Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 94 references

Galactic Center Neutrinos from Cosmic Ray-Dark Matter Interactions

T0 review · 1 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-07 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Neutrino telescope data bounds dark matter down to keV masses

desk verdict New ANTARES Galactic Ridge neutrino limits on sub-GeV DM-nucleon scattering; solid methodology but limits hinge on CR transport model choice read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05335 v1 pith:PBBUNC5P submitted 2026-07-06 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Jorge Terol Calvo , Pedro de la Torre Luque , Mainak Mukhopadhyay , Chris Cappiello , Gonzalo Herrera This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE PACS 95.85.Ry95.35.+d98.35.Gi
keywords galacticantarescosmicmatterneutrinoneutrinosobservationsassociated
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes that high-energy neutrinos observed from the Galactic Ridge by the ANTARES telescope can be used to constrain light dark matter (DM) in the sub-GeV to keV mass range, a regime where traditional direct detection experiments lose sensitivity. The core mechanism is deep inelastic scattering between Galactic cosmic rays and ambient DM particles in the inner Galaxy: when a cosmic-ray proton collides with a DM particle, the interaction produces mesons that decay into neutrinos. Because both cosmic-ray density and DM density are highest toward the Galactic Center, this region produces the strongest expected signal. The authors compute the predicted neutrino flux using a detailed cosmic-ray transport model calibrated to gamma-ray data, a Monte Carlo pipeline for the particle-level scattering and hadronization, and a standard Navarro-Frenk-White dark matter density profile. They then require that the predicted DM-induced neutrino flux does not exceed the observed 99% confidence-level upper limits from ANTARES in any energy bin. This procedure yields upper limits on the DM-nucleon elastic scattering cross section that extend down to keV-scale DM masses, probing parameter space that is complementary to direct detection, cosmological, and other indirect searches. The paper also projects that next-generation neutrino telescopes (IceCube-Gen2 and KM3NeT) will improve these limits by roughly an order of magnitude or more.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the line-of-sight integral (Eq. 1) that convolves the Galactic dark matter density, the spatially-dependent cosmic-ray distribution from the gamma-optimized Min transport model, and the deep inelastic scattering cross section and neutrino yield from a MadGraph5 + Pythia 8 Monte Carlo pipeline. The coupling bound is set by the bin-by-bin comparison with ANTARES 99% C.L. upper limits (Eq. 3), then converted to the elastic DM-nucleon cross section via the reduced-mass relation (Eq. 4).

What would settle it

If the cosmic-ray density or spectral hardness in the Galactic Ridge is significantly lower than predicted by the gamma-optimized transport model—for instance, if the observed gamma-ray and neutrino emission is explained by a different mechanism—then the predicted DM-induced neutrino flux would be overestimated and the derived cross-section limits would be too stringent. The Base-Minimal uniform-diffusion scenario already demonstrates roughly an order-of-magnitude weakening at low masses, and any future revision of inner-Galaxy cosmic-ray transport that reduces the predicted high-energy proton

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is a set of 99% confidence-level upper limits on the DM-nucleon elastic scattering cross section derived entirely from Galactic Center neutrino observations. By requiring that the neutrino flux produced by cosmic-ray dark matter deep inelastic scattering not exceed ANTARES measurements of the Galactic Ridge in any energy bin, the authors obtain constraints valid for DM masses from approximately 1 keV up to nearly 1 GeV. These limits are derived using a vector-mediator simplified model with benchmark mediator masses of 100 MeV and 5 GeV, and the authors demonstrate that the neutrino yield is computed from first-principles particle-level simulations rather than the constant-

Load-bearing premise

The derived limits depend on the gamma-optimized Min cosmic-ray transport model, which uses a spatially non-uniform diffusion coefficient tuned to reproduce Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data from the inner Galaxy. The paper itself shows that switching to a uniform-diffusion model weakens the constraints by roughly an order of magnitude at low DM masses. The correctness of this specific propagation model in the Galactic Center is not independently verified here and remains an open ast

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Next-generation neutrino telescopes IceCube-Gen2 and KM3NeT could improve these cross-section limits by at least an order of magnitude, potentially reaching sensitivity competitive with collider-based searches for light dark matter mediators.
  • A joint analysis combining Galactic neutrino data with future TeV-PeV gamma-ray observations of the Galactic Center could disentangle a potential dark matter signal from astrophysical backgrounds, since the same cosmic-ray DM interactions produce a correlated neutral-pion gamma-ray flux.
  • The method is sensitive to the dark matter density profile in the innermost Galaxy; if DM spikes exist near the supermassive black hole, the constraints could strengthen significantly, while cored profiles would weaken them by up to an order of magnitude.
  • The approach is largely insensitive to the spin or mediator type of the DM candidate, since the large cosmic-ray energies compensate for velocity suppressions that affect low-velocity scattering, making this a broadly applicable probe across DM model space.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. This Letter proposes using Galactic Ridge neutrino observations from ANTARES to constrain dark matter (DM)–nucleon elastic scattering cross sections at sub-GeV masses. The mechanism is deep inelastic scattering of cosmic rays (CRs) off DM in the Galactic halo, producing secondary neutrinos from meson decay. The predicted neutrino flux (Eq. 1) is computed using a line-of-sight integral over the Ridge region, with CR densities from the gamma-optimized Min transport model and an NFW DM profile. The neutrino energy spectrum per interaction is obtained via a MadGraph5 + Pythia 8 Monte Carlo pipeline. Upper limits on the coupling G_D are derived by requiring the predicted flux not exceed ANTARES 99% C.L. upper limits in any energy bin (Eq. 3), then converted to sigma_el via Eq. 4. The main results (Fig. 2) show constraints spanning m_chi from ~1 keV to ~1 GeV for two benchmark mediator masses, with projections for IceCube-Gen2 and KM3NeT. Systematic uncertainties from CR transport, DM profile, PDFs, and cross-section parameterization are explored in the Supplemental Material.

Significance. The paper opens a genuinely new observational channel for light DM: using Galactic Center neutrinos to constrain DM-nucleon scattering. The methodology is well-implemented: the line-of-sight integral, the Monte Carlo pipeline for dN_nu/dE_nu, and the limit-setting procedure are all standard and correctly executed. The systematic uncertainty treatment is commendable in scope — the authors bracket CR transport uncertainties (gamma-optimized Min/Max vs. Base-Minimal, Fig. 6), DM profile choices (NFW, Burkert, Einasto, Moore, Fig. 7), PDF systematics (Fig. 8), and cross-section model dependence (Fig. 4). The use of realistic spatially-dependent CR maps, rather than a constant CR density, is a substantive improvement over prior work. The falsifiable predictions for next-generation detectors (IceCube-Gen2, KM3NeT) add value. The central claim — that these observations probe previously unexplored keV-scale parameter space — is defensible but, as discussed below, depends on the fiducial CR transport model in a way that should be more transparently reflected in the headline statements.

major comments (1)
  1. Main text, paragraph following Eq. (1): the paper states that astrophysical uncertainties 'introduce an uncertainty of a factor of a few,' but the Supplemental Material (Fig. 6) shows that switching from the gamma-optimized Min model to the Base-Minimal scenario weakens constraints by approximately an order of magnitude at low DM masses (m_chi < 0.1 MeV). This is the single largest systematic in the analysis and is load-bearing for the claim of probing 'previously unexplored parameter space' at keV-scale masses. The 'factor of a few' statement in the main text appears to refer to the DM profile variation (Fig. 7) and the spread between gamma-optimized Min and Max, but it does not encompass the Base-Minimal comparison. The main text should explicitly acknowledge the order-of-magnitude systematic from CR transport model choice and clarify which uncertainties are included in the 'factor ofa
minor comments (7)
  1. The abstract states limits 'extend down to keV-scale masses' without qualification. Given the order-of-magnitude systematic from CR transport at the lowest masses, a brief qualifier (e.g., 'under the gamma-optimized CR transport model') would be appropriate.
  2. Section 'Existing Constraints': the discussion of N_eff constraints (Ref. [62]) notes cross sections bounded down to 10^-49 cm^2 for masses below a few MeV, but does not show these in Fig. 2. A brief explanation of why N_eff bounds are excluded from the figure, or inclusion of them, would help the reader assess the novelty for keV-scale DM.
  3. Supplemental Material, cross-section comparison (right panel of Fig. 4): the Kamae and AAfrag parameterizations are scaled by 0.1, but the physical motivation for this specific scaling factor is not stated. A one-sentence justification would be appropriate.
  4. Figure 1 caption: 'am DM' appears twice and should be 'm_DM'. Similarly, 'am DM = 10 MeV' and 'am DM = 10 keV' should be 'm_DM'.
  5. The projected KM3NeT sensitivity uses a factor of 3.5 (sqrt(10) rounded up), while the text states the effective area is 10-100 times larger than ANTARES. Using only the lower bound is conservative, but the range of possible improvement (3.5 to ~10) should be noted for context.
  6. Reference [32] is cited as 'JHEAp 53, 100565 (2026)' with a 2025 arXiv number; the year consistency should be checked.
  7. The paper would benefit from a brief statement in the Conclusions acknowledging that the gamma-optimized CR model, while supported by gamma-ray and IceCube data, is not yet independently confirmed, and that the Base-Minimal scenario provides a conservative lower bound on the achievable constraints.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Main text states astrophysical uncertainties introduce 'a factor of a few,' but Supplemental Material Fig. 6 shows switching from gamma-optimized Min to Base-Minimal weakens constraints by ~order of magnitude at low DM masses (m_chi < 0.1 MeV). The 'factor of a few' statement does not encompass the Base-Minimal comparison and should be corrected, especially given its importance for the claim of probing previously unexplored parameter space at keV-scale masses.

    Authors: The referee is correct. The statement in the main text that astrophysical uncertainties 'introduce an uncertainty of a factor of a few' was intended to refer to the variation among the gamma-optimized Min/Max models and the DM profile choices (NFW vs. Burkert, Einasto, Moore), which indeed produce factor-of-few variations. However, this statement as written does not encompass the comparison to the Base-Minimal CR transport scenario, which, as shown in Fig. 6 of the Supplemental Material, weakens the constraints by approximately an order of magnitude at m_chi < 0.1 MeV. This is the largest single systematic in the analysis and is load-bearing for our claim of probing previously unexplored parameter space at keV-scale masses. We will revise the main text to explicitly acknowledge this order-of-magnitude systematic from CR transport model choice and to clarify which uncertainties are included in the 'factor of a few' statement (namely, the spread among gamma-optimized models and DM profile variations). We will also add a sentence noting that the Base-Minimal scenario, which does not reproduce the gamma-ray data toward the Galactic Center, represents a conservative lower bound on the CR density and correspondingly weakens the constraints by up to an order of magnitude at the lowest masses. This revision will make the headline claims more transparent without altering our central conclusion: even under the conservative Base-Minimal scenario, the constraints remain competitive with existing bounds across much of the mass range, and the gamma-optimized models — which are favored by multi-messenger gamma-ray and neutrino data — provide the stronger limits we quote as our fiducial results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: limits derived by comparing predicted flux to external ANTARES data via standard limit-setting procedure

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The predicted neutrino flux (Eq. 1) is computed from physical inputs — DM density profile, CR distribution from the γ-optimized Min model (Ref. [33, 39], external to this paper), and DIS cross sections from MadGraph5+Pythia8 — none of which are defined in terms of the output (the cross-section limits). The limit-setting procedure (Eq. 3) iteratively scales the coupling G_D until the predicted flux saturates the 99% C.L. upper limit from ANTARES observations (Ref. [30], an external experimental measurement). This is a standard upper-limit procedure, not circular reasoning: the observational bound is independent of the theoretical prediction. The conversion from G_D to σ_el (Eq. 4) is an algebraic relation in the simplified model, not a fit disguised as a prediction. The CR transport models (Refs. [33, 39]) are cited from the broader literature — while Ref. [33] shares an author (P. De la Torre Luque) with the present paper, the model is externally falsifiable against Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data and IceCube neutrino observations, and the paper transparently quantifies the systematic uncertainty from switching to the Base-Minimal model (Fig. 6, ~order of magnitude weakening at low masses). This is a model-dependence concern, not circularity. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's free parameters are either the quantity being constrained (G_D², scanned over m_χ) or benchmark choices (m_V). The NFW profile parameters and local DM density are standard inputs from the literature. The key axioms are the CR transport model and the DM density profile, both of which are domain assumptions with quantified systematic uncertainties. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (5)
  • G_D² = (g_χ · g_q)²
    The coupling combination G_D² is iteratively scaled to saturate the ANTARES 99% C.L. upper limit in each energy bin. It is the parameter being constrained, not a fitted constant with a fixed value.
  • m_V (mediator mass) = 5 GeV and 100 MeV (benchmark values)
    Two benchmark mediator masses are chosen by hand to illustrate the sensitivity. These are not fitted to data but selected as representative points in parameter space.
  • m_χ (DM mass)
    Scanned over a wide range from ~1 keV to ~1 GeV. Not a fitted parameter but the independent variable of the exclusion plot.
  • NFW profile scale radius R_s = 20 kpc
    Standard value from the literature (Refs. [47-50]), not fitted in this paper.
  • Local DM density ρ_⊙ = 0.4 GeV/cm³
    Standard value from the literature (Refs. [51, 52]), not fitted in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The DM density profile in the Galactic halo follows an NFW profile (or alternatively Burkert, Einasto, Moore for systematic checks).
    Invoked in Eq. 1 and discussed in the section 'Galactic Cosmic-Ray Nuclei Distribution' and Supplemental Material. The NFW profile is a standard assumption in indirect detection; the paper brackets the uncertainty by testing alternative profiles.
  • domain assumption The γ-optimized Min CR transport model (Ref. [33, 39]) correctly describes the CR spatial and spectral distribution in the inner Galaxy.
    Invoked in the line-of-sight integral (Eq. 1) via dϕ_CR/dE_CR. This model is tuned to gamma-ray and local CR data but its extrapolation to the Galactic Center is an assumption that introduces the dominant systematic uncertainty (see Fig. 6).
  • domain assumption The MadGraph5 + Pythia8 Monte Carlo pipeline correctly computes the neutrino yield dN_ν/dE_ν from CR-DM deep inelastic scattering, including parton showering and hadronization, down to sub-GeV DM masses.
    Invoked in the section 'Neutrino Flux from Cosmic Ray-Dark Matter Interactions'. The pipeline uses standard tools but the validity of perturbative QCD and Pythia hadronization at the relevant kinematic regimes (very low x, high energy) is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The DM particle is a Dirac fermion interacting via a vector mediator with universal quark couplings (benchmark model, Eq. 2).
    Stated in the section 'Limits on Light Dark Matter'. The authors argue that the phenomenology is similar for scalar/Majorana DM and scalar/pseudoscalar mediators, but the quantitative limits are derived for this specific benchmark.
  • domain assumption The ANTARES 99% C.L. upper limits on the Galactic Ridge neutrino flux (Ref. [30]) are robust and not contaminated by unmodeled backgrounds.
    Invoked in Eq. 3 as the observational constraint. The paper notes the ANTARES analysis is 'largely data-driven with minimal model dependence,' but this is an external result the present paper relies on.
invented entities (1)
  • None
    purpose: N/A
    The paper does not introduce new particles, forces, or entities beyond the standard light DM benchmark model (Dirac DM + vector mediator), which is a well-established phenomenological framework in the literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Galactic Center Neutrinos from Cosmic Ray-Dark Matter Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PBBUNC5P

@misc{pith2026260705335,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Galactic Center Neutrinos from Cosmic Ray-Dark Matter Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PBBUNC5P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05335}
}
read the original abstract

The IceCube and ANTARES collaborations have recently reported evidence for high-energy neutrinos associated with the Galactic plane and the Galactic Ridge, offering a new pathway to search for dark matter (DM). Deep inelastic scattering of cosmic rays with sub-GeV DM in the Galactic halo produces a distinctive neutrino signature from meson decays. Using detailed Galactic cosmic-ray maps and ANTARES observations, we derive 99% C.L. upper limits on the DM-nucleon cross section that extend down to keV-scale masses. These results establish Galactic neutrino telescopes as a powerful, complementary probe of light DM, with substantial improvements expected from upcoming IceCube-Gen2 and KM3NeT observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05335 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Expected neutrino signal coming from CR-DM inelas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Derived 99% C.L. upper limits on the DM-nucleon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Expected neutrino fluxes from CR-DM interactions coming from the galactic Ridge under different DM mass-mediator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Derived 99% C.L. upper limits on the dark matter-nucleon elastic scattering cross section as a function of the dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Derived 99% C.L. upper limits on the dark matter-nucleon elastic scattering cross section as a function of the dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Impact of the dark matter density profile uncertainties on the derived cross-section upper limits, assuming a constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Ratio of the total cross section calculated with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 94 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dark Matter

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, SciPost Physics Review1, 1 (2026), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Light Dark Matter: Models and Constraints

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D96, 115021 (2017), arXiv:1709.07882 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark matter direct detection in the next decade

    R. Essiget al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.08297 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Snowmass White Paper: Light Dark Matter Direct Detection at the Interface With Condensed Matter Physics

    A. Mitridate, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Dark Univ.40, 101221 (2023), arXiv:2203.07492 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    D. S. Akeribet al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.08084 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    The Waning of the WIMP: Endgame?

    G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, J. P. Neto, M. Pierre, S. Pro- fumo, and F. S. Queiroz, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 152 (2025), arXiv:2403.15860 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    On Symmetric and Asymmetric Light Dark Matter

    T. Lin, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D85, 063503 (2012), arXiv:1111.0293 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    The SIMP Miracle

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 171301 (2014), arXiv:1402.5143 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, H. Murayama, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 021301 (2015), arXiv:1411.3727 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Essig, M

    R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP05, 046 (2016), arXiv:1509.01598 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kuflik, M

    E. Kuflik, M. Perelstein, N. R.-L. Lorier, and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221302 (2016), arXiv:1512.04545 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Carrillo Gonz´ alez and N

    M. Carrillo Gonz´ alez and N. Toro, JHEP04, 060 (2022), arXiv:2108.13422 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J. M. Cline and G. Herrera, Phys. Rev. D112, 035023 (2025), arXiv:2409.13818 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bringmann and M

    T. Bringmann and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 171801 (2019), arXiv:1810.10543 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J.-W. Wang, A. Granelli, and P. Ullio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 221104 (2022), arXiv:2111.13644 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    C. V. Cappiello, Q. Liu, G. Mohlabeng, and A. C. Vin- cent, Phys. Rev. D110, 095031 (2024), arXiv:2405.00086 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    R. A. Gustafson, G. Herrera, M. Mukhopadhyay, K. Murase, and I. M. Shoemaker, (2025), arXiv:2508.20984 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    C. V. Cappiello, K. C. Y. Ng, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D99, 063004 (2019), arXiv:1810.07705 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Herrera and K

    G. Herrera and K. Murase, Phys. Rev. D110, L011701 (2024), arXiv:2307.09460 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    R. A. Gustafson, G. Herrera, M. Mukhopadhyay, K. Murase, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D111, L121303 (2025), arXiv:2408.08947 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hooper and S

    D. Hooper and S. D. McDermott, Phys. Rev. D97, 115006 (2018), arXiv:1802.03025 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Guo, Y.-L

    G. Guo, Y.-L. S. Tsai, M.-R. Wu, and Q. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D102, 103004 (2020), arXiv:2008.12137 [astro- ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ambrosone, M

    A. Ambrosone, M. Chianese, D. F. G. Fiorillo, A. Marinelli, and G. Miele, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 111003 (2023), arXiv:2210.05685 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Hussein and G

    A. Hussein and G. Herrera, (2025), arXiv:2510.12877 [hep-ph]

    2025

  17. [25]

    A. G. De Marchi, A. Granelli, J. Nava, and F. Sala, Phys. Rev. D112, 043042 (2025), arXiv:2412.07861 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A. G. De Marchi, A. Granelli, J. Nava, and F. Sala, Phys. Lett. B871, 140015 (2025), arXiv:2506.06416 [hep-ph]

    2025

  19. [27]

    P. D. Serpico and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D70, 043526 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403417

    2004 arXiv

  20. [28]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, JHEP03, 080 (2010), arXiv:0911.1120 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and A. Reinert, JHEP03, 141 (2021), arXiv:1911.03389 [hep-ph]

    2021

  22. [30]

    Albertet al.(ANTARES), Phys

    A. Albertet al.(ANTARES), Phys. Lett. B841, 137951 (2023), arXiv:2212.11876 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science380, adc9818 (2023), arXiv:2307.04427 [astro-ph.HE]

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science380, adc9818 (2023), arXiv:2307.04427 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023

  24. [32]

    Albertet al.(ANTARES), JHEAp53, 100565 (2026), arXiv:2511.01687 [astro-ph.HE]

    A. Albertet al.(ANTARES), JHEAp53, 100565 (2026), arXiv:2511.01687 [astro-ph.HE]. 7

    2026

  25. [33]

    De La Torre Luque, D

    P. De La Torre Luque, D. Gaggero, D. Grasso, A. Marinelli, and M. Rocamora, JCAP12, 041 (2025), arXiv:2502.18268 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Amenomoriet al., Physical Review Letters126 (2021), 10.1103/physrevlett.126.141101

    M. Amenomoriet al., Physical Review Letters126 (2021), 10.1103/physrevlett.126.141101

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

    S. S. Cerri, D. Gaggero, A. Vittino, C. Evoli, and D. Grasso, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017, 019–019 (2017)

    2017

  28. [37]

    De la Torre Luque, D

    P. De la Torre Luque, D. Gaggero, D. Grasso, and A. Marinelli, Front. Astron. Space Sci.9, 1041838 (2022), arXiv:2209.10011 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Zuriaga-Puig, P

    J. Zuriaga-Puig, P. De La Torre Luque, and V. Gammaldi, Physics of the Dark Universe53, 102376 (2026)

    2026

  30. [39]

    P. D. l. T. Luque, D. Gaggero, D. Grasso, O. Fornieri, K. Egberts, C. Steppa, and C. Evoli, Astron. Astrophys. 672, A58 (2023), arXiv:2203.15759 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Tovar-Pardo, P

    ´A. Tovar-Pardo, P. De La Torre Luque, and M. A. S´ anchez-Conde, JCAP11, 016 (2024), arXiv:2405.12918 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Gaggero, A

    D. Gaggero, A. Urbano, M. Valli, and P. Ullio, PRD91, 083012 (2015), arXiv:1411.7623

    2015 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Gaggero, D

    D. Gaggero, D. Grasso, A. Marinelli, A. Urbano, and M. Valli, Astrophys. J. Lett.815, L25 (2015), arXiv:1504.00227

    2015 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Aceroet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys

    F. Aceroet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys. J. Suppl.223, 26 (2016), arXiv:1602.07246

    2016 arXiv

  35. [44]

    R. Yang, F. Aharonian, and C. Evoli, prd93, 123007 (2016), arXiv:1602.04710

    2016 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Lipari and S

    P. Lipari and S. Vernetto, Phys. Rev. D98, 043003 (2018), arXiv:1804.10116 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Pothast, D

    M. Pothast, D. Gaggero, E. Storm, and C. Weniger, JCAP10, 045 (2018), arXiv:1807.04554 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [47]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J.462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025

    1996 arXiv

  39. [48]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophysical Journal462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro- ph/9508025

    1996

  40. [49]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophysical Journal490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro- ph/9611107

    1997

  41. [50]

    Cirelli, G

    M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. Hutsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci, M. Raidal, F. Sala, and A. Strumia, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2011, 051 (2011), arXiv:1012.4515 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Benito, A

    M. Benito, A. Cuoco, and F. Iocco, JCAP2019, 033 (2019), arXiv:1901.02460 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Benito, F

    M. Benito, F. Iocco, and A. Cuoco, Physics of the Dark Universe32, 100826 (2021), arXiv:2009.13523 [astro- ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Burkert, Astrophys

    A. Burkert, Astrophys. J. Lett.447, L25 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9504041

    1995 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, JHEP07, 079 (2014), arXiv:1405.0301 [hep- ph]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Bierlichet al., SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlichet al., SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Wang, Phys

    J.-W. Wang, Phys. Rev. D112, 055004 (2025), arXiv:2503.22105 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [57]

    K. K. Rogers, C. Dvorkin, and H. V. Peiris, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 171301 (2022), arXiv:2111.10386 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [58]

    E. O. Nadleret al.(DES), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 091101 (2021), arXiv:2008.00022 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Huanget al.(PandaX), Phys

    D. Huanget al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 191002 (2023), arXiv:2308.01540 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Aggarwalet al.(DAMIC-M), Phys

    K. Aggarwalet al.(DAMIC-M), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 071002 (2025), arXiv:2503.14617 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [61]

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, J. L. Newstead, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D101, 116007 (2020), arXiv:1907.03782 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Krnjaic and S

    G. Krnjaic and S. D. McDermott, Phys. Rev. D101, 123022 (2020), arXiv:1908.00007 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Alvey, N

    J. Alvey, N. Sabti, V. Tiki, D. Blas, K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, M. Escudero, M. Fairbairn, M. Orkney, and J. I. Read, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.501, 1188 (2021), arXiv:2010.03572 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [64]

    E. O. Nadler, S. Birrer, D. Gilman, R. H. Wechsler, X. Du, A. Benson, A. M. Nierenberg, and T. Treu, Astro- phys. J.917, 7 (2021), arXiv:2101.07810 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Baraket al.(SENSEI), Phys

    L. Baraket al.(SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 171802 (2020), arXiv:2004.11378 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [66]

    K. V. Berghaus, A. Esposito, R. Essig, and M. Shola- purkar, JHEP01, 023 (2023), arXiv:2210.06490 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Adariet al.(SENSEI), Phys

    P. Adariet al.(SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 011804 (2025), arXiv:2312.13342 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 241803 (2019), arXiv:1907.12771 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide), Phys

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 101001 (2023), arXiv:2207.11967 [hep-ex]

    2023

  61. [70]

    J. Xu, J. Kim, D. Adams, B. G. Lenardo, W. H. Lippin- cott, and R. Essig, (2026), arXiv:2606.03174 [hep-ex]

    2026 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 241801 (2025), arXiv:2503.18158 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Angloheret al.(COSINUS), (2026), arXiv:2603.22971 [hep-ph]

    G. Angloheret al.(COSINUS), (2026), arXiv:2603.22971 [hep-ph]

    2026

  64. [73]

    Bondarenko, A

    K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, T. Bringmann, M. Huf- nagel, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and A. Sokolenko, JHEP03, 118 (2020), arXiv:1909.08632 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Abeet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys

    K. Abeet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 031802 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 131, 159903 (2023)], arXiv:2209.14968 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [75]

    A. K. Mishra, N. Liu, and C.-T. Lu, Phys. Dark Univ. 49, 102050 (2025), arXiv:2504.03409 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [76]

    E. J. Chun, S. Mandal, and A. Roy, (2026), arXiv:2606.03487 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  68. [77]

    T. N. Maity and R. Laha, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 117 (2024), arXiv:2210.01815 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [78]

    S. A. Meighen-Berger, P. S. B. Dev, and M. Hostert, Phys. Rev. D113, 103050 (2026), arXiv:2512.18093 [hep- ph]

    2026

  70. [79]

    I. Reis, E. Moulin, A. Viana, and V. P. Goncalves, JCAP 07, 012 (2024), arXiv:2403.09343 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Bauer, P

    M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer, and J. Jaeckel, JHEP07, 094 (2018), arXiv:1803.05466 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  72. [81]

    N. F. Bell, J. L. Newstead, and I. Shaukat-Ali, Phys. Rev. D109, 063034 (2024), arXiv:2309.11003 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Le Breton (KM3NeT), Nucl

    R. Le Breton (KM3NeT), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A936, 204 (2019)

    2019

  74. [83]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube-Gen2), J. Phys. G48, 060501 (2021), arXiv:2008.04323 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021

  75. [84]

    Bozza, PoSEPS-HEP2023, 058 (2023)

    C. Bozza, PoSEPS-HEP2023, 058 (2023). 8

    2023

  76. [85]

    Gondolo and J

    P. Gondolo and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1719 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9906391

    1999 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Kamae, N

    T. Kamae, N. Karlsson, T. Mizuno, T. Abe, and T. Koi, Astrophys. J.647, 692 (2006), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 662, 779 (2007)], arXiv:astro-ph/0605581

    2006 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Kachelrieß, I

    M. Kachelrieß, I. V. Moskalenko, and S. Ostapchenko, Comput. Phys. Commun.245, 106846 (2019), arXiv:1904.05129 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Lu, Y.-L

    K. Lu, Y.-L. S. Tsai, Q. Yuan, and L. Zhang, Res. Astron. Astrophys.24, 065007 (2024), arXiv:2310.12501 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Einasto, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata 5, 87 (1965)

    J. Einasto, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata 5, 87 (1965)

    1965

  81. [90]

    Moore, S

    B. Moore, S. Ghigna, F. Governato, G. Lake, T. R. Quinn, J. Stadel, and P. Tozzi, Astrophys. J. Lett.524, L19 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9907411

    1999 arXiv

  82. [91]

    H.-L. Lai, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, Z. Li, P. M. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, and C.-P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D82, 054021 (2010), arXiv:1007.2241 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  83. [92]

    R. D. Ballet al.(NNPDF), Nucl. Phys. B867, 244 (2013), arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  84. [93]

    R. D. Ball, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, L. Del Deb- bio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, N. P. Hartland, and J. Rojo (NNPDF), Nucl. Phys. B877, 290 (2013), arXiv:1308.0598 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Min” and “Max

    J. Cruz-Martinez, S. Forte, N. Laurenti, T. R. Rabe- mananjara, and J. Rojo, JHEP09, 088 (2024), arXiv:2406.12961 [hep-ph]. 9 Supplemental Material for Galactic Center Neutrinos from Cosmic Ray-Dark Matter Interactions Jorge Terol Calvo, Pedro de la Torre Luque, Mainak Mukhopa...

    2024 arXiv

  86. [95]

    TheG 2 D coupling limit is set by the most 14 10□ 3 10□ 2 10□ 1 100 101 102 mDM [MeV] 10□ 30 10□ 29 10□ 28 10□ 27 10□ 26 10□ 25 10□ 24 σel χp [cm2] NFW Moore Burkert Einasto FIG

    in the energy range 1–70 TeV, using the IceCube en- ergy bin edges. TheG 2 D coupling limit is set by the most 14 10□ 3 10□ 2 10□ 1 100 101 102 mDM [MeV] 10□ 30 10□ 29 10□ 28 10□ 27 10□ 26 10□ 25 10□ 24 σel χp [cm2] NFW Moore Burkert Einasto FIG. 7. Impact of the dark matter d...

Pith tools

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