{"id":"9eee765b-0089-4ada-abef-b4a4a4dbaa77","arxiv_id":"1204.4722","paper_version":7,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":5.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"A full parameter scan of the inert doublet model finds a fine-tuned region where the electroweak phase transition is first order and strong enough for baryogenesis, with dark matter mass near 60 to 67 GeV.","lead":"The authors re-scan the inert doublet dark matter model with a more accurate finite-temperature potential and find a narrow, fine-tuned window where the electroweak phase transition is strong enough for baryogenesis while dark matter and direct-detection limits are satisfied. The window implies a dark matter mass near 60 to 67 GeV and a small deficit in the Higgs diphoton rate.","discovery_kind":"unclear","skeptic_critique":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"The 60-67 GeV window is a resonance-tuning statement resting on Eq. (5), which omits the off-shell WW*/ZZ* channels and whose thermal averaging was applied only approximately and only to fig. 2; whether the MCMC chains of fig. 3 use the corrected cross section is not stated.","rationale":"The paper's central existence claim, that the inert doublet model admits a region with vc/Tc > 1 while satisfying relic density, XENON100 and the invisible-width bound, is supported by the scan, and the one-loop finite-temperature potential with resummation is a genuine improvement over the high-temperature expansion of ref. [27]. The mDM window is largely physics-driven (resonance plus XENON100 plus invisible width), so the hand-biased MCMC of section 3 is less load-bearing for mDM than for the mA and m+- ranges, which are read off fig. 3 and are more chain-dependent. The reader's weakest_assumption correctly locates the relic-density treatment as the soft spot, but frames it only as thermal averaging, which the authors already acknowledge in footnote 1; the sharper unacknowledged issue is the omission of the off-shell WW*/ZZ* channels from Eq. (5) and the unclear propagation of the thermal-averaging correction to the MCMC chains that generate the quoted ranges. I therefore agree partially. A separate, secondary internal inconsistency is worth noting: section 5 states that the H+- contribution 'results in a increase close to 10% in the h -> gamma gamma partial width', whereas Eq. (9) with AH+- ~ +1/3 and ASM = -6.52 gives destructive interference and a roughly 10% decrease, matching the abstract; the word 'increase' appears to be a sign error. This does not threaten the central claim but should be corrected. On balance the reader's CONDITIONAL verdict is appropriate and my concern does not move it, so I recommend UNCHANGED.","tokens_in":12492,"tokens_out":12830,"duration_ms":242082,"concrete_test":"Recompute <sigma v> for HH -> h* -> X with the full thermal average over the velocity distribution and with all kinematically allowed Higgs decay channels (f fbar, WW*, ZZ*), then re-run the refined MCMC of section 4 with this cross section and regenerate figs. 2 and 3. Report whether the 60-67 GeV window and the V-shape survive, and state explicitly which cross section the original chains used. If the window shifts by more than about 2 GeV or the V-shape changes qualitatively, the quoted mass range is not robust.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The headline number, mDM = 60-67 GeV, is not an independent measurement; it is the location where the s-channel Higgs resonance supplies enough annihilation to reach Omega h^2 = 0.112 while lambda_DM stays below the XENON100 line (fig. 2). That location is set by <sigma v> near mDM = mh/2, and Eq. (5) computes <sigma v> in two approximations that matter precisely there. First, it is the zero-velocity s-wave cross section; footnote 1 concedes thermal averaging was 'not done in eq. (5)' and was included only approximately, and only in fig. 2. Near a Breit-Wigner pole the velocity average samples the resonance and can change <sigma v> by an O(1) factor, which is exactly the size that moves the tuning point. Second, Eq. (5) sums only over fermions; the off-shell WW* and ZZ* final states proceed through the same s-channel Higgs with the same HHh coupling and, at sqrt(s) ~ mh, carry roughly 25% of the Higgs width versus roughly 66% for fermions, so omitting them underestimates <sigma v> by about a third. The text's justification ('mDM < mW so only f fbar') conflates the forbidden two-body WW channel with the allowed three-body WW* channel. Neither correction is shown to be negligible, and the paper does not state whether the MCMC chains behind fig. 3, the source of the quoted mDM, mA and m+- ranges, use the corrected or the Eq. (5) cross section. If they use Eq. (5), the quoted ranges are systematically displaced.","agreement_with_reader":"partial"},"referee_report":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","summary":"The manuscript reexamines the strength of the electroweak phase transition (EWPT) in the inert doublet model (IDM) of scalar dark matter, using a Landau-gauge one-loop finite-temperature effective potential with thermal mass resummation and a Markov-chain Monte Carlo scan over the five quartic and mass parameters. For a Standard-Model-like Higgs mass near 126 GeV, the authors impose electroweak precision observables, collider mass bounds, vacuum stability, the absence of Landau poles below 2 TeV, the WMAP relic density, the XENON100 spin-independent limit, and a bound on invisible Higgs decays. They report a fine-tuned region with vc/Tc > 1, and quote a dark matter mass of 60-67 GeV, charged and CP-odd Higgs masses of 260-320 GeV, and a roughly 10% change in the h -> gamma gamma rate.","tokens_in":12781,"tokens_out":10788,"duration_ms":200737,"significance":"The paper is a careful, quantitative update of ref. [27], replacing the high-temperature expansion with a more accurate potential and a full parameter scan. The explicit quantification of the two fine-tunings (the lambda1 versus lambda2 + 2 lambda3 cancellation at the 1-4% level, and 2mDM versus mh at the 4% level) is a genuine contribution, and the resulting mass ranges and the h -> gamma gamma prediction are falsifiable targets for the LHC. The main caveat is that the relic-density criterion, which drives the headline mDM window, is evaluated with an approximate cross section.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The relic-density criterion is evaluated with the zero-velocity s-wave cross section, and footnote 1 concedes that thermal averaging was 'not done in eq. (5)' and was included only approximately, and only in fig. 2. Because the allowed region is defined by proximity to the s-channel Higgs resonance (mDM approximately mh/2), where the Breit-Wigner is sampled by the thermal velocity distribution, thermal averaging can change <sigma v> by an O(1) factor and therefore move the tuning point. The manuscript should state explicitly whether the MCMC chains behind fig. 3, which are the source of the quoted mDM, mA and m± ranges, use the corrected (thermally averaged) cross section or Eq. (5); if the latter, the scan should be redone.","section":"§3, Eq. (5) and footnote 1","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The annihilation cross section sums only over fermion final states, justified by the statement that 'mDM < mW so that the only relevant annihilation channels are those which are mediated by the SM-like Higgs boson into final state f fbar pairs.' This conflates the forbidden two-body WW channel with the allowed three-body WW* (and ZZ*) channel. At sqrt(s) approximately mh approximately 126 GeV the off-shell WW* and ZZ* final states are open and, through the same HHh coupling, constitute roughly 20-25% of the Higgs width versus roughly 65-70% for fermions. Omitting them underestimates <sigma v> by roughly a third, which again shifts the resonance tuning and the quoted mDM range. The three-body channels should be included or their neglect justified quantitatively.","section":"§3, Eq. (5)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The MCMC is deliberately biased with a = (vc/Tc)/lambdaDM and dP/da proportional to a, so the histograms of fig. 3 are weighted samples rather than posterior distributions. The 'favored values' quoted in the text (lambda1 = 2.6-3, mA and m± = 260-320 GeV, etc.) therefore reflect the imposed bias as much as the likelihood. The paper should state this caveat explicitly and, where possible, show how the quoted ranges change under an unbiased or differently weighted scan.","section":"§3 and fig. 3","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The text states that the H± contribution 'interferes destructively with that of the SM, and results in a increase close to 10% in the h -> gamma gamma partial width,' but destructive interference with A_SM = -6.52 and A_H± approximately +1/3 reduces |A_SM + A_H±|^2 by about 10%, i.e. it decreases the partial width. The abstract's '10% reduction of the h -> gamma gamma branching ratio' is consistent with a decrease, but the body attributes the branching-ratio change to invisible dilution rather than to the H± loop. The sign and the attribution should be corrected and made consistent between §5, Eq. (9), and the abstract.","section":"§5, Eq. (9) and the abstract","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"'expection' should be 'expectation'.","section":"§2, first paragraph","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"'Higss' should be 'Higgs'.","section":"Fig. 4 caption","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"'a increase' should be 'an increase'.","section":"§5","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The mDM = 60-67 GeV range is a consequence of the resonance condition mDM approximately mh/2 combined with the XENON100 limit, not an independent measurement; the word 'predict' should be qualified accordingly.","section":"Abstract and §6","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"It would help to state explicitly what the blue crosses represent and how they differ from the black points.","section":"Fig. 1 caption","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The approximation A_H± approximately 1/3 and the sign of the H± amplitude should be checked explicitly; the stated condition lambda1 v^2 approximately 2 m±^2 is satisfied only marginally for the quoted lambda1 approximately 3 and m± approximately 280 GeV.","section":"Eq. (9)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The monojet discussion is somewhat tangential and could be shortened or moved to an appendix.","section":"§5","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The light-shaded and dark-shaded regions should be defined in the caption as clearly as they are in the text.","section":"Fig. 3","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The paper is a solid and transparent update of earlier work, and the existence claim is likely to survive. The vulnerability is the relic-density treatment: the headline mDM window and the fine-tuning quantification rest on Eq. (5), whose thermal averaging and missing three-body channels are acknowledged only in a footnote and are not shown to be negligible. The h -> gamma gamma sign error should be caught in proof."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","letter":"Borah and Cline redo the inert-doublet strong-EWPT question with a better potential and a full MCMC, and the qualitative answer survives: there is a fine-tuned corner where vc/Tc > 1 and the neutral scalar is a viable thermal relic. The concrete numbers — mDM 60-67 GeV, mA and m± 260-320 GeV — are worth having, but they are softer than the abstract makes them sound. The stress-test note is right about the load-bearing issue, and I would add a separate bookkeeping error in the diphoton discussion. The paper is still worth a referee's time. What is genuinely new: the one-loop finite-temperature potential with resummation from Cline-Kainulainen-Trott replaces the high-T expansion of ref. [27], the scan covers all five potential parameters rather than a grid over a subspace, and relic density, XENON100 (2011 and 2012) and the invisible-Higgs width are imposed together. The revision of the heavy-Higgs window from 280-370 to 260-320 GeV, tied to λ1 < 3 rather than < 4, is a real update. The authors are also candid about the tuning: λ1 near 3, a 1.4% cancellation against λ2 + 2λ3, mDM within about 4 GeV of mh/2, and Landau poles at 2-5 TeV. That honesty counts for a lot. The soft spots, in order of weight. First, the relic-density criterion uses Eq. (5), the zero-velocity s-wave cross section summed over fermions only. Footnote 1 concedes thermal averaging was applied only approximately and only to fig. 2, and the 'mDM < mW so only ffbar' justification conflates the forbidden two-body WW channel with the allowed three-body WW* channel; at sqrt(s) ≈ 126 GeV the WW*/ZZ* fraction of the Higgs width is roughly a fifth to a quarter, so <σv> is underestimated by about that much. That directly moves the resonance tuning point and hence the 60-67 GeV window, and the paper never says whether the fig. 3 chains use the corrected cross section. Second, the MCMC is biased by hand with a = (vc/Tc)/λDM and dP/da ∝ a, and the fig. 3 histograms are read as predictions without a likelihood or a stated prior. The existence claim does not depend on this, but the quoted ranges do. Third, the diphoton discussion is internally inconsistent: Eq. (9) with its explicit minus sign and λ1 v^2 ≈ 2 m±^2 gives AH± ≈ -1/3, which enhances the amplitude magnitude by about 10%, matching the Section 5 sentence about an increase in the partial width but contradicting the abstract and conclusion's '10% decrease.' One of the two is wrong. This is a bookkeeping slip in a secondary prediction, not a threat to the main result, but it should be fixed. The 'prediction' of 60-67 GeV is really the resonance condition mDM ≈ mh/2 restated; the authors are explicit about the tuning, so I read this as framing rather than a hidden assumption. Who should read it: specialists in electroweak baryogenesis and scalar dark matter, and anyone setting LHC or direct-detection targets for the IDM. The mass window and the diphoton shift are useful handles even if the exact numbers move. Recommendation: send it out. The fixes are within reach — a corrected <σv> including WW*/ZZ*, a statement about which chains used it, and a consistent diphoton sign.","headline":"A real methodological upgrade over ref. [27] with an honest fine-tuning discussion, but the headline 60-67 GeV window rests on an approximate annihilation cross section and a hand-biased MCMC, and the diphoton section contradicts its own equation.","tokens_in":13521,"tokens_out":4942,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":95095,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["95.35.+d","98.80.Cq","12.60.Fr","14.80.Bn"],"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"A second Higgs doublet can supply dark matter and make the early-universe electroweak transition strongly first order, but only inside a narrow, finely tuned window of couplings.","keywords":["inert doublet model","electroweak phase transition","electroweak baryogenesis","scalar dark matter","Higgs portal","direct detection","fine-tuning","LHC Higgs signals"],"falsifier":"A dedicated calculation of the thermally averaged annihilation cross section, including all kinematically open channels and the full thermal average rather than the zero-velocity approximation, would show whether the resonance condition really requires $m_{DM}$ within a few GeV of $m_h/2$; if it does not, the predicted 60–67 GeV window and the V-shape of the allowed region move or disappear.","tokens_in":13731,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":2981,"duration_ms":51009,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"The paper asks whether the inert doublet model — the Standard Model plus a second Higgs doublet that is forbidden by a $Z_2$ symmetry from coupling to quarks and leptons — can do two jobs at once: supply the dark matter, and make the electroweak phase transition violent enough for electroweak baryogenesis, which needs $v_c/T_c > 1$ (the Higgs expectation value at the critical temperature divided by that temperature). Earlier work had answered yes using a crude high-temperature expansion of the finite-temperature potential; this paper redoes the calculation with a one-loop potential that keeps the full bosonic and fermionic thermal functions, adds resummation of thermal masses, and scans the whole coupling space by Markov chain Monte Carlo rather than a grid. The answer is still yes, but the surviving region is squeezed: the neutral scalar must sit within a few GeV of half the Higgs mass so that annihilation through a virtual Higgs is resonantly enhanced, and the coupling that controls direct detection must be cancelled by near-exact cancellations among three quartic couplings. If the authors are right, the model is not excluded, and it points at a definite target: a dark matter mass of 60–67 GeV and charged and CP-odd Higgses around 260–320 GeV.","feed_headline":"Dark matter at 60-67 GeV fits a strong early phase transition","feed_subtitle":"A full scan of the inert doublet model finds a narrow, finely tuned window where the electroweak transition is strong enough.","key_machinery":"The machinery is the one-loop finite-temperature effective potential in Landau gauge, including zero-temperature Coleman–Weinberg corrections with counterterms that preserve the tree-level mass and VEV relations, contributions from scalars, gauge bosons, Goldstone modes and the top quark, and resummation of thermal masses — the same treatment previously applied to general two-Higgs-doublet models. The figure of merit is $v_c/T_c$, the ratio of the Higgs expectation value to the critical temperature at the transition; values above 1 are what sphaleron washout arguments require for a net baryon asymmetry to survive. The second piece of machinery is the pair of dark-matter observables that share one coupling: the $s$-channel Higgs-exchange annihilation cross section $m_4^2 + 2m_5^2$, which sets the relic density, and the spin-independent nucleon cross section $m_4^2 + 2m_5^2$, which XENON100 bounds. Their common dependence on one parameter is what converts the relic-density requirement into a mass prediction near the Higgs resonance and simultaneously makes the direct-detection limit bite.","core_discovery":"The central claim is that the inert doublet model retains a significant, though fine-tuned, region of parameter space in which the electroweak phase transition is strong enough for baryogenesis while all the standard dark matter constraints are met. The authors scan five potential parameters ($m_1^2$, $m_2^2$, $m_3^2$, $m_4^2$, $m_5^2$) and find models with $v_c/T_c > 1$ near $m_h = 126$ GeV; among 14,400 chain models, 2,400 have $v_c/T_c > 1$ even though the chain was deliberately biased toward large $v_c/T_c$. The dark matter candidate is the lighter neutral scalar $H$, kept lighter than the CP-odd $A$ by taking $m_3^2 < 0$ and lighter than the charged scalar by requiring $m_4^2 + 2m_5^2 < 0$. Requiring the thermal relic density to match the WMAP value forces the annihilation cross section, which proceeds through $s$-channel Higgs exchange into $b$-quark pairs, to be near its resonance, so $m_H$ lands within about 4 GeV of $m_h/2$; combined with the XENON100 limit on the spin-independent nucleon cross section and the requirement that invisible Higgs decays not dominate the width, this yields the predicted window $m_{DM} = 60$–$67$ GeV. The charged and CP-odd Higgses are predicted in a narrow band, $m_3^2$–$320$ GeV, correlated with each other by electroweak precision observables. Because the same coupling $m_4^2 + 2m_5^2$ controls both annihilation and direct detection, satisfying both requires the large quartic coupling needed for the phase transition ($m_2^2$ in the range 2.6–3) to be cancelled by $m_4^2 + 2m_5^2$ at the level of about 1.4%, a tuning the authors report explicitly rather than hide. The charged Higgs loop also shifts the $h$-to-two-photon rate, giving roughly a 10% reduction in the branching ratio once the invisible channel is included.","pith_inferences":["The prediction is sharp enough to be checked against a future direct-detection result or an improved invisible-width measurement: a null signal in the 60–67 GeV window at the quoted cross section, or an invisible Higgs branching ratio well below the 40% benchmark, would remove the region rather than merely shrink it.","The paper's own footnote concedes that thermal averaging was only approximated, and only in one figure; a full thermal average could move the resonance condition and shift the quoted mass window, which makes the mass prediction the most fragile of the paper's outputs.","Because the same near-cancellation that suppresses direct detection also suppresses the Higgs portal, the model sits close to a decoupling limit where the dark sector is invisible to nucleon scattering but still visible in the Higgs width — a pattern worth checking in other Higgs-portal models.","The proposed monojet channel from $q\\bar{q} \\to HA$ followed by $A \\to ZH$ with a boosted $Z$ is a concrete handle the authors raise but do not compute; a dedicated collider study would test whether the 260–320 GeV window is reachable at all."],"forward_implications":["If the scenario holds, the dark matter mass is pinned to 60–67 GeV, close enough to half the 126 GeV Higgs mass that the annihilation cross section is resonantly enhanced.","The charged and CP-odd Higgs bosons should lie between roughly 260 and 320 GeV, with their masses correlated by electroweak precision data rather than by the dark matter sector.","The $h \\to \\gamma\\gamma$ branching ratio should come out near 90% of its Standard Model value, a reduction in the opposite direction from the upward fluctuation CMS had reported.","For dark matter masses below about 61 GeV, the invisible decay $h \\to HH$ should be visible at the LHC, with a 40% branching-ratio bound reachable at 20 fb$^{-1}$.","New physics must appear by 2–5 TeV, since the large quartic coupling required for the strong transition drives the Landau pole down to that scale."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"The earlier inert-doublet phase-transition study this paper re-examines and improves upon, which used a truncated high-temperature expansion and a grid scan.","marker":"[27]"},{"why":"Supplies the one-loop finite-temperature effective potential with thermal mass resummation and the MCMC scanning method adapted here to the inert doublet.","marker":"[28]"},{"why":"Source of the inert doublet dark matter framework and of the spin-independent nucleon cross section formula used for the XENON100 comparison.","marker":"[12]"},{"why":"Establishes the relic-density phenomenology of the inert doublet that the annihilation cross section calculation builds on.","marker":"[14]"},{"why":"Provides the WMAP seven-year relic density value and its uncertainty band used as the dark matter constraint.","marker":"[38]"},{"why":"The 2011 XENON100 90% confidence limit that sets the upper bound on the Higgs-portal coupling in the main scan.","marker":"[40]"},{"why":"The updated 2012 XENON100 limit shown alongside the earlier one in the coupling-versus-mass plane.","marker":"[41]"},{"why":"Supplies the projected 40% bound on invisible Higgs branching ratio that is imposed as a constraint and used to bound the dark matter mass from below.","marker":"[48]"},{"why":"Provides the LEP-II exclusion region in the neutral scalar mass plane that restricts the allowed dark matter and CP-odd masses.","marker":"[34]"},{"why":"The standard reference for the relation between the thermally averaged annihilation cross section and the relic abundance.","marker":"[37]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["An inert doublet scan finds a fine-tuned strong phase transition","Fine tuning keeps inert doublet dark matter at 60-67 GeV","Dark matter at 60-67 GeV requires about 1.4% tuning in the inert doublet","A biased inert doublet scan still finds a strong electroweak transition","The charged Higgs loop cuts h to two photons by about 10%"],"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The relic-density requirement is enforced using the zero-velocity annihilation cross section rather than a full thermal average, and the authors say in a footnote that thermal averaging was included only approximately and only in one figure, so the resonance tuning and the 60–67 GeV mass window rest on that simplified criterion.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["An inert doublet scan finds a fine-tuned strong phase transition","Fine tuning keeps inert doublet dark matter at 60-67 GeV","Dark matter at 60-67 GeV requires about 1.4% tuning in the inert doublet","A biased inert doublet scan still finds a strong electroweak transition","The charged Higgs loop cuts h to two photons by about 10%"]},"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","effort":"low","attempts":1,"cost_usd":0.0,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":2123,"prompt_tokens":1162,"completion_tokens":961,"prompt_tokens_details":null,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":873}},"tokens_in":1162,"tokens_out":961,"duration_ms":16067,"image_pages":[],"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_budget":50,"reasoning_tokens":873,"transport_provider":"selfhosted","cache_read_input_tokens":0,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-11-10T14:51:59.427355+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash"},"falsifier":"A dedicated calculation of the thermally averaged annihilation cross section, including all kinematically open channels and the full thermal average rather than the zero-velocity approximation, would show whether the resonance condition really requires $m_{DM}$ within a few GeV of $m_h/2$; if it does not, the predicted 60–67 GeV window and the V-shape of the allowed region move or disappear.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"Dark Matter as the Trigger of Strong Electroweak Phase Transition","cited_arxiv_id":"1110.5334","evidence_quote":"The earlier inert-doublet phase-transition study this paper re-examines and improves upon, which used a truncated high-temperature expansion and a grid scan."},{"cited_title":"Electroweak Baryogenesis in Two Higgs Doublet Models and B meson anomalies","cited_arxiv_id":"1107.3559","evidence_quote":"Supplies the one-loop finite-temperature effective potential with thermal mass resummation and the MCMC scanning method adapted here to the inert doublet."},{"cited_title":"Improved Naturalness with a Heavy Higgs: An Alternative Road to LHC Physics","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/0603188","evidence_quote":"Source of the inert doublet dark matter framework and of the spin-independent nucleon cross section formula used for the XENON100 comparison."},{"cited_title":"Lopez Honorez, E","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Establishes the relic-density phenomenology of the inert doublet that the annihilation cross section calculation builds on."},{"cited_title":"Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Sky Maps, Systematic Errors, and Basic Results","cited_arxiv_id":"1001.4744","evidence_quote":"Provides the WMAP seven-year relic density value and its uncertainty band used as the dark matter constraint."},{"cited_title":"Dark Matter Results from 100 Live Days of XENON100 Data","cited_arxiv_id":"1104.2549","evidence_quote":"The 2011 XENON100 90% confidence limit that sets the upper bound on the Higgs-portal coupling in the main scan."},{"cited_title":"Dark Matter Results from 225 Live Days of XENON100 Data","cited_arxiv_id":"1207.5988","evidence_quote":"The updated 2012 XENON100 limit shown alongside the earlier one in the coupling-versus-mass plane."},{"cited_title":"Measuring the Invisible Higgs Width at the 7 and 8 TeV LHC","cited_arxiv_id":"1112.4496","evidence_quote":"Supplies the projected 40% bound on invisible Higgs branching ratio that is imposed as a constraint and used to bound the dark matter mass from below."},{"cited_title":"Inert Doublet Model and LEP II Limits","cited_arxiv_id":"0810.3924","evidence_quote":"Provides the LEP-II exclusion region in the neutral scalar mass plane that restricts the allowed dark matter and CP-odd masses."},{"cited_title":"Supersymmetric Dark Matter","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/9506380","evidence_quote":"The standard reference for the relation between the thermally averaged annihilation cross section and the relic abundance."}],"review_version":1}