Gamma rays from dark matter annihilation in the Draco and observability at ARGO

Hong-Bo Hu; Xiao-Jun Bi; Xinmin Zhang

REVIEW

Gamma rays from dark matter annihilation in the Draco and observability at ARGO

Xiao-Jun Bi, Hong-Bo Hu, Xinmin Zhang

Astrophysics · Submitted 1 Mar 2006 · 34 references

Pith's verdict: Honest conditional phenomenology whose headline mass range is only as solid as the unpublished CACTUS excess; the genuinely useful new part is the ARGO sensitivity forecast.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDastro-ph/0603022 (version 1)

Pith ID42ZSLLVA, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationHong-Bo Hu, Xiao-Jun Bi, Xinmin Zhang. "Gamma rays from dark matter annihilation in the Draco and observability at ARGO." arXiv:astro-ph/0603022 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/42ZSLLVA

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the paper is candid about its weak premise: it calls the CACTUS excess preliminary, cites only conference talks, and even gives a variant where only ~1% of the excess is dark matter, yielding 250–800 GeV with no boost. Second, most of the physics conclusions — neutralino interpretation, hard tau-tau spectrum, need for a cusp — were already in the concurrently cited papers by Bergstrom-Hooper and Profumo-Kamionkowski. The genuinely new content is the ARGO projection and the numerical MSSM scan against it.

The calculation itself is coherent. The flux equations are standard and the effective-area parameterizations are reasonable for a 2006 forecast. Using DarkSUSY and imposing relic density, collider, and EGRET constraints is standard practice. The ARGO 2σ sensitivity curves, with and without hadron discrimination, are clearly presented and do what they claim: if ARGO sees nothing above 100 GeV, a large part of the parameter space dies.

The soft spots are real but mostly acknowledged. The 100–400 GeV mass range and the need for a sharper-than-NFW cusp follow only if the CACTUS excess is genuinely gamma rays from Draco, and then only after inserting a hand-chosen boost factor of 10–1000. The paper says this, though the abstract puts the mass range and cusp requirement more flatly than the body supports. The EGRET-motivated hard spectrum is sensible, but it is also selected because it makes the numbers work, not derived from first principles. The ARGO forecast itself is a bit rough: zenith-angle dependence is ignored and the quality factor is taken from a detector addendum, so those numbers should be treated as indicative, not precise.

Overall, this is a solid, readable conditional analysis rather than a robust discovery claim. It is worth a serious referee because the ARGO forecast is useful and the full parameter scan gives a template for later work. The referee should press the authors to mark every conclusion as contingent on an unconfirmed excess, which they mostly already do in the text.

I would bring it to a reading group focused on indirect dark matter searches, mostly as a historical example of how a preliminary excess drives MSSM scans. I would not build my current work on it. But it deserves peer review, not desk rejection.

Referee report

Significance

If the CACTUS excess is genuine gamma-ray emission from dark-matter annihilation and the inferred boost factor has a physical origin, the paper provides a concrete and falsifiable target for ARGO, and the 100-400 GeV mass range would be an important hint for supersymmetric dark matter. The calculation is transparent: it uses the public DarkSUSY package, scans an 8-dimensional MSSM parameter space, and applies collider, relic-density, and background constraints. The ARGO sensitivity projection is a useful estimate for a detector under construction. However, the central claims inherit the preliminary and unpublished status of the CACTUS excess, which the authors themselves flag as possibly being much larger than the real signal. The boost factor is a fitted quantity spanning 10-1000 rather than a prediction, and the paper's own 1%-of-excess alternative yields a different mass range and no cusp requirement. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on external validation of the input signal and on the assumed detector performance, so the headline conclusions should be presented with those caveats made explicit.

Major objections (3)

[Section III, Eq. (7)] The input flux range is anchored to an excess reported only in conference talks [8], and the authors lower the bound by relaxing it by an order of magnitude without a quantified error model. Since all subsequent steps (the surviving SUSY points, the required boost factor, and the ARGO sensitivity) are normalized to this band, the abstract's claim that the neutralino mass is constrained to 100-400 GeV is not a robust inference from the MSSM plus Draco; it is conditional on the CACTUS excess being a genuine gamma-ray signal. The paper should state this conditionality in the abstract and conclusions, and should quantify how the derived mass range shifts under alternative normalizations of the excess.
[Section V, Figs. 2-4] The conclusion that a sharp central cuspy profile is necessary follows only because the authors allow a post-hoc boost factor of 10-1000 to bring model fluxes into the CACTUS band. The paper's own alternative, in which only about 1% of the excess is dark-matter annihilation, gives 250 GeV < m_chi < 800 GeV with no boost factor, which directly contradicts the headline 100-400 GeV mass range and the 'necessary cusp' claim. The cusp requirement is therefore an assumption-dependent inference rather than an implication of the MSSM plus a dark-matter-dominated Draco, and this dependence should be made explicit whenever the conclusion is stated.
[Section IV, Eq. (12)] The projected ARGO exclusion power relies on a hadron-rejection quality factor of 1.6 from reference [32] and on the background parameterizations of Eqs. (8)-(10), with the detector still under construction. The statement that 'the parameter space can be strongly constrained by ARGO' is therefore a projected sensitivity under assumed detector performance, not an empirical constraint; the figures should be labeled accordingly to avoid overstating the expected reach.

Minor objections (6)

[Abstract] The phrase 'a sharp central cuspy of the dark halo profile' is not grammatical; it should read 'a sharp central cusp' or 'a sharply cusped dark halo profile'.
[Section III] The text says the CACTUS effective area 'reaches about 50,000 m^2' for energies above about 200 GeV, but Eq. (5) gives about 44,000 m^2 at 200 GeV; the text or the parameterization should be reconciled.
[Section III] Because the entire analysis rests on the CACTUS excess, the text should state more prominently that the excess is unpublished and preliminary, rather than mentioning this only after quoting the event number.
[Section IV] The symbol Phi is used both for the differential flux in Eq. (2) and for the integrated flux in Fig. 2; using separate symbols for differential and integrated fluxes would avoid confusion.
[Section V] The caption of Fig. 2 says 'a boost factor 10 relative to the maximal astrophysical factor derived from [19]', but the text states that the astrophysical factor varies by a factor of about 200; it should be clarified which baseline value is used in each figure.
[Section III] The text contains the typo 'Possion' in the phrase 'Possion fluctuation'; it should read 'Poisson fluctuation'.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

If the CACTUS gamma-ray excess from Draco is real dark-matter annihilation, the annihilating neutralino weighs roughly 100-400 GeV, Draco's halo must be sharply cusped, and one quiet year at ARGO would rule most surviving models out.

The reading

This paper asks what follows if the gamma-ray excess that the CACTUS experiment reported from the Draco dwarf galaxy is genuinely light emitted by annihilating dark matter. The authors show, within the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model, that the excess fixes the annihilating particle — a neutralino, the lightest supersymmetric particle — to a mass of roughly $100$ to $400$ GeV, and that Draco's dark halo must be far more sharply peaked at its center than the standard NFW profile, by a 'boost factor' of $10$-$1000$. They then show that the ground-based ARGO detector would test this: for the softer annihilation channels, a single year of observation with no excess above $100$ GeV would exclude most of the surviving parameter space. The claim matters because it turns a preliminary, unconfirmed telescope excess into a concrete target that an independent experiment can confirm or kill.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is the factorization of the annihilation flux into a particle factor times an astrophysical factor, $\Phi_\gamma(E) = \frac{\langle\sigma v\rangle}{4\pi m_\chi^2 D^2}\,\varphi_\gamma(E) \int_{\Delta\Omega} d\Omega \int 4\pi r^2 \rho^2(r)\,dr$, with Draco at distance $D = 75.8\pm0.7\pm5.4$ kpc. The particle factor — the thermally averaged cross section $\langle\sigma v\rangle$, the per-annihilation gamma spectrum $\varphi_\gamma(E)$ from Pythia fragmentation, and the neutralino mass $m_\chi$ — is computed with DarkSUSY in a random scan over the low-energy MSSM parameters, then cut by relic-abundance, collider, and consistency requirements. The astrophysical factor, fixed by an earlier analysis of Draco's kinematics that permits both cored and cuspy profiles, can vary by only a factor of about 200. The gap between that maximal astrophysical factor and the flux the CACTUS event count demands is what forces the 'boost factor' of $10$-$1000$, the interpretive step that converts a particle-physics scan into a statement about the sharpness of Draco's inner halo. The ARGO sensitivity completes the machinery: a parameterized effective area $A_{\rm eff}\approx A_{100}(E/100\,\mathrm{GeV})^{2.4}$ turns one year of quiet observation into a $2\sigma$ upper limit that slices through the surviving model points.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the CACTUS observation — about 30,000 photons above 50 GeV from within roughly a degree of Draco, with no significant excess above 150 GeV — carries a specific dark-matter message if it is real. Combining the inferred integrated flux band $7.3\times10^{-10} < I_\gamma(>50\ \mathrm{GeV}) < 1.7\times10^{-8}\ \mathrm{cm^{-2}s^{-1}}$ with the upper limit $I_\gamma(>150\ \mathrm{GeV}) \lesssim 3\times10^{-11}\ \mathrm{cm^{-2}s^{-1}}$, and scanning an eight-dimensional low-energy MSSM parameter space under relic-density and collider constraints, the authors find that only neutralino masses in the window $100\ \mathrm{GeV} \lesssim m_\chi \lesssim 400\ \mathrm{GeV}$ survive, and that even the largest astrophysical factor allowed by Draco's observed kinematics must be boosted by $10$-$1000$ — implying a central spike or a cusp sharper than NFW. They further show that ARGO's sensitivity, based on an effective area that grows like $(E/100\ \mathrm{GeV})^{2.4}$ above threshold, would cut through most of the surviving parameter points at $2\sigma$ within one year if nothing is seen above $100$ GeV, with only hard $\tau^+\tau^-$ final states partly escaping; that same hard spectrum is independently favored by the EGRET null result toward Draco at $1$-$10$ GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on one premise: the CACTUS excess is a genuine gamma-ray signal from Draco rather than misidentified hadronic or electronic background or an instrument artifact — the paper itself calls the results preliminary and notes the observed excess may be greatly larger than any real dark-matter signal, and the flux range used in the scan was relaxed by an order of magnitude to cover exactly that uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the CACTUS excess is confirmed as neutralino annihilation, the dark matter particle is an MSSM neutralino with mass between roughly $100$ and $400$ GeV — a window that colliders and other indirect searches can target.
Draco's dark halo must be sharply cusped or spiked at its center, with an annihilation boost of $10$-$1000$ over the NFW profile, making dwarf spheroidals a direct test bed for halo-profile predictions from structure formation.
A one-year ARGO observation with no excess above $100$ GeV would exclude most of the surviving parameter space, with the strongest reach for $b\bar b$ and $W^+W^-$ annihilation final states.
Consistency with the EGRET null result toward Draco at $1$-$10$ GeV requires a hard annihilation spectrum, favoring $\tau^+\tau^-$ dominance.
If instead only about $1\%$ of the CACTUS excess is genuine dark-matter signal, the surviving neutralino masses rise to $250$-$800$ GeV and ARGO constrains only the $\tau^+\tau^-$ channel.

Reading between the lines

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

The two readings the paper keeps open — full signal versus about $1\%$ signal — imply disjoint mass windows ($100$-$400$ GeV versus $250$-$800$ GeV), so the paper's real prediction is that an independent, background-subtracted measurement of the Draco flux will decide which regime nature is in; that measurement requires better angular resolution than CACTUS had, since its field of view exceeded Dr
The boost-factor logic extends to every dark-matter-dominated dwarf: if any comparably constrained dwarf spheroidal is shown by stellar kinematics to have a cored inner profile, the boosted-annihilation explanation for Draco would be undercut even before gamma-ray data are examined.
ARGO's constraining power is concentrated just above its $100$ GeV threshold, where the effective area climbs steeply while the predicted flux is still large; a dedicated low-threshold analysis of Draco, rather than a TeV-scale search, is the cheapest decisive check of the CACTUS interpretation.

Original abstract

The CACTUS experiment recently observed a gamma ray excess above 50 GeV from the direction of the Draco dwarf spheroidal galaxy. Considering that Draco is dark matter dominated the gamma rays may be generated through dark matter annihilation in the Draco halo. In the framework of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model we explore the parameter space to account for the gamma ray signals at CACTUS. We find that the neutralino mass is constrained to be approximately in the range between 100 GeV ~ 400 GeV and a sharp central cuspy of the dark halo profile in Draco is necessary to explain the CACTUS results. We then discuss further constraints on the supersymmetric parameter space by observations at the ground based ARGO detector. It is found that the parameter space can be strongly constrained by ARGO if no excess from Draco is observed above 100 GeV.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,961 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.47 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.07 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.97 · compares with prior results 0.38 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

The CACTUS experiment recently observed a gamma ray excess above 50 GeV from the direction of the Draco dwarf spheroidal galaxy. Considering that Draco is dark matter dominated the gamma rays may be generated through dark matter annihilation in the Draco halo. In the framework of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model we explore the parameter space to account for the gamma ray signals at CACTUS. We find that the neutralino mass is constrained to be approximately in the range between 100 GeV ~ 400 GeV and a sharp central cuspy of the dark halo profile in Draco is necessary to explain the CACTUS results. We then discuss further constraints on the supersymmetric parameter space by observations at the ground based ARGO detector. It is found that the parameter space can be strongly constrained by ARGO if no excess from Draco is observed above 100 GeV.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	The CACTUS experiment recently observed a gamma ray excess above 50 GeV from the direction of the Draco dwarf spheroidal galaxy.	background 0.88	0.12	0.05	asserted 1.00
s1	Considering that Draco is dark matter dominated the gamma rays may be generated through dark matter annihilation in the Draco halo.	interpretation 0.86	0.13	0.06	hedged possibility 1.00
s2	In the framework of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model we explore the parameter space to account for the gamma ray signals at CACTUS.	method 0.62	0.81	0.04	asserted 0.80
s3	We find that the neutralino mass is constrained to be approximately in the range between 100 GeV ~ 400 GeV and a sharp central cuspy of the dark halo profile in Draco is necessary to explain the CACTUS results.	result 1.00	0.95	0.58	asserted 1.00
s4	We then discuss further constraints on the supersymmetric parameter space by observations at the ground based ARGO detector.	contribution 0.61	0.61	0.05	asserted 0.55
s5	It is found that the parameter space can be strongly constrained by ARGO if no excess from Draco is observed above 100 GeV.	result 0.98	0.90	0.32	asserted 0.93

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.92 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.72.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: The spectrum of gamma rays from neutralino annihilat

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Same as Fig. 2 except that a boost factor of 100 has been

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: Same as Fig. 2 except that a boost factor of 1000 has bee

Figures reproduced from arXiv:astro-ph/0603022 by the authors.

References

Works cited (34)

[8]

P. Marleau, TAUP, Zaragoza, Spain, September 2005; M. Tr ipathi, Cosmic Rays to Colliders 2005, Prague, Czech Republic, September 2005; TeV Particle Astrophysics Workshop, Batavia, USA, July 2005; M. Chertok, proceedings of PANIC 05, Santa Fe , USA, October 2005

View on Pith 2005
[32]

The ARGO-YBJ Project (addendum to the Proposal), ARGO- YBJ collaboration

View on Pith
[1]

G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. 267 (1996) 195; G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405, 279 (2005)

View on Pith 1996
[2]

L. Bergstr¨ om, P. Ullio and J. H. Buckley, Astropart. Phy s. 9, 137 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[3]

E. A. Baltz, C. Briot, P. Salati, R. Taillet, J. Silk, Phys . Rev. D 61, 023514 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9909112

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[4]

N. Fornengo, L. Pieri and S. Scopel, Phys. Rev. D 70, 103529 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0407342

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[5]

N. W. Evans, F. Ferrer and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 69, 123501 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0311145

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[6]

X.J. Bi, arXiv:astro-ph/0510714

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[7]

S.M. Koushiappas, A.R. Zentner, T. P. Walker, Phys. Rev. D 69 , 043501 (2004). 13

View on Pith 2004
[9]

L.M. Young, Astron. J. 117, 1758 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[10]

C. Tyler, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 023509, arXiv:astro-ph/0203242

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[11]

L. Bergstr¨ om, D. Hooper, arXiv:hep-ph/0512317

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[12]

S. Profumo, M. Kamionkowski, arXiv:astro-ph/0601249

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[13]

A.Morselli et al., Proc. of the 32nd Rencontres de Morio nd (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[14]

C. Baixeras et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl., 114, 247 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[15]

A. Aloisio et al., Nuovo Cim. 24C, 739 (2001); G. Di Scias cio et al., [ARGO-YBJ Collabora- tion], AIP Conf. Proc. 745, 663 (2005)

View on Pith 2001
[16]

T. Sj¨ ostrand et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 135, 238 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[17]

A. Z. Bonanos, K. Z. Stanek, A.H. Szentgyorgyi, D.D. Sas selov and G.A. Bakos, Astrophys. J. 127, 821 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[18]

J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 275, 56 (1995); J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 462, 563 (1996); J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 490, 493 (1997)

View on Pith 1995
[19]

S. Mashchenko, H. M. P. Couchman, A. Sills, Astrophys. J . 624, 726 (2005). S. Mashchenko, A. Sills and H.M.P. Couchman, arXiv:astro-ph/0511567

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[20]

T. Gaisser et al., Proc. of the 27th ICRC (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[21]

M.S. Longair, High Energy Astrophysics, Cambridge Uni verseity Press (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[22]

L. Bergstr¨ om, P. Ullio, J. Buckley, Astropart. Phys. 9, 137 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[23]

S.W. Cui, H.B. Hu, Proc. of the 29th ICRC (2005); X.X. Zho u et al. Proc. of the 29th ICRC (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[24]

G. Sinnis, A. Smith, J.E. McEnery, astro-ph/0403096

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[25]

N. Fornengo, L. Pieri, S. Scopel, Phys. Rev. D 70 , 103529 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[26]

P. Gondolo, J. Edsjo, P. Ullio, L. Bergstrom, M. Schelke , E.A. Baltz, JCAP 0407, 008 (2004), astro-ph/0406204

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[27]

K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D 66, 010001 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[28]

C. L. Bennett et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 1 (2003), arXiv: astro-ph/03022 07; D. N. Spergel et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175 (2003), arXiv: astro-ph/030 2209. 14

View on Pith 2003
[29]

R. Jeannerot, X. Zhang and R. H. Brandenberger, JHEP 9912, 003 (1999); T. Moroi and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B 570, 455 (2000); W. B. Lin, D. H. Huang, X. Zhang and R. H. Bran- denberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 954 (2001); B. Murakami and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D 64, 015001 (2001); M. Fujii and K. Hamaguchi, Phys. Lett. B 525, 143 (2002); G. B. Gelmini, P. ...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[30]

B. Moore, S. Ghigna, F. Governato, G. Lake, T. Quinn, J. S tadel, P. Tozzi, 1999, ApJ, 524, L19

View on Pith 1999
[31]

P. Gondolo, J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1719 (1999); G. Bertone, A. R. Zentner and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 72, 103517 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0509565

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[33]

which did not observe excess at the direction of Draco between 1∼ 10 GeV. Therefore a hard spectrum is expected to reconcile the EGRET and the CACTUS results, which requires the dominant annihilation product be τ ¯τ [11]. The hard spectrum leads to more opportunities to observe the signal in ARGO which can be seen from t he Figs. 2, 3 and 4. Alternatively...

View on Pith
[34]

http://cossc.gsfc.nasa.gov/egret/ 15

View on Pith

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [8]

P. Marleau, TAUP, Zaragoza, Spain, September 2005; M. Tr ipathi, Cosmic Rays to Colliders 2005, Prague, Czech Republic, September 2005; TeV Particle Astrophysics Workshop, Batavia, USA, July 2005; M. Chertok, proceedings of PANIC 05, Santa Fe , USA, October 2005

View on Pith 2005

[2] [32]

The ARGO-YBJ Project (addendum to the Proposal), ARGO- YBJ collaboration

View on Pith

[3] [1]

G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. 267 (1996) 195; G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405, 279 (2005)

View on Pith 1996

[4] [2]

L. Bergstr¨ om, P. Ullio and J. H. Buckley, Astropart. Phy s. 9, 137 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[5] [3]

E. A. Baltz, C. Briot, P. Salati, R. Taillet, J. Silk, Phys . Rev. D 61, 023514 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9909112

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[6] [4]

N. Fornengo, L. Pieri and S. Scopel, Phys. Rev. D 70, 103529 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0407342

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[7] [5]

N. W. Evans, F. Ferrer and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 69, 123501 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0311145

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[8] [6]

X.J. Bi, arXiv:astro-ph/0510714

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[9] [7]

S.M. Koushiappas, A.R. Zentner, T. P. Walker, Phys. Rev. D 69 , 043501 (2004). 13

View on Pith 2004

[10] [9]

L.M. Young, Astron. J. 117, 1758 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[11] [10]

C. Tyler, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 023509, arXiv:astro-ph/0203242

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[12] [11]

L. Bergstr¨ om, D. Hooper, arXiv:hep-ph/0512317

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[13] [12]

S. Profumo, M. Kamionkowski, arXiv:astro-ph/0601249

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[14] [13]

A.Morselli et al., Proc. of the 32nd Rencontres de Morio nd (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[15] [14]

C. Baixeras et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl., 114, 247 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[16] [15]

A. Aloisio et al., Nuovo Cim. 24C, 739 (2001); G. Di Scias cio et al., [ARGO-YBJ Collabora- tion], AIP Conf. Proc. 745, 663 (2005)

View on Pith 2001

[17] [16]

T. Sj¨ ostrand et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 135, 238 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[18] [17]

A. Z. Bonanos, K. Z. Stanek, A.H. Szentgyorgyi, D.D. Sas selov and G.A. Bakos, Astrophys. J. 127, 821 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[19] [18]

J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 275, 56 (1995); J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 462, 563 (1996); J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 490, 493 (1997)

View on Pith 1995

[20] [19]

S. Mashchenko, H. M. P. Couchman, A. Sills, Astrophys. J . 624, 726 (2005). S. Mashchenko, A. Sills and H.M.P. Couchman, arXiv:astro-ph/0511567

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[21] [20]

T. Gaisser et al., Proc. of the 27th ICRC (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[22] [21]

M.S. Longair, High Energy Astrophysics, Cambridge Uni verseity Press (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[23] [22]

L. Bergstr¨ om, P. Ullio, J. Buckley, Astropart. Phys. 9, 137 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[24] [23]

S.W. Cui, H.B. Hu, Proc. of the 29th ICRC (2005); X.X. Zho u et al. Proc. of the 29th ICRC (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[25] [24]

G. Sinnis, A. Smith, J.E. McEnery, astro-ph/0403096

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[26] [25]

N. Fornengo, L. Pieri, S. Scopel, Phys. Rev. D 70 , 103529 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[27] [26]

P. Gondolo, J. Edsjo, P. Ullio, L. Bergstrom, M. Schelke , E.A. Baltz, JCAP 0407, 008 (2004), astro-ph/0406204

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[28] [27]

K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D 66, 010001 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[29] [28]

C. L. Bennett et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 1 (2003), arXiv: astro-ph/03022 07; D. N. Spergel et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175 (2003), arXiv: astro-ph/030 2209. 14

View on Pith 2003

[30] [29]

R. Jeannerot, X. Zhang and R. H. Brandenberger, JHEP 9912, 003 (1999); T. Moroi and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B 570, 455 (2000); W. B. Lin, D. H. Huang, X. Zhang and R. H. Bran- denberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 954 (2001); B. Murakami and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D 64, 015001 (2001); M. Fujii and K. Hamaguchi, Phys. Lett. B 525, 143 (2002); G. B. Gelmini, P. ...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[31] [30]

B. Moore, S. Ghigna, F. Governato, G. Lake, T. Quinn, J. S tadel, P. Tozzi, 1999, ApJ, 524, L19

View on Pith 1999

[32] [31]

P. Gondolo, J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1719 (1999); G. Bertone, A. R. Zentner and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 72, 103517 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0509565

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[33] [33]

which did not observe excess at the direction of Draco between 1∼ 10 GeV. Therefore a hard spectrum is expected to reconcile the EGRET and the CACTUS results, which requires the dominant annihilation product be τ ¯τ [11]. The hard spectrum leads to more opportunities to observe the signal in ARGO which can be seen from t he Figs. 2, 3 and 4. Alternatively...

View on Pith

[34] [34]

http://cossc.gsfc.nasa.gov/egret/ 15

View on Pith