with MAGIC, Physics of the Dark Universe, 22, 38

Acciari et al. (MAGIC Collaboration), 2018, Constraining dark matter lifetime with a deep gamma-ray survey of the Perseus galaxy cluster with MAGIC, Physics of the Dark Universe, 22, 38

2018
[22]

Emmanuel Moulin

Diemand et al., 2008, Clumps and streams in the local dark matter distribution, Nature, 454, 735 6 Unidentiﬁed Fermi Objects in the view of H.E.S.S. Emmanuel Moulin

2008
[23]

Springel et al., 2008, Prospects for detecting supersymmetric dark matter in the Galactic halo, Nature, 456, 73

2008
[24]

Kuhlen et al., 2008, The Via Lactea INCITE simulation: galactic dark matter substructure at high resolution, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 125, 012008

2008
[25]

Stadel et al., 2008, Quantifying the heart of darkness with GHALO - a multi-billion particle simulation of our galactic halo, MNRAS, 398, 21

2008
[26]

Pieri et al., 2008, Dark matter annihilation in substructures revised, MNRAS, 384, 1627

2008
[27]

(H.E.S.S

Aharonian et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), 2008, Search for gamma rays from dark matter annihilations around intermediate mass black holes with the HESS experiment, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 072008

2008
[28]

Bertone et al., 2009, Dark matter annihilation around intermediate mass black holes: an update, New J.Phys, 11, 105016

2009
[29]

Kamionkowski et al., 2010, Galactic Substructure and Dark Matter Annihilation in the Milky Way Halo, Phys.Rev.D, 81, 043532

2010
[30]

(Particle Data Group), 2009, 2008 and 2009 partial update for the 2010 edition, Physics Letters B, 667, 1

Amsler et al. (Particle Data Group), 2009, 2008 and 2009 partial update for the 2010 edition, Physics Letters B, 667, 1

2009
[31]

(FERMI Collaboration), 2017, 3FHL: The Third Catalog of Hard Fermi-LAT Sources, ApJS, 232, 18

Ajello et al. (FERMI Collaboration), 2017, 3FHL: The Third Catalog of Hard Fermi-LAT Sources, ApJS, 232, 18

2017
[32]

(H.E.S.S

Aharonian et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), 2006a, Observations of the Crab Nebula with H.E.S.S, A&A, 457, 899
[33]

Berge et al., 2007, Background modelling in very-high-energy gamma-ray astronomy, A&A, 466, 1219

2007
[34]

Phys., 56, 26

Parsons & Hinton, 2014, A Monte Carlo template based analysis for air-Cherenkov arrays, Astropart. Phys., 56, 26

2014
[35]

II., arXiv e-prints arXiv: 1509.00794

Murach et al., 2015, A Neural Network-Based Monoscopic Reconstruction Algorithm for H.E.S.S. II., arXiv e-prints arXiv: 1509.00794

2015 arXiv
[36]

de Naurois & Rolland, 2009, A high performance likelihood reconstruction of γ-rays for imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes, Astroparticle Physics, 32, 231

2009
[37]

The Fermi-LAT Collaboration, 2019, Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog, arXiv e-prints arXiv: 1902.10045

2019 arXiv
[38]

Wood et al., 2015, Dark Matter Searches with the Fermi-LAT in the Direction of Dwarf Spheroidals, arXiv e-prints arXiv: 1507.03530

2015 arXiv
[39]

Jeltema & Profumo, 2008, Fitting the gamma-ray spectrum from dark matter with DMFIT: GLAST and the galactic center region , JCAP, 11, 003

2008

Pith tools

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

[1] [40]

Hütten et al., 2016, Dark matter substructure modelling and sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array to Galactic dark halos, JCAP, 09, 047 7

work page 2016

[2] [1]

Rept., 405, 279

Bertone et al., 2005, Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rept., 405, 279

work page 2005

[3] [2]

what is the Connection?, Mod

Kane & Watson, 2008, Dark Matter and Lhc:. what is the Connection?, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 23 2103

work page 2008

[4] [3]

Cerdeno & Green, 2010, Direct detection of WIMPs, in Particle Dark Matter: Observations, Models and Searches, Cambridge University Press

work page 2010

[5] [4]

Bertone & Merrit 2005, Dark Matter Dynamics and Indirect Detection, Mod. Phys. Lett.A, 20 1021

work page 2005

[6] [5]

Wess & Zumino, 1974, Supergauge transformations in four dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B, 70, 39

work page 1974

[7] [6]

Rept., 117, 75

Haber & Kane, 1985, The search for supersymmetry: Probing physics beyond the standard model, Phys. Rept., 117, 75

work page 1985

[8] [7]

Bertone et al., 2009, WIMP forest: Indirect detection of a chiral square, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 023512

work page 2009