MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132318114 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.043523

Exciting dark matter in the Galactic Center

2010· article· en· W2132318114 on OpenAlexaff
Fang Chen, James M. Cline, Anthony Fradette, Andrew R. Frey, Charles Rabideau

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsExcited stateGalactic CenterMilky WayDark matterMetastabilityAnnihilationAtomic physicsAstrophysicsPopulationElectronCenter (category theory)Gamma rayPositronAntiprotonNuclear physicsGalaxyProtonQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reconsider the proposal of excited dark matter (DM) as an explanation for excess 511 keV gamma rays from positrons in the Galactic center. We quantitatively compute the cross section for DM annihilation to nearby excited states, mediated by exchange of a new light gauge boson with off-diagonal couplings to the DM states. In models where both excited states must be heavy enough to decay into ${e}^{+}{e}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ and the ground state, the predicted rate of positron production is never large enough to agree with observations, unless one makes extreme assumptions about the local circular velocity in the Milky Way, or alternatively if there exists a metastable population of DM states which can be excited through a mass gap of less than 650 keV, before decaying into electrons and positrons.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207