Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Coscattering Dark Matter in the Inverse Scotogenic Models

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Nearly degenerate dark scalars can produce dark matter through coscattering, avoiding the usual direct-detection and lepton-flavor exclusions.

desk verdict A credible, carefully done phenomenology paper on scalar coscattering in the inverse scotogenic model; the main caveat—vanishing dark-scalar self-couplings—is real but openly flagged by the authors. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.13231 v2 pith:AO2E25S5 submitted 2025-10-15 hep-ph

Ang Liu , Zhi-Long Han , Fei Huang , Feng-Lan Shao , Wei Wang This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d12.60.-i
keywords darkmattercoscatteringscotogenicmodelscalarHiggsportalYukawadisplacedvertexnear-degeneratescalars
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the inverse scotogenic model, a framework that ties dark matter to tiny neutrino masses through loop processes, can produce the observed dark matter abundance by coscattering rather than ordinary thermal freeze-out. The key is to make the two lightest Z2-odd scalars nearly degenerate in mass, mφ1 ≲ mφ2, so the slightly heavier φ2 converts into φ1 through inelastic scattering off standard-model particles (φ2 + SM → φ1 + SM) while φ1 itself barely annihilates. The authors show this works through either the Higgs portal or the Yukawa portal, opening a wide parameter space: dark matter masses up to about 1.1 TeV in the Higgs case and 4 TeV in the Yukawa case, with mass splittings of a few GeV and small couplings that naturally escape existing bounds. If correct, a common-origin explanation of neutrino mass and dark matter need not be tuned to avoid lepton flavor violation and direct detection.

What carries the argument

The central object is the inelastic conversion process φ2 + SM → φ1 + SM, enabled by the small mass gap Δmφ ≡ mφ2 − mφ1. For coscattering to set the relic density, three conditions must hold at freeze-out: φ1 remains in kinetic equilibrium with the SM; no chemical potential develops for φ1 (φ2 annihilation is efficient); and the last reactions to decouple are the number-changing exchanges between φ1 and φ2. The coupled Boltzmann equations track both abundances; the near-degeneracy suppresses φ1 pair annihilation while the conversion keeps feeding φ1, so φ1 decouples early and its final abundance is determined by the depletion of the conversion reaction. The same near-degeneracy kinematically

What would settle it

A future measurement or upper bound on the dark scalar quartic couplings (e.g., λ22 ≳ 0.1 generating φ2φ2 → φ1φ1) would shrink the coscattering window. A null result from displaced-vertex searches at the LHC/HL-LHC for the predicted Δmφ = 10 GeV parameter space (mφ2 ≲ 200 GeV, cτφ2 ~ 10^-2 to 10^4 m) would exclude the most promising Higgs-portal samples; similarly, DARWIN excluding λ1 ~ 10^-3 at mφ1 around 0.1-1 TeV would rule out the least-coupled regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the inverse scotogenic model, when the two lightest dark scalars are nearly degenerate (mφ1 ≲ mφ2), the relic abundance of the lightest scalar φ1 is set not by φ1φ1 annihilation but by the conversion process φ1 + SM → φ2 + SM (coscattering) together with φ1φ2 → SM + SM coannihilation. Through the Higgs portal (λ2 ~ 1, λ12 ~ 10^-4, Δmφ ~ 1-10 GeV) the viable range for φ1 extends to about 1.1 TeV; through the Yukawa portal (y2 ~ 1, y1 ≲ 10^-4, Δmφ up to about 40 GeV) it extends to about 4 TeV. In both portals the required couplings are small enough to satisfy direct detection, Higgs-decay bounds, lepton flavor violation, BBN/CMB limits, and current collider constraints. The heavier partner

Load-bearing premise

The dark scalar quartic self-couplings λ22, λ13, and λ31 are assumed to be exactly zero; if any of these is of order 0.1, the extra conversion processes they generate would shift or erase the coscattering parameter space claimed in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the coscattering regime is correct, the dark matter mass is tied to the near-degeneracy: φ1 below roughly 1.1 TeV in the Higgs-portal case and 4 TeV in the Yukawa-portal case, with Δmφ of order 1-10 GeV.
  • The large coupling of the heavier partner (λ2 ~ 1 or y2 ~ 1) combined with a tiny φ1 coupling (λ1 or y1) naturally suppresses both direct-detection and lepton-flavor-violating signals.
  • The heavier scalar φ2 is long-lived and decays via three-body φ2 → φ1 f f, so the model predicts displaced-vertex events at the LHC/HL-LHC for Δmφ = 10 GeV, with additional sensitivity in dilepton-plus-missing-energy searches in the Yukawa case.
  • BBN constrains the longest-lived samples (τφ2 ≳ 50 s); for Δmφ = 1 GeV much of the Higgs-portal coscattering region is threatened unless the mass splitting is larger.
  • The two portals are experimentally distinguishable by the φ2 decay products: hadronic final states for the Higgs portal, leptonic final states for the Yukawa portal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this picture is right, present-day annihilation of φ1 pairs is very slow (⟨σv⟩ ≲ 10^-28 cm^3/s for the Higgs portal and ≲10^-37 for the Yukawa portal), so indirect-detection experiments should see nothing; a null signal is the expectation.
  • A measurement of the φ1-φ2 mass splitting, for instance from displaced-vertex kinematics, would directly confirm the mechanism; finding a splitting above roughly 20-40 GeV would disfavor coscattering in favor of ordinary WIMP or coannihilation regimes.
  • The same near-degenerate two-scalar structure could be imported into other radiative neutrino-mass models; the essential ingredients are a small mass gap and a large coupling of the heavier state to the thermal bath.
  • The assumption of exactly vanishing scalar quartics is pivotal; if λ22 (the φ1^2 φ2^2 coupling) is instead O(0.1), conversion processes like φ2φ2 → φ1φ1 would dilute or destroy the coscattering phase, making an upper bound on these quartics a decisive test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies scalar dark matter in the inverse scotogenic model, a variant of the scotogenic mechanism in which the Z2-odd sector contains two nearly degenerate real singlet scalars φ1, φ2 (plus a heavier φ3), a fermion doublet Ψ and a singlet χ. With φ1 as the lightest Z2-odd particle, the authors consider two limiting interaction structures: the Higgs-portal scenario (λ_i and λ_12 dominate) and the Yukawa-portal scenario (y_i dominate). In each case they write coupled Boltzmann equations for the co-evolution of the φ1 and φ2 number densities, including annihilation, coannihilation, conversion through inelastic scattering off the SM bath (φ2 SM→φ1 SM), and the long-lived decay φ2→φ1 f\bar{f}. They impose the Planck relic-density interval and identify three dynamical phases (coscattering, coannihilation, WIMP) as a function of the mass splitting Δm_φ and the relevant coupling. They then subject the surviving parameter space to constraints from LZ/DARWIN direct detection, invisible and undetected ATLAS Higgs decays, Fermi-LAT/H.E.S.S./CTA indirect detection, BBN and CMB limits on late decays, LFV (μ→eγ), and LHC/HL-LHC displaced-vertex and dilepton searches. The main quantitative claims are a Higgs-portal coscattering window for m_φ1 ≲ 1.1 TeV and a much wider Yukawa-portal window with m_φ1 up to about 4 TeV, with the displaced-vertex signature observable at part of the parameter space.

Significance. The paper is a carefully executed phenomenological study. Its main strength is the systematic treatment of a non-trivial multi-component Boltzmann system and the inclusion of the most relevant experimental and cosmological constraints. The authors are transparent about several approximations: the use of thermally averaged decay widths, the optimistic DV assumptions (zero background, unit efficiency, N_DV=3), and the O(10%) kinetic-equilibrium uncertainty in the Yukawa portal. If the central assumption of vanishing dark-sector scalar self-couplings can be justified or shown to be robust, the paper would establish that scalar coscattering in the inverse scotogenic model opens a broad, partly testable parameter space that is not excluded by current WIMP constraints. The cross-section and constraint evaluation rely on well-established tools (micrOMEGAs, MadGraph) and are reproducible in principle, though no code is provided. The identification of distinct collider/cosmological signatures for the Higgs vs. Yukawa portals is a useful contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (1) and following text] The assumption λ22=λ13=λ31=0 is load-bearing but is introduced 'for simplicity' without symmetry or naturalness justification. These φ4 and φ3 terms are allowed by the Z2 symmetry and, if O(0.1), would add s- and t-channel contributions to the conversion processes φ2φ2→φ1φ1, φ2φi→φ1φj, which are currently mediated only by the Higgs or the Yukawa exchanges. Since the relic density in the coscattering regime is set by a balance between conversion, annihilation, and coannihilation, turning on these quartics will shift the phase boundaries in Figures 2 and 8 and the relic-density contours in Figures 3 and 9; the paper itself notes that including them 'would contribute to the conversion processes, thus weakening the effect of the Higgs portal interaction.' Please either provide a symmetry or a quantitative estimate of how large these couplings can be before the claimed coscattering windows an
  2. [Section IV.A, after Eq. (20)] The authors acknowledge that in the Yukawa-portal coscattering regime φ1 is not guaranteed to be in kinetic equilibrium and that this gives 'O(10%) difference in the final relic density compared to the complete result [50].' The standard equilibrium Boltzmann equations are nevertheless used to set the relic-density constraint, which determines y1 and hence the phase classification in Figures 8 and 9. A 10% systematic error in the relic density corresponds to an O(10%) shift in the required y1, which can move the coscattering/coannihilation boundaries and change the extracted m_φ1 reach. Please assess the impact of this approximation on the claimed Yukawa-portal reach, e.g., by recomputing at least the benchmark points with the full treatment of Ref. [50] or by showing that the phase boundaries shift by less than the quoted uncertainties.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] 'alerts the predictions' should be 'affects the predictions'; 'contrastive coannihilation channel' should be 'contrasting coannihilation channel'.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (1)] The potential also contains λ14/12 φ1^4 and λ24/12 φ2^4; the text says 'vanishing self-interactions' but only sets λ22=λ13=λ31=0. Please clarify whether λ14 and λ24 are also set to zero and, if not, whether they affect the relic-density calculation.
  3. [Sections III.C and IV.C] The displaced-vertex sensitivity is estimated under the optimistic assumptions of zero background and unit detection efficiency; the resulting reach is therefore an upper bound. The paper should state this caveat more prominently in the conclusions.
  4. [Section IV.B] The neutrino-mass generation is not checked for the scanned benchmarks. Since the model is scotogenic, it would be helpful to state that the chosen y_i can be embedded in a flavor structure satisfying the observed neutrino masses and mixing (e.g., through the mixing matrix ξ in Eq. (3)).
  5. [Eqs. (23)-(24)] The Fermi constant G_f and the loop function G(a) use the same letter; please use G_F for clarity.
  6. [Eq. (8)] The notation θ′(x) for the Heaviside function is nonstandard; use θ(x) or H(x).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: relic density is imposed as an external constraint, couplings are fitted to it, and the predicted collider/cosmological signatures are derived downstream; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's central calculation is a standard freeze-out model-building exercise rather than a disguised fit. The relic density is explicitly imposed as an external input: "The DM relic density is required within the 3σ range of the Planck result [3], i.e., Ωφ1h² ∈ [0.117,0.123]". The scan then fixes λ12 or y1 to satisfy this bound, which is not called a prediction. The subsequent constraints (LZ, ATLAS, Fermi-LAT, BBN/CMB, displaced-vertex rates) are evaluated on the surviving parameter points, so they are independent falsifiable checks rather than inputs to the fit. The cross sections and decay widths come from external codes and standard formulas (micrOMEGAs, MadGraph), and the model and coscattering mechanism are attributed to external references ([68], [49,50], [55]). The self-citations ([23]-[27], [35], [36], [62]) appear only in the literature review and are not load-bearing for the derivation. The one notable weakness is the unmotivated assumption λ22=λ13=λ31=0, which is disclosed "for simplicity" with the explicit acknowledgment that including these quartics would weaken the chosen portal; this is an assumption that limits robustness, not an input-output circularity. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper inherits the inverse scotogenic model and standard thermal cosmology from the literature. Its own choices are the vanishing scalar self-couplings, the large Δm_F benchmark, small λ1/y1 scans, and optimistic displaced-vertex counting. The relic density is imposed as a constraint and fixes λ12/y1 rather than being predicted independently.

free parameters (8)
  • m_phi1 = scanned 10-2000 GeV (Higgs portal), 10-5000 GeV (Yukawa portal)
    Dark matter mass; the central scan variable in all phase diagrams.
  • Delta_m_phi = benchmarks 1 GeV and 10 GeV; phase diagrams up to ~72 GeV
    Mass splitting between φ2 and φ1; determines coscattering vs coannihilation and the φ2 lifetime.
  • lambda_1 = scanned 10^-4 - 1; fixed at 10^-3 for phase diagrams
    Higgs-portal coupling of the dark matter φ1; controls direct-detection scattering.
  • lambda_2 = benchmarks 1 and 0.1; coscattering requires lambda_2 ≳ 0.4
    Higgs-portal coupling of the heavier scalar φ2; controls annihilation and conversion rates.
  • lambda_12 = chosen to satisfy Ω h² ∈ [0.117,0.123]; O(10^-4) in coscattering, up to O(0.1) in coannihilation
    Mixed φ1-φ2 Higgs-portal coupling; effectively fitted to the relic density.
  • y1 = scanned 10^-6 - 1; coscattering typically y1 ≲ 6×10^-4
    Effective Yukawa coupling of φ1; set by relic density and constrained by LFV and φ2 lifetime.
  • y2 = benchmarks 1 and 0.3; coscattering requires y2 ≳ 0.4
    Effective Yukawa coupling of φ2; controls φ2 annihilation and conversion.
  • Delta_m_F = scanned 100-2000 GeV; benchmark 1000 GeV
    Mass splitting between the doublet fermion and φ2; chosen large to suppress Ψ conversion interference.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The inverse scotogenic particle content and Z2 symmetry are adopted as the model, including φ1, φ2, φ3, Ψ, χ.
    Section II; the model is taken from Ref. [68] and not re-derived.
  • standard math Standard Friedmann cosmology with g_s, g_*, and Y_SM = 0.238 is used in the Boltzmann equations.
    Section III A; standard thermal freeze-out treatment.
  • ad hoc to paper Dark scalar self-interactions vanish: λ22 = λ13 = λ31 = 0.
    Section II; suppresses conversion channels that would compete with the chosen portals.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar mass hierarchy m_φ1 ≲ m_φ2 ≪ m_φ3 holds.
    Section II; makes φ3 irrelevant for dark matter phenomenology.
  • ad hoc to paper The doublet-singlet fermion mixing is small, so m_F = m_ψ± ≈ m_ψ0.
    Section II, after Eq. (2); simplifies the fermion sector.
  • domain assumption φ1 is assumed to remain in kinetic equilibrium with the SM; the Yukawa-portal case is acknowledged to violate this and introduce O(10%) relic-density uncertainty.
    Section IV A and Fig. 7 discussion; the paper models relic density without a full solution of kinetic decoupling.
  • domain assumption The nucleon matrix element constant C ≈ 0.3 in the direct-detection cross section.
    Eq. (11); standard nuclear input, not derived in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Displaced-vertex sensitivity assumes zero background, unit detection efficiency, and N_DV = 3 for exclusion.
    Eqs. (17) and (28), Section III C and IV C; labeled by the authors as an optimistic estimate.
invented entities (1)
  • Heavier Z2-odd scalar partner φ2 independent evidence
    purpose: Sustains coscattering via φ2 SM → φ1 SM and provides long-lived displaced-vertex signatures through three-body decays.
    φ2 is not invented in this paper — it is part of the inverse scotogenic model of Ref. [68] — but the paper makes falsifiable predictions for its lifetime and production cross section that are not used to fit the couplings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coscattering Dark Matter in the Inverse Scotogenic Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AO2E25S5

@misc{pith2026251013231,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coscattering Dark Matter in the Inverse Scotogenic Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AO2E25S5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.13231}
}
abstract

The Scotogenic mechanism is an appealing pathway to naturally explain the common origin of dark matter and tiny neutrino mass. However, the conventional scotogenic dark matter usually suffers stringent constraints from the non-observation of lepton flavor violation and direct detection. To generate the non-zero neutrino masses, at least two generations of dark particles are required. For example, two real scalar singlets $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are involved in the inverse scotogenic model, which are odd under the $Z_2$ symmetry. In this paper, we consider the masses of dark scalars are nearly degenerate $m_{\phi_1}\lesssim m_{\phi_2}$, which opens new viable pathway for the generation of dark matter $\phi_1$, such as the coscattering process $\phi_1\text{SM}\to \phi_2 \text{SM}$ and coannihilation processes $\phi_1 \phi_2 \to \text{SM~SM}$ via the Higgs portal or Yukawa portal interactions. We explore the parameter space to produce the correct relic density through coscattering, as well as the contrastive coannihilation channel. We then comprehensively study the constraints of dark matter from Higgs decay, direct detection, and indirect detection. For the heavier dark scalar, the three-body decay $\phi_2\to\phi_1 f\bar{f}$ not only alerts the predictions of big bang nucleosynthesis and cosmic microwave background, but also leads to the observable displaced vertex signature at colliders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.13231 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The evolutions of various abundances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Freeze-out phase diagrams in the parameter spaces of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Direct detection and ATLAS constraints on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Constraints from the indirect detection experiments in the Higgs portal scenario. Panels (a)-(d) represent the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. CMB and BBN constraints on the dark partner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The sensitive region of the one DV signature at LHC (gray solid lines) and future HL-LHC (gray dashed lines) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Coscattering (a) and coannihilation (b) benchmarks for the Yukawa portal scenario. The thermal rates in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Freeze-out phase diagrams in the parameter spaces of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Sample distribution in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Constraints from the indirect detection experiments in the Yukawa portal scenario. The gray solid, black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The sensitive region of the one DV signature at LHC (gray solid lines) and future HL-LHC (gray dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The sensitivities of dilepton signature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Reviving $Z^\prime$ Portal Dark Matter with Conversion Mechanism

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In a U(1)_{B-L} Z' portal model with two nearly degenerate dark fermions, the conversion mechanism can produce the observed dark matter relic density while evading current collider and direct-detection constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 95 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [50]

    Garny, J

    M. Garny, J. Heisig, B. L ¨ulf and S. V ogl, Phys. Rev. D96, no.10, 103521 (2017) [arXiv:1705.09292 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [1]

    Fukudaet al.[Super-Kamiokande], Phys

    Y . Fukudaet al.[Super-Kamiokande], Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 1562-1567 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ex/9807003 [hep-ex]]. 27

    arXiv 1998

  3. [2]

    Q. R. Ahmadet al.[SNO], Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 011301 (2002) [arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2002

  4. [3]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652, C4 (2021)] [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279-390 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0404175 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2005

  6. [5]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and J. Zupan, [arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  7. [6]

    Dodelson and L

    S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 17-20 (1994) [arXiv:hep-ph/9303287 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1994

  8. [7]

    L. M. Krauss, S. Nasri and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D67, 085002 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0210389 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2003

Show all 99 references
  1. [8]

    Asaka, S

    T. Asaka, S. Blanchet and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B631, 151-156 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0503065 [hep- ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Ma, Phys

    E. Ma, Phys. Lett. B662, 49-52 (2008) [arXiv:0708.3371 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [10]

    M. Aoki, S. Kanemura and O. Seto, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 051805 (2009) [arXiv:0807.0361 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Gustafsson, J

    M. Gustafsson, J. M. No and M. A. Rivera, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, no.21, 211802 (2013) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.112, no.25, 259902 (2014)] [arXiv:1212.4806 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Restrepo, O

    D. Restrepo, O. Zapata and C. E. Yaguna, JHEP11, 011 (2013) [arXiv:1308.3655 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Aristizabal Sierra, A

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, A. Degee, L. Dorame and M. Hirsch, JHEP03, 040 (2015) [arXiv:1411.7038 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Ma, Phys

    E. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, no.1, 011801 (2015) [arXiv:1502.02200 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Escudero, N

    M. Escudero, N. Rius and V . Sanz, JHEP02, 045 (2017) [arXiv:1606.01258 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Escudero, N

    M. Escudero, N. Rius and V . Sanz, Eur. Phys. J. C77, no.6, 397 (2017) [arXiv:1607.02373 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Y . Cai, J. Herrero-Garc ´ıa, M. A. Schmidt, A. Vicente and R. R. V olkas, Front. in Phys.5, 63 (2017) [arXiv:1706.08524 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    C. Y . Yao and G. J. Ding, Phys. Rev. D96, no.9, 095004 (2017) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D98, no.3, 039901 (2018)] [arXiv:1707.09786 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Becker, Eur

    M. Becker, Eur. Phys. J. C79, no.7, 611 (2019) [arXiv:1806.08579 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Centelles Chuli ´a, R

    S. Centelles Chuli ´a, R. Cepedello, E. Peinado and R. Srivastava, JHEP10, 093 (2019) [arXiv:1907.08630 [hep- ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    De Gouv ˆea, M

    A. De Gouv ˆea, M. Sen, W. Tangarife and Y . Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, no.8, 081802 (2020) [arXiv:1910.04901 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    K. J. Kelly, M. Sen and Y . Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, no.4, 041101 (2021) [arXiv:2011.02487 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A. Liu, F. L. Shao, Z. L. Han, Y . Jin and H. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.5, 423 (2023) [arXiv:2205.11846 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    A. Liu, F. L. Shao, Z. L. Han, Y . Jin and H. Li, Phys. Rev. D108, no.11, 115028 (2023) [arXiv:2212.10043 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    A. Liu, Z. L. Han, Y . Jin and H. Li, Phys. Rev. D108, no.7, 075021 (2023) [arXiv:2306.14091 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    A. Liu, F. L. Shao, Z. L. Han, Y . Jin and H. Li, Phys. Rev. D109, no.5, 055027 (2024) [arXiv:2308.12588 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    C. X. Yang, Z. L. Han, F. Huang, Y . Jin and H. Li, JCAP09, 010 (2025) [arXiv:2506.16100 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [28]

    I. M. ´Avila, A. Karan, S. Mandal, S. Sadhukhan and J. W. F. Valle, [arXiv:2506.24027 [hep-ph]]

  22. [29]

    S. Y . Guo and M. Y . Zhao, [arXiv:2508.16362 [hep-ph]]. 28

  23. [30]

    Z. j. Tao, Phys. Rev. D54, 5693-5697 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9603309 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Ma, Phys

    E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D73, 077301 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0601225 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  25. [32]

    J. Kubo, E. Ma and D. Suematsu, Phys. Lett. B642, 18-23 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0604114 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Toma and A

    T. Toma and A. Vicente, JHEP01, 160 (2014) [arXiv:1312.2840 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Vicente and C

    A. Vicente and C. E. Yaguna, JHEP02, 144 (2015) [arXiv:1412.2545 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [35]

    S. Y . Guo and Z. L. Han, JHEP12, 062 (2020) [arXiv:2005.08287 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [36]

    J. Liu, Z. L. Han, Y . Jin and H. Li, JHEP12, 057 (2022) [arXiv:2207.07382 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro and T. Schwetz, JHEP12, 216 (2024) [arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Athronet al.[GAMBIT], Eur

    P. Athronet al.[GAMBIT], Eur. Phys. J. C79, no.1, 38 (2019) [arXiv:1808.10465 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Arcadi, A

    G. Arcadi, A. Djouadi and M. Kado, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.7, 653 (2021) [arXiv:2101.02507 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [40]

    I. M. ´Avila, G. Cottin and M. A. D´ıaz, J. Phys. G49, no.6, 065001 (2022) [arXiv:2108.05103 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Abouabid, A

    H. Abouabid, A. Arhrib, A. Hmissou and L. Rahili, Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.6, 632 (2024) [arXiv:2302.03767 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Aprileet al.[XENON], Phys

    E. Aprileet al.[XENON], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.4, 041003 (2023) [arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Boet al.[PandaX], Phys

    Z. Boet al.[PandaX], Phys. Rev. Lett.134, no.1, 011805 (2025) [arXiv:2408.00664 [hep-ex]]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Aalberset al.[LZ], Phys

    J. Aalberset al.[LZ], Phys. Rev. Lett.135, no.1, 011802 (2025) [arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Molinaro, C

    E. Molinaro, C. E. Yaguna and O. Zapata, JCAP07, 015 (2014) [arXiv:1405.1259 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Borah and A

    D. Borah and A. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D96, no.11, 115012 (2017) [arXiv:1706.05034 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Baumholzer, V

    S. Baumholzer, V . Brdar and P. Schwaller, JHEP08, 067 (2018) [arXiv:1806.06864 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Baumholzer, V

    S. Baumholzer, V . Brdar, P. Schwaller and A. Segner, JHEP09, 136 (2020) [arXiv:1912.08215 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [49]

    R. T. D’Agnolo, D. Pappadopulo and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, no.6, 061102 (2017) [arXiv:1705.08450 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Garny, J

    M. Garny, J. Heisig, M. Hufnagel and B. L ¨ulf, Phys. Rev. D97, no.7, 075002 (2018) [arXiv:1802.00814 [hep- ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    R. T. D’Agnolo, C. Mondino, J. T. Ruderman and P. J. Wang, JHEP08, 079 (2018) [arXiv:1803.02901 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    H. C. Cheng, L. Li and R. Zheng, JHEP09, 098 (2018) [arXiv:1805.12139 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Junius, L

    S. Junius, L. Lopez-Honorez and A. Mariotti, JHEP07, 136 (2019) [arXiv:1904.07513 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    R. T. D’Agnolo, D. Pappadopulo, J. T. Ruderman and P. J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, no.15, 151801 (2020) [arXiv:1906.09269 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Br ¨ummer, JHEP01, 113 (2020) [arXiv:1910.01549 [hep-ph]]

    F. Br ¨ummer, JHEP01, 113 (2020) [arXiv:1910.01549 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Garny and J

    M. Garny and J. Heisig, Phys. Rev. D105, no.5, 055004 (2022) [arXiv:2112.01499 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Filimonova, S

    A. Filimonova, S. Junius, L. Lopez Honorez and S. Westhoff, JHEP06, 048 (2022) [arXiv:2201.08409 [hep- ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Acaro ˘glu, M

    H. Acaro ˘glu, M. Blanke, J. Heisig, M. Kr ¨amer and L. Rathmann, JHEP06, 179 (2024) [arXiv:2312.09274 [hep-ph]]. 29

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Heisig, A

    J. Heisig, A. Lessa and L. M. D. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D110, no.1, 1 (2024) [arXiv:2404.16086 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    D ´ıaz S´aez, Phys

    B. D ´ıaz S´aez, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101852 (2025) [arXiv:2405.06113 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J. J. Zhang, Z. L. Han, A. Liu and F. L. Shao, Nucl. Phys. B1014, 116864 (2025) [arXiv:2411.06744 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    P. K. Paul, S. K. Sahoo and N. Sahu, [arXiv:2412.02607 [hep-ph]]

  56. [64]

    B ´elanger, M

    G. B ´elanger, M. Mitra, R. Padhan and A. Roy, [arXiv:2508.06040 [hep-ph]]

  57. [65]

    Heeck, J

    J. Heeck, J. Heisig and A. Thapa, Phys. Rev. D107, no.1, 015028 (2023) [arXiv:2211.13013 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Heisig, Phys

    J. Heisig, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, no.19, 19 (2024) [arXiv:2404.12428 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Ma, Phys

    E. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 1171-1174 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9805219 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Fraser, E

    S. Fraser, E. Ma and O. Popov, Phys. Lett. B737, 280-282 (2014) [arXiv:1408.4785 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    D ´ıaz S´aez, J

    B. D ´ıaz S´aez, J. Lahiri and K. M¨ohling, JCAP10, 001 (2024) [arXiv:2404.19057 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Hooper, G

    D. Hooper, G. Krnjaic, D. Rocha and S. Roy, [arXiv:2507.22975 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    J. Guo, J. Liu, C. Peng and X. P. Wang, [arXiv:2508.13276 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    J. A. Casas, D. G. Cerde ˜no, J. M. Moreno and J. Quilis, JHEP05, 036 (2017) [arXiv:1701.08134 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Bhattacharya, P

    S. Bhattacharya, P. Ghosh, T. N. Maity and T. S. Ray, JHEP10, 088 (2017) [arXiv:1706.04699 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  66. [74]

    T. N. Maity and T. S. Ray, Phys. Rev. D101, no.10, 103013 (2020) [arXiv:1908.10343 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Konar, A

    P. Konar, A. Mukherjee, A. K. Saha and S. Show, Phys. Rev. D102, no.1, 015024 (2020) [arXiv:2001.11325 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  68. [76]

    S. Esch, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea and C. E. Yaguna, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.2, 88 (2018) [arXiv:1602.05137 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 960-985 (2014) [arXiv:1305.0237 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Alguero, G

    G. Alguero, G. Belanger, S. Kraml and A. Pukhov, SciPost Phys.13, 124 (2022) [arXiv:2207.10536 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [79]

    J. Guo, Y . He, J. Liu and X. P. Wang, JHEP04, 024 (2022) [arXiv:2111.01164 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Aalberset al.[DARWIN], JCAP11, 017 (2016) [arXiv:1606.07001 [astro-ph.IM]]

    J. Aalberset al.[DARWIN], JCAP11, 017 (2016) [arXiv:1606.07001 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2016 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B842, 137963 (2023) [arXiv:2301.10731 [hep-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Nature607, no.7917, 52-59 (2022) [erratum: Nature612, no.7941, E24 (2022)] [arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Nature607, no.7917, 52-59 (2022) [erratum: Nature612, no.7941, E24 (2022)] [arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi and Y . Takaesu, Phys. Rev. D97, no.2, 023502 (2018) [arXiv:1709.01211 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Tucker-Smith and N

    D. Tucker-Smith and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D64, 043502 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0101138 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Bramante, P

    J. Bramante, P. J. Fox, G. D. Kribs and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D94, no.11, 115026 (2016) [arXiv:1608.02662 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Ackermannet al.[Fermi-LAT], Phys

    M. Ackermannet al.[Fermi-LAT], Phys. Rev. Lett.115, no.23, 231301 (2015) [arXiv:1503.02641 [astro- ph.HE]]

    2015 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Abdallahet al.[H.E.S.S.], Phys

    H. Abdallahet al.[H.E.S.S.], Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no.11, 111301 (2016) [arXiv:1607.08142 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2016 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Acharyyaet al.[CTA], JCAP01, 057 (2021) [arXiv:2007.16129 [astro-ph.HE]]

    A. Acharyyaet al.[CTA], JCAP01, 057 (2021) [arXiv:2007.16129 [astro-ph.HE]]. 30

    2021 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Lucca, N

    M. Lucca, N. Sch ¨oneberg, D. C. Hooper, J. Lesgourgues and J. Chluba, JCAP02, 026 (2020) [arXiv:1910.04619 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  82. [90]

    S. K. Acharya and R. Khatri, JCAP12, 046 (2019) [arXiv:1910.06272 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Craig, H

    N. Craig, H. K. Lou, M. McCullough and A. Thalapillil, JHEP02, 127 (2016) [arXiv:1412.0258 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Ruhdorfer, E

    M. Ruhdorfer, E. Salvioni and A. Weiler, SciPost Phys.8, 027 (2020) [arXiv:1910.04170 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.2, 123 (2020) [arXiv:1908.08215 [hep-ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  86. [94]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], JHEP04, 123 (2021) [arXiv:2012.08600 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  87. [95]

    K. A. Urqu ´ıa-Calder´on, Phys. Rev. D109, no.5, 055002 (2024) [arXiv:2310.17406 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, JHEP06, 128 (2011) [arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Afanacievet al.[MEG II], [arXiv:2504.15711 [hep-ex]]

    K. Afanacievet al.[MEG II], [arXiv:2504.15711 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  90. [98]

    P. Das, M. K. Das and N. Khan, Nucl. Phys. B964, 115307 (2021) [arXiv:2001.04070 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Hambye, M

    T. Hambye, M. Hufnagel and M. Lucca, JCAP05, no.05, 033 (2022) [arXiv:2112.09137 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.