Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 301

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A tale of tails: Dark matter interpretations of the Fermi GeV excess in light of background model systematics

Open access
Calore, Francesca, Cholis, Ilias, McCabe, Christopher, Weniger, Christoph·2015·Physical Review D
DOI 10.1103/physrevd.91.063003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Several groups have identified an extended excess of gamma rays over the modeled foreground and background emissions towards the Galactic center (GC) based on observations with the Fermi Large Area Telescope. This excess emission is compatible in morphology and spectrum with a telltale sign from dark matter (DM) annihilation. Here, we present a critical reassessment of DM interpretations of the GC signal in light of the foreground and background uncertainties that some of us recently outlaid in Calore et al. (2014). We find that a much larger number of DM models fits the gamma-ray data than previously noted. In particular: (1) In the case of DM annihilation into $\overline{b}b$, we find that even large DM masses up to ${m}_{\ensuremath{\chi}}\ensuremath{\simeq}74\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{GeV}$ are allowed at $p$-value $>0.05$. (2) Surprisingly, annihilation into nonrelativistic $hh$ gives a good fit to the data. (3) The inverse Compton emission from ${\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ with ${m}_{\ensuremath{\chi}}\ensuremath{\sim}60--70\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{GeV}$ can also account for the excess at higher latitudes, $|b|>{2}^{\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{}}$, both in its spectrum and morphology. We also present novel constraints on a large number of mixed annihilation channels, including cascade annihilation involving hidden sector mediators. Finally, we show that the current limits from dwarf spheroidal observations are not in tension with a DM interpretation when uncertainties on the DM halo profile are accounted for.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.91.063003

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 301

Metadata

Authors
Calore, F., Cholis, I., McCabe, C., & Weniger, C.
Venue
Physical Review D
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2015-03-10
Volume
91
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
DOI
10.1103/physrevd.91.063003
OpenAlex
W2120455760
Cited by
301
References
101
FWCI
32.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.