Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Indirect detection imprint of leptophilic dark matter

T0 review · 2 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 Tau-flavored leptophilic dark matter is nearly excluded by indirect-detection data, with only narrow mass windows surviving.

desk verdict Competent but incremental constraints update for leptophilic DM; the tau-channel high-mass exclusions and surviving windows are not EFT-valid, so Table I needs revision. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02529 v1 pith:7E4Q6HY5 submitted 2019-09-05 hep-ph

Wei Chao , Zhuyao Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords leptophilicdarkmatterindirectdetectioneffectivefieldtheorythermalrelicabundancetau-flavoredcosmic-rayconstraintsgamma-raylimitsannihilation
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks how much room remains for dark matter that interacts only with charged leptons. Treating scalar, Dirac, and vector dark matter through effective operators, it combines the measured relic abundance with indirect-detection bounds from Planck, Fermi-LAT, H.E.S.S., and AMS-02. It finds that each operator leaves only limited dark-matter mass windows, and that annihilation into tau leptons is almost excluded in several scenarios. Because these operators are among the few ways dark matter can evade direct detection, the result narrows the search space for thermal leptophilic dark matter and gives model builders a concrete target list.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set of effective dark-matter–lepton interactions in Table II, each written as a coupling ζ times a dark-matter bilinear contracted with a lepton bilinear, together with the velocity-expanded thermal averages in Table III, $\langle\sigma v\rangle = a + b x^{-1}$ with $x = m_{\rm DM}/T$. The velocity-independent $a$ coefficient controls annihilation in today's slow-moving halos and decides which operators are probed by the CMB, gamma-ray, and cosmic-ray measurements; the same $a$ and $b$ coefficients feed the freeze-out calculation of $\Omega h^2$. Operators whose $a$ coefficient vanishes annihilate only through the velocity-suppressed $p$-wave piece and are left effectively unconstrained by indirect searches.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier: if a future gamma-ray telescope sees a dwarf-spheroidal signal consistent with dark matter annihilating into tau leptons at a mass inside one of the windows Table I excludes, at the cross section required by the thermal relic abundance, then the paper's central exclusion claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the observed relic abundance plus current indirect-detection data reduce the viable mass range of lepton-coupled scalar, Dirac, and vector dark matter to the windows summarized in Table I. For electron final states the surviving masses are bounded below by roughly 205–242 GeV depending on the operator; for muon final states the lower bound is about 134–162 GeV. For tau final states a large intermediate interval is excluded, leaving only a narrow band below roughly 376–445 GeV and a multi-TeV tail above about 3.1–4.4 TeV. Stated in one line: tau-flavored leptophilic dark matter is almost excluded by indirect-detection results in several of the operator scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the effective contact interactions used to compute annihilation rates stay valid at dark matter masses comparable to the cutoff scale $ζ^{{-1}}$, so the high-mass tau exclusions are treated as real rather than as artifacts of the effective-theory expansion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the scalar operators OS1/OS2, electron final states force $m_{\rm DM} > 234$ GeV, muon final states force $m_{\rm DM} > 162$ GeV, and tau final states survive only in $(149,\,376)$ GeV or above 4.35 TeV.
  • For the Dirac operators OF2/OF4 and OF5/OF7, the tau channel leaves only $(124,\,408)$ GeV or above 3.67 TeV, and $(123,\,406)$ GeV or above 3.70 TeV, respectively, excluding the multi-hundred-GeV range in between.
  • For the vector operators OV1/OV2 and OV7, tau final states survive only in $(120,\,419)$ GeV or above 3.47 TeV, and $(109,\,445)$ GeV or above 3.11 TeV, respectively.
  • Operators that annihilate only through the velocity-suppressed piece, such as OS3/OS4, OF3/OF6, and OV3–OV6, produce no significant indirect signal today and are not constrained by the four experiments used here.
  • If the central claim is correct, any future detection of thermal dark matter annihilating into tau leptons inside the excluded windows would require physics beyond the effective operators considered.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A strict reading of effective-field-theory validity asks for $m_{\rm DM}$ well below the cutoff ζ^{-1}; under that requirement, the multi-TeV tau windows in Table I sit partly outside the regime where the contact-interaction cross sections are trustworthy, so those windows should be re-derived with explicit mediators.
  • The same operator-by-operator treatment transfers directly to next-generation CMB and gamma-ray instruments; improved sensitivity would shrink the surviving windows and could turn the 'almost excluded' tau conclusion into a full exclusion.
  • Models that reach the right relic density through coannihilation or with a light mediator are outside the freeze-out-only analysis, so tau-flavored dark matter inside the excluded windows is not ruled out in those broader model classes.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies indirect-detection constraints on leptophilic dark matter described by effective operators. It classifies scalar, Dirac, and vector dark-matter bilinears coupled to charged-lepton bilinears (Table II), computes the corresponding thermally averaged annihilation cross sections (Table III), and confronts them with the observed relic abundance plus limits from Planck, AMS-02, Fermi-LAT, and H.E.S.S. The principal quantitative output is Table I, which gives allowed dark-matter mass ranges for each operator and final-state flavor, and the abstract's claim that tau-flavored dark matter is almost excluded by indirect detection in some scenarios.

Significance. If the numerical results are correct, Table I would provide a useful model-building guideline for leptophilic dark matter, and the systematic operator classification is a convenient compendium. The paper's cross-section expressions are stated to agree with Refs. [19,20], and the use of the measured relic abundance as an input is standard and not circular. The main significance is therefore conditional: the central claim rests on the validity of the effective-field-theory treatment up to multi-TeV dark-matter masses and on experimental constraints that are not documented in enough detail to be reproduced.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section V.A and Table I (Figs. 1–3)] The analysis never imposes the EFT-validity condition stated in Section I. For s-wave annihilations the relevant energy is sqrt(s) ≈ 2 m_DM, so contact operators are trustworthy only for m_DM much smaller than the cutoff zeta^{-1}. The tau-channel exclusion for OS1/OS2 extends to m_DM = 4352 GeV while the relic-compatible cutoff is quoted as about 4.4 TeV, meaning the upper part of that window has m_DM ≈ zeta^{-1}; the analogous OV1/OV2 and OV7 windows end at 3.47 TeV and 3.11 TeV, again within a factor of about 1.4–2 of the cutoff. In these regions the Table III cross sections are not the physical amplitudes, because momentum-suppressed dimension-six operators cannot be truncated reliably. The same problem affects the surviving window '> 4.35 TeV': an EFT-valid relic-saturating point there would require zeta^{-1} ≳ 2 m_DM > 8.7 TeV, which is inconsistent with the relic-density cutoff. Table I should be recomputed with a validity cut such as m_DM ≲ zeta^{-1}/2, or with a UV-complete mediator treatment for the high-mass region.
  2. [Section IV] None of the four experimental constraints is specified at the level needed to reproduce the figures or to assess the quoted bounds. For Planck, the redshift-dependent efficiency f_eff in Eq. (5) is not given; for Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S., the J-factors or dark-matter density profiles and the actual limit curves used are not provided; for AMS-02, the propagation parameters (diffusion coefficient, energy-loss rate, halo height) and the specific implementation of Refs. [48,49] are not stated. Since the mass windows in Table I are derived from the intersection of these constraints, the absence of these inputs makes the central numerical claim unverifiable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I and Section V] Table I collapses two-dimensional excluded regions in the m_DM–zeta^{-1} plane into one-dimensional mass intervals, but the text does not define whether these are projections over all zeta^{-1} or bounds for some fixed cutoff; this should be clarified.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The quantity f_eff is called a redshift-dependent efficiency function, but no functional form, fitting prescription, or reference value is given, so the Planck constraint cannot be reproduced.
  3. [Figures and axes] The axis labels in Figs. 1–3 are not self-consistent with the text: Fig. 2 is described as the m_DM–zeta^{-1/2} plane while the text in Section V.B refers to 'the m_DM−ζ^{-1/2} plane' without explaining the change of variable; please make the axes and the dimension of zeta explicit for each operator class.
  4. [Section V.B] The rescaling relations for OF9/OF0 and OV8 (e.g., sqrt(2) zeta_F9 → zeta_F5 and 2 zeta_V8 → zeta_V7) are stated in words but the resulting constraints are not shown in any figure; a summary table similar to Table I for these operators would improve completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: constraints follow from external experimental limits and independently checked EFT cross sections.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a standard EFT parameter scan. The thermal-averaged annihilation cross sections (Table III) are analytic expressions in the operator couplings and masses, checked against Refs. [19,20], and the exclusion regions come from external measurements (Planck, AMS-02, Fermi-LAT, H.E.S.S.) plus the observed relic abundance. The relic-abundance condition is used to fix or exclude the coupling scale ζ^-1 as a function of mDM, after which the indirect-detection limits are applied; this is a constraint calculation, not a fit of the final mass windows. Table I is a read-off of the intersection of independent experimental bounds. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Refs. [35]-[37] for loop-suppressed direct detection) are not load-bearing for the central claim. The EFT-validity question raised by the reader (mDM near the cutoff ζ^-1 in the high-mass tau windows) is a regime-of-applicability concern about the cross-section inputs, not a circularity: the displayed bounds would be incorrect only if invalid, but they are not constructed from the outputs they predict. No step in the chain defines a prediction in terms of itself or imports a uniqueness theorem from author-specific prior work. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on a standard two-parameter EFT (mDM, zeta) plus the assumptions listed above. No new particles are invented. The main fragility is the validity of the contact-operator approximation at the high-mass end of the scanned plane.

free parameters (2)
  • m_DM = not fitted; scanned from 10 GeV to 5 TeV
    The DM mass is a free parameter of the effective operators; the central results are the allowed mass windows in Table I, so the claim depends entirely on how this parameter is scanned and constrained.
  • zeta (effective coupling, with zeta^-1 as cutoff scale) = not fitted; constrained by data
    The cutoff scale zeta^-1 is the second free parameter. Relic abundance is used to pick the thermal value, and indirect limits bound it; the excluded regions in the figures are drawn in the mDM versus zeta^-1 plane.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dark matter is a thermal relic whose abundance is set by standard freeze-out (Boltzmann equation, Eqs. (2)-(4)).
    Section III assumes standard cosmology and freeze-out; non-thermal production, asymmetric DM, and coannihilations are not considered.
  • domain assumption Only one effective operator and one charged-lepton flavor contribute at a time, with no additional annihilation channels.
    The operator classification in Table II and the flavor-by-flavor limits in Figs. 1-3 assume each interaction can be constrained independently; additional channels would relax the bounds.
  • domain assumption The effective field theory is valid over the entire scanned mass range, including mDM of order the cutoff scale.
    This is the weakest premise: the cross sections in Table III are contact interactions, but Figures and Table I quote constraints for masses up to several TeV with cutoff scales also around a few TeV.
  • standard math The velocity-weighted annihilation cross sections in Table III are correct (the paper states agreement with Refs. [19,20]).
    These expressions are the mathematical backbone of both relic-density and indirect-detection constraints; the paper does not derive them in detail.
  • domain assumption The experimental limits quoted from Planck, Fermi-LAT, H.E.S.S. and AMS-02 are accurate and are applied in the way the original analyses intended.
    Section IV uses each bound via citations and marked exclusion regions; no independent likelihood or background treatment is presented.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way dark matter density profile for the Galactic center is Einasto or NFW for the H.E.S.S. limits, and cosmic-ray propagation for AMS-02 follows the models in Refs. [48,49].
    Section IV adopts these profiles and models by reference; a less cuspy profile would weaken the H.E.S.S. exclusions, and different propagation parameters would shift the AMS-02 bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Indirect detection imprint of leptophilic dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7E4Q6HY5

@misc{pith2026190902529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Indirect detection imprint of leptophilic dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7E4Q6HY5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02529}
}
abstract

In this paper we revisit constraints on the leptophilic dark matter (DM) arising from the DM indirect detection experiments. Interactions between the charged leptons and the scalar-type, Dirac-type or vector-type DM are written in terms of effective operators. After classifying all interactions that may give non-zero signals in indirect detections, we study constraints on the parameter space of these effective interactions from the latest results of AMS-02, Planck, Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S., as well as the observed relic abundance. Main results are summarized in the Table. I. It shows that the $\tau$-flavored DM is almost excluded by the DM indirect detection results in some scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02529 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Constraints of operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Constraints on the operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Constraints on the operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Goldberg, Phys

    H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1419 (1983) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 099905 (2009)]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.099905, 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.50.1419

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.099905 1983

  3. [3]

    J. R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive an d M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B 238, 453 (1984). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90461-9

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90461-9 1984

  4. [4]

    It can thus be used to constrain the ⟨σv ⟩

    1 × 10− 28 cm3s− 1GeV− 1 [44]. It can thus be used to constrain the ⟨σv ⟩. Limits are show in Figs. 1, 2 and 3 marked in light-orange color. • Fermi-LAT Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT) is a gamma ray telescope which observe s gamma rays emitted from the dwarf spheroidal satellite galaxies (dSphs) o f the Milky Way that are supposed to be DM dominated. Fe...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. 267, 195 (1996) doi:10.1016/0370- 1573(95)00058-5 [hep-ph/9506380]

    arXiv 1996

  6. [6]

    Servant and T

    G. Servant and T. M. P. Tait, Nucl. Phys. B 650, 391 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)01012- X [hep-ph/0206071]

    arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    H. C. Cheng, J. L. Feng and K. T. Matchev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 211301 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.211301 [hep-ph/0207125]

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405, 279 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 [hep-ph/0404175]

    arXiv 2005

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    D. S. Akerib et al. [LUX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 091303 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.091303 [arXiv:1310.8214 [ astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Tan et al

    A. Tan et al. [PandaX-II Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no. 12, 121303 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.121303 [arXiv:1607.07400 [hep-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. [XENON Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 18, 181301 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.181301 [arXiv:1705.06655 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Billard, L

    J. Billard, L. Strigari and E. Figueroa-Feliciano, Phy s. Rev. D 89, no. 2, 023524 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.023524 [arXiv:1307.5458 [hep- ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    W. Chao, J. G. Jiang, X. Wang and X. Y. Zhang, JCAP 2019, no. 08, 010 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/08/010 [arXiv:1904.11214 [ hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers and Y. X u, JCAP 1302, 004 (2013) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/004 [arXiv:1203.3542 [h ep-ph]]. 13

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    M. P. Hertzberg, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 4, 043521 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.043521 [arXiv:1208.0839 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M. A. Fedderke, J. Y. Chen, E. W. Kolb and L. T. Wang, JHEP 1408, 122 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2014)122 [arXiv:1404.2283 [hep-ph] ]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ovanesyan, T

    G. Ovanesyan, T. R. Slatyer and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, no. 21, 211302 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.211302 [arXiv:1409.8294 [ hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Krall, M

    R. Krall, M. Reece and T. Roxlo, JCAP 1409, 007 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/09/007 [arXiv:1403.1240 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S. Liem, G. Bertone, F. Calore, R. Ruiz de Austri, T. M. P. Tait, R. Trotta and C. Weniger, JHEP 1609, 077 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)077 [arXiv:1603.05 994 [hep-ph]]

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    J. M. Zheng, Z. H. Yu, J. W. Shao, X. J. Bi, Z. Li and H. H. Zha ng, Nucl. Phys. B 854, 350 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.09.009 [arXiv:101 2.2022 [hep-ph]]

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Z. H. Yu, J. M. Zheng, X. J. Bi, Z. Li, D. X. Yao and H. H. Zhan g, Nucl. Phys. B 860, 115 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.02.016 [arXiv:111 2.6052 [hep-ph]]

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    Chang, R

    S. Chang, R. Edezhath, J. Hutchinson and M. Luty, Phys. R ev. D 89, no. 1, 015011 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.015011 [arXiv:1307.8120 [hep- ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    De Simone and T

    A. De Simone and T. Jacques, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no. 7, 367 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 016-4208-4 [arXiv:1603.08002 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Busoni, A

    G. Busoni, A. De Simone, E. Morgante and A. Riotto, Phys. Lett. B 728, 412 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.11.069 [arXiv:1307.2253 [ hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bauer, A

    M. Bauer, A. Butter, N. Desai, J. Gonzalez-Fraile and T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 7, 075036 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.075036 [arXiv:16 11.09908 [hep-ph]]

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    P. J. Fox and E. Poppitz, Phys. Rev. D 79, 083528 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.083528 [arXiv:0811.0399 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    X. J. Bi, X. G. He and Q. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 678, 168 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.06.009 [arXiv:0903.0122 [ hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cohen and K

    T. Cohen and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 101301 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.101301 [arXiv:0909.2035 [ hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Chao, Phys

    W. Chao, Phys. Lett. B 695, 157 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.10.056 [arXiv: 1005.1024 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Chao, Int

    W. Chao, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, no. 01, 1550007 (2015) doi:10.1142/S0217751X15500074 14 [arXiv:1202.6394 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Chao and Q

    W. Chao and Q. Yuan, arXiv:1711.11182 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Cai and W

    Y. Cai and W. Chao, Phys. Lett. B 749, 458 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.08.026 [arXiv:1408.6064 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Aguilar et al

    M. Aguilar et al. [AMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 141102 (2013). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141102

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    Ackermann et al

    M. Ackermann et al. [Fermi-LAT Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no. 23, 231301 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.231301 [arXiv:1503.02641 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Abdallah et al

    H. Abdallah et al. [H.E.S.S. Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no. 11, 111301 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.111301 [arXiv:1607.08142 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Chao, arXiv:1904.09785 [hep-ph]

    W. Chao, arXiv:1904.09785 [hep-ph]

    1904 arXiv

  29. [37]

    W. Chao, H. K. Guo, H. L. Li and J. Shu, Phys. Lett. B 782, 517 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.05.075 [arXiv:1712.00037 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    W. Chao, H. K. Guo and H. L. Li, JCAP 1702, no. 02, 002 (2017) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2017/02/002 [arXiv:1606.07174 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B 360, 145 (1991). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90438-4

    1991 doi

  32. [40]

    T. R. Slatyer, arXiv:1710.05137 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Hooper, PoS TASI 2018, 010 (2019) [arXiv:1812.02029 [hep-ph]]

    D. Hooper, PoS TASI 2018, 010 (2019) [arXiv:1812.02029 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Chang et al

    J. Chang et al. [DAMPE Collaboration], Astropart. Phys. 95, 6 (2017) [arXiv:1706.08453 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ambrosi et al

    G. Ambrosi et al. [DAMPE Collaboration], Nature 552, 63 (2017) doi:10.1038/nature24475 [arXiv:1711.10981 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 2, 023527 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.023527 [arXiv:1506.03811 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016) [arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Springel et al

    V. Springel et al. , arXiv:0809.0894 [astro-ph]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J . 490, 493 (1997) doi:10.1086/304888 [astro-ph/9611107]

    1997 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. E. Vladimirov et al. , Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 1156 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2011.01.017 [arXiv:1008.3642 [astro -ph.HE]]. 15

    2011 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bergstrom, T

    L. Bergstrom, T. Bringmann, I. Cholis, D. Hooper and C. W eniger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 171101 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.171101 [arXi v:1306.3983 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Ibarra, A

    A. Ibarra, A. S. Lamperstorfer and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 6, 063539 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.063539 [arXiv:1309.2570 [hep- ph]]. 16

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

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