Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Revisiting the search for dark matter subhalos using the Fermi-LAT 4FGL-DR4 catalog

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that 32 unassociated gamma-ray sources in the Fermi-LAT 4FGL-DR4 catalog have spectra better described by a dark matter annihilation model than by the catalog's empirical spectral functions.

desk verdict A clean, honest re-analysis of 4FGL-DR4 for DM subhalo candidates, but the headline candidate list is undercut by an internal inconsistency in Table 1. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18736 v1 pith:SA3VBDAQ submitted 2024-12-25 astro-ph.HE

Ji-Gui Cheng , Le Zou This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords darkmattersubhalosFermi-LAT4FGL-DR4cataloggamma-raypointsourcesWIMPannihilationJ-factorunbinnedlikelihoodanalysispulsardegeneracy
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

Across 644 high-latitude unassociated point sources from the Fermi-LAT 4FGL-DR4 catalog, this paper fits each source's gamma-ray spectrum twice: once with the catalog's empirical function and once with a WIMP-annihilation model for a dark matter subhalo. In 32 sources the dark matter model achieves a higher maximum likelihood, with a test statistic above 25. The inferred dark matter masses mostly lie between 30 and 500 GeV, with one outlier at about 3108 GeV, and the implied $J$-factors span $0.2$ to $5.8 \times 10^{20}\,\mathrm{GeV^2\,cm^{-5}}$. The authors present these as candidates, not detections, and emphasize that they cannot yet be distinguished from gamma-ray pulsars.

What carries the argument

The engine of the search is the unbinned maximum likelihood spectral fit comparing two models for each target source: the catalog's empirical function and the DM annihilation model implemented as DMfitFunction in the Fermi tools. The DM spectrum is the standard s-wave WIMP formula $\phi(E) = \frac{\langle\sigma v\rangle}{8\pi m_\chi^2}\frac{dN}{dE}J$, with $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ fixed at the thermal relic value, $dN/dE$ from PPP4DMID for the $b\bar{b}$ channel, and the $J$-factor (a line-of-sight integral of the squared NFW density profile) acting as a free normalization. A source survives as a candidate only if the DM fit has ${\rm TS}>25$ and $\ln L_{\rm DM} > \ln L_{\rm emp}$; the log-likelihood difference is the selection statistic.

What would settle it

Fit an exponential cutoff power-law (ECPL) model to the 32 candidate sources and compare maximum likelihoods with the DM model; if ECPL matches or exceeds the DM model for most candidates, the DM interpretation is not supported. Independently, a detected radio, optical, or X-ray counterpart to any candidate would rule it out as a dark matter subhalo.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that 32 of 644 high-latitude, unassociated point sources in the 4FGL-DR4 catalog have gamma-ray spectra for which an unbinned maximum likelihood fit of an s-wave WIMP annihilation model ($b\bar{b}$ channel, $\langle\sigma v\rangle = 3.0 \times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$, free DM mass and $J$-factor) yields a larger maximum log-likelihood than the empirical power-law or log-parabola function given in the catalog, with ${\rm TS}_{\rm DM} > 25$. The best-fit DM masses fall mostly below 500 GeV, 12 of them in [30, 80] GeV, and the $J$-factors fall in the range $0.2$ to $5.8 \times 10^{20}\,\mathrm{GeV^2\,cm^{-5}}$; one source, 4FGL J2124.2+1531, has $m_\chi \approx 3108$ GeV and $J \approx 4.52 \times 10^{21}\,\mathrm{GeV^2\,cm^{-5}}$. The paper explicitly cautions that these sources could be gamma-ray pulsars, because the DM annihilation spectrum is degenerate with an exponential cutoff power law, and it calls for multi-wavelength follow-up.

Load-bearing premise

A source is labeled a dark matter subhalo candidate based only on the dark matter model beating the catalog's empirical function in maximum log-likelihood, even though the competing exponential cutoff power-law model for pulsars is never fitted and the two models are known to be spectrally degenerate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 32 candidates form a concrete target list for multi-wavelength follow-up by telescopes such as FAST and the Einstein Probe, which the paper names as decisive for breaking the pulsar degeneracy.
  • If the candidates are real subhalos, the inferred $J$-factors of $0.2$ to $5.8 \times 10^{20}\,\mathrm{GeV^2\,cm^{-5}}$ and masses concentrated below 500 GeV constrain the abundance and density profiles of dark matter subhalos near the Milky Way.
  • The complete lack of overlap with candidates from the 3FGL-based search implies that candidate lists are highly sensitive to the amount of accumulated data and to the choice between binned SED fitting and unbinned likelihood fitting.
  • Because 12 candidate masses fall in $[30, 80]$ GeV, a confirmed subhalo population would point to relatively light WIMPs, relevant for direct-detection and collider searches.
  • The failure to fit the annihilation channel as a free parameter means the present sample is built on the $b\bar{b}$ channel alone; other leptonic channels could expand or alter the candidate list.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test the paper does not perform is an explicit ECPL fit; if run, it would likely separate which candidates are pulsar-like and which remain DM-like, since the two models differ slightly in spectral curvature at high energies.
  • The reported mass distribution, with the minimum pegged at the 10 GeV fitting floor for several candidates, suggests that some candidate masses are not truly constrained; a re-fit with a wider mass range or profile likelihood would clarify this.
  • If the 32 candidates are followed up and most turn out to be pulsars, the non-overlap with previous candidate lists would itself be informative: it would indicate that the earlier searches were also dominated by unmodeled pulsar degeneracy.
  • The comparison with the Bayesian neural network predictions is qualitative; a quantitative comparison accounting for the selection function would make the mass distribution a sharper test of subhalo abundance models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper searches for gamma-ray dark matter subhalo candidates in the Fermi-LAT 4FGL-DR4 catalog. From 2044 unassociated sources, it selects 644 non-variable, high-latitude sources, fits each source's spectrum with an empirical catalog function and with a WIMP annihilation model (b b-bar channel, fixed thermal cross-section, free DM mass and J-factor), and identifies 32 sources for which the maximum log-likelihood of the DM fit exceeds that of the empirical fit and TS_DM > 25. The paper reports the derived J-factors and DM masses, finds that its candidates do not overlap with previous searches, and cautions that gamma-ray pulsars cannot be excluded as an alternative explanation.

Significance. If the claim were robust, identifying 32 unassociated Fermi sources whose spectra are better described by WIMP annihilation than by the catalog's empirical functions would be of considerable interest for dark matter searches. The paper uses public Fermi-LAT data and standard Fermitools, and it explicitly acknowledges the pulsar degeneracy. However, the central selection criterion is a raw log-likelihood comparison of non-nested models without a statistical test or complexity penalty, the competing pulsar-like ECPL model is never fitted, and Table I contains an internal inconsistency that undermines the headline count. With the necessary corrections and additions, the candidate list could still serve as a useful follow-up target list, but in its present form the central claim is not reproducible from the published table.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table I, row for 4FGL J2347.0-5720] The listed values TS_DM = 26.24, TS_emp = 42.61, and ΔlnL = lnL_DM - lnL_emp = 358.20 are mutually inconsistent under the standard Fermi-LAT definition TS = 2 ΔlnL relative to a common null. If both TS values are measured with respect to the same null (source absent), then 2ΔlnL should equal TS_DM - TS_emp, i.e. 716.40 = -16.37, which is impossible. Equivalently, these numbers imply lnL_DM < lnL_emp if the TS values are correct, so this row does not satisfy the paper's own selection criterion ln L_DM > ln L_emp. The headline count of 32 candidates is therefore not reproducible from the published table. The authors should define the null model for each TS and correct the table or the criterion.
  2. [Sec. IIIB and Sec. V] The selection criterion ln L_DM > ln L_emp is a raw comparison of non-nested models with no penalty for the number of free parameters and no significance test (e.g., AIC/BIC, a likelihood-ratio test with Monte Carlo calibration, or cross-validation). The paper itself states in Sec. V that this 'does not necessarily imply that the DM model is statistically superior.' Since the DM mass and J-factor are free parameters fitted to each source, positive ΔlnL values are expected for some fraction of a null sample of pulsars or noise even when the DM model is false. Without a demonstrated false-positive rate, the label 'DM subhalo candidate' is not supported by the analysis as presented.
  3. [Sec. IIIB] The statement that TS_DM > 25 (approximately 5σ) 'suggest[s] the presence of a gamma-ray point source with a DM origin' is a misreading of the test statistic. TS_DM as defined is a detection significance for the target source under the DM spectral template; it does not discriminate between DM and other spectral shapes. The same faint source would likely yield a comparable TS under any adequate spectral model. The threshold therefore establishes only that the source is detectable, not that its origin is dark matter. This interpretation should be corrected.
  4. [Sec. V] The paper acknowledges the spectral degeneracy between the DM annihilation model and the exponential cutoff power-law (ECPL) model, but the ECPL model is never fitted to the 32 candidates. Since the majority of unassociated 4FGL sources are expected to be pulsars, and the DM spectrum is similar to a cutoff power law in the relevant energy range, the central claim 'we identify 32 candidates' is not substantiated. A minimal set of ECPL fits to the candidates, with a comparison of ΔlnL and the preferred cutoff parameters, is necessary to support the candidate list. The current text's caveat that pulsars cannot be ruled out directly contradicts the strength of the abstract's candidate claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The header of Table I is garbled and the columns are not clearly labeled with units; in particular, the meaning of the three numeric entries in the flux-like column (e.g., '2 .16 1 .591.84') is unclear and should be defined explicitly.
  2. [Fig. 2] The gray bars labeled 'TS value' are not explained; the reader cannot tell what statistic is being plotted, what the scale is, or how the upper limits are derived. Please define this in the caption or text.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract says 'the DM particle masses vary from 30 to 500 GeV' and immediately notes one exception at 3108 GeV; this is confusing. It should read something like '30 to 500 GeV, with one outlier at 3108 GeV.'
  4. [Sec. V] The comparison of the mass distribution with the predictions of Ref. [30] is purely qualitative. If any claim of agreement or disagreement is intended, a quantitative test (e.g., a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) should be reported.
  5. [Data Availability] The paper would benefit from providing the full candidate list with best-fit parameters, TS values, and ΔlnL in machine-readable format (e.g., a supplementary CSV table) to make the results easily reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: candidate selection and parameter estimates follow directly from an explicitly stated two-model likelihood fit; the ECPL degeneracy and Table I inconsistency are correctness issues, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a two-model unbinned likelihood fit of 644 unassociated, non-variable, |b|>20 deg 4FGL-DR4 sources. The DM model (Eq. 1) is a standard convolution of a known annihilation spectrum with a free normalization J and free mass m_chi; the empirical model is the catalog function. The candidate list is produced by the explicitly stated criterion ln L_DM > ln L_emp and TS_DM > 25 (Sec. III B). Reporting the best-fit m_chi and J for the sources that pass that criterion is estimation, not prediction: no quantity is fit to one subset and then claimed as an independent prediction for another subset, and no parameter is defined in terms of the reported result. The comparison to Ref. [30] is an external benchmark, and the authors explicitly note it does not validate the candidates. Self-citations [21,36] are ancillary (previous constraints and previous candidate lists) and do not carry the argument. The paper itself flags the pulsar/ECPL degeneracy as a caveat in Sec. V: 'we cannot rule out the possibility of the identified candidates actually being gamma-ray pulsars... the DM annihilation model exhibits a degeneracy with the exponential cutoff power-law (ECPL) model.' Additionally, the published Table I contains an internal inconsistency for 4FGL J2347.0-5720 (TS_DM=26.24, TS_emp=42.61, but Delta ln L=358.20, which is incompatible with Delta ln L=(TS_DM-TS_emp)/2 = -8.19); these are correctness/reproducibility concerns, not circularity. I therefore find no significant circularity; the derivation is self-contained in the sense that the reported quantities are exactly what the stated fitting procedure produces, without a hidden reduction of the conclusion to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted DM masses and J-factors, plus a set of modeling assumptions about the WIMP annihilation channel and the source selection. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • DM particle mass m_chi per candidate = 30 to 500 GeV for 31 candidates; 3108 GeV for 4FGL J2124.2+1531
    Fitted to each source's gamma-ray spectrum via the DM annihilation model; the reported masses are best-fit values, not predictions.
  • J-factor per candidate = 0.2 to 5.8 x 10^20 GeV^2 cm^-5 (one at 4.52 x 10^21)
    Fitted normalization that scales the DM annihilation flux; depends on the assumed density profile and distance but is treated as a free parameter in the fit.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption WIMP s-wave annihilation with ⟨σv⟩ = 3.0 x 10^-26 cm^3 s^-1 and b b-bar channel
    Fixed to the thermal relic cross-section and b b-bar channel to match previous searches; no independent verification that this is the correct annihilation mode.
  • domain assumption Unassociated, non-variable, high-latitude Fermi sources are a suitable sample for DM subhalo searches
    These cuts reduce known pulsar contamination but do not eliminate it; the paper later acknowledges the pulsar degeneracy.
  • ad hoc to paper The log-likelihood comparison between the DM model and the catalog empirical function is a valid selection criterion
    The models are non-nested and the comparison is made without penalty for model complexity or a significance threshold; the paper itself notes it does not imply statistical superiority.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the search for dark matter subhalos using the Fermi-LAT 4FGL-DR4 catalog." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SA3VBDAQ

@misc{pith2026241218736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the search for dark matter subhalos using the Fermi-LAT 4FGL-DR4 catalog},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SA3VBDAQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18736}
}
abstract

Numerical simulations suggest that dark matter halos surrounding galaxies host numerous small subhalos, which might be detectable by the Fermi-LAT. In this work, we revisit the search for gamma-ray subhalo candidates using the latest Fermi-LAT 4FGL-DR4 catalog. The search is performed by fitting the spectral data of unassociated point sources in the catalog through an unbinned maximum likelihood method. We consider two models in the fitting. One is an empirical function provided by the catalog, and another is a DM model in which DM particles within nearby subhalos annihilate into gamma rays and other Standard Model particles. Based on the fitting results, we identify 32 candidates for which the maximum likelihood value of the DM model fit exceeds that of the empirical function fit. The estimated J-factors of these candidates range from $0.2$ to $5.8 \times 10^{20}\,{\rm GeV^{2}\,cm^{-5}}$, the DM particle masses vary from $30$ to $500\,{\rm GeV}$ and 12 of them are within the range of $[30, 80]\,{\rm GeV}$. Candidate 4FGL J2124.2+1531 is an exception with a J-factor of $4.52 \times 10^{21}\,{\rm GeV^{2}\,cm^{-5}}$ and a particle mass of $3108.44\,{\rm GeV}$. Interestingly, the identified candidates do not overlap with those reported in previous works, and we discuss the possible reasons for the discrepancy. At the current stage, we cannot rule out the possibility that these candidates are gamma-ray pulsars, and further confirmation through multi-band observations is required.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18736 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The sky map of the 32 identified DM subhalo candidates marked with red dots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The SEDs for all identified 32 DM subhalo candidates. The blue and red model lines correspond to the empirical function and the DM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The distribution of the DM particle mass for the 32 identified candidates. The blue line represents the best-fit DM masses from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Phys. Rep. 267, 195 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1996

  2. [2]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rep. 405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    , Astron

    Planck Collaboration and et al. , Astron. Astrophys 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Young, Frontiers of Physics 12, 121201 (2017)

    B.-L. Young, Frontiers of Physics 12, 121201 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    W. B. Atwood and et al. , Astrophys. J. 697, 1071 (2009), arXiv:0902.1089 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    J. L. Feng, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48, 495 (2010), arXiv:1003.0904 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Ackermann and et al

    M. Ackermann and et al. , Astrophys. J. 747, 121 (2012), arXiv:1201.2691 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    K. N. Abazajian and M. Kaplinghat, Phys. Rev. D 86, 083511 (2012), arXiv:1207.6047 [astro-ph.HE]. 5

    arXiv 2012

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Bringmann, X

    T. Bringmann, X. Huang, A. Ibarra, S. V ogl, and C. Weniger, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2012, 054 (2012), arXiv:1203.1312 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bertoni, D

    B. Bertoni, D. Hooper, and T. Linden, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2015, 035 (2015), arXiv:1504.02087 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ackermann and et al

    M. Ackermann and et al. , Phys. Rev. D 91, 122002 (2015), arXiv:1506.00013 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Liang, Z.-Q

    Y .-F. Liang, Z.-Q. Shen, X. Li, Y .-Z. Fan, X. Huang, S.-J. Lei, L. Feng, E.-W. Liang, and J. Chang, Phys. Rev. D 93, 103525 (2016), arXiv:1602.06527 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Abdallah and et al

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

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Coronado-Bl ´azquez, M

    J. Coronado-Bl ´azquez, M. A. S ´anchez-Conde, M. Di Mauro, A. Aguirre-Santaella, I. Ciuc ˘a, A. Dom ´ınguez, D. Kawata, and N. Mirabal, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2019, 045 (2019), arXiv:1910.14429 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    , Science Bulletin 67, 679 (2022), arXiv:2112.08860 [astro-ph.HE]

    DAMPE Collaboration and et al. , Science Bulletin 67, 679 (2022), arXiv:2112.08860 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M. S. Delos, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023532 (2024), arXiv:2310.15214 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ackermann and et al., Phys

    M. Ackermann and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 231301 (2015), arXiv:1503.02641 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kahlhoefer, International Journal of Modern Physics A 32, 1730006 (2017), arXiv:1702.02430 [hep-ph]

    F. Kahlhoefer, International Journal of Modern Physics A 32, 1730006 (2017), arXiv:1702.02430 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Aprile and et al

    E. Aprile and et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302 (2018), arXiv:1805.12562 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Aprile and et al

    E. Aprile and et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041003 (2023), arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cheng, Y .-F

    J.-G. Cheng, Y .-F. Liang, and E.-W. Liang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063015 (2023), arXiv:2308.16762 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Aprile and et al

    E. Aprile and et al. , Phys. Rev. D 102, 072004 (2020), arXiv:2006.09721 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Springel, J

    V . Springel, J. Wang, M. V ogelsberger, A. Ludlow, A. Jenkins, A. Helmi, J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 391, 1685 (2008), arXiv:0809.0898 [astro- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    H ¨utten, C

    M. H ¨utten, C. Combet, G. Maier, and D. Maurin, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2016, 047 (2016), arXiv:1606.04898 [astro- ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    H ¨utten, M

    M. H ¨utten, M. Stref, C. Combet, J. Lavalle, and D. Maurin, Galaxies 7, 60 (2019), arXiv:1904.10935 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Facchinetti, J

    G. Facchinetti, J. Lavalle, and M. Stref, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083023 (2022), arXiv:2007.10392 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Acero and et al

    F. Acero and et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 218, 23 (2015), arXiv:1501.02003 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gammaldi, B

    V . Gammaldi, B. Zald ´ıvar, M. A. S ´anchez-Conde, and J. Coronado-Bl ´azquez, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 520, 1348 (2023), arXiv:2207.09307 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Abdollahi and et al

    S. Abdollahi and et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 247, 33 (2020), arXiv:1902.10045 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Butter, M

    A. Butter, M. Kr ¨amer, S. Manconi, and K. Nippel, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2023, 033 (2023), arXiv:2304.00032 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ballet, P

    J. Ballet, P. Bruel, T. H. Burnett, B. Lott, and The Fermi- LAT collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2307.12546 (2023), arXiv:2307.12546 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Cirelli, G

    M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. H ¨utsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci, M. Raidal, F. Sala, and A. Strumia, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys. 2011, 051 (2011), arXiv:1012.4515 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107 [astro-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  26. [34]

    B. D. Fields, S. L. Shapiro, and J. Shelton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151302 (2014), arXiv:1406.4856 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Scott and S

    P. Scott and S. Sivertsson, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 211301 (2009), arXiv:0908.4082 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Cheng, S

    J.-G. Cheng, S. Li, Y .-Y . Gan, Y .-F. Liang, R.-J. Lu, and E.-W. Liang, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 497, 2486 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    D. Li, P. Wang, L. Qian, M. Krco, P. Jiang, Y . Yue, C. Jin, Y . Zhu, Z. Pan, R. Nan, and A. Dunning, IEEE Microwave Magazine 19, 112 (2018), arXiv:1802.03709 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    W. Yuan, C. Zhang, H. Feng, S. N. Zhang, Z. X. Ling, D. Zhao, J. Deng, Y . Qiu, J. P. Osborne, P. O’Brien, R. Willingale, J. Lap- ington, G. W. Fraser, and the Einstein Probe team, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1506.07735 (2015), arXiv:1506.07735 [astro- ph.HE]. 6 -150° -120° -90° -6...

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

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