Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Dark matter explanations for the neutrino emission from the Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dark matter annihilations in a density spike around the supermassive black hole in NGC 1068 could produce the IceCube neutrino excess while staying under the Milky Way bound.

desk verdict Clever scalar decay window, but the flux rests on an unphysical 0.7 kpc spike radius; with standard Rsp the IceCube excess is not explained. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16539 v1 pith:T3BM4Q55 submitted 2025-07-22 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Kensuke Akita , Alejandro Ibarra , Robert Zimmermann This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE
keywords darkmatterannihilationneutrinoemissionNGC1068blackholedensityspikeIceCubeexcesslong-livedmediatorGalacticCenterSeyfertgalaxy
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 tries to establish that the high-energy neutrino emission IceCube sees from NGC 1068 can come from dark matter annihilating inside a dense dark-matter spike around the galaxy's central black hole. The spike boosts the annihilation rate so strongly that NGC 1068 can radiate far more neutrinos than the Milky Way center, even though both galaxies are comparable in mass. The absence of a Galactic Center neutrino signal is explained either by stellar heating that erases the Milky Way spike, or by annihilations into a long-lived light scalar that decays to neutrinos only after traveling beyond the Milky Way but before reaching Earth. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a dark-matter origin for one of the most significant neutrino point-source detections, with cross-sections near the thermal relic value.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dark matter density spike profile of Eq. (2): an NFW halo modified by adiabatic growth of a supermassive black hole, with an inner cutoff at 4 Schwarzschild radii, a spike slope γ = 7/3, and an annihilation cap at ρ_c = mψ/(⟨σv⟩ t_BH). For the Milky Way, Eq. (4) uses a flattened profile with γ = 3/2 to model stellar heating. The neutrino flux is obtained from the point-source integral of ρ² over the spike for NGC 1068 and from a line-of-sight integral around the Galactic Center for the Milky Way. In the second scenario, the key object is a light scalar mediator φ decaying through a Yukawa coupling to νν̄, with decay length cτ ≃ 8π/g² (mψ/mφ²) in the galactic frame, tuned so that the decay length is larger than the Milky Way yet smaller than the distance to NGC 1068.

What would settle it

A deep near-infrared adaptive-optics search for stars within the central ~0.65 pc of NGC 1068's supermassive black hole: detecting even a handful of bound stars would indicate gravitational heating that flattens the spike, reducing the predicted annihilation flux below the level needed to explain IceCube's excess.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the IceCube 4.2σ excess of 1.5–15 TeV neutrinos from NGC 1068 can be explained by dark matter annihilation inside the adiabatic density spike around its supermassive black hole, provided that spike has not been softened by stars. Because the predicted flux grows as the square of the dark matter density, a preserved spike makes NGC 1068 a much brighter neutrino source than the Milky Way center, where known S-stars gravitationally heat and flatten the spike. The authors present two concrete scenarios: direct annihilation into νν̄, which is viable if only NGC 1068 retains its spike, and annihilation into a light scalar that decays in flight into neutrinos, whose decay length can suppress the Galactic Center signal without requiring stellar heating. They find the required annihilation cross-sections are compatible with IceCube's limits on Galactic Center neutrino emission and with the ballpark expected from thermal freeze-out dark matter, and that the predicted energy spectra roughly match the IceCube reconstruction.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes NGC 1068 contains no stars close enough to its central black hole to heat and erase the dark matter spike, so the steep spike profile of Eq. (2) remains intact; if stars are found there, the predicted neutrino flux drops by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If NGC 1068 retains a dark matter spike, annihilating TeV-scale dark matter with ⟨σv⟩ around 10^-28 to 10^-30 cm³/s can explain the observed neutrino excess while remaining consistent with the non-observation of a Milky Way center signal.
  • The Milky Way spike, once stellar-heated, contributes only a subdominant, diffuse neutrino flux around the Galactic Center, making it extremely challenging to detect as a point source.
  • In the long-lived scalar scenario, the neutrino spectrum is box-shaped rather than a sharp line, giving a distinct observational signature that can be tested with IceCube's energy reconstruction.
  • The required annihilation cross-sections lie in the range predicted for dark matter produced by thermal freeze-out, connecting the explanation to standard weakly interacting massive particle models.
  • Other extragalactic targets with preserved dark matter spikes could also be detectable neutrino sources, potentially turning IceCube's neutrino sky into a probe of dark matter spikes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A dedicated IceCube analysis using line-like or box-like signal spectra, rather than a power-law template, could discriminate this dark-matter interpretation from AGN hadronic emission; if the best fit remains a smooth power law, the annihilation explanation would lose support.
  • The spike-preservation assumption could be tested at the population level: if several nearby Seyferts with similarly massive black holes show comparable IceCube excesses, that would favor spike dark matter over AGN-specific hadronic models.
  • Finding stars in close orbit around NGC 1068's central black hole would weaken both proposed scenarios, since both rely on a steep density spike; the mediator scenario would still be distinguishable by the spectral shape and by laboratory searches for neutrino-scalar couplings.
  • The long-lived mediator parameter region in Fig. 3 may be directly probed by future neutrino experiments such as DUNE and IceCube-Gen-2, which could search for mononeutrino signatures of neutrino-scalar interactions.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the possibility that the 4.2σ IceCube neutrino excess from NGC 1068 is produced by dark matter annihilation in a density spike around the central supermassive black hole. Two scenarios are considered: direct annihilation into ννbar, and annihilation into a light scalar that decays into ννbar. The authors compute the expected neutrino fluxes from NGC 1068 and from the Milky Way center, and argue that for a preserved spike in NGC 1068 the flux can match the IceCube excess while remaining compatible with the absence of a Galactic Center signal, with a suppressed gamma-ray flux due to the neutrino-philic dark sector.

Significance. The paper is clearly written and the flux calculation is transparent; the idea of using the distance-dependent decay of a long-lived mediator to suppress the Milky Way signal while preserving the NGC 1068 signal is clever and testable. If the assumed spike parameters were valid, the paper would provide a viable dark matter interpretation of the IceCube excess. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a spike radius that is not justified by the standard adiabatic spike model the paper itself adopts, and the long-lived mediator benchmark does not suppress the Galactic Center signal as strongly as claimed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Eq. (5)] The adopted spike radius Rsp = 0.7 kpc for NGC 1068 is inconsistent with the adiabatic spike model of Refs. [12,13] on which Eq. (2) is based. The same sentence quotes rh = 0.65 pc, and for the Milky Way the paper uses Rsp = 0.34 pc with rh = 1.7 pc, i.e., Rsp ≈ 0.2 rh. The analogous value for NGC 1068 is Rsp ≈ 0.13 pc, a factor of about 5000 smaller than the adopted value. For the profile in Eqs. (2)-(3), the point-source J-factor in Eq. (5) scales as Rsp^{8/3} in the unsaturated regime relevant to the benchmark curves and as Rsp^{12/7} in the saturated regime. Reducing Rsp from 0.7 kpc to 0.13 pc therefore suppresses the predicted flux by about 10 orders of magnitude. The mψ = 1 TeV, ⟨σv⟩ = 10^-28 cm^3/s curve in Fig. 2 would then lie far below the IceCube excess, and matching the excess would require ⟨σv⟩ ≈ 10^-19-10^-18 cm^3/s, far above the thermal-relic range quoted in the text. The claimed NGC 1068/Milky Way contrast is thus an artifact of the adopted Rsp rather than a consequence of standard spike formation. The authors should either justify Rsp = 0.7 kpc with a concrete spike-formation model or recompute all fluxes with a physically motivated Rsp.
  2. [Section 3 and Section 4] The paper's central argument for the viability of the ψψ → ννbar scenario is that the gamma-ray flux is suppressed relative to the neutrino flux, but no gamma-ray flux is computed for this channel. Because no UV completion is specified for the ψψ → ννbar operator, loop-induced photon production (e.g., through charged mediators or W/Z loops if the neutrinos are SM gauge eigenstates) is not quantified. Without such an estimate, the claimed compatibility with the MAGIC and Fermi-LAT upper limits is not demonstrated; the gamma-ray suppression is an assumption rather than a prediction. The authors should either provide a concrete model with the loop-induced gamma-ray flux or state this limitation explicitly.
  3. [Section 4 and Fig. 4] The claim that for cτ = 16 kpc (mψ = 1 TeV) 'the flux from the Milky Way is very suppressed' is inaccurate. For a source at the Galactic Center, the fraction of mediators decaying before reaching Earth is 1 - exp(-8.2 kpc/16 kpc) ≈ 0.4, so the suppression is only of order unity for the point-source component. Even for the l.o.s. halo integral, the decay-length suppression is not orders of magnitude for this benchmark. Since the Galactic Center is about 10^3 times closer than NGC 1068, the MW signal in the long-lived mediator scenario is not automatically suppressed. The authors should compute the actual differential flux including the decay distribution along the line of sight and check the IceCube GC constraints for the benchmark parameters in Fig. 4.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] The sentence 'The spike of NGC 1068 is significantly larger and starts at a greater distance due to the bigger SMBH mass and the influence of stellar heating' is confusing, since the paper assumes stellar heating is negligible for NGC 1068; please clarify whether the intended phrase is 'the lack of stellar heating'.
  2. [Eq. (10)] The numerical factor in the decay-length formula depends on the normalization of the Yukawa coupling g; please define the interaction Lagrangian explicitly so that Eq. (10) can be reproduced.
  3. [Fig. 3] The label 'Inv. ΓZ' in Fig. 3 is cryptic; please spell it out as 'invisible Z decay' in the legend.
  4. [Fig. 2] The comparison of the predicted energy spectra with the IceCube band is done by eye; a quantitative likelihood or chi-squared would strengthen the claim, as the authors themselves note that a dedicated simulation is necessary.
  5. [References] Reference [11] is about outflow-cloud interactions; please cite a standard reference for the distance to NGC 1068 used in Eq. (5).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neutrino flux is computed from assumed spike parameters and external benchmarks; the benchmark cross-sections are illustrative, not fitted outputs.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained: Eq. (5) evaluates the point-source neutrino flux from the assumed spike profile of Eqs. (2)-(3), with parameters adopted from external references (e.g., ``For NGC 1068 we adopt Rsp = 0.7 kpc, MBH = 10^7 M_sun, rh = 0.65 pc, ... [20]''). The IceCube excess is not used to define the flux; the curves in Figs. 2 and 4 are labeled ``representative choices'' of m_psi and <sigma v>, and the paper explicitly notes a dedicated simulation would be needed to determine compatibility. The absence of a Milky Way signal is handled by input assumptions (stellar-heating profile of Eq. (4) or long-lived mediator decay lengths in Eq. (10)), not by fitting to the NGC 1068 data. The only self-citations ([28], [35]) are to constraint compilations and a standard box-shaped spectrum from two-body decay; neither is load-bearing for the central claim, and the profile assumptions are attributed to external literature [12,13,20]. The flagged 0.7 kpc spike radius is an input assumption (possibly physically questionable relative to rh = 0.65 pc), not a quantity derived from or fitted to the IceCube observation, so it is a correctness/robustness concern rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central flux prediction rests on astrophysical inputs (spike parameters, NFW profile, stellar heating) and on a deliberately neutrino-philic dark sector. The annihilation cross-section, dark matter mass, and mediator parameters are chosen by hand to reproduce the observed excess, making them free parameters rather than derived quantities. The unperturbed spike in NGC 1068 is the most fragile input.

free parameters (4)
  • annihilation cross-section <sigma v> = 1e-28 cm^3/s (m_psi=1 TeV) and 5e-30 cm^3/s (m_psi=3 TeV) for psi psi -> nu nu; 6e-29 and 7e-30 for psi psi -> phi phi
    Chosen to make the predicted NGC 1068 neutrino flux match the IceCube excess; not derived from a particle physics model.
  • dark matter mass m_psi = 1 to 10 TeV benchmarks
    Chosen so the annihilation spectrum peaks in IceCube's 1.5 to 15 TeV band; the observed spectrum has no sharp line, so masses are picked ad hoc.
  • Yukawa coupling g (scalar-neutrino) = 1e-12
    Chosen in the mediator scenario to give a decay length between 10 kpc and 10 Mpc; the allowed window is wide and this value is a representative point.
  • scalar mass m_phi = 100 keV
    Chosen so that decays to charged leptons are kinematically suppressed and the decay length falls in the required window.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dark matter halos follow the Navarro-Frenk-White profile before black hole growth
    Eq. (1) is assumed without testing alternate halo profiles; the central flux depends on the inner slope.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic growth of the SMBH creates an unperturbed spike with slope gamma_sp=7/3 in NGC 1068
    Eqs. (2)-(3) from Gondolo-Silk; the whole flux estimate relies on this spike surviving.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way spike is softened by stellar heating to slope gamma=3/2
    Eq. (4) from Balaji et al.; this is the mechanism that suppresses the Milky Way signal.
  • ad hoc to paper NGC 1068 has no stars close enough to heat the spike
    Section 2 states this assumption; motivated only by lack of resolved S-stars, not by a dynamical calculation.
  • domain assumption Dark matter is self-conjugate
    Footnote 1; only affects the flux by a factor of 2.
  • ad hoc to paper The dark sector annihilates only into neutrinos, or into scalars that decay only to neutrinos
    Axiomatic model choice used to suppress gamma rays; no UV completion is provided.
invented entities (1)
  • Light dark scalar (or pseudoscalar) mediator phi decaying to nu nu independent evidence
    purpose: Carries dark matter annihilation energy into neutrinos while avoiding photons; lifetime is tuned so decays occur outside the Milky Way but before reaching Earth from NGC 1068.
    The model is testable through projected DUNE and IceCube Gen-2 sensitivities shown in Fig. 3 and is subject to existing SN1987A, BBN, kaon, and Z-width constraints; there is no current direct evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark matter explanations for the neutrino emission from the Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T3BM4Q55

@misc{pith2026250716539,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark matter explanations for the neutrino emission from the Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T3BM4Q55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16539}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the possibility that the high-energy neutrino flux observed from the Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068 originates from dark matter annihilations within the density spike surrounding the supermassive black hole at its center. The comparatively lower gamma-ray flux is attributed to a dark sector that couples predominantly to Standard Model neutrinos. To explain the absence of a corresponding neutrino signal from the center of the Milky Way, we propose two scenarios: (i) the disruption of the dark matter spike at the Milky Way center due to stellar heating, or (ii) the annihilation into a dark scalar that decays exclusively into neutrinos, with a decay length longer than the size of the Milky Way but shorter than the distance from Earth to NGC 1068.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16539 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dark Matter density distributions in the Milky Way (with stellar heating, dashed) and NGC 1068 (without stellar heating, solid) for different dark matter annihilation cross-sections and a dark matter mass mψ = 1 TeV. The NFW profile for NGC 1068 (blue solid) is shown for reference. the emission from annihilations in the spike, but instead by annihilations in the dark matter halo. The flux from annihilations in the h… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: neutrino flux from the annihilation ψψ → νν¯ as a function of the annihilation cross-section from NGC 1068 (solid lines) and from a region of θ ≤ 1 ◦ around the Galactic Center (dashed lines), assuming mψ=1 TeV (green line) or mψ = 10 TeV (red lines). The blue shaded region correspond to the point-source fluxes that escape detection in IceCube in the direction of NGC 1068 [21], while the orange regions r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Values of the Yukawa coupling g and mediator mass mϕ leading to a decay length of ϕ of 10 kpc and 10 Mpc from the dark matter annihilation ψψ → ϕϕ when mψ = 1 TeV, The figure also shows various cosmological and laboratory constraints on the model [24–31], as well as the projected sensitivities of IceCube Gen-2 [32] and DUNE [33, 34]. 4 Dark matter annihilation into a light mediator We consider now annihilations into… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Dark matter energy exchange in stars orbiting supermassive black holes

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Orbit-averaged elastic DM scattering in S4714 reaches stellar luminosity at σ_χp ∼ 10^{-36} cm² (MeV–GeV) and σ_χe ∼ 5×10^{-38} cm² (sub-MeV) for a spiked profile.

  2. Dark matter energy exchange in stars orbiting supermassive black holes

    hep-ph 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Orbit-averaged DM energy exchange for S4714 reaches stellar luminosity at σ_χp ~ 10^{-36} cm² (MeV-GeV) and σ_χe ~ 5×10^{-38} cm² (sub-MeV) for spiked DM profiles.

  3. Indirect dark matter searches with neutrino telescopes via energetic cosmic showers

    hep-ph 2025-09 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    Bounds on Z'-mediated dark matter are derived from neutrino telescopes, freeze-in, and cosmic strings, but the telescope bounds rest on comparing a Galactic-center flux to faraway sources.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Evidence for neutrino emission from the nearby active galaxy NGC 1068

    R. Abbasi et al. “Evidence for neutrino emission from the nearby active galaxy NGC 1068”. In:Science 378.6619 (2022), pp. 538–543.doi: 10.1126/science.abg3395. arXiv: 2211.09972 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Cosmic neutrinos of ultra-high energies and de- tection possibility

    V. S. Berezinsky and A. Yu. Smirnov. “Cosmic neutrinos of ultra-high energies and de- tection possibility”. In: Astrophys. Space Sci. 32 (1975), pp. 461–482.doi: 10 . 1007 / BF00643157

    work page 1975

  3. [3]

    Constraints on gamma-ray and neutrino emission from NGC 1068 with the MAGIC telescopes

    V. A. Acciari et al. “Constraints on gamma-ray and neutrino emission from NGC 1068 with the MAGIC telescopes”. In:Astrophys. J. 883 (2019), p. 135.doi: 10.3847/1538- 4357/ab3a51. arXiv: 1906.10954 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    F ermiLargeAreaTelescopeFourthSourceCatalog

    S.Abdollahietal.“ F ermiLargeAreaTelescopeFourthSourceCatalog”.In: Astrophys. J. Suppl. 247.1(2020),p.33. doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb.arXiv: 1902.10045 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog Data Release 2

    J. Ballet et al. “Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog Data Release 2”. In: (May 2020). arXiv:2005.11208 [astro-ph.HE]. 8

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Hidden Hearts of Neutrino Active Galaxies

    Kohta Murase. “Hidden Hearts of Neutrino Active Galaxies”. In:Astrophys. J. Lett. 941.1 (2022), p. L17.doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca53c. arXiv: 2211.04460 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Search for neutrino lines from dark matter annihilation and decay with IceCube

    R. Abbasi et al. “Search for neutrino lines from dark matter annihilation and decay with IceCube”. In: Phys. Rev. D 108.10 (2023), p. 102004.doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 108 . 102004. arXiv: 2303.13663 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    First searches for dark matter with the KM3NeT neutrino telescopes

    S. Aiello et al. “First searches for dark matter with the KM3NeT neutrino telescopes”. In: JCAP 03 (2025), p. 058.doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/058. arXiv:2411.10092 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Results from the search for dark matter in the Milky Way with 9 years of data of the ANTARES neutrino telescope

    A. Albert et al. “Results from the search for dark matter in the Milky Way with 9 years of data of the ANTARES neutrino telescope”. In:Phys. Lett. B 769 (2017). [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 796, 253–255(2019)], pp. 249–254.doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.03.063. arXiv: 1612.04595 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Dark matter spikes around Sgr A* inγ-rays

    Shyam Balaji et al. “Dark matter spikes around Sgr A* inγ-rays”. In:JCAP 08 (2023), p. 063. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/08/063. arXiv: 2303.12107 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    High-energy Neutrino Emission from NGC1068byOutflow-cloudInteractions

    Yong-Han Huang, Kai Wang, and Zhi-Peng Ma. “High-energy Neutrino Emission from NGC1068byOutflow-cloudInteractions”.In:(June2024).arXiv: 2406.14001 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Models of Galaxies with Cen- tral Black Holes: Adiabatic Growth in Spherical Galaxies

    Gerald D. Quinlan, Lars Hernquist, and Steinn Sigurdsson. “Models of Galaxies with Cen- tral Black Holes: Adiabatic Growth in Spherical Galaxies”. In:Astrophys. J. 440 (1995), pp. 554–564. doi: 10.1086/175295. arXiv: astro-ph/9407005

    1995 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center

    Paolo Gondolo and Joseph Silk. “Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999), pp. 1719–1722.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1719. arXiv: astro-ph/9906391

    1999 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Darkmatterdistributionsaround massiveblackholes:Ageneralrelativisticanalysis

    LalehSadeghian,FrancescFerrer,andCliffordM.Will.“Darkmatterdistributionsaround massiveblackholes:Ageneralrelativisticanalysis”.In: Phys. Rev. D88.6(2013),p.063522. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.063522. arXiv: 1305.2619 [astro-ph.GA]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Dark matter spikes in the vicinity of Kerr black holes

    Francesc Ferrer, Augusto Medeiros da Rosa, and Clifford M. Will. “Dark matter spikes in the vicinity of Kerr black holes”. In:Phys. Rev. D 96.8 (2017), p. 083014.doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.96.083014. arXiv: 1707.06302 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Time-dependent models for dark matter at the Galactic Center

    Gianfranco Bertone and David Merritt. “Time-dependent models for dark matter at the Galactic Center”. In:Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005), p. 103502.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72. 103502. arXiv: astro-ph/0501555

    2005 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Dark matter dynamics and indirect detection

    Gianfranco Bertone and David Merritt. “Dark matter dynamics and indirect detection”. In: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20 (2005), p. 1021.doi: 10.1142/S0217732305017391 . arXiv: astro-ph/0504422

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    The Structure of cold dark matter halos

    Julio F. Navarro, Carlos S. Frenk, and Simon D. M. White. “The Structure of cold dark matter halos”. In:Astrophys. J. 462 (1996), pp. 563–575.doi: 10.1086/177173. arXiv: astro-ph/9508025

    1996 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering

    Julio F. Navarro, Carlos S. Frenk, and Simon D. M. White. “A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering”. In:Astrophys. J. 490 (1997), pp. 493–508.doi: 10.1086/ 304888. arXiv: astro-ph/9611107. 9

    1997 arXiv

  12. [20]

    NGC 1068 constraints on neutrino-dark matter scat- tering

    James M. Cline and Matteo Puel. “NGC 1068 constraints on neutrino-dark matter scat- tering”. In: JCAP 06 (2023), p. 004.doi: 10.1088/1475- 7516/2023/06/004 . arXiv: 2301.08756 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    IceCube Data for Neutrino Point-Source Searches Years 2008-2018

    R. Abbasi et al. “IceCube Data for Neutrino Point-Source Searches Years 2008-2018”. In: (Jan. 2021). doi: 10.21234/CPKQ-K003. arXiv: 2101.09836 [astro-ph.HE]

    2008

  14. [22]

    Model-independent bound on the dark matter lifetime

    Sergio Palomares-Ruiz. “Model-independent bound on the dark matter lifetime”. In: Phys. Lett. B 665 (2008), pp. 50–53.doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.05.040 . arXiv: 0712.1937 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Neutrinoself-interactions:Awhitepaper

    JeffreyM.Berrymanetal.“Neutrinoself-interactions:Awhitepaper”.In: Phys. Dark Univ. 42 (2023), p. 101267.doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2023.101267. arXiv:2203.01955 [hep-ph]

    2023

  16. [24]

    A CMB search for the neutrino mass mechanism and its relation to the Hubble tension

    Miguel Escudero and Samuel J. Witte. “A CMB search for the neutrino mass mechanism and its relation to the Hubble tension”. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 80.4 (2020), p. 294.doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7854-5. arXiv: 1909.04044 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bounds on the coupling of the Majoron to light neutrinos from su- pernova cooling

    Yasaman Farzan. “Bounds on the coupling of the Majoron to light neutrinos from su- pernova cooling”. In:Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003), p. 073015.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.67. 073015. arXiv: hep-ph/0211375

    2003 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Supernova Constraints on Massive (Pseudo)Scalar Coupling to Neutrinos

    Lucien Heurtier and Yongchao Zhang. “Supernova Constraints on Massive (Pseudo)Scalar Coupling to Neutrinos”. In:JCAP 02 (2017), p. 042.doi: 10.1088/1475- 7516/2017/ 02/042. arXiv: 1609.05882 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Strong Supernova 1987A Constraints on Bosons Decaying to Neutrinos

    Damiano F. G. Fiorillo, Georg G. Raffelt, and Edoardo Vitagliano. “Strong Supernova 1987A Constraints on Bosons Decaying to Neutrinos”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett. 131.2 (2023), p. 021001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.021001. arXiv: 2209.11773 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Limits on heavy neutral leptons, Z′ bosons and majorons from high- energy supernova neutrinos

    Kensuke Akita et al. “Limits on heavy neutral leptons, Z′ bosons and majorons from high- energy supernova neutrinos”. In:JHEP 07 (2024), p. 057.doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2024)

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Search for the rare decayK + → µ+ν ¯νν

    A. V. Artamonov et al. “Search for the rare decayK + → µ+ν ¯νν”. In:Phys. Rev. D 94.3 (2016), p. 032012.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.032012. arXiv: 1606.09054 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Leptonic Scalars at the LHC

    André de Gouvêa et al. “Leptonic Scalars at the LHC”. In:JHEP 07 (2020), p. 142.doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2020)142. arXiv: 1910.01132 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    MassiveMajoronsandconstraintsontheMajoron-neutrino coupling

    TimBruneandHeinrichPäs.“MassiveMajoronsandconstraintsontheMajoron-neutrino coupling”. In:Phys. Rev. D 99.9 (2019), p. 096005.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.096005. arXiv: 1808.08158 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    IceCube-Gen2: the window to the extreme Universe

    M. G. Aartsen et al. “IceCube-Gen2: the window to the extreme Universe”. In:J. Phys. G 48.6(2021),p.060501. doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/abbd48.arXiv: 2008.04323 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021

  25. [33]

    MononeutrinoatDUNE:NewSignalsfromNeutrinophilic ThermalDarkMatter

    KevinJ.KellyandYueZhang.“MononeutrinoatDUNE:NewSignalsfromNeutrinophilic ThermalDarkMatter”.In: Phys. Rev. D99.5(2019),p.055034. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 99.055034. arXiv: 1901.01259 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lepton-Number-ChargedScalarsandNeutrinoBeamstrahlung

    JeffreyM.Berrymanetal.“Lepton-Number-ChargedScalarsandNeutrinoBeamstrahlung”. In: Phys. Rev. D 97.7 (2018), p. 075030.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.075030 . arXiv: 1802.00009 [hep-ph]. 10

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Dark matter constraints from box-shaped gamma-ray features

    Alejandro Ibarra, Sergio Lopez Gehler, and Miguel Pato. “Dark matter constraints from box-shaped gamma-ray features”. In: JCAP 07 (2012), p. 043. doi: 10 . 1088 / 1475 - 7516/2012/07/043. arXiv: 1205.0007 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Revisitingcosmologicalboundsonsterileneutrinos

    AaronC.Vincentetal.“Revisitingcosmologicalboundsonsterileneutrinos”.In: JCAP04 (2015),p.006. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/04/006.arXiv: 1408.1956 [astro-ph.CO]. 11

    2015 arXiv

  29. [57]

    arXiv: 2312.13627 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.