Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Fitting dark matter mass with the radio continuum spectral data of the Ophiuchus cluster

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 Thermal-relic dark matter around 45 GeV explains the Ophiuchus cluster's radio spectrum.

desk verdict A clean but statistically marginal cluster-radio DM fit: the 40-50 GeV bbbar mass range is a fit to six points with Delta chi-squared of about 2.3 over no-DM, and the claim rests on an untested constant-CR-spectral-index assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03712 v1 pith:KP3ZG4DB submitted 2019-08-10 astro-ph.HE

Man Ho Chan , Chak Man Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords darkmatterannihilationOphiuchusclusterradiocontinuumsynchrotronemissionbbbarchannelthermalreliccrosssectioncosmicraysgalaxyhalo
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 tries to establish that dark matter with a mass of 40–50 GeV annihilating into bottom quarks at the thermal relic cross section produces the observed radio continuum of the central radio halo of the Ophiuchus cluster. This is an independent test because the same mass, channel, and cross section have already been invoked to explain the Galactic center GeV gamma-ray excess and the AMS-02 antiproton excess. The authors fit six radio flux measurements as a dark-matter synchrotron component plus a single power-law cosmic-ray component, and they find a chi-squared minimum at m = 40–50 GeV for the $b\bar{b}$ channel. If correct, one WIMP candidate would simultaneously account for three unrelated astrophysical observations at the thermally produced relic abundance.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spectral decomposition $S_{\mathrm{nth}}(\nu) = S_{\mathrm{DM}}(\nu) + S_{\mathrm{CR,0}}\nu^{-\alpha_{\mathrm{CR}}}$, where $S_{\mathrm{DM}}$ is the synchrotron emission from electrons and positrons produced by dark matter annihilation and the second term is a single power-law cosmic-ray component with constant spectral index. The dark-matter term is built from the diffusion-loss equation with diffusion neglected, a dark-matter density profile obtained from hydrostatic equilibrium of a single-$\beta$ gas profile, and a magnetic field profile $B(r) = B_0[(1 + r^2/r_c^2)^{-3\beta/2}]^{\eta}$. The cosmic-ray normalization and spectral index are free parameters, and scanning dark matter mass gives $\chi^2(m)$; this decomposition is what allows the dark-matter contribution to be separated from the dominant cosmic-ray signal.

What would settle it

Measure the Ophiuchus central halo's radio flux at 2–10 GHz with roughly 5% uncertainties: the best-fit $b\bar{b}$ model predicts that the dark-matter synchrotron term fades at high frequency, so the spectrum should steepen away from the low-frequency slope; if an unbroken single power law fits all frequencies with $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom no worse than 5.2/4, the dark-matter component is not required.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using archival GMRT radio data for the central halo of the Ophiuchus cluster, the paper shows that the six flux densities from 0.153 to 1.477 GHz are better described by a dark-matter annihilation synchrotron component plus a cosmic-ray power law than by the cosmic-ray power law alone. For $b\bar{b}$ annihilation with the thermal relic cross section $\sigma v = 2.2 \times 10^{-26}\,\mathrm{cm^3\,s^{-1}}$, the $\chi^2$ minimum lies at $m = 40$\textendash$50$ GeV; the leptophilic channels $e^+e^-$, $\mu^+\mu^-$, and $\tau^+\tau^-$ do not produce a comparably clean trough. The paper concludes that this dark matter interpretation is consistent with the Galactic center GeV excess, the antiproton excess, and the Ophiuchus radio spectrum at the same time.

Load-bearing premise

The radio spectrum is exactly a single power-law cosmic-ray component with a constant spectral index plus the dark-matter synchrotron component; if the cluster's cosmic-ray electrons have a curved or multi-population spectrum, the derived dark-matter mass is no longer uniquely identifiable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A thermal relic WIMP in the 40–50 GeV mass range annihilating to bottom quarks would simultaneously explain the Galactic center GeV excess, the AMS-02 antiproton excess, and the Ophiuchus central halo radio spectrum.
  • The radio continuum method turns a previously weak cluster constraint into a dark-matter mass measurement by fitting, rather than ignoring, the cosmic-ray background.
  • The best-fit cosmic-ray spectral index $\alpha_{\mathrm{CR}} \approx 0.22$ lies below the most common 0.5–1.0 range for radio source populations, implying an unusually flat accelerated electron population if the dark-matter interpretation is right.
  • Masses much above 50 GeV are not excluded; the $\chi^2$ plateau at large $m$ shows the dark-matter term fades and only the cosmic-ray power law remains.
  • A clear spectral break in higher-quality radio data would provide a new indirect-detection signature for annihilating dark matter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The identifiability of the mass rests on the cosmic-ray spectrum being a single power law; a curved or multi-population cosmic-ray spectrum of the kind discussed for the Coma cluster could mimic the dark-matter bump and shift the best-fit mass.
  • Applying the same decomposition to the Coma cluster's well-sampled radio spectrum would show whether the 40–50 GeV trough is generic to clusters or specific to Ophiuchus.
  • Future high-frequency radio observations of Ophiuchus that show no steepening would favor a hard, young electron population rather than dark-matter annihilation as the source of the low-frequency excess.
  • Because only six data points separate $\chi^2 = 5.2$ from $\chi^2 \approx 7.5$, the statistical preference is modest; a direct gamma-ray observation of the cluster could independently confirm or exclude a 40–50 GeV $b\bar{b}$ WIMP.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes six archival radio continuum flux measurements (0.153–1.477 GHz) of the central radio halo of the Ophiuchus cluster. The non-thermal spectrum is modeled as the sum of a single power-law cosmic-ray component and a synchrotron component from dark matter annihilation (Eq. 16). The dark matter mass is varied while the annihilation cross section is fixed at the thermal relic value, and the magnetic field parameters B0 and η are varied over their plausible ranges. A minimum chi-squared of 5.2 is found for b-bbar annihilation at m = 40–50 GeV, compared with chi-squared = 7.5 for the no-DM power law. The authors conclude that thermal relic b-bbar dark matter in this mass range best explains the radio spectrum and is consistent with the Galactic-center gamma-ray and AMS-02 antiproton excesses.

Significance. If the conclusion were robust, the paper would provide an independent radio-based line of evidence for a thermal-relic WIMP of 40–50 GeV annihilating to b-bbar, connecting cluster radio observations with the Galactic-center and antiproton excesses. The calculation is physically standard, and the radio data are external to those excesses, so the consistency claim is not circular. The paper is also honest in acknowledging that the signal is not very significant. However, the statistical and model-selection support for the claimed mass range is currently too weak to carry the conclusion; the central claim needs reframing and additional tests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (18) and Fig. 1] The statistical evidence for a dark matter component is not significant. The no-DM power-law fit gives chi-squared = 7.5 with 4 degrees of freedom, while the b-bbar DM model gives chi-squared = 5.2 with 3 degrees of freedom; the Delta-chi-squared of 2.3 for one additional parameter corresponds to a p-value of about 0.13. This does not support the statement that dark matter 'can best explain' the observed spectrum, and it does not define a statistically valid 40–50 GeV preferred interval. The authors should report confidence intervals using a profile-likelihood or information-criterion threshold and should reframe the conclusion as a weak preference or a consistency constraint rather than a claimed 'best explanation'.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (16) and the paragraph introducing it] The decomposition assumes that the cosmic-ray contribution is exactly a single power law with a constant spectral index. The paper does not test any alternative cosmic-ray spectral shape, such as a broken power law or an aging break, even though models for other clusters (refs. [22,27]) allow such curvature. With only six data points, unmodeled cosmic-ray curvature can absorb the low-frequency excess attributed to dark matter and shift the preferred mass. Because the 'nearly constant spectral index' justification is based on the total observed spectrum, which already includes the hypothetical dark matter contribution, it does not resolve this degeneracy. A quantitative test with curved cosmic-ray spectral models is required before a mass range can be identified.
  3. [Section 3, Table 1 and Fig. 2] The paper scans over four annihilation channels and a wide mass range, but the quoted significance does not account for this look-elsewhere effect. The minimum chi-squared for e+e- is 6.7 and for b-bbar is 5.2; after correcting for the number of channels and mass bins, the preference for b-bbar over the no-DM model is even weaker than the raw Delta-chi-squared of 2.3 suggests. The authors should either apply a trials correction or explicitly state that the mass range is a conditional fit rather than a detection-level constraint.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, final paragraph] The caveat that 'the signal of dark matter annihilation is positive, but not very significant' is appropriate, but it should be reflected in the abstract and in the wording of the central conclusion; currently the abstract and Section 3 use 'can best explain,' which overstates the statistical support.
  2. [Table 3] The columns for eta and B0 are fixed inputs rather than fitted parameters; the table caption should state this explicitly so that readers do not mistake them for best-fit quantities.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (12)] The dark matter density profile is derived from hydrostatic equilibrium assuming a single-beta gas profile and constant temperature out to R = 250 kpc; the paper should comment on the validity of this profile over the integration volume and on the impact of the acknowledged hydrostatic bias on the derived mass range.
  4. [Figure 3] The figure would be easier to read if the observed data points included error bars and if the dark matter, cosmic-ray, and total components were clearly separated in the legend; currently the curves cross near the data and the components are hard to distinguish.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dark matter mass is a fitted parameter against external radio data, not a prediction equivalent to an input.

full rationale

The paper fits the dark matter mass by minimizing χ² against the radio continuum data of the Ophiuchus cluster, with the cosmic-ray background parameters SCR,0 and αCR varied freely. The mass is a scanned parameter, not an input taken from the gamma-ray or antiproton analyses; those analyses are only used for comparison after the fit. The radio data are external to the GeV and antiproton excesses, so the claimed consistency is a concordance of independent measurements rather than a circular derivation. The model assumption of a constant cosmic-ray power-law spectral index (Eq. 16) is a stated simplification, not a result derived from the dark matter signal, and the authors explicitly acknowledge in Section 4 that the signal is positive but not very significant, further showing that the claim is a fitted preference rather than a forced equivalence. No self-citations are used as load-bearing evidence, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The central claim therefore has independent empirical content, and any concerns about spectral-shape systematics belong to robustness or model uncertainty, not circularity.

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

The central claim rests on a standard DM annihilation and synchrotron emission model with inputs from the literature (gas density, temperature, magnetic field). The only parameters fitted to the Ophiuchus data are the cosmic-ray normalization and spectral index, while the dark matter mass is scanned. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • SCR,0 = 26 mJy (best fit, b bbar, m=50 GeV, B0=13 uG, eta=0.5)
    Normalization of the cosmic-ray power-law component, fitted per scenario; it controls the relative CR and DM contributions.
  • alpha_CR = 0.22 (best fit, b bbar, m=50 GeV)
    Spectral index of the cosmic-ray power law, fitted per scenario; this parameter is central to the DM/CR decomposition.
  • dark matter mass m = 40 to 50 GeV (best fit 50 GeV)
    Dark matter mass scanned in the fit; the central claim is the mass range minimizing chi-squared.
  • B0 = 7 to 13 uG (grid)
    Central magnetic field strength, an uncertain input varied over two extreme values; affects the synchrotron normalization.
  • eta = 0.5 to 1.0 (grid)
    Magnetic field profile index, varied over the simulation-motivated range; affects the radial dependence of the synchrotron emission.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Hydrostatic equilibrium and isothermal gas hold in the Ophiuchus cluster, so dark matter density is derived from the gas density and temperature profile via dP/dr = -GM(r)rho_g/r^2.
    Invoked in Section 2 (Eqs. 10-12) to convert X-ray gas parameters into a dark matter density profile; the paper notes a 10-20% hydrostatic bias but does not propagate it.
  • domain assumption Dark matter dominates the total mass inside the 250 kpc integration radius, so the mass profile from hydrostatic equilibrium is attributed to dark matter.
    Used to identify rho(r) with the DM density in Eq. (12); standard for clusters but not directly tested for Ophiuchus.
  • domain assumption Electron and positron diffusion is negligible over the radio halo scale, so only cooling is included in the transport equation.
    Based on the diffusion length estimate in Eq. (5) showing lambda ~10 kpc << 250 kpc; depends on the assumed diffusion coefficient and radiation energy density.
  • ad hoc to paper The cosmic-ray radio emission is a single power law with constant spectral index over 0.153 to 1.477 GHz.
    This is the key modeling simplification in Eq. (16) that enables the DM/CR decomposition; the paper acknowledges that some CR models have a spectral index that rises at high frequency.
  • domain assumption The annihilation cross section is fixed at the thermal relic value sigma_v = 2.2 x 10^-26 cm^3/s.
    Input from standard cosmology (Ref. [4]); the paper only fits the mass under this assumed cross section, so the cross section is not independently tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fitting dark matter mass with the radio continuum spectral data of the Ophiuchus cluster." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KP3ZG4DB

@misc{pith2026190803712,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fitting dark matter mass with the radio continuum spectral data of the Ophiuchus cluster},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KP3ZG4DB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03712}
}
abstract

Recent gamma-ray and anti-proton analyses suggest that dark matter with mass $m=48-67$ GeV annihilating via $b\bar{b}$ channel can explain the Galactic center GeV gamma-ray excess and the anti-proton excess as measured by AMS-02 simultaneously. In this article, by differentiating the contributions of dark matter annihilation and normal diffuse cosmic rays, we show that dark matter with mass $m=40-50$ GeV annihilating via $b\bar{b}$ channel with the thermal relic annihilation cross section can best explain the radio continuum spectrum of the central radio halo of the Ophiuchus cluster. This mass range, annihilation cross section, and the annihilation channel is completely consistent with the dark matter interpretations of the GeV gamma-ray excess and the anti-proton excess.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03712 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The relation between the χ 2 values and the dark matter mass m for different extreme parameters of B0 and η (b ¯b channel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The relation between the χ 2 values and the dark matter mass m for different annihilation channels (assumed B0 = 13 µG and η = 0.5) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The red solid line is the best-fit radio continuum spectrum ( [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

39 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Daylan, D

    T. Daylan, D. P. Finkbeiner, D. Hooper, T. Linden, S. K. N. Portillo , N. L. Rodd & T. R. Slatyer, The characterization of the gamma-ray sig nal from the central Milky Way: A case for annihilating dark matter, Phy s. Dark Uni. 12 (2016) 1

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Calore, I

    F. Calore, I. Cholis, C. McCabe & C. Weniger, A tale of tails: Dark matter interpretations of the Fermi GeV excess in light of backgro und model systematics, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 063003

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Cholis, T

    I. Cholis, T. Linden & D. Hooper, A robust excess in the cosmic- ray antiproton spectrum: Implications for annihilating dark matter , arXiv:1903.02549

    arXiv 1903

  4. [4]

    Steigman, B

    G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta & J. F. Beacom, Precise relic WIMP abun - dance and its impact on searches for dark matter annihilation, Phys . Rev. D 86 (2012) 023506. 14

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Albert et al

    A. Albert et al. [Fermi-LAT, DES Collaborations], Searching for dark matter annihilation in recently discovered Milky Way satellites with Fermi-LAT, Astrophys. J. 834 (2017) 110

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Colafrancesco, S

    S. Colafrancesco, S. Profumo & P. Ullio, Multi-frequency analysis of neutralino dark matter annihilations in the Coma cluster, Astron. As - trophys. 455 (2006) 21

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Storm, T

    E. Storm, T. E. Jeltema, S. Profumo & L. Rudnick, Constraints o n dark matter annihilation in clusters of galaxies from diffuse radio emission, Astrophys. J. 768 (2013) 106

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Cirelli et al

    M. Cirelli et al. , PPPC 4 DM ID: a poor particle physicist cookbook for dark matter indirect detection, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 ( 2011) 051

    work page 2011

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    A. M. Atoyan, F. A. Aharonian & H. J. V¨ olk, Electrons and positr ons in the galactic cosmic rays, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 3265

    1995

  2. [10]

    Yuan et al

    Q. Yuan et al. , Interpretations of the DAMPE electron data, arXiv:1711.10989

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Y. Chen, T. H. Reiprich, H. B¨ ohringer, Y. Ikebe & Y.-Y. Zhang, Statis- tics of X-ray observables for the cooling-core and non-cooling cor e galaxy clusters, Astron. Astrophys. 466 (2007) 805

    2007

  4. [12]

    Govoni et al

    F. Govoni et al. , Sardinia Radio Telescope observations of Abell 194. The intra-cluster magnetic field power spectrum, Astron. Astrop hys. 603 (2017) A122

    2017

  5. [13]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk & S. D. M. White, A universal density profile from hierarchical clustering, Astrophys. J. 490 (1997) 493

    1997

  6. [14]

    M. A. S` anchez-Conde, M. Cannoni, F. Zandanel, M. E. G` omez & F. Prada, Dark matter searches with Cherenkov telescopes: nearb y dwarf galaxies or local galaxy clusters? J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 ( 2011) 011

    2011

  7. [15]

    T. H. Reiprich, K. Basu, S. Ettori, H. Israel, L. Lovisari, S. Mole ndi, E. Pointecouteau & M. Roncarelli, Outskirts of galaxy clusters, Sp. Sci. Rev. 177 (2013) 195. 15

    2013

  8. [16]

    D. S. Hudson, R. Mittal, T. H. Reiprich, P. E. J. Nulsen, H. Ander nach & C. L. Sarazin, What is a cool-core cluster? A detailed analysis of the cores of the X-ray flux-limited HIFLUGCS cluster sample, Astro n. Astrophys. 513 (2010) A37

    2010

  9. [17]

    Biffi et al

    V. Biffi et al. , On the nature of hydrostatic equilibrium in galaxy clus- ters, Astrophys. J. 827 (2016) 112

    2016

  10. [18]

    M. S. Longair, High Energy Astrophysics (3rd ed.), Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press (2011), p.168

    2011

  11. [19]

    Jacob & C

    S. Jacob & C. Pfrommer, Cosmic ray heating in cool core cluster s - II. Self-regulation cycle and non-thermal emission, Mon. Not. R. Astr on. Soc. 467 (2017) 1478

    2017

  12. [20]

    L. Nava, D. Benyamin, T. Piran & N. J. Shaviv, Reconciling the diffu se Galactic γ-ray and the cosmic ray spectra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 466 (2017) 3674

    2017

  13. [21]

    W. J. Jaffe, Origin and transport of electrons in the halo radio so urce in the Coma cluster, Astrophys. J. 212 (1977) 1

    1977

  14. [22]

    Thierbach, U

    M. Thierbach, U. Klein & R. Wielebinski, The diffuse radio emission from the Coma cluster at 2.675 GHz and 4.85 GHz, Astron. Astrophy s. 397 (2003) 53

    2003

  15. [23]

    Rephaeli, Spatial distribution of Compton-produced X-ray fl ux from rich and regular clusters of galaxies, Astrophys

    Y. Rephaeli, Spatial distribution of Compton-produced X-ray fl ux from rich and regular clusters of galaxies, Astrophys. J. 212 (1977) 60 8

    1977

  16. [24]

    Rephaeli, Relativistic electrons in the intracluster space of clu sters of galaxies - The hard X-ray spectra and heating of the gas, Astro phys

    Y. Rephaeli, Relativistic electrons in the intracluster space of clu sters of galaxies - The hard X-ray spectra and heating of the gas, Astro phys. J. 227 (1979) 364

    1979

  17. [25]

    Dennison, Formation of radio halos in clusters of galaxies from cosmic-ray protons, Astrophys

    B. Dennison, Formation of radio halos in clusters of galaxies from cosmic-ray protons, Astrophys. J. 239 (1980) L93

    1980

  18. [26]

    Roland, On the origin of the intergalactic magnetic field and of t he radio halo associated with the Coma cluster of galaxies, Astron

    J. Roland, On the origin of the intergalactic magnetic field and of t he radio halo associated with the Coma cluster of galaxies, Astron. Ast ro- phys. 93 (1981) 407. 16

    1981

  19. [27]

    R. J. van Weeren, F. de Gasperin, H. Akamatsu, M. Br¨ uggen, L. Feretti, H. Kang & A. Stroe, Diffuse radio emission from galaxy clusters, Sp. S ci. Rev. 215 (2019) 16

    2019

  20. [28]

    Srivastava, N

    S. Srivastava, N. G. Kantharia, A. Basu, D. C. Srivastava & S. Anan- thakrishnan, GMRT radio continuum study of Wolf-Rayet galaxies - I . NGC 4214 and NGC 4449, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 443 (2014) 860

    2014

  21. [29]

    D. D. Mulcahy et al. , Investigation of the cosmic ray population and magnetic field strength in the halo of NGC 891, Astron. Astrophys. 615 (2018) A98

    2018

  22. [30]

    Murgia, D

    M. Murgia, D. Eckert, F. Govoni, C. Ferrari, M. Pandey-Pommie r, J. Nevalainen & S. Paltani, GMRT observations of the Ophiuchus galaxy cluster, Astron. Astrophys. 514 (2010) A76

    2010

  23. [31]

    M. W. Kunz, A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, J. J. Binney & J. S. Sanders, A thermally stable heating mechanism for the intraclus- ter medium: turbulence, magnetic fields and plasma instabilities, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 410 (2011) 2446

    2011

  24. [32]

    K. E. Randall, A. M. Hopkins, R. P. Norris, P.-C. Zinn, E. Middelber g, M. Y. Mao & R. G. Sharp, Spectral index properties of milliJansky rad io sources, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 421 (2012) 1644

    2012

  25. [33]

    Pei, J.-H

    Z.-Y. Pei, J.-H. Fan, D. Bastieri, U. Sawangwit & J.-H. Yang, The relationship between the radio core-dominance parameter and spe ctral index in different classes of extragalactic radio sources (II), Res. Astron. Astrophys. 19 (2019) 070

    2019

  26. [34]

    Zhang, W

    X.-Z. Zhang, W. Reich, P. Reich & R. Wielebinski, On the spectral index-flux density relation for large samples of radio sources, Chin. J. Astron. Astrophys. 3 (2003) 347

    2003

  27. [35]

    L. Gao, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, V. Springel & S. D. M. White, Wh ere will supersymmetric dark matter first be seen? Mon. Not. R. Astro n. Soc. 419 (2012) 1721

    2012

  28. [36]

    Anderhalden & J

    D. Anderhalden & J. Diemand, Density profiles of CDM microhalos a nd their implications for annihilation boost factors, J. Cosmol. Astropa rt. Phys. 04 (2013) 009. 17

    2013

  29. [37]

    Marchegiani & S

    P. Marchegiani & S. Colafrancesco, The role of dark matter su b-halos in the non-thermal emission of galaxy clusters, J. Cosmol. Astropa rt. Phys. 11 (2016) 033

    2016

  30. [38]

    Bartels & S

    R. Bartels & S. Ando, Boosting the annihilation boost: Tidal effec ts on dark matter subhalos and consistent luminosity modeling, Phys. Rev . D 92 (2015) 123508

    2015

  31. [39]

    Durret, K

    F. Durret, K. Wakamatsu, C. Adami, T. Nagayama & J. M. Omega Muleka Mwewa Mwaba, The optical properties of galaxies in the Ophi- uchus cluster, Astron. Astrophys. 613 (2018) A20. 18

    2018

Pith tools

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