Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Indirect Detection of Dark Matter Around a Supermassive Black Hole with High Energy-Resolution Gamma-Ray Telescopes

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that dark matter annihilating in the dense spike around the Galactic Center's supermassive black hole produces gamma-ray lines whose Doppler width reveals the dark matter velocity distribution, letting upcoming…

desk verdict Careful forward model of gamma-ray line shapes from DM annihilation near Sgr A*; the s-wave/p-wave discrimination claim is conditional on an unquantified steep spike. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07009 v1 pith:KTKTU4ET submitted 2025-06-08 hep-ph

Yu Watanabe , Alexander Kusenko , Shigeki Matsumoto This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords darkmatterannihilationGalacticCentersupermassiveblackholespikegamma-raylinespectroscopyDopplerbroadeninggravitationalredshiftenergyresolution
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 asks whether the next generation of gamma-ray telescopes, with energy resolutions below one percent, can see the relativistic imprints that a supermassive black hole leaves on dark matter annihilation radiation at the Galactic Center. The authors model the dark matter density and velocity profiles around Sgr A* under different black-hole formation histories and dark matter models, then compute the photon spectra including gravitational redshift, Doppler broadening, and kinetic-energy enhancement. Their central finding is that in favorable scenarios, an adiabatically grown black hole inside a cuspy halo, the annihilation line is broadened by the dark matter's high orbital velocity near the black hole, and that width exceeds the resolution of COSI and GAMMA-400. That makes the measured line width a direct probe of the dark matter velocity distribution, which in turn can distinguish s-wave from p-wave annihilation and other velocity-dependent mechanisms. The result matters because it turns a planned instrumental capability, high energy resolution, into a way to identify the particle physics of dark matter rather than just its overall density.

What carries the argument

The central object is the radial dark matter profile around the supermassive black hole, divided into halo, spike, annihilation cusp, and capture regions, together with the two-particle velocity distribution $f_{\rm ann}(r, v_r, v_c)$ that determines how annihilation photons are boosted. The spike slope $\gamma_{\rm sp}\simeq 2.26$ follows from adiabatic black-hole growth in a generalized NFW halo, and the annihilation cusp flattens it to $\rho\propto r^{-1/2}$ for s-wave or $\rho\propto r^{-0.34}$ for p-wave annihilation inside $r_{\rm ann}$, the radius where the annihilation timescale becomes shorter than the galactic age. The argument is carried by the scaling of the flux from an annular shell: after Doppler broadening and velocity-dependent cross sections, the s-wave flux scales as $\rho^2 r^{7/2}$ and the p-wave as $\rho^2 r^{5/2}$, which localizes the emission near $r_{\rm ann}$. The line width is then set by $v_{\rm esc}(r_{\rm ann})$, while redshift and kinetic shifts scale as $R_s/r$, and comparing these scales with the detector's Gaussian energy response decides observability.

What would settle it

A decisive test is a high-resolution measurement of the gamma-ray line from the inner ~5 degrees around the Galactic Center: if the fractional line width is no larger than the halo velocity dispersion of about $10^{-3}$ and there is no redshifted low-energy tail, then the steep adiabatic spike is not present, because the model predicts widths of roughly $1.5\times10^{-3}$ (s-wave) to $9\times10^{-3}$ (p-wave) from the spike region for a 3 MeV thermal-relic candidate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the observed gamma-ray spectrum from dark matter annihilating in the spike around Sgr A* carries a measurable record of the dark matter's velocity distribution, and that this record can be read with upcoming detectors. For a collisionless dark matter halo in which the black hole grew adiabatically, the annihilation flux comes mostly from a narrow region near the annihilation radius $r_{\rm ann}$; at that radius the escape velocity is of order $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-2}$ of the speed of light, larger than COSI's sub-percent energy resolution. The resulting line, intrinsically monochromatic at $\sqrt{s}/2$ in the center-of-mass frame, is Doppler-broadened into a box of width set by the center-of-mass velocity, so the measured width directly reflects the local velocity dispersion. In the same spectra, gravitational redshift and kinetic energy enhancement appear as a low-energy tail and a shift that scale as $R_s/r$; these are subdominant at the canonical cross section but can become visible when the annihilation radius moves inward, for example for smaller cross sections or in self-interacting dark matter with a Coulomb-like force. The paper argues that measuring this line shape can therefore discriminate s-wave from p-wave annihilation, and more generally s-channel resonance or forbidden channels, something a broadband flux measurement alone cannot do.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis rests on assuming that a steep dark matter spike with slope near 2.26 actually surrounds Sgr A*, which requires the black hole to have grown adiabatically inside a cuspy halo and not to have been flattened by stellar scattering; if the spike is instead softened to slope 3/2, the predicted spectral features become very hard to see.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • COSI should resolve Doppler-broadened annihilation lines from the Galactic Center for a 3 MeV thermal-relic dark matter candidate with canonical cross section, because the width at $r_{\rm ann}$ exceeds COSI's sub-percent resolution.
  • In the GeV range, GAMMA-400 should similarly resolve the broadening for both s-wave and p-wave annihilation, while CTA could see it in the TeV range only for p-wave annihilation.
  • With freeze-in-like smaller cross sections, gravitational redshift and kinetic energy enhancement become directly observable, as the annihilation radius moves inward.
  • In self-interacting dark matter with Coulomb-like scattering, the p-wave spectrum is dominated by the innermost region and shows amplified Doppler broadening and redshift tails, whereas the s-wave case is dominated by the halo and core.
  • For decay or shallow-spike scenarios, SMBH-induced features are negligible, but COSI may still measure halo velocity broadening at the $10^{-3}$ level.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the line-width method works near Sgr A*, the same logic should apply to other nearby supermassive black holes, although their greater distances and unknown halo states would require higher angular resolution to isolate the inner spike.
  • The predicted scaling of the line width with dark matter mass provides a testable cross-check: the fractional width should track $v_{\rm esc}(r_{\rm ann}(m_{\rm DM}))$, so measuring the line shape across multiple energies in one instrument would confirm or exclude the spike interpretation.
  • A null observation, an unresolved line or no line, would not rule out dark matter; it would instead constrain the black hole growth history and favor a shallower spike, so the same measurement doubles as a probe of Sgr A*'s formation.
  • Since the low-energy tail is shaped by gravitational redshift, fitting the full line profile could in principle reconstruct the innermost density slope and test relativistic treatments of the capture radius.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper models the dark matter density and velocity distributions around Sgr A* in both collisionless and self-interacting DM scenarios, then computes gamma-ray line spectra from DM annihilation and decay including gravitational redshift, Doppler broadening, and kinetic energy enhancement. The authors compare the resulting spectral features with the expected energy resolutions of COSI, GAMMA-400, and other instruments, and argue that for a steep adiabatic spike (gamma_sp ~ 2.26) the line width near the annihilation radius encodes the DM velocity distribution, potentially enabling discrimination between s-wave and p-wave annihilation. For shallower spikes, they argue that COSI may still detect Doppler broadening from the halo.

Significance. If the calculations are correct, this is a timely and useful framework for interpreting future high-resolution gamma-ray observations of the Galactic Center. The paper provides transparent scaling arguments (e.g., shell flux proportional to rho^2 r^{7/2} for s-wave and rho^2 r^{5/2} for p-wave), uses published spike and cusp profiles, explicitly states conditions for inner-region dominance (gamma_sp >= 7/4 and >= 5/4), and identifies concrete instruments for falsifiable predictions. The central idea that line widths can discriminate velocity-dependent annihilation mechanisms is novel and well motivated. The paper is appropriately hedged in several places, but some detection statements rest on tuned branching ratios and an unquantified spike assumption.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (13)] The box-spectrum normalization in Eq. (13) appears inverted. With ps denoting the total c.o.m. energy, the correct two-photon lab-frame spectrum over E- <= E <= E+ is dN/dE = 2/(ps gamma_c v_c), whereas Eq. (13) gives 2 ps gamma_c v_c, which has dimensions of energy and is not normalized. Since this expression feeds into the flux integral in Eq. (14), all plotted fluxes and sensitivity comparisons in Figs. 3-5 are affected; please correct and recompute.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (16)] The resolution quoted for COSI, epsilon(E) ~ 0.32 (E/MeV)^-0.96%, is labeled FWHM, but Eq. (16) uses epsilon(E') as the fractional Gaussian standard deviation. For a Gaussian, FWHM is approximately 2.355 sigma, so the kernel in Eq. (16) broadens the line by a factor of 2.355 more than the quoted FWHM implies. The comparison between Doppler width and detector resolution in Sec. 3.1.1 and Fig. 4 should be made with a single consistent convention for epsilon.
  3. [Sec. 3.1.1, Sec. 2.1] The s-wave/p-wave discrimination claim relies on the steep adiabatic spike gamma_sp ~ 2.26. The paper itself lists stellar heating, cored initial profiles, and instantaneous SMBH formation as mechanisms that give gamma_sp = 3/2 or 4/3, and it states that in those cases the inner spike no longer dominates the flux. Because Sgr A* is embedded in a dense nuclear star cluster, the assumption that the steep spike survives is load-bearing and is not quantified; the paper provides no estimate of the expected gamma_sp at Sgr A* or of the constraints from stellar-orbit studies. Please add a quantitative assessment of the spike slope for the Galactic Center (or a scan over gamma_sp with the resulting detectability) and present the s/p-discrimination claim as a function of that parameter.
  4. [Sec. 3.1] The branching ratios Br(DM DM -> gamma gamma) are set to hand-picked values (1e-7 and 5e-6 in the collisionless case; 4e-7 and 2e-2 in the SIDM case) chosen to place the line within COSI sensitivity, but no concrete particle model producing these values is presented. Because the absolute flux in Eqs. (12)-(16) is linear in Br, statements such as 'COSI is expected to detect the Doppler broadening effect' pertain to this tuned benchmark rather than to a definite DM model. Please provide a motivated range of Br (e.g., from loop-induced gamma gamma rates) and show how the detectability and s/p discrimination depend on it.
  5. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (12)] The benchmark <sigma v> = 1e-26 cm^3/s is a freeze-out thermal average, but for p-wave annihilation the local cross section at the Galactic Center is velocity-suppressed; the shell-flux scaling in Sec. 3.1.1 (rho^2 r^{5/2}) assumes sigma v_r proportional to v_r^2, yet the explicit functional form of (sigma v_r)(v_r) used in Eq. (12) and its normalization are never written down. This ambiguity affects the absolute p-wave flux and the relative normalization of the s- and p-wave curves in Figs. 3 and 5. Please state the velocity dependence and reference velocity explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title reads 'T elescopes'; it should read 'Telescopes'.
  2. [Sec. 3.1.1] The first sentence says the collisionless density profile is 'as given in Eq. (9)', but Eq. (9) is the SIDM piecewise profile; the collisionless profile is given in Eq. (1).
  3. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (10)] Equation (10) labels the profile as rho_gNFW, but the expression shown is the standard NFW profile; please rename it to rho_NFW for consistency with the text.
  4. [Sec. 2.1] The phrase 'instantaneous SMBH formation, referred to as the adiabatic growth limit' is contradictory; instantaneous growth is the non-adiabatic/impulsive limit, not the adiabatic limit, and the terminology should be corrected.
  5. [End of Sec. 3.1.1] The statement 'COSI achieves O(10^-4) energy resolution' is true only at the higher-energy end of the plotted range; from the quoted epsilon(E), the resolution is O(10^-3) near 1-3 MeV. Please qualify the statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral calculation is a self-contained forward model with externally sourced density/velocity inputs and no fitted target spectra.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a forward-modeling exercise: given externally adopted halo/spike profiles (gNFW parameters from Benito et al., spike growth from Gondolo & Silk, annihilation cusps from Shapiro & Shelton, SIDM fluid solutions from Shapiro & Paschalidis and Alvarez & Yu), it computes the photon spectrum via Eqs. (12)-(16) and compares the predicted line widths and flux levels with instrument energy resolutions and sensitivities. The claimed s-wave versus p-wave discrimination follows from the different r_ann values for velocity-independent versus velocity-squared cross sections, which lead to different characteristic velocities v_esc(r_ann) and hence different Doppler widths; this is a genuine consequence of the assumed kinematics, not a fitted reproduction of a target spectrum. The branching ratios Br(DM DM -> gamma gamma) are explicitly chosen as normalization benchmarks to place the line within COSI's reach, and the paper does not present them as predictions derived from the model; this is an openly stated sensitivity-matching choice, not a circular inference. The only potentially load-bearing external input, the steep gamma_sp ~ 2.26 adiabatic spike, is taken from prior literature and is accompanied by an explicit discussion of how cored profiles, stellar heating, and instantaneous SMBH formation soften the spike and reduce detectability; the paper therefore flags the conditionality rather than hiding it. The single self-citation [60], used to support the statement that light WIMPs at the MeV scale often require nontrivial velocity dependence to evade cosmological constraints, is accompanied by independent external references [61,62] and is not load-bearing for the central spectral-shape derivation. No step was found in which a quantity is defined in terms of the claimed result, a fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, or a uniqueness claim is imported solely from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The DM spike and cusp are standard profiles from cited literature, not new entities. The free parameters are benchmark values chosen to illustrate the effect, with the branching ratios being the most consequential hand-picked inputs.

free parameters (4)
  • DM mass benchmark m_DM = 3 MeV
    Hand-chosen benchmark; Fig. 4 varies m_DM over a wide range to show conclusions, but the main spectra use 3 MeV.
  • Freeze-out annihilation cross section <sigma v> = 1e-26 cm^3/s
    Canonical thermal relic value adopted as benchmark; varied in Fig. 4 (right) to explore smaller cross sections such as freeze-in.
  • Branching ratio Br(DM DM -> gamma gamma) = 1e-7 (s-wave), 5e-6 (p-wave) collisionless; 4e-7 (s-wave), 2e-2 (p-wave) SIDM
    Chosen by hand to place the line flux within COSI sensitivity (Sec. 3.1.1, 3.1.2). The detectability conclusion depends on these normalizations.
  • SIDM self-scattering rate <sigma_T v>/m_DM = 1.5 cm^2/g km/s
    Adopted from Kaplinghat et al. [45] to define the isothermal core and Coulomb-like spike; determines rc and the inner profile in the SIDM scenario.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Galactic DM halo follows a gNFW profile with inner slope gamma=0.2, rho_s=0.58 GeV/cm3, rs=40 kpc (collisionless case) or an NFW profile (SIDM case).
    Adopted from Benito et al. [27] and Abazajian et al. [42]; the spike slope and flux contributions depend on the halo profile.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic growth of the SMBH in a cuspy halo produces a DM spike following Gondolo and Silk with gamma_sp approximately 2.26.
    Used to build the collisionless density profile in Sec. 2.1 (Eq. 5). If the spike is flattened by stellar heating or non-adiabatic growth, SMBH-induced spectral effects weaken, as the paper itself notes.
  • domain assumption Annihilation depletes the spike interior producing a cusp: r^-1/2 for s-wave and r^-0.34 for p-wave (Shapiro and Shelton).
    These slopes set rann and determine where the flux originates and the magnitude of the SMBH effects (Sec. 2.1, Eq. 6).
  • domain assumption In the SIDM scenario, DM behaves as a thermal fluid with a Coulomb-like self-interaction cross section (sigma_T ~ v^-4), forming an isothermal core and an inner spike described by hydrostatic equations.
    Adopted from Shapiro and Paschalidis [46] and Kaplinghat et al. [45]; the amplified SIDM spectral features rest on this fluid model.
  • domain assumption The annihilation line is monochromatic at sqrt(s)/2 in the c.o.m. frame, with only gravitational redshift g(r)=sqrt(1-Rs/r) as the GR correction, and the DM velocity distribution is treated non-relativistically outside rin.
    Sec. 3, Eqs. (13)-(14). The paper argues rin=2Rs versus 4Rs does not affect conclusions, but assumes the non-relativistic phase-space treatment is adequate outside the inner cutoff.
  • domain assumption The detector energy response is a Gaussian with fractional resolution epsilon(E) approximately 0.32 (E/MeV)^-0.96 percent for COSI.
    Adopted from Beechert et al. [14]; all detectability comparisons rely on this resolution curve.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Indirect Detection of Dark Matter Around a Supermassive Black Hole with High Energy-Resolution Gamma-Ray Telescopes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTKTU4ET

@misc{pith2026250607009,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Indirect Detection of Dark Matter Around a Supermassive Black Hole with High Energy-Resolution Gamma-Ray Telescopes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTKTU4ET}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07009}
}
abstract

We explore whether the unprecedented energy resolution of upcoming gamma-ray telescopes can uncover relativistic effects in photon spectra resulting from dark matter (DM) annihilation or decay near the supermassive black hole (SMBH) at the Galactic Center (GC), specifically, gravitational redshift, Doppler broadening due to Lorentz boosts, and kinetic energy enhancements arising from high DM velocities. By modeling DM density and velocity profiles under various SMBH formation scenarios and DM properties, we calculate the corresponding gamma-ray spectra and identify the conditions under which SMBH-induced spectral distortions become observable. We find that, in favorable cases, the observed spectra encode the DM velocity distribution near the SMBH, enabling potential discrimination among annihilation mechanisms with different velocity dependencies. Even when SMBH-induced effects are modest, the upcoming COSI mission, with sub-percent energy resolution surpassing the typical DM velocity dispersion at the GC, $\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$, may still be able to detect subtle Doppler broadening. These results highlight a promising pathway for determining the origin of gamma-ray signals and probing DM properties through high-resolution spectral measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07009 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: DM density profile for the collisionless DM as a function of distance from the GC. Right: Distributions of the relative and center-of-mass (c.o.m.) velocities, each normalized by the local escape velocity. The inset shows the escape velocity as a function of distance from the GC. Halo: In the absence of the SMBH, we assume that the DM halo is well described by the so-called generalized Navarro-Frenk-White (gNF… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DM distributions for the self-interacting DM scenario. Left: DM density profile as a function of distance from the GC. Right: Relative and c.o.m velocity distributions normalized by the typical velocity, which is shown in the inset as a function of distance from the GC. by thermalizing in the GC [40, 41]. To investigate this possibility, we adopt a more cuspy profile at r > rc , specifically, the standard Navarro–Fr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Photon spectra from DM annihilation around the SMBH in the collisionless DM scenario, compared with the COMPTEL constraint and the projected sensitivity of COSI. The energy resolution of the COSI detector is indicated by the region enclosed between two light gray lines. Right: The same spectra plotted over a wider energy range to illustrate broader spectral features. and the velocity dependence of the annihila… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of telescope energy resolutions with SMBH-induced spectral effects at rann (i.e., the typical radius of DM annihilation). Doppler broadening (gravitational redshift and ki￾netic enhancement) can be parametrized by vesc (Rs/r). The annihilation cross section …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Photon spectra from DM annihilation around the SMBH in the self-interacting DM scenario, compared with the COMPTEL constraint and the projected sensitivity of COSI. The energy resolution of the COSI detector is indicated by the region enclosed between two light g…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Instrument description and performance of the imaging gamma-ray telescope comptel aboard the compton gamma-ray observatory

    V Schonfelder, H Aarts, K Bennett, H Deboer, J Clear, W Collmar, A Connors, A Deeren- berg, R Diehl, A Von Dordrecht, et al. Instrument description and performance of the imaging gamma-ray telescope comptel aboard the compton gamma-ray observatory . Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 1993

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    Winkler et al

    C. Winkler et al. The INTEGRAL mission. Astron. Astrophys., 411:L1–L6, 2003

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    John A. Tomsick. The Compton Spectrometer and Imager Project for MeV Astronomy. PoS, ICRC2021:652, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Tomsick et al

    John A. Tomsick et al. The Compton Spectrometer and Imager. PoS, ICRC2023:745, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    W . B. Atwood et al. The Large Area Telescope on the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope Mission. Astrophys. J., 697:1071–1102, 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    A. M. Galper et al. Status of the GAMMA-400 Project. Adv. Space Res., 51:297–300, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    The optical system of the HESS imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes, Part 1: Layout and components of the system

    K Bernlöhr et al. The optical system of the HESS imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes, Part 1: Layout and components of the system. Astropart. Phys., 20:111– 128, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Cornils et al

    R. Cornils et al. The optical system of the HESS imaging atmospheric Cherenkov tele- scopes, Part 2: Mirror alignment and point spread function. Astropart. Phys., 20:129– 143, 2003

    work page 2003

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Aleksi´c et al

    J. Aleksi´c et al. The major upgrade of the MAGIC telescopes, Part I: The hardware improvements and the commissioning of the system.Astropart. Phys., 72:61–75, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Aleksi´c et al

    J. Aleksi´c et al. The major upgrade of the MAGIC telescopes, Part II: A performance study using observations of the Crab Nebula. Astropart. Phys., 72:76–94, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Actis et al

    M. Actis et al. Design concepts for the Cherenkov Telescope Array CTA: An advanced facility for ground-based high-energy gamma-ray astronomy. Exper. Astron., 32:193– 316, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    A. M. Galper et al. The Space-Based Gamma-Ray Telescope GAMMA-400 and Its Sci- entific Goals. In 33rd International Cosmic Ray Conference, page 0264, 6 2013. 14

    2013

  5. [13]

    Maier, L

    G. Maier, L. Arrabito, K. Bernlöhr, J. Bregeon, P . Cumani, T . Hassan, J. Hinton, and A. Moralejo. Performance of the Cherenkov Telescope Array. PoS, ICRC2019:733, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Calibrations of the Compton Spectrometer and Imager

    Jacqueline Beechert et al. Calibrations of the Compton Spectrometer and Imager. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 1031:166510, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    A. M. Ghez et al. Measuring Distance and Properties of the Milky Way’s Central Su- permassive Black Hole with Stellar Orbits. Astrophys. J., 689:1044–1062, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    The Galactic Center Massive Black Hole and Nuclear Star Cluster

    Reinhard Genzel, Frank Eisenhauer, and Stefan Gillessen. The Galactic Center Massive Black Hole and Nuclear Star Cluster. Rev.Mod. Phys., 82:3121–3195, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center

    Paolo Gondolo and Joseph Silk. Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center. Phys. Rev.Lett., 83:1719–1722, 1999

    1999

  10. [18]

    Multi-wavelength signals of dark matter annihilations at the Galactic center

    Marco Regis and Piero Ullio. Multi-wavelength signals of dark matter annihilations at the Galactic center. Phys. Rev.D, 78:043505, 2008

    2008

  11. [19]

    Fields, Stuart L

    Brian D. Fields, Stuart L. Shapiro, and Jessie Shelton. Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess from Dark Matter Annihilation: Is There A Black Hole Spike? Phys. Rev.Lett., 113:151302, 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    Shapiro, and Brian D

    Jessie Shelton, Stuart L. Shapiro, and Brian D. Fields. Black hole window into p-wave dark matter annihilation. Phys. Rev.Lett., 115(23):231302, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Search for gamma-ray emission from p-wave dark matter annihila- tion in the Galactic Center

    Christian Johnson, Regina Caputo, Chris Karwin, Simona Murgia, Steve Ritz, and Jessie Shelton. Search for gamma-ray emission from p-wave dark matter annihila- tion in the Galactic Center. Phys. Rev.D, 99(10):103007, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Cannoni, M

    M. Cannoni, M. E. Gomez, M. A. Perez-Garcia, and J. D. Vergados. New gamma ray signal from gravitationally boosted neutralinos at the galactic center. Phys. Rev. D, 85:115015, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Forbidden dark matter com- busted around supermassive black hole

    Yu Cheng, Shao-Feng Ge, Xiao-Gang He, and Jie Sheng. Forbidden dark matter com- busted around supermassive black hole. Phys. Lett. B, 847:138294, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Enhanced Line Signals from Annihilating Kaluza-Klein Dark Matter

    Chiara Arina, Torsten Bringmann, Joseph Silk, and Martin Vollmann. Enhanced Line Signals from Annihilating Kaluza-Klein Dark Matter. Phys. Rev. D, 90(8):083506, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Yanagida

    Yu Cheng, Shao-Feng Ge, Jie Sheng, and Tsutomu T . Yanagida. Dark matter annihila- tion via Breit-Wigner enhancement with heavier mediator.Phys. Lett. B, 861:139290, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Navarro, Carlos S

    Julio F . Navarro, Carlos S. Frenk, and Simon D. M. White. A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering. Astrophys. J., 490:493–508, 1997

    1997

  19. [27]

    Uncertainties in the Galactic Dark Matter distribution: An update

    María Benito, Fabio Iocco, and Alessandro Cuoco. Uncertainties in the Galactic Dark Matter distribution: An update. Phys. Dark Univ., 32:100826, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Ollongren

    A. Ollongren. Three-dimensional galactic stellar orbits. Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands, 16:241, October 1962. 15

    1962

  21. [29]

    Anatomy of Eddington-like inversion methods in the context of dark matter searches

    Thomas Lacroix, Martin Stref, and Julien Lavalle. Anatomy of Eddington-like inversion methods in the context of dark matter searches. JCAP, 09:040, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Gillessen et al

    S. Gillessen et al. An Update on Monitoring Stellar Orbits in the Galactic Center. Astrophys. J., 837(1):30, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Dark matter annihilation near a black hole: Plateau vs

    Eugene Vasiliev. Dark matter annihilation near a black hole: Plateau vs. weak cusp. Phys. Rev.D, 76:103532, 2007

    2007

  24. [32]

    Shapiro and Jessie Shelton

    Stuart L. Shapiro and Jessie Shelton. Weak annihilation cusp inside the dark matter spike about a black hole. Phys. Rev.D, 93(12):123510, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Laleh Sadeghian, Francesc Ferrer, and Clifford M. Will. Dark matter distribu- tions around massive black holes: A general relativistic analysis. Phys. Rev. D, 88(6):063522, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    Searching accretion-enhanced dark matter annihilation signals in the Galactic Centre

    Meiwen Yang, Zhi-Qi Guo, Xiao-Yi Luo, Zhao-Qiang Shen, Zi-Qing Xia, Chih-Ting Lu, Yue-Lin Sming Tsai, and Yi-Zhong Fan. Searching accretion-enhanced dark matter annihilation signals in the Galactic Centre. JHEP, 10:094, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Exploring dark matter spike distribution around the Galactic centre with stellar orbits

    Zhao-Qiang Shen, Guan-Wen Yuan, Cheng-Zi Jiang, Yue-Lin Sming Tsai, Qiang Yuan, and Yi-Zhong Fan. Exploring dark matter spike distribution around the Galactic centre with stellar orbits. Mon. Not. Roy .Astron. Soc., 527(2):3196–3207, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Evolution of the dark matter distribution at the galactic center

    David Merritt. Evolution of the dark matter distribution at the galactic center. Phys. Rev.Lett., 92:201304, 2004

    2004

  29. [37]

    Gnedin and Joel R

    Oleg Y. Gnedin and Joel R. Primack. Dark Matter Profile in the Galactic Center. Phys. Rev.Lett., 93:061302, 2004

    2004

  30. [38]

    Shapiro and Douglas C

    Stuart L. Shapiro and Douglas C. Heggie. Effect of stars on the dark matter spike around a black hole: A tale of two treatments. Phys. Rev.D, 106(4):043018, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    A Dark matter spike at the galactic center? Phys

    Piero Ullio, HongSheng Zhao, and Marc Kamionkowski. A Dark matter spike at the galactic center? Phys. Rev.D, 64:043504, 2001

    2001

  32. [40]

    Spergel and Paul J

    David N. Spergel and Paul J. Steinhardt. Observational evidence for selfinteracting cold dark matter. Phys. Rev.Lett., 84:3760–3763, 2000

    2000

  33. [41]

    Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure

    Sean Tulin and Hai-Bo Yu. Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure. Phys. Rept., 730:1–57, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Abazajian, Shunsaku Horiuchi, Manoj Kaplinghat, Ryan E

    Kevork N. Abazajian, Shunsaku Horiuchi, Manoj Kaplinghat, Ryan E. Keeley , and Oscar Macias. Strong constraints on thermal relic dark matter from Fermi-LAT observations of the Galactic Center. Phys. Rev.D, 102(4):043012, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    Density spikes near black holes in self-interacting dark matter halos and indirect detection constraints

    Gerardo Alvarez and Hai-Bo Yu. Density spikes near black holes in self-interacting dark matter halos and indirect detection constraints. Phys. Rev. D, 104(4):043013, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Keeley , Tim Linden, and Hai-Bo Yu

    Manoj Kaplinghat, Ryan E. Keeley , Tim Linden, and Hai-Bo Yu. Tying Dark Matter to Baryons with Self-interactions. Phys. Rev.Lett., 113:021302, 2014. 16

    2014

  37. [45]

    Dark Matter Halos as Particle Colliders: Unified Solution to Small-Scale Structure Puzzles from Dwarfs to Clusters

    Manoj Kaplinghat, Sean Tulin, and Hai-Bo Yu. Dark Matter Halos as Particle Colliders: Unified Solution to Small-Scale Structure Puzzles from Dwarfs to Clusters. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(4):041302, 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    Shapiro and Vasileios Paschalidis

    Stuart L. Shapiro and Vasileios Paschalidis. Self-interacting dark matter cusps around massive black holes. Phys. Rev.D, 89(2):023506, 2014

    2014

  39. [47]

    Das maxwellsche gesetz der geschwindigkeitsverteilung in der rela- tivtheorie

    Jüttner Ferencz. Das maxwellsche gesetz der geschwindigkeitsverteilung in der rela- tivtheorie. Annalen der Physik, 339(5):856–882, 01 1911

    1911

  40. [48]

    M. Cannoni. Relativistic <σ vrel> in the calculation of relics abundances: a closer look. Phys. Rev.D, 89(10):103533, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    Relativistic and nonrelativistic annihilation of dark matter: a sanity check using an effective field theory approach

    Mirco Cannoni. Relativistic and nonrelativistic annihilation of dark matter: a sanity check using an effective field theory approach. Eur. Phys. J. C, 76(3):137, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    Abuter et al

    R. Abuter et al. A geometric distance measurement to the Galactic center black hole with 0.3% uncertainty. Astron. Astrophys., 625, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Dark Matter signals from Draco and Willman 1: Prospects for MAGIC II and CTA

    Torsten Bringmann, Michele Doro, and Mattia Fornasa. Dark Matter signals from Draco and Willman 1: Prospects for MAGIC II and CTA. JCAP, 01:016, 2009

    2009

  44. [52]

    Schoenfelder

    V . Schoenfelder. The first comptel source catalogue. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser., 143:145, 2000

    2000

  45. [53]

    J. P . Roques et al. Spi /integral in-flight performance. Astron. Astrophys., 411:L91, 2003

    2003

  46. [54]

    De Angelis et al

    A. De Angelis et al. The e-ASTROGAM mission. Exper. Astron., 44(1):25–82, 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    Carolyn A. Kierans. AMEGO: Exploring the Extreme Multimessenger Universe. Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng., 11444:1144431, 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    Exploring the MeV sky with a combined coded mask and Comp- ton telescope: the Galactic Explorer with a Coded aperture mask Compton telescope (GECCO)

    Elena Orlando et al. Exploring the MeV sky with a combined coded mask and Comp- ton telescope: the Galactic Explorer with a Coded aperture mask Compton telescope (GECCO). JCAP, 07(07):036, 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    J. W . den Herder, H. Aarts, K. Bennett, H. de Boer, M. Busetta, W . Collmar, A. Connors, R. Diehl, W . Hermsen, J. Ryan, M. Kippen, L. Kuiper, G. Lichti, J. Lockwood, J. Macri, M. McConnell, D. Morris, R. Much, V . Schoenfelder, G. Stacy, H. Steinle, A. Strong, B. Swanenburg,...

    1992

  50. [58]

    Performance of the MAGIC telescopes after the major upgrade

    Julian Sitarek, Emiliano Carmona, Pierre Colin, Daniel Mazin, and Diego Tescaro. Performance of the MAGIC telescopes after the major upgrade. 8 2015

    2015

  51. [59]

    Hall, Karsten Jedamzik, John March-Russell, and Stephen M

    Lawrence J. Hall, Karsten Jedamzik, John March-Russell, and Stephen M. West. Freeze-In Production of FIMP Dark Matter. JHEP, 03:080, 2010

    2010

  52. [60]

    Karwin, Tom Melia, Michela Negro, Thomas Siegert, Yuki Watanabe, Hiroki Yoneda, and Tadayuki Takahashi

    Yu Watanabe, Shigeki Matsumoto, Christopher M. Karwin, Tom Melia, Michela Negro, Thomas Siegert, Yuki Watanabe, Hiroki Yoneda, and Tadayuki Takahashi. Light WIMPs and MeV Gamma-ray Detection with COSI. 4 2025. 17

    2025

  53. [61]

    Tracy R. Slatyer. Indirect dark matter signatures in the cosmic dark ages. I. Generaliz- ing the bound on s-wave dark matter annihilation from Planck results. Phys. Rev. D, 93(2):023527, 2016

    2016

  54. [62]

    Revisiting CMB constraints on dark matter annihilation.JCAP, 12(12):015, 2021

    Masahiro Kawasaki, Hiromasa Nakatsuka, Kazunori Nakayama, and Toyokazu Sekiguchi. Revisiting CMB constraints on dark matter annihilation.JCAP, 12(12):015, 2021

    2021

  55. [63]

    Feng and Jordan Smolinsky

    Jonathan L. Feng and Jordan Smolinsky . Impact of a resonance on thermal targets for invisible dark photon searches. Phys. Rev.D, 96(9):095022, 2017

    2017

  56. [64]

    Resonant sub-GeV Dirac dark matter

    Elias Bernreuther, Saniya Heeba, and Felix Kahlhoefer. Resonant sub-GeV Dirac dark matter. JCAP, 03:040, 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    A global analysis of resonance-enhanced light scalar dark matter

    Tobias Binder, Sreemanti Chakraborti, Shigeki Matsumoto, and Yu Watanabe. A global analysis of resonance-enhanced light scalar dark matter. JHEP, 01:106, 2023

    2023

  58. [66]

    Resonant Pseudo-Dirac Dark Matter as a Sub-GeV Thermal Target

    Nirmalya Brahma, Saniya Heeba, and Katelin Schutz. Resonant Pseudo-Dirac Dark Matter as a Sub-GeV Thermal Target. 8 2023

    2023

  59. [67]

    Ruderman

    Raffaele Tito D’Agnolo and Joshua T . Ruderman. Light Dark Matter from Forbidden Channels. Phys. Rev.Lett., 115(6):061301, 2015

    2015

  60. [68]

    Ruderman, and Po-Jen Wang

    Raffaele Tito D’Agnolo, Di Liu, Joshua T . Ruderman, and Po-Jen Wang. Forbidden dark matter annihilations into Standard Model particles. JHEP, 06:103, 2021. 18

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.