Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Dark matter that ionizes neutral hydrogen should make it glow in H-alpha; the paper derives the first constraints from a quiet dwarf's missing red glow.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 17:30 UTC pith:QUWGPJKW

load-bearing objection New Hα-recombination probe of sub-GeV DM in Leo T; the method is sound and the photon limits are robust, but the leading electron limits rest on a diffusion model whose parameters are not bracketed. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.09019 v2 pith:QUWGPJKW submitted 2025-12-09 hep-ph astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Search for Dark Matter Annihilation and Decay with Hα Line Emission

Rebecca K. Leane This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords dark matter annihilationdark matter decayH-alpha emissionrecombination emissionLeo Tdwarf galaxyindirect detectionsub-GeV dark matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that H-alpha recombination emission is a new indirect dark matter probe: when dark matter annihilates or decays into photons or electrons, that energy ionizes neutral hydrogen, and a fixed fraction of the deposited power re-emerges as H-alpha line photons. Because H-alpha is non-resonant and escapes the gas unattenuated, the measured surface brightness directly traces the dark matter energy injection rate. Applying this to Leo T, a gas-rich, star-quiet dwarf, the non-detection of extended H-alpha with MUSE sets the first H-alpha-based limits on dark matter annihilation and decay, with leading sensitivity in parts of the eV to GeV mass range. A reader should care because this adds an optical tracer that reaches masses below those probed by gamma-ray and CMB searches, and it comes with a different set of astrophysical systematics.

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (1): the H-alpha flux from an aperture is F = (1/4π) f_Hα_dep(E) f_eq Q[A], where Q[A] is the standard J- or D-factor times the injected energy, f_Hα_dep is the fraction of injected energy that ultimately emerges as H-alpha, and f_eq is close to unity whenever ionization and recombination reach equilibrium. In quiet neutral gas, recombinations follow Case B and roughly 46 percent pass through the 3 to 2 transition, so H-alpha carries a predictable share of the deposited power. For electrons, a two-zone diffusion model accounts for dark-matter-born electrons that wander into the aperture from outside it; for photons, absorption by hydrogen and helium is treated throug

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Eq. (1), which converts a dark matter halo's J- or D-factor into an H-alpha flux: f_Hα_dep converts the injected power into H-alpha photons and f_eq corrects for incomplete equilibrium at very low ionization rates. The physical mechanism is Case-B recombination: Lyman-series photons are trapped and locally reprocessed, while H-alpha (the 3 to 2 transition) is non-resonant and escapes, carrying a fixed fraction of each recombination cascade. For electrons, a two-zone random-walk transport model with Alfvén-speed diffusion determines how much deposited energy lands in the observing aperture; for photons, absorption probabilities from photoionization cross sections

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes H-alpha photons escape the neutral gas essentially unattenuated because the n=2 hydrogen population in cool and warm neutral gas is negligible; the paper asserts this but does not quantify the residual H-alpha optical depth, and if that population is not negligible the predicted flux is overestimated and the limits are too strong.

What would settle it

Measure the n=2 hydrogen column in Leo T's warm neutral medium, for example through a deep search for H-alpha absorption against a background source behind the same gas, or through a Ly-alpha radiative-transfer calculation using the observed 21 cm column and ionizing radiation field, and check whether the H-alpha optical depth is truly tiny; if tau_Hα of order one or larger, the predicted signal and limits collapse. A 21 cm measurement showing the core is already ionized above about 10 percent would also invalidate the neutral-medium assumption.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The Leo T MUSE non-detection translates into 95 percent confidence upper limits on dark matter annihilation and decay to photons or electrons over roughly the eV to GeV mass range, with the strongest reach for MeV-scale annihilation to electrons relative to CMB bounds.
  • Because H-alpha traces the dark matter energy-injection site directly, deeper H-alpha observations of quiet, gas-rich dwarfs can probe lower cross sections without reprocessing the data for specific dark matter masses.
  • Extended to a stack of ten Leo T-like dwarfs with ELT-class integral-field spectroscopy, the method projects roughly an order-of-magnitude improvement in sensitivity.
  • The same framework yields updated Leo T heating limits and p-wave annihilation constraints, extending the probe to velocity-suppressed annihilation models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the H-alpha escape assumption holds, the method should extend to higher Balmer lines and to infrared Paschen and Brackett recombination lines, potentially opening the dusty Galactic Center to this kind of search.
  • A matched-filter analysis that weights pixels by the expected dark matter morphology would improve sensitivity beyond the uniform aperture average used here, without new observations.
  • The strongest external check may come from 21 cm measurements: a dark matter model that ionizes Leo T's core above about 10 percent conflicts with the observed nearly neutral medium, so combining the H-alpha bounds with that ionization line gives a complementary, profile-independent constraint.
  • If residual resonant scattering from a non-negligible n=2 population absorbs even part of the H-alpha flux, all derived limits would shift weaker by the same factor; a quantitative calculation of that optical depth would settle the question.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new indirect dark matter search based on Hα recombination emission from neutral gas. Dark matter annihilation or decay products ionize neutral hydrogen, and subsequent Case-B recombination cascades produce Hα photons. The predicted flux is written as F = (1/4π) f_dep^{Hα}(E) f_eq Q[A], with separate energy-deposition treatments for injected photons and electrons, and the framework is applied to the Leo T dwarf galaxy using a MUSE/VLT non-detection of extended Hα emission. The author derives 95% C.L. limits on DM annihilation and decay into photons and electrons for masses from eV to GeV scales, claims the first Hα-based limits, and argues that they reach leading sensitivity in parts of this mass range, particularly for MeV-scale annihilation to electrons. The paper includes a supplemental treatment of p-wave annihilation, gas and DM profiles, photon/electron deposition, updated Leo T heating constraints, and an equilibrium-timescale factor.

Significance. The proposed method is genuinely novel and, if robust, would add a valuable new probe of sub-GeV dark matter, complementary to CMB, Voyager, X/γ-ray, and IGM constraints. The main derivation is clearly presented and anchored to standard atomic physics: Case-B recombination fractions, photoionization cross sections, stopping powers, and published Monte Carlo ionization fractions. The application to Leo T is well motivated because of its gas-rich, star-quiet, DM-dominated nature, and the use of the MUSE non-detection is straightforward. The paper also contains useful improvements to existing Leo T heating constraints. However, the central claim of leading sensitivity in the electron channels depends on a simplified two-zone diffusion model with unconstrained parameters, and the robustness of the limits to those parameters is not demonstrated. If the transport uncertainties are quantified and shown not to degrade the limits dramatically, the paper would be a strong contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Sec. III.A; Eq. (15)] The electron-channel limits rest on the two-zone transport model, whose key input is the diffusion coefficient K=(1/3)v_A L_coh. The adopted B=1 μG and L_coh=50 pc are not derived from Leo T observations, and the statement that L_coh=50 pc is 'conservative' is not supported for the dominant B→A term. Because F_A = f_A P_{A→A} + (1−f_A) r_B P_{A→A}, a smaller L_coh can reduce r_B and drive F_A toward f_A, while a larger L_coh can reduce P_{A→A}; F_A is non-monotonic in K. Since the MUSE aperture is much smaller than the WNM core, f_A is only ~0.06–0.15 for the adopted profiles, so the electron limits could shift by a large factor if transport from zone B is inefficient. Please provide a sensitivity scan over the plausible range of (B, L_coh) and justify the chosen values observationally, or demonstrate that the derived MeV-scale limits are robust to this uncertainty.
  2. [Supplemental Sec. V; Eq. (S10)] The equilibrium factor f_eq = tanh^2(t_av/t_eq) is a physically reasonable way to handle low ionization rates, but the parameter t_av = 50 Myr is ad hoc and has no direct observational anchor for Leo T. At the low-cross-section boundary of the excluded regions, t_eq can be comparable to or larger than t_av, so the limits depend on this choice. The paper should justify the value and show how the limits change for, e.g., t_av = 5 Myr and 500 Myr. Without this, the low-rate portions of the exclusion curves are not fully controlled.
  3. [Main text, 'Recombinations in neutral gas'] The method’s ability to trace the DM injection site relies on Hα escaping unabsorbed, justified by the statement that the n=2 population is negligible in cool/warm neutral gas. No quantitative optical-depth estimate is provided. Although the standard argument is likely correct, the central assumption should be supported by an explicit estimate of the Hα optical depth for the Leo T WNM column (N_H ≈ 7×10^20 cm^-2), including the possible effect of Lyα trapping on the n=2 population. This would close a gap in the derivation of Eq. (1).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2] The four panels use different axis ranges and scales. The caption notes 'differing axes,' but the comparison of photon and electron channels would be easier if the axes were harmonized or if each panel were more clearly labeled with the channel and profile assumptions.
  2. [Intro] The phrase 'Hα is non-resonant' is imprecise; Hα is a resonant transition but the n=2 population is negligible, making the line optically thin. Consider rewording to 'effectively non-resonant' or 'optically thin'.
  3. [Eq. (7)] For Eγ below the He threshold, only the H terms contribute; this is stated in the text, but making it explicit in the equation or its surrounding notation would avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Eq. (17)] The covariance penalty f_corr is introduced as an empirical factor, but its derivation and the precise way it enters the √N combination could be clarified. Please specify whether it multiplies the per-pixel standard deviation or the variance.
  5. [Supplemental Sec. IV] The term 'exceptionally conservative' to describe the L_coh=100 pc choice in Ref. [80] is informal. Also, the sentence 'This is not necessarily an improvement but rather a less conservative input choice' could be sharpened.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No material circularity: the H-alpha signal is anchored to external atomic data, external Leo T mass/profile inputs, and an external MUSE non-detection; no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

I checked the derivation chain from Eq. (1) through the limit-setting procedure in Eq. (17). The predicted H-alpha flux is a product of (i) J/D factors fixed by external Leo T dynamical modeling normalized to M_300 (Supplemental Sec. II.B, Refs. [66-69]); (ii) microphysical fractions f_Halpha_dep built from standard Case-B recombination (f_Halpha ~ 0.46), Furlanetto & Johnson Stoever (2010) Monte Carlo ionization fractions, NIST stopping powers, and external photoionization cross sections; and (iii) an observed MUSE non-detection used only as the limit threshold F_lim. The limit is set by equating the model flux to this external measured upper bound; no parameter is fitted to the H-alpha data and then presented as a prediction. The electron transport model (Eqs. 8-16) uses unconstrained B and L_coh, and the claim that L_coh = 50 pc 'should be conservative' is an assumption; this is a robustness/model-uncertainty concern, not a circular reduction. The f_eq equilibrium factor is a nonlinear steady-state correction (Eqs. S9-S11), not an identity that makes Eq. (1) equal to its inputs. Self-citations appear only as contextual references to other DM-ionization signals and are not load-bearing for the central derivation. No circular step of any enumerated kind was found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or media. The paper's few free parameters are astrophysical modeling choices (t_av, B, L_coh, f_corr, gas densities, profile normalizations). The most consequential ad hoc input is the equilibrium ansatz f_eq = tanh^2(t_av/t_eq) with t_av = 50 Myr, which determines whether low-rate DM signals are suppressed. A simpler model of the problem would still need atomic data and observed Leo T gas/DM inputs, but not necessarily these specific diffusion and equilibrium choices.

free parameters (7)
  • equilibrium timescale t_av = 50 Myr
    Chosen by hand as the effective duration over which local conditions are steady; enters f_eq = tanh^2(t_av/t_eq) in Eq. (S10). Smaller t_av would suppress the signal and weaken limits; larger t_av would strengthen them. This is a modeling choice, not measured.
  • magnetic field B = 1 μG
    Adopted uniformly for Leo T; sets the Alfvén speed and thus the electron diffusion coefficient K in Eq. (8). The paper calls it 'conservative' but dwarf galaxy B fields are uncertain by factors of a few.
  • turbulence coherence length L_coh = 50 pc
    Chosen for the electron diffusion coefficient K = (1/3) v_A L_coh in Eq. (8). The paper notes values in dwarf galaxies are often 1–20 pc, so 50 pc is conservative, but the choice directly changes the escape rates and the electron H-alpha limits.
  • pixel covariance penalty f_corr = 1.6
    Empirically measured MUSE pixel-to-pixel covariance penalty applied to the aperture-integrated flux limit in Eq. (17). It is taken from the MUSE instrument characterization, not derived in this paper, and directly scales the limit.
  • uniform WNM density in the aperture = 0.1 cm^-3 (aperture), 0.06 cm^-3 (core)
    Volume-averaged neutral hydrogen densities derived from a spherical WNM core of radius 350 pc and depth 700 pc. The density normalizes the optical depth (Eq. 5) and the electron energy-loss rates; the true radial gas distribution is simplified.
  • mean photon exit path length = 101 pc
    Mean exit distance for rays launched from the center of the MUSE box, used in the photon optical depth. The paper checks that profile-specific weighting changes results by <10%, but the value is still a geometric approximation.
  • DM profile normalizations (Burkert and NFW) = Burkert: ρ0 = 5.4 GeV/cm3, r0 = 400 pc; NFW: ρs = 2.9 GeV/cm3, rs = 350 pc
    Normalized to the enclosed mass within 300 pc from Ref. [68] (8e6 Msun Burkert, 6.5e6 Msun NFW). These are astrophysical inputs from prior kinematic modeling, not fitted to H-alpha, but the NFW/Burkert choice brackets the main astrophysical uncertainty.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Case-B recombination applies to the warm neutral medium of Leo T, with f_Hα ≈ 0.46 at T ~ 7000 K (Eq. S8).
    The whole signal rests on the standard Case-B recombination cascade in neutral gas, where Lyman photons are trapped and Hα escapes. Section 'Overview of Hα Emission in Neutral Gas' and Eq. (S8).
  • domain assumption H-alpha is effectively unabsorbed because the n=2 population is negligible (optical depth tiny even at large columns).
    Stated in the main text for cool/warm neutral gas; not quantified. If n=2 were non-negligible, Hα could be resonantly scattered/absorbed and the predicted flux would drop. This is the weakest structural premise.
  • domain assumption The electron transport in the WNM core is described by a two-zone diffusion model with a single diffusion coefficient K = (1/3) v_A L_coh and escape rates Γ_esc = π^2 K / ℓ^2.
    Eqs. (8)–(13). This is a simplified random-walk model with rectangular-box eigenmode escape lengths; it neglects energy-dependent diffusion, magnetic field structure, and advection. It is a modeling approximation, not a first-principles transport solution.
  • domain assumption Secondary electron ionization fractions f_ion from Furlanetto & Johnson Stoever (2010) apply to Leo T's primordial H/He gas.
    Used in Eqs. (7) and (16). These are Monte Carlo results for a generic primordial gas; the paper adopts them wholesale.
  • domain assumption Mass energy-absorption coefficients (Hubbell & Seltzer, Henke, Band et al.) describe photon energy deposition in the Leo T column.
    Used for the photon optical depth and deposition fraction, Eqs. (4)–(7). Standard atomic data, but extrapolated to Leo T's low metal, low column environment.
  • domain assumption The DM density of Leo T is bracketed by Burkert and NFW profiles normalized to M(<300 pc).
    Section II.B. The robustness of the limits depends on this bracket. The M_300 values come from Ref. [68] kinematic modeling.
  • ad hoc to paper DM energy injection and recombination reach equilibrium with f_eq = tanh^2(t_av/t_eq), with t_av ~ 50 Myr.
    Eqs. (S9)–(S11). The tanh^2 form and the 50 Myr quiescent time are introduced in this paper; the choice is not derived from observations. It affects low-ionization-rate regions of parameter space.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17661 in / 11733 out tokens · 93237 ms · 2026-08-03T17:30:57.582645+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

I present a new indirect search for dark matter (DM) using Hydrogen-$\alpha$ (H$\alpha$) recombination emission. DM annihilation or decay products can ionize neutral gas; subsequent recombination cascades generate H$\alpha$ photons through the $3\rightarrow2$ transition. In quiet gas-rich dwarf galaxies, the $n{=}2$ population is negligible, so H$\alpha$ is effectively unabsorbed and traces the DM-energy injection site. Using the non-detection of extended H$\alpha$ emission in the Leo T dwarf galaxy with Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE) observations, I derive the first H$\alpha$-based limits on DM annihilation and decay, reaching leading sensitivity for parts of the eV-GeV mass range. Existing and upcoming telescopes can further extend this reach, establishing H$\alpha$ imaging as a powerful DM search strategy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.09019 by Rebecca K. Leane.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of Hα emission for DM discovery in quiet gas-rich galaxies. DM annihilation or decay products ionize neutral hydrogen, which then recombines to emit Hα radia￾tion that is detectable with optical telescopes. ing complementarity on systematics for early-Universe or high-redshift DM-energy injection searches [33–56]. For other types of present-day astrophysical DM-ionization signals, see Refs. [57–6… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: New 95% C.L. limits on the DM mass and annihilation rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Dark Photon - ALP Freeze-in: 511 keV and H$\alpha$ Constraints

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    A nearly degenerate ALP–dark-photon freeze-in model can reproduce the relic density and the 511 keV line while passing Hα and other constraints only in a narrow window with Λ≈10^10–10^12 GeV and ϵ≈10^-24–10^-23.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 84 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    [68], for a Burkert profileM 300 ≈8×10 6 M⊙, while for an NFWM 300 ≈6.5×10 6 M⊙

    ,(S1) NFW:ρ χ(r) = ρs (r/rs) 1 +r/r s 2 ,(S2) and normalize the parameters to the dynamical constraint on the mass within 300 pc, M300 ≡M(<300 pc).(S3) From Ref. [68], for a Burkert profileM 300 ≈8×10 6 M⊙, while for an NFWM 300 ≈6.5×10 6 M⊙. I find for the Burkert profileρ 0 = 5.4 GeV/cm3,r 0 = 400 pc; for NFWρ s = 2.9 GeV/cm3,r s = 350 pc. These DM dens...

  2. [2]

    Ryden and R

    B. Ryden and R. W. Pogge,Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium, The Ohio State Astrophysics Series (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2021) paperback/ebook ISBN: 9781108800167

    2021

  3. [3]

    Colafrancesco, S

    S. Colafrancesco, S. Profumo, and P. Ullio, Phys. Rev. D75, 023513 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0607073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    E. A. Baltzet al., JCAP07, 013, arXiv:0806.2911 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    T. E. Jeltema and S. Profumo, Astrophys. J.686, 1045 (2008), arXiv:0805.1054 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    W. B. Atwoodet al., The Astrophysical Journal697, 1071–1102 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Bergstrom, T

    L. Bergstrom, T. Bringmann, I. Cholis, D. Hooper, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 171101 (2013), arXiv:1306.3983 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    G. Elor, N. L. Rodd, T. R. Slatyer, and W. Xue, JCAP06, 024, arXiv:1511.08787 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Drlica-Wagneret al.(Fermi-LAT, DES), Astrophys

    A. Drlica-Wagneret al.(Fermi-LAT, DES), Astrophys. J. Lett.809, L4 (2015), arXiv:1503.02632 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Phys

    M. Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 231301 (2015), arXiv:1503.02641 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    L. A. Cavasonza, H. Gast, M. Kr¨ amer, M. Pellen, and S. Schael, Astrophys. J.839, 36 (2017), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 869, 89 (2018)], arXiv:1612.06634 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Cuoco, M

    A. Cuoco, M. Kr¨ amer, and M. Korsmeier, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 191102 (2017), arXiv:1610.03071 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    M.-Y. Cui, Q. Yuan, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and Y.-Z. Fan, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 191101 (2017), arXiv:1610.03840 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Cuoco, J

    A. Cuoco, J. Heisig, M. Korsmeier, and M. Kr¨ amer, JCAP10, 053, arXiv:1704.08258 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Regis, L

    M. Regis, L. Richter, and S. Colafrancesco, JCAP07, 025, arXiv:1703.09921 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    T. R. Slatyer, PoST ASI2018, 028 (2019), arXiv:1710.05137 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    R. K. Leane, T. R. Slatyer, J. F. Beacom, and K. C. Y. Ng, Phys. Rev. D98, 023016 (2018), arXiv:1805.10305 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Hooper, R

    D. Hooper, R. K. Leane, Y.-D. Tsai, S. Wegsman, and S. J. Witte, JHEP07(07), 163, arXiv:1912.08821 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  19. [19]

    Alvarez, F

    A. Alvarez, F. Calore, A. Genina, J. Read, P. D. Serpico, and B. Zaldivar, JCAP09, 004, arXiv:2002.01229 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  20. [20]

    R. K. Leane, in3rd World Summit on Exploring the Dark Side of the Universe(2020) pp. 203–228, arXiv:2006.00513 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    McDaniel, M

    A. McDaniel, M. Ajello, C. M. Karwin, M. Di Mauro, A. Drlica-Wagner, and M. A. S´ anchez-Conde, Phys. Rev. D109, 063024 (2024), arXiv:2311.04982 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Essig, E

    R. Essig, E. Kuflik, S. D. McDermott, T. Volansky, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP11, 193, arXiv:1309.4091 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Phys

    M. Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Phys. Rev. D88, 082002 (2013), arXiv:1305.5597 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    Ibarra, A

    A. Ibarra, A. S. Lamperstorfer, S. L´ opez-Gehler, M. Pato, and G. Bertone, JCAP09, 048, [Erratum: JCAP 06, E02 (2016)], arXiv:1503.06797 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    Abdallahet al.(HESS), Phys

    H. Abdallahet al.(HESS), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 201101 (2018), arXiv:1805.05741 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Abeet al.(MAGIC), Phys

    H. Abeet al.(MAGIC), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 061002 (2023), arXiv:2212.10527 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Bulbul, M

    E. Bulbul, M. Markevitch, A. Foster, R. K. Smith, M. Loewenstein, and S. W. Randall, Astrophys. J.789, 13 (2014), arXiv:1402.2301 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  28. [28]

    Boyarsky, O

    A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, D. Iakubovskyi, and J. Franse, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 251301 (2014), arXiv:1402.4119 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    Brdar, J

    V. Brdar, J. Kopp, J. Liu, and X.-P. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 061301 (2018)

    2018

  30. [30]

    Regis, M

    M. Regis, M. Taoso, D. Vaz, J. Brinchmann, S. L. Zoutendijk, N. F. Bouch´ e, and M. Steinmetz, Phys. Lett. B814, 136075 (2021), arXiv:2009.01310 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Janish and E

    R. Janish and E. Pinetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 071002 (2025), arXiv:2310.15395 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    S. Roy, C. Blanco, C. Dessert, A. Prabhu, and T. Temim, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 071003 (2025), arXiv:2311.04987 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Pinetti, (2025), arXiv:2503.11753 [hep-ph]

    E. Pinetti, (2025), arXiv:2503.11753 [hep-ph]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Chen and M

    X.-L. Chen and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D70, 043502 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310473

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  35. [35]

    Padmanabhan and D

    N. Padmanabhan and D. P. Finkbeiner, Phys. Rev. D72, 023508 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0503486

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  36. [36]

    Zhang, X

    L. Zhang, X. Chen, M. Kamionkowski, Z.-g. Si, and Z. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D76, 061301 (2007), arXiv:0704.2444 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  37. [37]

    Galli, F

    S. Galli, F. Iocco, G. Bertone, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D80, 023505 (2009), arXiv:0905.0003 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  38. [38]

    T. R. Slatyer, N. Padmanabhan, and D. P. Finkbeiner, Phys. Rev. D80, 043526 (2009), arXiv:0906.1197 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  39. [39]

    Kanzaki, M

    T. Kanzaki, M. Kawasaki, and K. Nakayama, Prog. Theor. Phys.123, 853 (2010), arXiv:0907.3985 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [40]

    Hisano, M

    J. Hisano, M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi, K. Nakayama, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D83, 123511 (2011), arXiv:1102.4658 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  41. [41]

    Hutsi, J

    G. Hutsi, J. Chluba, A. Hektor, and M. Raidal, Astron. Astrophys.535, A26 (2011), arXiv:1103.2766 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    Galli, F

    S. Galli, F. Iocco, G. Bertone, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D84, 027302 (2011), arXiv:1106.1528 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  43. [43]

    D. P. Finkbeiner, S. Galli, T. Lin, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D85, 043522 (2012), arXiv:1109.6322 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  44. [44]

    J. R. Pritchard and A. Loeb, Rept. Prog. Phys.75, 086901 (2012), arXiv:1109.6012 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  45. [45]

    T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D87, 123513 (2013), arXiv:1211.0283 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  46. [46]

    Diamanti, L

    R. Diamanti, L. Lopez-Honorez, O. Mena, S. Palomares-Ruiz, and A. C. Vincent, JCAP02, 017, arXiv:1308.2578 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Galli, T

    S. Galli, T. R. Slatyer, M. Valdes, and F. Iocco, Phys. Rev. D88, 063502 (2013), arXiv:1306.0563 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [48]

    M. S. Madhavacheril, N. Sehgal, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D89, 103508 (2014), arXiv:1310.3815 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D93, 023527 (2016), arXiv:1506.03811 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  50. [50]

    T. R. Slatyer and C.-L. Wu, Phys. Rev. D95, 023010 (2017), arXiv:1610.06933 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    Poulin, J

    V. Poulin, J. Lesgourgues, and P. D. Serpico, JCAP03, 043, arXiv:1610.10051 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    H. Liu, T. R. Slatyer, and J. Zavala, Phys. Rev. D94, 063507 (2016), arXiv:1604.02457 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    S. K. Acharya and R. Khatri, JCAP12, 046, arXiv:1910.06272 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  55. [55]

    H. Liu, W. Qin, G. W. Ridgway, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D104, 043514 (2021), arXiv:2008.01084 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    W. Qin, J. B. Munoz, H. Liu, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D109, 103026 (2024), arXiv:2308.12992 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Agius and T

    D. Agius and T. R. Slatyer, (2025), arXiv:2510.26791 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    D. W. Sciama, Astrophysical Journal364, 549 (1990)

    1990

  59. [59]

    D. W. Sciama, ApJ505, L35 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9806174 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  60. [60]

    Prabhu and C

    A. Prabhu and C. Blanco, Phys. Rev. D108, 035035 (2023), arXiv:2211.05787 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Blanco and R

    C. Blanco and R. K. Leane, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 261002 (2024), arXiv:2312.06758 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Blanco, I

    C. Blanco, I. Harris, Y. Kahn, and A. Prabhu, Phys. Rev. D110, 035006 (2024), arXiv:2311.00740 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    R. K. Leane and J. Tong, JCAP12, 031, arXiv:2405.05312 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  64. [64]

    Blanco, R

    C. Blanco, R. K. Leane, M. Moore, and J. Tong, (2024), arXiv:2408.15318 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Blanco, R

    C. Blanco, R. K. Leane, M. Moore, and J. Tong, (2025), arXiv:2508.00980 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    D. Vaz, J. Brinchmann, S. L. Zoutendijk, L. A. Boogaard, S. Kamann, J. I. Read, M. M. Roth, P. M. Weilbacher, and M. Steinmetz, Astronomy and Astrophysics678, A59 (2023)

    2023

  67. [67]

    E. V. Ryan-Weber, A. Begum, T. Oosterloo, S. Pal, M. J. Irwin, V. Belokurov, N. W. Evans, and D. B. Zucker, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.384, 53 (2008), arXiv:0711.2979 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  68. [68]

    E. A. K. Adams and T. A. Oosterloo, Astronomy and Astrophysics612, A26 (2018)

    2018

  69. [69]

    Faerman, A

    Y. Faerman, A. Sternberg, and C. F. McKee, Astrophys. J.777, 119 (2013), arXiv:1309.0815 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  70. [70]

    N. N. Patra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society480, 4369–4378 (2018)

    2018

  71. [71]

    J. D. Simon and M. Geha, Astrophys. J.670, 313 (2007), arXiv:0706.0516 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  72. [72]

    I. M. Band, M. B. Trzhaskovskaia, D. A. Verner, and D. G. Iakovlev, A&A237, 267 (1990)

    1990

  73. [73]

    Gullikson, X-ray attenuation length,https://henke.lbl.gov/optical_constants/atten2.html, center for X-Ray Optics, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

    E. Gullikson, X-ray attenuation length,https://henke.lbl.gov/optical_constants/atten2.html, center for X-Ray Optics, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

  74. [74]

    J. H. Hubbell and S. M. Seltzer, Tables of x-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients (version 1.4) (2004), originally published as NISTIR 5632 (1995)

    2004

  75. [75]

    S. R. Furlanetto and S. Johnson Stoever, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2010.16401.x (2010)

    arXiv 2010

  76. [76]

    J. R. Jokipii, ApJ146, 480 (1966)

    1966

  77. [77]

    Schlickeiser,Cosmic Ray Astrophysics(2002)

    R. Schlickeiser,Cosmic Ray Astrophysics(2002)

    2002

  78. [78]

    N. E. Engelbrecht, F. Effenberger, V. Florinski, M. S. Potgieter, D. Ruffolo, R. Chhiber, A. V. Usmanov, J. S. Rankin, and P. L. Els, Space Sci. Rev.218, 33 (2022)

    2022

  79. [79]

    Redner, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications631, 128545 (2023)

    S. Redner, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications631, 128545 (2023)

    2023

  80. [80]

    Stopping-power & range tables for electrons, protons, and helium ions — nist standard reference database 124 (2017), online since Oct 1998; last update to data content July 2017; page updated Oct 11, 2024

    2017

Showing first 80 references.