Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Indirect Detection of Hot Dark Matter

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Thermal axions in the 1–10 eV range can be indirectly detected through their decay into photon pairs, and existing observations of dwarf galaxies, the Milky Way, and galaxy clusters already constrain the axion–photon coupling more tightly…

desk verdict First real HDM indirect-detection framework; new axion limits are plausible but the dominant profile term carries an acknowledged, unquantified O(1) systematic. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14264 v1 pith:GGAGBUQ5 submitted 2024-12-18 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

Jeff A. Dror , Pearl Sandick , Barmak Shams Es Haghi , Fengwei Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.GA PACS 95.35.+d
keywords hotdarkmatterthermalaxionsaxion-photoncouplingindirectdetectionD-factorconcurrentcollapsegravitationalclusteringextendedPress-Schechter
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a way to detect hot dark matter — light particles that once thermalized with the Standard Model and survive today as a subdominant dark-matter component — by searching for their decay products in the densest parts of dark-matter halos. It argues that a hot relic's density profile around a cold dark matter halo is set by two mechanisms acting together: concurrent collapse, in which the slow tail of the relic's velocity distribution falls in with cold matter during halo formation and mergers, and gravitational clustering, in which the remaining particles accrete onto the finished halo. The two components have different radial shapes, and the paper combines them into a D-factor, the line-of-sight integral that controls the decay flux. Applied to thermal axions with masses in the 1–10 eV range, the framework yields new 95% confidence upper bounds on the axion–photon coupling that are stronger than helioscope limits over most of that range and stronger than globular-cluster limits near 4.5–7.6 eV. If the density-profile calculation holds, existing infrared and optical surveys are already sensitive to a class of particles that is otherwise very hard to probe.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the two density-profile formulae. Concurrent collapse gives $\rho^{\rm cc}_\chi(r) = \rho_{\rm CDM}(r)\, M_{\chi,\rm tot}/M_{\rm vir}$, with $M_{\chi,\rm tot}$ set by the extended Press–Schechter merger-tree integral of Eq. (2.11) over the Jeans-volume relic mass; this component is cuspy like the cold halo. Gravitational clustering gives the perturbation $\delta\tilde n_\chi(k,\eta)$ in Eq. (2.23), obtained from the linearized collisionless Boltzmann equation and expressible as a convolution of the cold halo overdensity with a window function controlled by the free-streaming scale; this component is flat inside and extended outside. The argument is carried by the recasting identity $g_{a\gamma} = \sqrt{D_{\rm CDM}/D_a}\, g^{\rm CDM}_{\gamma}$ (Eq. 4.5), which turns published cold-dark-matter decay limits into hot-dark-matter limits without requiring new observations.

What would settle it

A cosmological simulation that follows a Bose–Einstein thermal relic of mass a few eV through structure formation could test the core prediction directly: if the measured inner density profile does not match the sum of Eq. (2.15) and the clustering profile, the recast bounds do not follow. Observationally, a targeted search for the two-photon decay line at wavelength $\lambda = 2479.68\,{\rm nm}\,({\rm eV}/m_a)$ toward a galaxy cluster or dwarf galaxy would measure the product of the D-factor and the decay rate; comparing that flux with the predicted D-factor would settle whether the profile calculation is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the hot dark matter halo profile is the sum of a concurrent-collapse component and a gravitational-clustering component. The concurrent-collapse component is built from the halo's merger history: at each step, the fraction of relic particles with velocity below a Jeans-derived critical velocity $v_c$ is taken to collapse with the cold matter, so its density follows the cold halo profile with an amplitude fixed by an extended Press–Schechter integral over the progenitor mass function. The gravitational-clustering component is derived by solving the linearized collisionless Boltzmann equation for a Bose–Einstein relic in the time-independent potential of an NFW halo, giving the number-density perturbation in Eq. (2.23), which flattens in the inner region and extends farther out. The paper then observes that any existing cold-dark-matter decay constraint can be converted into a hot-dark-matter constraint through the D-factor ratio, $g_{a\gamma} = \sqrt{D_{\rm CDM}/D_a}\, g^{\rm CDM}_{\gamma}$, because the photon flux factors into a decay rate times a line-of-sight density integral. Carrying out this recast with dwarf-galaxy, Milky-Way, and galaxy-cluster data produces 95% C.L. bounds on the axion–photon coupling for thermal axions with masses in the $\mathcal{O}(1{-}10)\,{\rm eV}$ range.

Load-bearing premise

The amplitude of the concurrent-collapse component assumes that every hot relic particle slower than a Jeans-derived critical velocity, computed from a Maxwellian distribution rather than the true Bose–Einstein one, collapses exactly like cold dark matter at every merger step; since this component dominates the inner density and the D-factor, any order-unity error in that critical velocity or in the merger-tree efficiency shifts all the reported coupling bounds by a comparable factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Thermal axions with $m_a \sim 1{-}10\,{\rm eV}$ and $T_{a,0}\simeq 0.91\,{\rm K}$ are now excluded for couplings above the recast bounds, with the galaxy-cluster analysis giving the strongest limit.
  • Heavier halos produce larger hot-relic D-factors, so galaxy clusters are the most promising targets for future line searches.
  • The same D-factor recasting applies to any light relic whose decay into photons produces an unresolved line, including sterile-neutrino-type decays, not only axions.
  • Because concurrent collapse dominates the inner profile and gravitational clustering dominates the outer profile, the two mechanisms can in principle be separated by the radial shape of a detected signal.
  • For axion masses where the coupling is large enough that the axion decays within a Hubble time, the assumption of cosmological stability breaks down, so the reported bounds apply only below that maximum coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Maxwellian Jeans treatment overestimates the slow tail that collapses, the inner cusp amplitude — and hence the coupling bounds — would shift down by an order-unity factor; a simulation of Bose–Einstein relics in halos would settle this.
  • The framework suggests a morphology test: because gravitational clustering gives a flat, extended profile, a resolved decay line from a cluster should appear more extended than a cold-dark-matter decay line, providing an observational handle on which mechanism dominates.
  • The recast method could be inverted: a future nondetection at the predicted D-factor could be used to bound the relic's effective temperature today, since the profile amplitude depends on $T_{\chi,0}$.
  • For fermionic relics, the phase-space bound from Liouville's theorem and Fermi–Dirac statistics caps the inner density, so the same framework predicts a suppressed or saturated inner signal for fermionic hot dark matter, a testable difference from the bosonic case.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a framework for indirect detection of hot dark matter (HDM) that is a subdominant component of the dark matter. The HDM density profile around a CDM halo is modeled as the sum of a concurrent-collapse component, obtained by summing the HDM mass below a Jeans critical velocity over the EPS merger tree (Eqs. (2.9)-(2.15)), and a gravitational-clustering component obtained from a linearized Boltzmann equation (Eq. (2.23)). The authors define a D-factor and use the scaling gaγ = sqrt(D_CDM/D_a) gCDMγ (Eq. (4.5)) to recast published CDM axion-decay constraints from MUSE, WINERED, JWST, and VIMOS into 95% C.L. bounds on thermal axions in the O(1-10) eV mass range. They conclude that the new bounds improve on CAST over most of the range and on globular-cluster constraints for ma around 4.5-7.6 eV.

Significance. The recasting idea is clean, and the paper is careful to state its assumptions. Its strengths include a transparent derivation of the gravitational-clustering kernel with analytic asymptotics in Appendix B, explicit formulas for the D-factors, and the use of external CDM constraints rather than a fit to the axion signal, so there is no circularity in the limit-setting procedure. If the HDM profile model is correct, the resulting constraints are a useful new probe of thermal axions and, more generally, of eV-scale relics. The quantitative claims, however, rest on the uncalibrated Maxwellian Jeans criterion used to set the concurrent-collapse amplitude, which is the dominant contribution for the most constraining halos; an order-unity error in that amplitude translates into an order-unity shift in the reported coupling bounds. The paper also extends a linear clustering solution into the nonlinear regime and presents the final curves without propagated systematic uncertainties. These issues are addressable, but they make the current bounds conditional rather than final.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1-2.2, Eqs. (2.4)-(2.15)] The central amplitude Mχ,tot is computed using a Jeans critical velocity vc derived for a Maxwellian distribution, while the HDM relic distribution is Bose-Einstein. The paper states explicitly in Sec. 2.1 that a rigorous treatment of gravitational instability for the actual phase-space distribution is beyond its scope, and repeats this limitation in Sec. 5. Because ρccχ(r) is proportional to Mχ,tot (Eq. (2.15)) and the recast bound enters as gaγ = (D_CDM/D_a)^{1/2} gCDMγ (Eq. (4.5)), an O(1) error in vc or in the efficiency factor ε(M,zf) of Eq. (2.10) shifts all reported coupling bounds by O(1). The low-momentum enhancement of the Bose-Einstein distribution relative to a Maxwellian can affect both the location of the unstable-mode boundary and the fraction of particles that participate in concurrent collapse. I ask the authors to calibrate this step with a kinetic-theory calculation or simulation, or to give conservative bracketed limits that cover the plausible range of vc and ε.
  2. [Sec. 2.3-2.4, Eq. (2.23) and Fig. 3] The gravitational-clustering profile is obtained from a linear perturbation of the homogeneous HDM distribution and is then used to compute total profiles and D-factors integrated to large radii. The paper acknowledges in Sec. 2.3 that the solution is formally valid only for δnχ/n̄χ ≪ 1 but is extended into the nonlinear regime. Since the final limits depend on the D-factor, and since for bosons the central clustering density of Eq. (2.27) contains a ln(2Λ)k_FS^2 enhancement relative to the fermionic case, the uncontrolled extrapolation can matter. Please quantify the nonlinear correction for representative halos, for example by comparison with N-body or Vlasov simulations for the HDM component, or demonstrate that the reported bounds are insensitive to it.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 4.3, Fig. 6] The WINERED curve labeled as a constraint in Fig. 6 is not a well-defined 95% C.L. limit. The text states that the CDM constraint from Ref. [29] combines Leo-V and Tucana II, that the two targets cannot be separated, and that the authors therefore use Leo-V alone and assume the combined constraint applies to it. This makes the teal-dashed curve an estimate whose statistical coverage is not defined. Either perform the full two-target likelihood recast or present this curve as an illustrative projection and exclude it from the set of claimed bounds.
  4. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 4.3, Eqs. (3.7)-(3.9), Fig. 6] The reported limit curves are presented without propagated uncertainties. The D-factors depend on the target virial masses, the concentration-mass relation of Eq. (3.9), the formation-redshift fitting function of Eq. (2.7) (which is extrapolated below Mvir = 1.5×10^10 Msun), and the Leo-V generalized NFW parameters. These inputs carry substantial empirical scatter, and an order-unity change in the D-factor ratio moves the bounds by order unity in gaγ. Please provide a representative uncertainty band or identify which input dominates, so that the reader can assess the robustness of the claimed improvement over CAST.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2.30)] Equation (2.30) does not appear to reproduce the efficiency factor ε defined in Eq. (2.10): for mχvc/Tχ → 0 the bracket tends to unity rather than to the small fraction of particles below vc, and for x = O(1) it differs from ε by a factor of a few. Please correct or remove this approximate expression.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 6] The cosmological-stability requirement is mentioned but never written explicitly; please state the condition Γa→γγ ≲ H0 and indicate the corresponding cutoff in Fig. 6.
  3. [References [37,38]] Reference [38] is cited as an unpublished communication; the VIMOS analysis should cite a published paper or the constraint should be omitted.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The assumption that HDM and CDM line shapes are identical is justified by the coarse experimental resolution, but for the gravitational-clustering component the velocity dispersion can be comparable to the HDM thermal velocity; a quantitative sentence with the relevant velocity scales would be helpful.
  5. [Fig. 2] The caption and the text differ on whether the dot-dashed segment denotes the extrapolated regime; please clarify the line styles.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the HDM profile derivation is self-contained and the axion bounds are a recasting of external CDM limits.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. The HDM density profiles are computed from a phase-space distribution, a Jeans-based critical velocity, an extended Press-Schechter merger-tree integral, and a perturbative Boltzmann treatment of gravitational clustering. These are theoretical constructions with explicit external inputs (e.g., the Bullock concentration relation, the Power formation-redshift fit, and textbook Jeans arguments) and are not fitted to HDM observations. The final axion-photon coupling limits are obtained by rescaling existing CDM indirect-detection constraints through Eq. (4.5), which is a transparent recasting rather than a prediction forced by the input data. The paper explicitly acknowledges the main modeling limitations, including the Maxwellian approximation for the Jeans instability criterion and the linear-regime restriction of gravitational clustering; these are stated uncertainties, not hidden circular steps. No load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness arguments from the authors' own prior work appear, so there is no circularity pattern to flag.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of empirical fits and approximations, many from cited prior work. The new physics content is the combination of EPS merger-tree collapse with bosonic gravitational clustering, not a new entity or a parameter-free calculation. This makes the constraints model-dependent at the order-one level.

free parameters (5)
  • Target halo virial masses (Leo-T, Leo-V/WINERED, MW, A2667, A2390) = 1.7e8, ~1e8, 1e12, 2.0e15, 2.9e15 Msun
    Chosen from Refs [13-16] to set CDM seed halos; D-factors scale with halo mass.
  • Concentration-mass relation coefficients = c = 13 (1+z)^-1 (M/1e12 Msun)^-0.13
    Empirical fit from Bullock et al. (Ref [27]) used for all NFW profiles; not fitted to the axion target.
  • Halo formation redshift fitting function = <z_f> = 1.1 - 0.22 log10(M/1e12 Msun)
    From Power et al. (Ref [12]); extrapolated below 1.5e10 Msun for dwarf halos.
  • Leo-V generalized NFW parameters = rho_s=5.0e-3 Msun/pc^3, r_s=6.3 kpc, alpha=1.9, beta=6.3, gamma=0.6
    Adopted from Hayashi et al. (Ref [13]) with spherical symmetry assumed.
  • Clustering initial and integration redshifts = z_initial=3, z_max=10
    Chosen for numerical integration; authors find a few percent sensitivity when initial redshift is varied from 3 to 8 and negligible z_max dependence.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Extended Press-Schechter excursion-set formalism provides the progenitor halo mass function for merger trees.
    Used in Eqs. (2.11)-(2.12) and Appendix A to compute concurrent-collapse mass.
  • domain assumption HDM density is negligible, so the CDM halo potential is fixed and HDM does not backreact.
    Used in the linearized Boltzmann equation (Eq. 2.18) and stated in Sec. 2.3.
  • domain assumption CDM halos are spherical, decoupled from the Hubble flow, and static since z=3.
    Assumed in the gravitational clustering solution Eq. (2.21); authors note realistic halos may be flattened and mergers neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper A Maxwellian Jeans radius determines the critical velocity vc for HDM gravitational instability; particles with v below vc collapse.
    Sec. 2.1 Eqs. (2.4)-(2.10); the paper states rigorous treatment of the phase-space instability is beyond scope, so the collapse fraction is an estimate.
  • domain assumption Linear perturbation theory for gravitational clustering can be extrapolated into the nonlinear regime.
    Sec. 2.3, where the authors extend a delta-n/n << 1 result to the halo center, citing success for the cosmic neutrino background.
  • domain assumption Thermal axions decoupled above the electroweak scale with Ta,0 = 0.91 K and no significant entropy dilution.
    Sec. 4.1, Eq. (4.1); this sets the relic abundance and velocity scale.
  • domain assumption NFW/gNFW profiles with the Bullock concentration-mass relation describe the target halos.
    Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.6)-(3.9); used to compute CDM D-factors.
  • domain assumption The photon spectrum of decaying HDM can be treated as identical to CDM within observational resolution.
    Sec. 3.2 before Eq. (3.5); if the HDM velocity dispersion broadens the line beyond the resolution, the recasting would need correction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Indirect Detection of Hot Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GGAGBUQ5

@misc{pith2026241214264,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Indirect Detection of Hot Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GGAGBUQ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14264}
}
abstract

Cosmologically stable, light particles that came into thermal contact with the Standard Model in the early universe may persist today as a form of hot dark matter. For relics with masses in the eV range, their role in structure formation depends critically on their mass. We trace the evolution of such hot relics and derive their density profiles around cold dark matter halos, introducing a framework for their indirect detection. Applying this framework to axions -- a natural candidate for a particle that can reach thermal equilibrium with the Standard Model in the early universe and capable of decaying into two photons -- we establish stringent limits on the axion-photon coupling $g_{a \gamma} $ using current observations of dwarf galaxies, the Milky Way halo, and galaxy clusters. Our results set new bounds on hot axions in the $\mathcal{O}(1-10)\,$eV range.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Yin et al.,First Result for Dark Matter Search by WINERED, 2402.07976

    W. Yin et al.,First Result for Dark Matter Search by WINERED, 2402.07976

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    W.L. Xu, J.B. Muñoz and C. Dvorkin,Cosmological constraints on light but massive relics, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 095029 [2107.09664]

    arXiv 2022

  4. [3]

    Peters, A

    F.H. Peters, A. Schneider, J. Bucko, S.K. Giri and G. Parimbelli,Constraining hot dark matter sub-species with weak lensing and the cosmic microwave background radiation, Astron. Astrophys. 687 (2024) A161 [2309.03865]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Dayal and S.K

    P. Dayal and S.K. Giri,Warm dark matter constraints from the JWST, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.528 (2024) 2784 [2303.14239]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Peccei and H.R

    R.D. Peccei and H.R. Quinn,CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1440

    work page 1977

  7. [6]

    Peccei and H.R

    R.D. Peccei and H.R. Quinn,Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 1791

    work page 1977

  8. [7]

    Weinberg,A New Light Boson?, Phys

    S. Weinberg,A New Light Boson?, Phys. Rev. Lett.40 (1978) 223

    1978

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Wilczek,Problem of StrongP and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons, Phys

    F. Wilczek,Problem of StrongP and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 279

    1978

  2. [9]

    Ressell,Limits to the radiative decay of the axion, Phys

    M.T. Ressell,Limits to the radiative decay of the axion, Phys. Rev. D44 (1991) 3001

    1991

  3. [10]

    D. Grin, G. Covone, J.-P. Kneib, M. Kamionkowski, A. Blain and E. Jullo,A Telescope Search for Decaying Relic Axions, Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 105018 [astro-ph/0611502]

    2007 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Binney and S

    J. Binney and S. Tremaine,Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition(2008)

    2008

  5. [12]

    Power, A

    C. Power, A. Knebe and S.R. Knollmann,The dynamical state of dark matter haloes in cosmological simulations – I. Correlations with mass assembly history, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society419 (2011) 1576 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/419/2/1576/312...

    2011

  6. [13]

    Hayashi, Y

    K. Hayashi, Y. Hirai, M. Chiba and T. Ishiyama,Dark Matter Halo Properties of the Galactic Dwarf Satellites: Implication for Chemo-dynamical Evolution of the Satellites and a Challenge to Lambda Cold Dark Matter, Astrophys. J. 953 (2023) 185 [2206.02821]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Zoutendijk, M.P

    S.L. Zoutendijk, M.P. Júlio, J. Brinchmann, J.I. Read, D. Vaz, L.A. Boogaard et al.,The muse-faint survey. iii. no large dark-matter cores and no significant tidal stripping in ultra-faint dwarf galaxies, 2112.09374. – 26 –

  8. [15]

    McMillan,Mass models of the milky way: Mass models of the milky way, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society414 (2011) 2446–2457

    P.J. McMillan,Mass models of the milky way: Mass models of the milky way, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society414 (2011) 2446–2457

    2011

  9. [16]

    Newman, T

    A.B. Newman, T. Treu, R.S. Ellis, D.J. Sand, C. Nipoti, J. Richard et al.,The density profiles of massive, relaxed galaxy clusters. i. the total density over three decades in radius, The Astrophysical Journal765 (2013) 24

    2013

  10. [17]

    Navarro, C.S

    J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White,A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering, Astrophys. J. 490 (1997) 493 [astro-ph/9611107]

    1997 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Singh and C.-P

    S. Singh and C.-P. Ma,Neutrino clustering in cold dark matter halos : Implications for ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 023506 [astro-ph/0208419]

    2003 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Ringwald and Y.Y.Y

    A. Ringwald and Y.Y.Y. Wong,Gravitational clustering of relic neutrinos and implications for their detection, JCAP 12 (2004) 005 [hep-ph/0408241]

    2004 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Tremaine and J.E

    S. Tremaine and J.E. Gunn,Dynamical Role of Light Neutral Leptons in Cosmology, Phys. Rev. Lett.42 (1979) 407

    1979

  14. [21]

    J.R. Bond, S. Cole, G. Efstathiou and N. Kaiser,Excursion set mass functions for hierarchical Gaussian fluctuations, Astrophys. J. 379 (1991) 440

    1991

  15. [22]

    H. Mo, F.C. van den Bosch and S. White,Galaxy Formation and Evolution(2010)

    2010

  16. [23]

    Brandenberger, N

    R.H. Brandenberger, N. Kaiser and N. Turok,Dissipationless Clustering of Neutrinos Around a Cosmic String Loop, Phys. Rev. D36 (1987) 2242

    1987

  17. [24]

    Ali-Haimoud and S

    Y. Ali-Haimoud and S. Bird,An efficient implementation of massive neutrinos in non-linear structure formation simulations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.428 (2012) 3375 [1209.0461]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [25]

    LoVerde and M

    M. LoVerde and M. Zaldarriaga,Neutrino clustering around spherical dark matter halos, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 063502 [1310.6459]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Zhao,Analytical models for galactic nuclei, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 278 (1996) 488 [astro-ph/9509122]

    H. Zhao,Analytical models for galactic nuclei, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 278 (1996) 488 [astro-ph/9509122]

    1996 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Bullock, T.S

    J.S. Bullock, T.S. Kolatt, Y. Sigad, R.S. Somerville, A.V. Kravtsov, A.A. Klypin et al., Profiles of dark haloes. Evolution, scatter, and environment, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 321 (2001) 559 [astro-ph/9908159]

    2001 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Regis, M

    M. Regis, M. Taoso, D. Vaz, J. Brinchmann, S.L. Zoutendijk, N.F. Bouché et al.,Searching for light in the darkness: Bounds on ALP dark matter with the optical MUSE-faint survey, Phys. Lett. B814 (2021) 136075 [2009.01310]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Janish and E

    R. Janish and E. Pinetti,Hunting Dark Matter Lines in the Infrared Background with the James Webb Space Telescope, 2310.15395

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    S. Roy, C. Blanco, C. Dessert, A. Prabhu and T. Temim,Sensitivity of JWST to eV-Scale Decaying Axion Dark Matter, 2311.04987

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits

    C. O’Hare, “cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits.” https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/, July, 2020. 10.5281/zenodo.3932430. – 27 –

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Cirelli, G

    M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. Hutsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci et al.,PPPC 4 DM ID: A Poor Particle Physicist Cookbook for Dark Matter Indirect Detection, JCAP 03 (2011) 051 [1012.4515]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Shectman and M

    S.A. Shectman and M. Johns,The Magellan Telescopes, inLarge Ground-based Telescopes, J.M. Oschmann and L.M. Stepp, eds., vol. 4837 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, pp. 910–918, Feb., 2003, DOI

    2003

  27. [35]

    Zoutendijk, J

    S.L. Zoutendijk, J. Brinchmann, L.A. Boogaard, M.L.P. Gunawardhana, T.-O. Husser, S. Kamann et al.,The muse-faint survey: I. spectroscopic evidence for a star cluster in eridanus 2 and constraints on machos as a constituent of dark matter, Astronomy & Astrophysics 635 (2020) A107

    2020

  28. [36]

    Maiolino et al.,JADES - Possible Population III signatures at z = 10.6 in the halo of GN-z11, Astron

    R. Maiolino et al.,JADES - Possible Population III signatures at z = 10.6 in the halo of GN-z11, Astron. Astrophys.687 (2024) A67 [2306.00953]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Covone, J.-P

    G. Covone, J.-P. Kneib, G. Soucail, J. Richard, E. Jullo and H. Ebeling,Vimos-ifu survey of z~0.2 massive galaxy clusters. 1. observations of the strong lensing cluster abell 2667, Astron. Astrophys. 456 (2006) 409 [astro-ph/0511332]

    2006 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Jullo et al., 2008 (unpublished)

    E. Jullo et al., 2008 (unpublished)

    2008

  31. [39]

    CAST collaboration, An Improved limit on the axion-photon coupling from the CAST experiment, JCAP 04 (2007) 010 [hep-ex/0702006]

    2007 arXiv

  32. [40]

    13 (2017) 584 [1705.02290]

    CAST collaboration, New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction, Nature Phys. 13 (2017) 584 [1705.02290]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Dolan, F.J

    M.J. Dolan, F.J. Hiskens and R.R. Volkas,Advancing globular cluster constraints on the axion-photon coupling, JCAP 10 (2022) 096 [2207.03102]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Kim,Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance, Phys

    J.E. Kim,Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance, Phys. Rev. Lett.43 (1979) 103

    1979

  35. [43]

    Shifman, A.I

    M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov,Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions?, Nucl. Phys. B 166 (1980) 493

    1980

  36. [44]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler and M. Srednicki,A Simple Solution to the Strong CP Problem with a Harmless Axion, Phys. Lett. B104 (1981) 199

    1981

  37. [45]

    Zhitnitsky,On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions

    A.R. Zhitnitsky,On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions. (In Russian), Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.31 (1980) 260

    1980

  38. [46]

    Landau,On the vibrations of the electronic plasma, J

    L.D. Landau,On the vibrations of the electronic plasma, J. Phys. (USSR)10 (1946) 25

    1946

  39. [47]

    Binney and S

    J. Binney and S. Tremaine,Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition, Princeton Series in Astrophysics, Princeton University Press (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    Press and P

    W.H. Press and P. Schechter,Formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies by selfsimilar gravitational condensation, Astrophys. J. 187 (1974) 425

    1974

  41. [49]

    Bardeen, J.R

    J.M. Bardeen, J.R. Bond, N. Kaiser and A.S. Szalay,The Statistics of Peaks of Gaussian Random Fields, Astrophys. J. 304 (1986) 15. – 28 –

    1986

  42. [50]

    Nascimento and M

    C. Nascimento and M. Loverde,Neutrino winds on the sky, JCAP 11 (2023) 036 [2307.00049]. – 29 –

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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