Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Sub-MHz Radio Background from Ultralight Dark Photon Dark Matter

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ultralight dark photons would inverse-Compton scatter off cosmic-ray electrons into a diffuse sub-MHz radio glow, and existing sky-brightness data already constrain the kinetic mixing parameter to about 2e-6 to 1e-5 for masses below about…

desk verdict New and honestly derived sub-MHz radio probe of ultralight dark photons; the constraints likely survive, but the missing absorption uncertainty band should be added before this is accepted as 'leading.' read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01489 v1 pith:ZRHS2NVE submitted 2025-01-02 hep-ph astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Javier F. Acevedo , Amit Bhoonah , Kun Cheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords ultralightdarkphotonmatterinverseComptonscatteringsub-MHzradiobackgroundkineticmixingparametercosmic-rayelectronsandpositronsGalacticspectrumabsorptioninterstellarmedium
topics 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

Ultralight dark photons—a well-motivated dark-matter candidate—are usually hard to detect because laboratory shields and haloscope setups lose sensitivity at tiny masses. The paper proposes a new route: cosmic-ray electrons and positrons scattering off the dark-photon field will up-scatter the dark photons into ordinary radio photons, producing a diffuse Galactic glow that peaks below 1 MHz. The glow's brightness grows linearly with the dark-matter density and quadratically with the kinetic-mixing parameter $\epsilon$, and its typical frequency is set by the dark-photon mass times the square of the cosmic-ray energy. Comparing the predicted sky brightness with archived sub-MHz measurements from IMP-6, RAE-2, and the Parker Solar Probe, the paper derives the strongest existing limits on $\epsilon$ for masses below about $2\times10^{-17}$ eV, reaching $\epsilon \sim 2\times10^{-6}$ with IMP-6 and about $1\times10^{-5}$ with the other two datasets. The main caveat, stated in Section III, is that the sub-MHz absorption depends on the Local Bubble's electron density through the YMW16 model—quoted at up to 50% uncertainty with an order-one effect on the limits—and the final exclusion curves are drawn without an uncertainty band.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dark inverse Compton cross-section, Eq. (4), $\frac{d\sigma_{\rm DC}}{dE_\gamma} \simeq \frac{\epsilon^2 e^4}{12\pi m_{A'} p_e^2}\left[1 - 2x + 2x^2\right]$ with $x = E_\gamma/(2E_\gamma^{\max})$, together with the kinematic relation $E_\gamma^{\max} = 2\gamma_e^2 m_{A'}$ that maps a cosmic-ray energy to an emitted photon frequency. This relation gives the paper its characteristic prediction, $\nu \simeq 0.93\,{\rm MHz}\, (E_e/10\,{\rm GeV})^2 (m_{A'}/10^{-17}\,{\rm eV})$, so each dark-photon mass is probed by a specific cosmic-ray energy band. The flux integral in Eq. (6) sums electron, positron, and secondary-electron spectra over the line of sight and multiplies by the absorption factor $P_\nu = \exp(-\tau_\nu)$, with $\tau_\nu \simeq 0.65 (\nu/{\rm MHz})^{-2.1} (T/10^4\,{\rm K})^{-1.35} \int n_e^2\, ds$. Because $\tau_\nu$ scales so steeply with frequency, the 0.1 to 0.5 MHz measurements that drive the constraints see only the first ~100 pc of the Galaxy, making the local electron density the controlling input and reducing cosmic-ray and dark-matter-profile uncertainties to the percent level.

What would settle it

Measure the free-electron density within the first ~100 pc along several high-latitude sightlines using pulsar dispersion measures toward the nearest pulsars, recompute $\tau_\nu$ at 0.1 to 0.5 MHz from Eq. (8), and re-evaluate the predicted sky brightness; if the flux at 0.2 MHz changes by more than a factor of two relative to the YMW16-based estimate, the exclusion curves shift by the same factor. Alternatively, a balloon or lunar sub-MHz telescope that maps the 0.1 to 1 MHz sky and finds no frequency-dependent component with the morphology shown in Figure 2 would directly test whether this scattering channel produces the claimed background.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the dark inverse Compton process $e^- + A' \to e^- + \gamma$ (the same for positrons) converts a small but observable fraction of cosmic-ray electron and positron energy into a diffuse, almost isotropic background of sub-MHz radio photons. For a dark-photon mass around $10^{-17}$ eV and a 10 GeV cosmic-ray electron, the average emitted photon lands near 0.93 MHz, so the signal sits below the frequencies normally used in radio astronomy. When the production rate is integrated through the Milky Way with absorption modeled by the YMW16 electron-density map, the resulting sky brightness is large enough that the measured 0.1 to 1 MHz spectra from IMP-6, RAE-2, and the Parker Solar Probe already exclude kinetic mixing down to $\epsilon \sim (2\text{--}10)\times10^{-6}$ for dark-photon masses below about $2\times10^{-17}$ eV. The limits are conservative in that no astrophysical radio background is subtracted, and they scale linearly with the dark-photon abundance if dark photons are only a sub-component of the dark matter.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the YMW16 local free-electron density and an assumed interstellar temperature of $10^4\,$K set the sub-MHz absorption; if the gas within the first ~100 pc is denser than modeled, the predicted glow is absorbed more, the predicted flux drops, and the quoted $\epsilon$ bounds weaken, while a less dense medium would strengthen them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For dark-photon masses below about $2\times10^{-17}$ eV, sub-MHz radio sky-brightness data now provide the strongest constraint on the kinetic mixing parameter, reaching $\epsilon \sim 2\times10^{-6}$ with the IMP-6 dataset and about $1\times10^{-5}$ with RAE-2 and Parker Solar Probe data.
  • If dark photons are only a fraction of the dark matter, the excluded $\epsilon$ values scale linearly with that fraction, so the same observations continue to produce useful limits in sub-component scenarios.
  • The predicted glow is almost isotropic at 0.1 MHz and becomes anisotropic near 1 MHz, where the electron-density structure of the Milky Way is resolved, so frequency-dependent anisotropy is a handle for future searches.
  • The same cosmic-ray up-scattering mechanism should generate a comparable sub-MHz background for other ultralight bosons, such as axion-like particles and dilatons with photon and electron couplings, giving future sub-MHz space missions a generic light-dark-matter signature to look for.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the signal scales linearly with the dark-photon fraction, the same sky-brightness data can be recast as upper limits on the fractional abundance of dark photons at a fixed mixing; for $m_{A'}$ near $10^{-18}$ eV and $\epsilon$ at the current exclusion, the allowed fraction would be well below unity, a quantitative bound the paper leaves implicit.
  • Beyond what the paper computes, the 0.1 MHz glow's near-isotropy and the 1 MHz glow's sensitivity to local electron-density structure suggest a future sub-MHz survey could fit $\epsilon$ and the local free-electron density jointly, breaking the absorption degeneracy and strengthening the limits.
  • The same flux pipeline, applied to axion-like particles and dilatons with photon and electron couplings, would predict background shapes that differ in frequency and anisotropy; matching those shapes could eventually distinguish which ultralight boson is responsible for any detected sub-MHz excess.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new observable for ultralight dark photon dark matter (DPDM): dark inverse Compton scattering of cosmic-ray electrons and positrons off the DPDM background produces a diffuse radio background, most prominently below 1 MHz. The authors derive the relevant cross section from first principles in Appendix A, compute the sky flux using the GALPROP cosmic-ray model SSZ4R20T150C2 and the YMW16 free-electron density map, and compare the predicted sky-averaged brightness with IMP-6, RAE-2, and Parker Solar Probe measurements. They derive upper limits on the kinetic mixing parameter, claiming leading constraints for masses mA' ≲ 2×10^-17 eV, with ε ≲ (2-10)×10^-6 depending on the dataset. The paper also discusses the dominant systematic from free-free absorption and mentions future sub-MHz radio missions.

Significance. If the limits survive a careful treatment of systematic uncertainties, this is a genuinely new and competitive probe of an experimentally difficult mass range. The central derivation is clean and self-contained, the input models are independent published products, and the limit procedure is a conservative inequality rather than a fit. The paper is also explicit about the linear scaling with the dark matter fraction and about the sub-dominant role of cosmic-ray protons. The main weakness is that the normalization of the predicted flux at the constraining frequencies is exponentially sensitive to the local free-electron density and temperature, and the final limits are presented without an uncertainty band; this is the key issue that needs to be addressed before the leading-constraint claim is fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [III, Eq. (8), Fig. 4] The normalization of the predicted flux in the constraining frequency range is controlled by the absorption factor P_nu = exp(-tau_nu) in Eq. (8). At 0.1-0.5 MHz the absorption horizon is only tens to hundreds of parsecs, so the limits are set almost entirely by the local electron density and temperature assumed in the YMW16 model. The text acknowledges a 50% uncertainty in the electron density and quotes an O(1) variation in the limits, but because tau_nu is proportional to n_e^2 T^-1.35 and the signal is an integral of emissivity times exp(-tau_nu), a 50% density change or a plausible change in the local temperature can alter the effective integration depth by substantially more than a factor of two. The exclusion curves in Fig. 4 are drawn without any band, so the claim that these are leading constraints for mA' <~ 2×10^-17 eV is not yet fully supported. Please propagate the plausible range of local n_e and T into the limits and show them as a band in Fig. 4, or otherwise quantify how the plotted curves map onto the assumed absorption parameters.
  2. [III, Figs. 3 and 4] The treatment of the observational data is not fully specified. For IMP-6 the paper states that the 'probable maximum spectrum observed' is used, but it does not define the digitization procedure, the frequency binning, or how the upper envelope is constructed. For RAE-2 and PSP it is not stated whether the published measurement uncertainties are propagated into the limits. Since the constraints are driven by a small number of frequency bins near 0.1-0.5 MHz, the exact choice of sky-averaging and upper-envelope treatment can affect the quoted epsilon values. Please describe the data-reduction procedure in enough detail to reproduce it, and show the measurement uncertainties in Fig. 3 if they are available.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C1)-(C2)] The notation for the integrated cosmic-ray flux is inconsistent: Eq. (C1) defines Phi, while the text immediately after uses the barred symbol \bar{Phi}; please make the notation uniform.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption and legend] The legend entries 'SuperMAG (1s)' and 'SuperMAG (1m)' are not defined in the caption or the text; please state what these two curves represent.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A8)] After Eq. (A8) the text refers to the spin-averaged matrix element square but writes \overline{|M|^2} = (1/6) \sum |M|^2; please specify explicitly which initial and final spin states are being summed and averaged.
  4. [III, paragraph on cosmic-ray models] The text says the electron and positron fluxes are consistent with diffuse synchrotron emission [42]; since this consistency check involves assumptions about the magnetic field, it would be helpful to state the level of agreement or the reference for that comparison.
  5. [IV, outlook] The phrase 'decameter wavelength regime' is imprecise for the sub-MHz band discussed in the paper; consider using 'hectometer' or a quantitative frequency range to avoid confusion with the decameter band at ~3-30 MHz.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the radio-background signal and constraints are computed from independent external inputs, not from the quantities they predict.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The dark inverse Compton cross-section is derived from first principles in Appendix A starting from the kinetic-mixing Lagrangian, with the final approximate expression Eq. (4) obtained by expanding the exact squared amplitude under stated kinematic limits, not by assuming the target signal. The cosmic-ray electron and positron fluxes are taken from the externally benchmarked GALPROP model SSZ4R20T150C2, and the absorption factor P_nu is built from the independent YMW16 free-electron density model with a stated ISM temperature. The constraints in Fig. 4 are upper bounds obtained by requiring the predicted sky-averaged brightness not to exceed the measured IMP-6, RAE-2, and PSP spectra in each frequency bin; epsilon is not fitted to the data, and the claimed limits follow from the predicted signal scaling linearly in the dark matter density and epsilon^2. The only self-citation, Ref. [53] by co-author Bhoonah, appears as a complementary gas-cloud heating constraint and is not load-bearing for the new radio-background calculation. The assumption that dark photons constitute all of the dark matter is explicitly stated and its relaxation scales the signal linearly, so it does not define away the prediction. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or fields, and fits no parameters to the radio data. It scans the dark photon mass mA' and kinetic mixing epsilon and excludes values whose predicted flux would exceed the observed sky brightness. All numerical inputs come from prior literature (GALPROP, YMW16, local dark matter density, ISM temperature) or are scanned benchmark values.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ultralight dark photons constitute all of the dark matter locally with density 0.42 GeV/cm^3 at the Sun's position.
    Section III fixes rho_A'(R_GC) = 0.42 GeV/cm^3 and assumes the dark photon saturates the local dark matter density. The paper notes the signal scales linearly with the assumed fraction, so the constraint can be rescaled.
  • domain assumption The dark photon rest frame is effectively the lab frame and the field is a non-relativistic quasi-coherent classical background.
    Appendix A sets the dark photon four-momentum to k1 = (mA', 0, 0, 0), which is valid for virialized ultralight dark matter but idealizes the velocity dispersion.
  • domain assumption The YMW16 electron density model and a uniform ISM temperature T = 10^4 K describe free-free absorption along every line of sight.
    Eq. (8) and the surrounding text use this model to compute P_nu(s, Omega). The same model determines which line-of-sight distances contribute to the observed flux.
  • domain assumption The GALPROP cosmic-ray model SSZ4R20T150C2 correctly gives the interstellar electron and positron spectra in the energy range that drives the signal.
    Section III and Appendix C rely on this model for the primary and secondary e± spectra. The model is tested against Fermi-LAT, AMS-02, and Voyager data, but the local low-energy spectrum is not directly measured.
  • domain assumption The observed sub-MHz sky brightness is an upper limit on any DPDM-induced radio background, with no astrophysical foreground subtracted.
    The exclusion procedure in Section III requires the predicted flux not to exceed the observed brightness in each frequency bin. This is conservative, but it assumes the observed spectra are dominated by standard astrophysical emission.
  • standard math Standard QED and the kinetic-mixing interaction Lagrangian (Eq. 1) are used to derive the dark inverse Compton cross-section.
    The derivation in Appendix A uses standard 2-to-2 scattering kinematics and Dirac trace techniques; no non-perturbative or beyond-QED input is introduced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sub-MHz Radio Background from Ultralight Dark Photon Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRHS2NVE

@misc{pith2026250101489,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sub-MHz Radio Background from Ultralight Dark Photon Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRHS2NVE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01489}
}
abstract

Dark photons are a well-motivated candidate for dark matter, but their detection becomes challenging for ultralight masses with both experimental and astrophysical probes. In this work, we propose a new approach to explore this regime through the dark inverse Compton scattering of ultralight dark photons with cosmic ray electrons and positrons. We show this process generates a potentially observable background radiation that is most prominent at frequencies below MHz. We compute this effect using the latest cosmic ray models and radio absorption maps. Comparing it to observations of the Milky Way's radio spectrum from Explorer 43, Radio Astronomy Explorer 2, and the Parker Solar Probe, we place leading constraints on the kinetic mixing of dark photon dark matter for masses $\lesssim 2 \times 10^{-17} \ \rm eV$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01489 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Dark inverse Compton scattering by a cosmic-ray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mollweide projections of the flux density produced from dark inverse Compton scattering of DPDM against cosmic ray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Mean sky brightness from cosmic ray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Constraints on the kinetic mixing parameter as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Integrated comic ray flux for two different line of sight distances, viewed (a) towards the galaxy center, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Dark Photon Polarimetry

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Dark photon polarimetry uses Faraday rotation of light from M87* and Sgr A* to set new limits on ultralight dark photon kinetic mixing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. E. Kim, Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 103 (1979)

    work page 1979

  2. [2]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interac- tions?, Nucl. Phys. B 166, 493 (1980)

    work page 1980

  3. [3]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, A Simple Solution to the Strong CP Problem with a Harmless Axion, Phys. Lett. B 104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  4. [4]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions. (In Russian), Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31, 260 (1980)

    1980

  5. [5]

    C. P. Burgess, J. P. Conlon, L.-Y. Hung, C. H. Kom, A. Maharana, and F. Quevedo, Continuous Global Symmetries and Hyperweak Interactions in String Compactifications, JHEP 07, 073, arXiv:0805.4037 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Goodsell, J

    M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, Naturally Light Hidden Photons in LARGE Volume String Com- pactifications, JHEP 11, 027, arXiv:0909.0515 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Bosonic super-WIMPs as keV-scale dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 78, 115012 (2008), arXiv:0807.3279 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    Arkani-Hamed, D

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, A Theory of Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 79, 015014 (2009), arXiv:0810.0713 [hep-ph]. 9

    arXiv 2009

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Dubovsky and G

    S. Dubovsky and G. Hern´ andez-Chifflet, Heating up the Galaxy with Hidden Photons, JCAP 12, 054, arXiv:1509.00039 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. E. Nelson and J. Scholtz, Dark Light, Dark Matter and the Misalignment Mechanism, Phys. Rev. D 84, 103501 (2011), arXiv:1105.2812 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, WISPy Cold Dark Matter, JCAP 06, 013, arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    P. W. Graham, J. Mardon, and S. Rajendran, Vector Dark Matter from Inflationary Fluctuations, Phys. Rev. D 93, 103520 (2016), arXiv:1504.02102 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Agrawal, N

    P. Agrawal, N. Kitajima, M. Reece, T. Sekiguchi, and F. Takahashi, Relic Abundance of Dark Photon Dark Matter, Phys. Lett. B 801, 135136 (2020), arXiv:1810.07188 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    R. T. Co, A. Pierce, Z. Zhang, and Y. Zhao, Dark Photon Dark Matter Produced by Axion Oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 99, 075002 (2019), arXiv:1810.07196 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J. A. Dror, K. Harigaya, and V. Narayan, Parametric Resonance Production of Ultralight Vector Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 99, 035036 (2019), arXiv:1810.07195 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. J. Long and L.-T. Wang, Dark Photon Dark Matter from a Network of Cosmic Strings, Phys. Rev. D 99, 063529 (2019), arXiv:1901.03312 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Capanelli, L

    C. Capanelli, L. Jenks, E. W. Kolb, and E. McDonough, Gravitational production of completely dark photons with nonminimal couplings to gravity, JHEP 09, 071, arXiv:2405.19390 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    P. W. Graham, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, and Y. Zhao, Parametrically enhanced hidden photon search, Phys. Rev. D 90, 075017 (2014), arXiv:1407.4806 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ghosh, E

    S. Ghosh, E. P. Ruddy, M. J. Jewell, A. F. Leder, and R. H. Maruyama, Searching for dark photons with existing haloscope data, Phys. Rev. D 104, 092016 (2021), arXiv:2104.09334 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kroff and P

    D. Kroff and P. C. Malta, Constraining hidden photons via atomic force microscope measurements and the Plimpton- Lawton experiment, Phys. Rev. D 102, 095015 (2020), arXiv:2008.02209 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    D. F. Bartlett and S. Loegl, LIMITS ON AN ELECTROMAGNETIC FIFTH FORCE, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2285 (1988)

    1988

  14. [22]

    E. R. Williams, J. E. Faller, and H. A. Hill, New experimental test of Coulomb’s law: A Laboratory upper limit on the photon rest mass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 721 (1971)

    1971

  15. [23]

    L.-C. Tu, J. Luo, and G. T. Gillies, The mass of the photon, Rept. Prog. Phys. 68, 77 (2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Probing for an ultralight dark photon from inverse Compton-like scattering, Phys. Rev. D 105, 055021 (2022), arXiv:2105.06326 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    L. W. Brown, The Galactic Radio Spectrum Between 130 and 26OOkHz, Astrophysical Journal 180, 359 (1973)

    1973

  18. [26]

    J. C. Novaco and L. W. Brown, Nonthermal galactic emission below 10 megahertz., Astrophysical Journal 221, 114 (1978)

    1978

  19. [27]

    B. Page, N. Bassett, A. Lecacheux, M. Pulupa, D. Rapetti, and S. D. Bale, The l = 2 spherical harmonic expansion coefficients of the sky brightness distribution between 0.5 and 7 MHz, Astronomy and Astrophysics 668, A127 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Hochberg, B

    Y. Hochberg, B. von Krosigk, E. Kuflik, and T. C. Yu, Impact of Dark Compton Scattering on Direct Dark Matter Absorption Searches, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 191801 (2022), arXiv:2109.08168 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Arza, Dark Photon Dark Matter Radio Signal from the Milky Way Electron Density, (2024), arXiv:2406.12797 [hep-ph]

    A. Arza, Dark Photon Dark Matter Radio Signal from the Milky Way Electron Density, (2024), arXiv:2406.12797 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ackermann et al

    M. Ackermann et al. (Fermi-LAT), Searches for Cosmic-Ray Electron Anisotropies with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Phys. Rev. D 82, 092003 (2010), arXiv:1008.5119 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Adriani et al., Search for Anisotropies in Cosmic-ray Positrons Detected by the PAMELA Experiment, Astrophys

    O. Adriani et al., Search for Anisotropies in Cosmic-ray Positrons Detected by the PAMELA Experiment, Astrophys. J. 811, 21 (2015), arXiv:1509.06249 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Peter Lepage, A new algorithm for adaptive multidimensional integration, Journal of Computational Physics 27, 192 (1978)

    G. Peter Lepage, A new algorithm for adaptive multidimensional integration, Journal of Computational Physics 27, 192 (1978)

    1978

  25. [33]

    Y. Cong, B. Yue, Y. Xu, Q. Huang, S. Zuo, and X. Chen, An Ultralong-wavelength Sky Model with Absorption Effect, The Astrophysical Journal 914, 128 (2021), arXiv:2104.03170 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. M. Yao, R. N. Manchester, and N. Wang, A New Electron-density Model for Estimation of Pulsar and FRB Distances, The Astrophysical Journal 835, 29 (2017), arXiv:1610.09448 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Ackermann et al.(Fermi-LAT), Fermi-LAT Observations of the Diffuse Gamma-Ray Emission: Implications for Cosmic Rays and the Interstellar Medium, Astrophys

    M. Ackermann et al.(Fermi-LAT), Fermi-LAT Observations of the Diffuse Gamma-Ray Emission: Implications for Cosmic Rays and the Interstellar Medium, Astrophys. J. 750, 3 (2012), arXiv:1202.4039 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A. E. Vladimirov, S. W. Digel, G. J´ ohannesson, P. F. Michelson, I. V. Moskalenko, P. L. Nolan, E. Orlando, T. A. Porter, and A. W. Strong, GALPROP WebRun: An internet-based service for calculating galactic cosmic ray propagation and associated photon emissions, Computer Phys...

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A. A. Abdo et al. (Fermi-LAT), Fermi LAT Observation of Diffuse Gamma-Rays Produced Through Interactions between Local Interstellar Matter and High Energy Cosmic Rays, Astrophys. J. 703, 1249 (2009), arXiv:0908.1171 [astro-ph.HE]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aguilar et al.(AMS), Towards Understanding the Origin of Cosmic-Ray Electrons, Phys

    M. Aguilar et al.(AMS), Towards Understanding the Origin of Cosmic-Ray Electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 101101 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    A. C. Cummings, E. C. Stone, B. C. Heikkila, N. Lal, W. R. Webber, G. J´ ohannesson, I. V. Moskalenko, E. Orlando, and T. A. Porter, Galactic Cosmic Rays in the Local Interstellar Medium: Voyager 1 Observations and Model Results, Astrophys. J. 831, 18 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    E. C. Stone, A. C. Cummings, B. C. Heikkila, and N. Lal, Cosmic ray measurements from Voyager 2 as it crossed into interstellar space, Nature Astronomy 3, 1013 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    G. L. Case and D. Bhattacharya, A New Σ-D Relation and Its Application to the Galactic Supernova Remnant Distribution, Astrophys. J. 504, 761 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9807162 [astro-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A. W. Strong, E. Orlando, and T. R. Jaffe, The interstellar cosmic-ray electron spectrum from synchrotron radiation and direct measurements, Astron. Astrophys. 534, A54 (2011), arXiv:1108.4822 [astro-ph.HE]. 10

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. Einasto, On the Construction of a Composite Model for the Galaxy and on the Determination of the System of Galactic Parameters, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata 5, 87 (1965)

    1965

  36. [44]

    Pieri, J

    L. Pieri, J. Lavalle, G. Bertone, and E. Branchini, Implications of High-Resolution Simulations on Indirect Dark Matter Searches, Phys. Rev. D 83, 023518 (2011), arXiv:0908.0195 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Ou, A.-C

    X. Ou, A.-C. Eilers, L. Necib, and A. Frebel, The dark matter profile of the Milky Way inferred from its circular velocity curve, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 528, 693 (2024), arXiv:2303.12838 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Eilers, D

    A.-C. Eilers, D. W. Hogg, H.-W. Rix, and M. K. Ness, The Circular Velocity Curve of the Milky Way from 5 to 25 kpc, Astrophys. J. 871, 120 (2019), arXiv:1810.09466 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Irˇ siˇ c, M

    V. Irˇ siˇ c, M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, J. S. Bolton, and G. D. Becker, First constraints on fuzzy dark matter from Lyman- α forest data and hydrodynamical simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 031302 (2017), arXiv:1703.04683 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    M. Nori, R. Murgia, V. Irˇ siˇ c, M. Baldi, and M. Viel, Lymanα forest and non-linear structure characterization in Fuzzy Dark Matter cosmologies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 482, 3227 (2019), arXiv:1809.09619 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Schutz, Subhalo mass function and ultralight bosonic dark matter, Phys

    K. Schutz, Subhalo mass function and ultralight bosonic dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123026 (2020), arXiv:2001.05503 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    E. O. Nadler et al. (DES), Milky Way Satellite Census. III. Constraints on Dark Matter Properties from Observations of Milky Way Satellite Galaxies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 091101 (2021), arXiv:2008.00022 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Dalal and A

    N. Dalal and A. Kravtsov, Excluding fuzzy dark matter with sizes and stellar kinematics of ultrafaint dwarf galaxies, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063517 (2022), arXiv:2203.05750 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bhoonah, J

    A. Bhoonah, J. Bramante, F. Elahi, and S. Schon, Galactic Center gas clouds and novel bounds on ultralight dark photon, vector portal, strongly interacting, composite, and super-heavy dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 100, 023001 (2019), arXiv:1812.10919 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Wadekar and G

    D. Wadekar and G. R. Farrar, Gas-rich dwarf galaxies as a new probe of dark matter interactions with ordinary matter, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123028 (2021), arXiv:1903.12190 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, D. F. Jackson Kimball, and S. Kalia, Search for dark-photon dark matter in the SuperMAG geomagnetic field dataset, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095032 (2021), arXiv:2108.08852 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Friel, J

    M. Friel, J. W. Gjerloev, S. Kalia, and A. Zamora, Search for ultralight dark matter in the SuperMAG high-fidelity dataset, (2024), arXiv:2408.16045 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    S. D. McDermott and S. J. Witte, Cosmological evolution of light dark photon dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063030 (2020), arXiv:1911.05086 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    S. J. Witte, S. Rosauro-Alcaraz, S. D. McDermott, and V. Poulin, Dark photon dark matter in the presence of inhomoge- neous structure, JHEP 06, 132, arXiv:2003.13698 [astro-ph.CO]

    2003 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Caputo, H

    A. Caputo, H. Liu, S. Mishra-Sharma, and J. T. Ruderman, Modeling Dark Photon Oscillations in Our Inhomogeneous Universe, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103533 (2020), arXiv:2004.06733 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Caputo, H

    A. Caputo, H. Liu, S. Mishra-Sharma, and J. T. Ruderman, Dark Photon Oscillations in Our Inhomogeneous Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 221303 (2020), arXiv:2002.05165 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Kasper, T

    J. Kasper, T. J. W. Lazio, A. Romero-Wolf, J. P. Lux, and T. Neilsen, The sun radio interferometer space experiment (sunrise) mission, in 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference (AERO)(2022) pp. 1–8

    2022

  54. [62]

    Cecconi, M

    B. Cecconi, M. Dekkali, C. Briand, B. Segret, J. N. Girard, A. Laurens, A. Lamy, D. Valat, M. Delpech, M. Bruno, P. G´ elard, M. Bucher, Q. Nenon, J.-M. Grießmeier, A.-J. Boonstra, and M. Bentum, NOIRE Study Report: Towards a Low Frequency Radio Interferometer in Space, arXiv ...

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Chen et al., Large-scale Array for Radio Astronomy on the Farside, Phil

    X. Chen et al., Large-scale Array for Radio Astronomy on the Farside, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 382, 20230094 (2024), arXiv:2403.16409 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    B. R. B. Saliwanchik, S. Herrmann, I. Kotov, P. O’Connor, M. Potekhin, A. Slosar, and S. Bale, LuSEE-Night power requirements and power generation strategy, Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 13102, 131021G (2024), arXiv:2407.07173 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.