I wonder if someone can tell me if I have interpreted the cited article correctly. https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5534The article seems to have calculated upper bounds on the density of DM for different parts of our solar system. We have found that ρdm is less than 1.1⋅10−20 g cm−3 at the orbital distance of Saturn, ρdm<1.4⋅10−20 g cm−3 at the orbital distance of Mars, and ρdm<1.4⋅10−19 g cm−3 at the orbital distance of the Earth.These three values are all orders of magnitude greater than the standard average value for the universe given in various forms in various references. ρdm = 2.3 10-24 g cm−3 The article dos not provide any lower bound for these ρdm values, but says: Our estimates of the dark matter density and mass at various distances from the Sun are generally overridden by their errors (σ). My interpretation is that the study described in the article failed to find what they were looking for. In particular: 1. This study found no evidence for any DM present in the solar system. 2. This study found no evidence contradicting the following: IF there is any DM in the solar system, THEN it is just as likely to have the standard value for the average density, 2.3 10-24 g cm−3, as any other value less than the upper bound they found. Now, I actually think it is generally very beneficial for failed research to have published results explaining the failure. What disappointed me in this article was I could find no discussion of the shape of the likely distribution function of possible values. Just having an upper bound seems to me to be not particularly useful.