Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 101 references

Inelastic extra $U(1)$ charged scalar dark matter

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Thermal-relic scalar dark matter can have present-day annihilation below $10^{-31}\,\mathrm{cm}^3/\mathrm{s}$: an extra $U(1)$ gauge force sets the relic density by coannihilation, while today's signals are suppressed Higgs-exchange…

desk verdict A clean existence proof for inelastic extra U(1) scalar dark matter with suppressed present annihilation, worth refereeing, but the suppression depends on a technically unnatural benchmark that needs a radiative-stability check. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09277 v2 pith:NKWT5SGF submitted 2019-08-25 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Nobuchika Okada , Osamu Seto This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO PACS 95.35.+d
keywords inelasticdarkmatterscalarcoannihilationextraU(1)gaugesymmetrythermalrelicabundancedirectdetectionexperimentsZ'bosonmuong-2anomaly
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

Direct detection null results force a scalar WIMP that annihilates through the SM Higgs to have a present-day annihilation cross section below about $10^{-31}\,\mathrm{cm}^3/\mathrm{s}$ for most masses, far below the value needed to be a thermal relic. The paper shows that a complex scalar charged under an extra $U(1)$ gauge symmetry escapes this tension: the observed relic abundance is set by $Z'$-mediated coannihilation at freeze-out, while the same gauge boson cannot mediate elastic scattering off nuclei because its coupling is off-diagonal (inelastic), and present-day annihilation proceeds only through Higgs exchange with very small couplings. Viable parameter regions are identified in three anomaly-free models, $U(1)_{B-L}$, $U(1)_{(B-L)_3}$ and $U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$, and the flavored versions admit weak-scale or even sub-GeV dark matter with links to the muon $g-2$ anomaly, the Hubble tension and the 47 Tucanae gamma-ray excess. If the construction is correct, a thermal-relic WIMP with essentially no present-day annihilation signal is a concrete possibility rather than a fine-tuned exception.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the nearly degenerate pair of real scalars $(S,P)$ that form a complex dark matter field charged under an extra $U(1)$, split in mass by the trilinear term $A(\varphi_1\varphi_1\varphi_2^\dagger+\mathrm{h.c.})$ that couples it to the $U(1)$-breaking Higgs. That one term does two jobs: it sets the small splitting $m_P-m_S=0.01\,m_S$, keeping the partner $P$ thermally abundant at freeze-out so that coannihilation (the pair-annihilation of $S$ together with $P$) through $s$-channel $Z'$ exchange sets the relic density, and it makes the gauge coupling off-diagonal, so that $Z'$-mediated dark matter-nucleus scattering is inelastic and kinematically suppressed. The remaining machinery is the effective thermally-averaged cross section that weights $S$ and $P$ annihilation channels by their equilibrium abundances (used to integrate the Boltzmann equation), and the $\lambda_4$, $\sin\alpha$-suppressed Higgs-exchange couplings that set both the present annihilation rate and the elastic scattering cross section.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop quantum corrections to $\lambda_4$ and $\sin\alpha$ in any of the three models: if the corrected effective Higgs-dark matter coupling pushes the spin-independent scattering cross section above the XENON1T limit (about $10^{-47}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ for the relevant masses) anywhere along the relic-density contours, the claimed suppression is not realized. A cheaper direct check: for the sub-GeV $U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ branch at $m_S\simeq0.1\,\mathrm{GeV}$, compare the couplings required to reproduce $\Omega h^2\simeq0.1$ against dark matter-electron scattering and CMB bounds on annihilation into neutrinos, which the paper does not apply.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that freeze-out and the present-day signals of scalar dark matter can be carried by different interactions, decoupling the relic abundance from direct and indirect detection. In the construction, the dark sector is a complex scalar $\varphi_1$ with charge $+1$ under a new $U(1)$, plus a Higgs field $\varphi_2$ with charge $+2$ that breaks the symmetry; after symmetry breaking, dark matter is the lighter real component $S$, with a heavier coannihilating partner $P$ whose mass splitting is generated by the trilinear term $A(\varphi_1\varphi_1\varphi_2^\dagger+\mathrm{h.c.})$. The gauge boson couples only to the off-diagonal current $Z'^\mu((\partial_\mu S)P - S\partial_\mu P)$, so $Z'$-mediated scattering off nucleons is inelastic and inert once the splitting exceeds the recoil energy, and the relic density is fixed by coannihilation $SP\to f\bar f$ for $m_{Z'}>m_S$ or $SS\to Z'Z'$ for $m_{Z'}<m_S$. Present-day annihilation is governed by $s$-channel exchange of the two Higgs bosons, suppressed by taking $\sin\alpha=10^{-3}$ and $\lambda_4=0$, which yields $\langle\sigma v\rangle_0\lesssim O(10^{-31})\,\mathrm{cm}^3/\mathrm{s}$, consistent with both XENON1T and Fermi-LAT. Applying the same machinery to $U(1)_{B-L}$, $U(1)_{(B-L)_3}$ and $U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ produces relic-density contours whose predicted elastic cross sections sit at or below the neutrino floor.

Load-bearing premise

The scenario rests on hand-picked small parameters - a dark matter mass splitting of one percent, a Higgs mixing angle of one part in a thousand, and a quartic coupling set exactly to zero - and assumes they stay small, since no symmetry protects them from quantum corrections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Thermal-relic scalar dark matter with present $\langle\sigma v\rangle_0\lesssim10^{-31}\,\mathrm{cm}^3/\mathrm{s}$ is explicitly realizable, so the absence of indirect signals does not by itself refute the thermal WIMP hypothesis when freeze-out runs through a different channel.
  • In the universal $U(1)_{B-L}$ model only heavy dark matter (several TeV and above) survives the LHC bound on $Z'$, while the flavored $U(1)_{(B-L)_3}$ and $U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ models admit weak-scale and even sub-GeV thermal dark matter.
  • The $U(1)_{(B-L)_3}$ model can accommodate the 47 Tucanae gamma-ray excess ($m_S\simeq34\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $\langle\sigma v\rangle_0\simeq6\times10^{-30}\,\mathrm{cm}^3/\mathrm{s}$) without violating direct detection limits.
  • The light branch of $U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ ($m_S\simeq0.1\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{Z'}\simeq0.01$-$0.1\,\mathrm{GeV}$) is compatible with the muon $g-2$ discrepancy, can relax the Hubble tension through $\Delta N_{\rm eff}\simeq0.2$, and its heavier branch connects to the $b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$ anomaly.
  • Most of the predicted elastic scattering rates sit at or below the neutrino floor, so next-generation direct detection experiments that reach that background will test the scenario.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: the pattern - freeze-out by an off-diagonal gauge coupling, today's signals by a weakly-coupled scalar channel - is a template that would transfer to other anomaly-free $U(1)$ groups or gauged flavor symmetries beyond the three worked out here.
  • Editorial: the 1% mass splitting and the $10^{-3}$ mixing angle are unprotected, so a one-loop analysis could either find an accidentally natural region or close the scenario; the paper does not perform that calculation.
  • Editorial: the heavier state $P$ could be produced at colliders and decay to $S$ plus an (off-shell) $Z'$, giving soft lepton pairs plus missing energy; this signature is a direct probe of the mass splitting the mechanism relies on, though the paper does not estimate it.
  • Editorial: the sub-GeV $L_\mu-L_\tau$ contour has not been tested against dark matter-electron scattering or CMB constraints on annihilation into neutrinos, and those bounds are likely to cut into the displayed region; applying them is the cheapest way to check the light-mass claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a class of extra-U(1) extensions in which a complex scalar φ1 splits into two real scalars S and P after U(1) breaking. The lighter state S is the dark matter candidate; its thermal relic density is set by Z'-mediated coannihilation with P, while present-day annihilation and direct detection proceed through Higgs-boson exchange because Z'-mediated scattering is kinematically inelastic. The framework is applied to U(1)_{B-L}, U(1)_{(B-L)_3}, and U(1)_{L_μ-L_τ}, with parameter regions reproducing Ωh²≈0.1. The authors also discuss implications for direct detection, Fermi-LAT, the 47 Tucanae gamma-ray excess, the muon g−2 anomaly, IceCube, and the Hubble tension.

Significance. If the construction holds, it provides an existence proof for thermal-relic scalar dark matter whose present annihilation cross section can be as small as O(10^-31) cm^3/s while the freeze-out abundance is set by gauge coannihilation. This would resolve a common tension between thermal WIMPs and null direct-detection results. The manuscript's strengths are its explicit and internally consistent treatment: standard Boltzmann equations with coannihilation, transparent cross-section formulas in Appendices A and B, and concrete scans over three anomaly-free U(1) models with experimental constraints including LHC Z' bounds, BaBar data, neutrino trident bounds, and BBN limits. The main caveat is that the advertised suppression is not a consequence of the gauge structure alone; it is loaded into a benchmark whose radiative stability is not demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (17), footnote 3] The central suppression of direct and indirect signals is imposed by the benchmark choice (mP−mS, sinα, λ3, λ4) = (0.01 mS, 1e−3, 1e−3, 0). Footnote 3 states that these values are chosen 'in order to have an efficient coannihilation and to have a tiny effective coupling between h and S,' but no symmetry enforces them. In particular, λ4=0 is not protected: the quartic λ4 φ1†φ1 |Φ|² is allowed by all gauge and global symmetries of the scalar potential (6), and radiative corrections involving λ3, λ5, and the A term generate a nonzero λ4 once φ2 acquires a VEV. Since Eq. (17) shows the effective h−S coupling is λ4 v cosα − (λ3 v2 − √2 A) sinα, a one-loop shift δλ4 can alter σ_SI and (σv)_0 substantially, especially in the light-mass region. The manuscript contains no RGE or effective-potential analysis demonstrating that sinα=1e−3 and λ4=0 are radiatively stable at the scales relevant for freeze-out. Until this is quantified, the claim that the very suppressed present-day signals are a robust property of the models is not established.
  2. [Sec. VI.C, Figs. 7 and 8, footnote 7] The light-DM region (mS ~ 0.1 GeV, mZ' ~ 0.01–0.1 GeV) is presented as an important consequence because it can simultaneously address the muon g−2 anomaly and relax the Hubble tension while evading Fermi-LAT bounds through annihilation into neutrinos. However, this region is not checked against sub-GeV direct detection via DM–electron scattering (generated by kinetic mixing), CMB bounds on s-wave annihilation into neutrinos or electromagnetic products, or constraints on the Z' decay through kinetic mixing. Footnote 7 explicitly defers the kinetic-mixing constraint to future work. Since the viability of this light region is used to motivate the phenomenology section, these missing constraints should be evaluated before the region is described as viable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (2)] The notation f_Tq and f_TG in Eq. (2) is not defined in the text; a brief definition or reference would improve readability.
  2. [Sec. III.B, footnote 3] Footnote 3 contains ungrammatical phrasing: 'We take as this in order to have...' should read 'We take these values in order to have...'.
  3. [Sec. VI.B, Fig. 7] The figure caption and text refer to several shaded regions ('light gray,' 'gray,' 'brown,' 'vermilion') that may be difficult to distinguish in grayscale print; explicit labels or line patterns would help.
  4. [Sec. II.C, Fig. 1] The blue curve in Fig. 1 is called a 'theoretical interpretation' of the XENON1T bound; it should be stated more explicitly that this curve assumes the same Higgs-portal coupling controls both direct detection and present annihilation, an assumption that the model of Sec. III deliberately avoids.
  5. [Sec. V.A, Eq. (23)] The Yukawa Lagrangian in Eq. (23) uses a notation where the Majorana mass term for N3_R involves φ2; it would be clearer to indicate the charge-conjugation contraction explicitly, as is done for the other N_R terms.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The suppressed present-day annihilation and direct-detection cross sections are inserted by the Sec. III.B benchmark (λ4=0, sinα=10^-3), not derived from the gauge mechanism; the relic-density contours are genuine outputs, so the circularity is partial.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III.B, parameter choice before Sec. III.C, and footnote 3]
    "In the following analysis, we fix (mP −mS, sin α, λ3, λ4) = (0.01mS, 1×10−3, 1×10−3, 0) 3 and vary ... 3 We take as this in order to have an efficient coannihilation and to have a tiny effective coupling between h and S, which can be seen from Eqs. (3) and (5)."

    The central suppression of σ_SI and (σv)_0 is not an output of independent dynamics: it is the square of the h-S effective coupling in Eq. (17), which the benchmark is explicitly chosen to make tiny. With λ4=0 and sinα=10^-3, the h-S coupling is λ4 v cosα − (λ3 v2 − √2 A) sinα ≈ −(λ3 v2 − √2 A)×10^-3, so direct detection (Eq. (1)) and present annihilation (Eq. (5)) are small by construction. Figures 3, 5, 6, and 8 then display these small values as predictions, although the only content added by the U(1) machinery is the coannihilation-based relic abundance. Thus the headline claim of a very suppressed present annihilation cross section reduces to this parameter choice, not to the gauge structure.

full rationale

The thermal-relic part of the derivation is self-contained: the Boltzmann equation (20) with the effective coannihilation cross section (21) is solved with standard formulas, and the relic-density contours in Figs. 2, 4, and 7 are genuine outputs of the gauge coupling, masses, and coannihilation dynamics. The inelastic nature of Z'-mediated scattering follows from the mass splitting generated by the A term in Eqs. (15)-(16), and the SS→Z'Z' s-wave cross section (22) is a real prediction when that channel is kinematically open. The circularity is confined to the headline suppression of present-day signals. Footnote 3 states that the benchmark (mP−mS, sinα, λ3, λ4)=(0.01mS, 10^-3, 10^-3, 0) is chosen 'in order to have an efficient coannihilation and to have a tiny effective coupling between h and S.' From Eq. (17), that same coupling controls both σ_SI (Eq. (1)) and (σv)_0 (Eq. (5)), so the small cross sections displayed in Figs. 3, 5, 6, and 8 are restatements of the parameter choice rather than consequences of the U(1) gauge structure alone. This makes the claimed suppression partially circular: the model is a valid existence proof for such a parameter point, and the abundance calculation is independent, but the central 'very suppressed present annihilation' result is, at the benchmark level, an input. A related but separate concern is that λ4=0 is radiatively unstable because the quartic is allowed by all symmetries and will be generated at one loop; that is a correctness risk rather than an additional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central model relies on standard freeze-out cosmology, but the key suppression of direct and indirect signals is installed by hand through the four fixed couplings and the scanned parameters (g', mZ', mS, mH). The paper is transparent about this in footnote 3, but it means the small predicted present annihilation rate is a consequence of chosen inputs rather than a derived output. The only new force is a standard extra U(1), and its Z' has external collider and trident handles.

free parameters (6)
  • mP - mS = 0.01 mS
    Mass splitting fixed by hand to make coannihilation efficient and Z'-mediated direct detection inelastic (Sec. III.B, footnote 3).
  • sin alpha = 1e-3
    Mixing between SM Higgs and extra U(1) Higgs set small to suppress Higgs-mediated direct detection and present annihilation (Sec. III.B, footnote 3).
  • lambda3 = 1e-3
    Quartic coupling between DM scalar and U(1) breaking Higgs; chosen small to control the h-S effective coupling (Sec. III.B, footnote 3).
  • lambda4 = 0
    Quartic coupling between DM and SM Higgs set to zero by hand; this is the main lever that suppresses today's annihilation and direct detection (Sec. III.B, footnote 3). No symmetry protects this value.
  • mH = v2 or v2/4 or v2/10 depending on model
    Mass of the heavy scalar H is chosen differently in the B-L and (B-L)_3 analyses to illustrate resonance effects (Secs. IV.C, V.C, Figs. 3, 5, 6).
  • g' (gauge coupling) = varied per model, e.g. gB-L=0.5, g(B-L)_3=0.03-1, g_mu-tau ~ 1e-4 to 1
    The U(1) gauge coupling is scanned to reproduce the observed relic abundance Omega h^2 ~ 0.1 and to evade experimental bounds (Figs. 2, 4, 7).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard thermal freeze-out cosmology: the DM abundance is set by solving the Boltzmann equation for n = n_S + n_P with coannihilation.
    Sec. III.C, Eq. (20). Assumes standard radiation-dominated cosmology and no non-thermal production.
  • domain assumption The new U(1) gauge boson Z' couples only off-diagonally to S and P, so Z'-mediated DM-nucleus scattering is inelastic and negligible when mP-mS exceeds the recoil energy.
    Sec. III.B, Eq. (19) and surrounding text. This is the core suppression mechanism; if the splitting were too small, the suppression fails.
  • domain assumption Direct detection and present annihilation are dominated by SM Higgs h and heavy H exchange; no other operators or mediators contribute significantly.
    Sec. II and Sec. III.D. Kinetic mixing is explicitly deferred to future work in Sec. VI.C.
  • standard math The hadronic matrix elements (f_Tq, f_TG) and the nonrelativistic spin-independent cross section formula are accurate for the scalar DM.
    Sec. II.A, Eqs. (1)-(2), taken from the standard treatment in Jungman et al. [27].
  • domain assumption For U(1)_{(B-L)_3}, a simplified effective Lagrangian with only third-generation charges is sufficient for DM phenomenology; UV completions do not alter the results.
    Sec. V.A, Eq. (23) and the surrounding text, citing refs. [52,53,55] for UV completions.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar potential parameters, especially lambda4=0 and sin alpha=1e-3, are radiatively stable at the scales relevant for freeze-out.
    No symmetry protects these small values and no RGE or loop calculation is provided; this is a load-bearing assumption for the suppressed present annihilation.
invented entities (4)
  • Z' gauge boson independent evidence
    purpose: Mediates coannihilation SP -> f fbar at freeze-out and connects the dark sector to SM fermions; its off-diagonal coupling makes direct detection inelastic.
    The Z' has independent search handles in collider data, BaBar, neutrino trident, and beam-dump experiments; the paper uses these to constrain parameters in Secs. IV-VI.
  • Complex scalar DM phi1 splitting into S and P
    purpose: S is the stable DM; P is the slightly heavier coannihilation partner; the splitting enables both coannihilation and inelastic direct detection suppression.
    S and P are the postulated dark matter sector itself; their only evidence is the DM abundance and detection constraints under study, so there is no independent handle.
  • Extra U(1) breaking scalar phi2
    purpose: Breaks the U(1), gives mass to Z', and through the A term sets the S-P mass splitting.
    The physical heavy scalar H enters the phenomenology, but its mass is set by hand to v2 or fractions of v2; no independent search prediction is derived.
  • Right-handed neutrinos N_R
    purpose: Cancel U(1) anomalies and generate neutrino masses via seesaw.
    No new falsifiable prediction beyond the standard seesaw framework; their masses and charges are model inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inelastic extra $U(1)$ charged scalar dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NKWT5SGF

@misc{pith2026190809277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inelastic extra $U(1)$ charged scalar dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NKWT5SGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09277}
}
abstract

The null results in dark matter direct detection experiments imply the present scalar dark matter (DM) annihilation cross section to bottom quark pairs through the Higgs boson exchange is smaller than about $10^{-31}$ cm$^3/$s for a wide DM mass range, which is much smaller than the required annihilation cross section for thermal relic DM. We propose models of a thermal relic DM with the present annihilation cross section being very suppressed. This property can be realized in an extra $U(1)$ gauge interacting complex scalar DM, where the thermal DM abundance is determined by coannihilation through the gauge interaction while the present annihilation is governed by Higgs bosons exchange processes. An interaction between DM and the extra $U(1)$ breaking Higgs field generates a small mass splitting between DM and its coannihilating partner so that coannihilation becomes possible and also the $Z'$-mediated scattering off with a nucleon in direct DM search becomes inelastic. We consider scalar dark matter in $U(1)_{B-L}, U(1)_{(B-L)_3}$ and $U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ extended models and identify viable parameter regions. We also discuss various implications to future DM detection experiments, the DM interpretation of the gamma-ray excess in the globular cluster 47 Tucanae, the muon anomalous magnetic moment, the Hubble tension and others.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09277 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The upper bounds on WIMP annihilation cross section i [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The contour (in blue) along which the observed DM reli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Left panel: The prediction of the WIMP-nucleon scatt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The relation between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The prediction of the WIMP-nucleon scattering cross [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Same as Fig. 5 for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The required magnitude of the gauge coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hubble tension

    5, we conclude that the parameter set used in our analysis is consist ent with the current LHC results. For future search reach with a large luminosity, see Ref. [60] and a p art of parameter space of the ( B − L)3 model will be explored. 15 for mS > m Z ′ as well as Z ′ resonant enhanced regions along the line mS ≃ mZ ′/2. 10 20 50 100 200 500 100010 20 ...

  2. [2]

    Annihilation into charged fermions ⏐ ⏐M(SP → f ¯f ) ⏐ ⏐2 =g′4( qf) 2 Nc 2 m4 Z ′ 1 (s − m2 Z ′)2 + (mZ ′Γ Z ′)2 ( m4 Z ′ [ (2m2 f + m2 S + m2 P ) ( s − 2(m2 P + m2 S) ) + (m2 S − m2 P )2] +(m2 S − m2 P )2[ m2 Z ′ ( 2m2 f + m2 P + m2 S − s ) + (m2 S + m2 P − 2m2 f )s − (m2 S − m2 P )2]) (B1) →g′4( qf) 2 Nc 4(m2 S + m2 f ) (s − m2 Z ′)2 + (mZ ′Γ Z ′)2 (s − ...

  3. [3]

    Annihilation into neutrinos |M(SP → ν ¯ν)|2 =g′4( qf) 2 Nc 2 m4 Z ′ 1 (s − m2 Z ′)2 + (mZ ′Γ Z ′)2 ( m4 Z ′ [ (−2m2 ν + m2 S + m2 P ) ( s − 2(m2 P + m2 S) ) + (m2 S − m2 P )2] +(m2 S − m2 P )2[ m2 Z ′ ( −2m2 ν + m2 P + m2 S − s ) + (m2 S + m2 P + 2m2 ν)s − (m2 S − m2 P )2]) (B3) →g′4( qf) 2 Nc 4(m2 S − m2 ν) (s − m2 Z ′)2 + (mZ ′Γ Z ′)2 (s − 4m2 S) for mP...

  4. [4]

    Annihilation into Z ′Z ′ ∫ d cos θ 2 |M(SS → Z ′Z ′)|2 =g′4( qΦ) 4 ( 4(16m4 S + 8m2 S(m2 Z ′ − 2s) − 3m4 Z ′ + 4m2 Z ′s + s2) (s − 2m2 Z ′) √ (s − 4m2 S)(s − 4m2 Z ′) × log ( s − 2m2 Z ′ + √ (s − 4m2 S)(s − 4m2 Z ′) s − 2m2 Z ′ − √ (s − 4m2 S)(s − 4m2 Z ′) ) + 1 m4 Z ′ 32m4 Sm4 Z ′ + m2 S(−32m6 Z ′ + 20m4 Z ′s − 8m4 Z ′s2 + s3) + m4 Z ′(6m4 Z ′ − 4m2 Z ′s...

  5. [5]

    Ackermann et al

    M. Ackermann et al. [Fermi-LAT Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no. 23, 231301 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Albert et al

    A. Albert et al. [Fermi-LAT and DES Collaborations], Astrophys. J. 834, no. 2, 110 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    D. S. Akerib et al. [LUX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no. 25, 251302 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Cui et al

    X. Cui et al. [PandaX-II Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 18, 181302 (2017)

    2017

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. [XENON Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no. 11, 111302 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    L. M. Krauss, S. Nasri and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D 67, 085002 (2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    Cheung and O

    K. Cheung and O. Seto, Phys. Rev. D 69, 113009 (2004)

    2004

  4. [12]

    S. Ipek, D. McKeen and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 5, 055021 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Gross, O

    C. Gross, O. Lebedev and T. Toma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 19, 191801 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Arcadi, M

    G. Arcadi, M. Lindner, F. S. Queiroz, W. Rodejohann and S . Vogl, JCAP 1803, no. 03, 042 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Pani and G

    P. Pani and G. Polesello, Phys. Dark Univ. 21, 8 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni and I. W. Sanderson, JCAP 1808, no. 08, 017 (2018) Erratum: [JCAP 1901, no. 01, E01 (2019)]

    2018

  9. [17]

    Li, Phys

    T. Li, Phys. Lett. B 782, 497 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    T. Abe, M. Fujiwara and J. Hisano, JHEP 1902, 028 (2019). 23

    2019

  11. [19]

    Azevedo, M

    D. Azevedo, M. Duch, B. Grzadkowski, D. Huang, M. Iglick i and R. Santos, JHEP 1901, 138 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Ishiwata and T

    K. Ishiwata and T. Toma, JHEP 1812, 089 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Huitu, N

    K. Huitu, N. Koivunen, O. Lebedev, S. Mondal and T. Toma, Phys. Rev. D 100, no. 1, 015009 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Alanne, M

    T. Alanne, M. Heikinheimo, V. Keus, N. Koivunen and K. Tu ominen, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 7, 075028 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Karamitros, Phys

    D. Karamitros, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 9, 095036 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Okada and O

    N. Okada and O. Seto, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 4, 043525 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Okada and O

    N. Okada and O. Seto, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 8, 083523 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    A. Das, N. Okada and O. Seto, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 718, no. 4, 042054 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Goodenough and D

    L. Goodenough and D. Hooper, arXiv:0910.2998 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hooper and L

    D. Hooper and L. Goodenough, Phys. Lett. B 697, 412 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Hooper and T

    D. Hooper and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D 84, 123005 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    K. Y. Choi and O. Seto, Phys. Rev. D 86, 043515 (2012) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 86, 089904 (2012)]

    2012

  23. [31]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. 267, 195 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    McDonald and N

    J. McDonald and N. Sahu, JCAP 0806, 026 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Okada and O

    N. Okada and O. Seto, Phys. Rev. D 82, 023507 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Djouadi, O

    A. Djouadi, O. Lebedev, Y. Mambrini and J. Quevillon, Ph ys. Lett. B 709, 65 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    W. Chao, W. F. Cui, H. K. Guo and J. Shu, arXiv:1707.09759 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Okada and O

    N. Okada and O. Seto, Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 6, 063532 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Rodejohann and C

    W. Rodejohann and C. E. Yaguna, JCAP 1512, no. 12, 032 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Biswas, S

    A. Biswas, S. Choubey and S. Khan, JHEP 1608, 114 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Singirala, R

    S. Singirala, R. Mohanta and S. Patra, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133, no. 11, 477 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Bandyopadhyay, E

    P. Bandyopadhyay, E. J. Chun and R. Mandal, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 1, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Biswas, S

    A. Biswas, S. Choubey and S. Khan, JHEP 1609, 147 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Garani and J

    R. Garani and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev. D 100, no. 3, 035039 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    L. J. Hall, T. Moroi and H. Murayama, Phys. Lett. B 424, 305 (1998)

    1998

  36. [44]

    Tucker-Smith and N

    D. Tucker-Smith and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 64, 043502 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe , Addison-Wesley (1990). 24

    1990

  38. [46]

    Griest and D

    K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3191 (1991)

    1991

  39. [47]

    Edsjo and P

    J. Edsjo and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D 56, 1879 (1997)

    1997

  40. [48]

    R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1316 (1980) [Erratum-ibid. 44, 1643 (1980)]

    1980

  41. [49]

    R. E. Marshak and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett. 91B, 222 (1980)

    1980

  42. [50]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Griest and M

    K. Griest and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 615 (1990)

    1990

  44. [52]

    Carena, A

    M. Carena, A. Daleo, B. A. Dobrescu and T. M. P. Tait, Phys . Rev. D 70, 093009 (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    Amrith, J

    S. Amrith, J. M. Butterworth, F. F. Deppisch, W. Liu, A. V arma and D. Yallup, JHEP 1905, 154 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    A. Das, P. S. B. Dev and N. Okada, Phys. Lett. B 799, 135052 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Cushman et al

    P. Cushman et al. , arXiv:1310.8327 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    K. S. Babu, A. Friedland, P. A. N. Machado and I. Mocioiu, JHEP 1712, 096 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Alonso, P

    R. Alonso, P. Cox, C. Han and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 774, 643 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    L. Bian, S. M. Choi, Y. J. Kang and H. M. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 7, 075038 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    P. Cox, C. Han and T. T. Yanagida, JCAP 1801, no. 01, 029 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    E. J. Chun, A. Das, J. Kim and J. Kim, JHEP 1902, 093 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    del Amo Sanchez et al

    P. del Amo Sanchez et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 191801 (2010)

    2010

  54. [62]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1801, 055 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    D. A. Faroughy, A. Greljo and J. F. Kamenik, Phys. Lett. B 764, 126 (2017)

    2017

  56. [64]

    Elahi and A

    F. Elahi and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 100, no. 3, 035016 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    A. M. Brown, T. Lacroix, S. Lloyd, C. Boehm and P. Chadwic k, Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 4, 041301 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    S. J. Lloyd, P. M. Chadwick and A. M. Brown, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 480, 4782 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Bartels and T

    R. Bartels and T. Edwards, Phys. Rev. D 100, no. 6, 068301 (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

    X. G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 43, 22 (1991)

    1991

  61. [69]

    Foot, Mod

    R. Foot, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 6, 527 (1991)

    1991

  62. [70]

    E. Ma, D. P. Roy and S. Roy, Phys. Lett. B 525, 101 (2002)

    2002

  63. [71]

    S. Baek, N. G. Deshpande, X. G. He and P. Ko, Phys. Rev. D 64, 055006 (2001)

    2001

  64. [72]

    G. W. Bennett et al. [Muon g-2 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006)

    2006

  65. [73]

    Jegerlehner and A

    F. Jegerlehner and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rept. 477, 1 (2009). 25

    2009

  66. [74]

    Davier, A

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phy s. J. C 71, 1515 (2011) Erratum: [Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1874 (2012)]

    2011

  67. [75]

    Hagiwara, R

    K. Hagiwara, R. Liao, A. D. Martin, D. Nomura and T. Teubn er, J. Phys. G 38, 085003 (2011)

    2011

  68. [76]

    J. P. Lees et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 1, 011102 (2016)

    2016

  69. [77]

    Altmannshofer, S

    W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov and I. Yavin, Phy s. Rev. Lett. 113, 091801 (2014)

    2014

  70. [78]

    S. R. Mishra et al. [CCFR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 3117 (1991)

    1991

  71. [79]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 792, 345 (2019)

    2019

  72. [80]

    Drees, M

    M. Drees, M. Shi and Z. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 791, 130 (2019)

    2019

  73. [81]

    Kamada and H

    A. Kamada and H. B. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 11, 113004 (2015)

    2015

  74. [82]

    Kamada, K

    A. Kamada, K. Kaneta, K. Yanagi and H. B. Yu, JHEP 1806, 117 (2018)

    2018

  75. [83]

    A. G. Riess et al. , Astrophys. J. 826, no. 1, 56 (2016)

    2016

  76. [84]

    A. G. Riess et al. , Astrophys. J. 861, no. 2, 126 (2018)

    2018

  77. [85]

    Escudero, D

    M. Escudero, D. Hooper, G. Krnjaic and M. Pierre, JHEP 1903, 071 (2019)

    2019

  78. [86]

    Araki, F

    T. Araki, F. Kaneko, Y. Konishi, T. Ota, J. Sato and T. Shi momura, Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 3, 037301 (2015)

    2015

  79. [87]

    Araki, F

    T. Araki, F. Kaneko, T. Ota, J. Sato and T. Shimomura, Phy s. Rev. D 93, no. 1, 013014 (2016)

    2016

  80. [88]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. [IceCube Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 101101 (2014)

    2014

  81. [89]

    Altmannshofer, S

    W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov and I. Yavin, Phy s. Rev. D 89, 095033 (2014)

    2014

  82. [90]

    Altmannshofer, S

    W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, JHEP 1612, 106 (2016)

    2016

  83. [91]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 191801 (2013)

    2013

  84. [92]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151601 (2014)

    2014

  85. [93]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], JHEP 1509, 179 (2015)

    2015

  86. [94]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], JHEP 1602, 104 (2016)

    2016

  87. [95]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. [Belle Collaboration], arXiv:1604.04042 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  88. [96]

    Cirelli, M

    M. Cirelli, M. Kadastik, M. Raidal and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 813, 1 (2009) Addendum: [Nucl. Phys. B 873, 530 (2013)]

    2009

  89. [97]

    Baek and P

    S. Baek and P. Ko, JCAP 0910, 011 (2009)

    2009

  90. [98]

    Foldenauer, Phys

    P. Foldenauer, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 3, 035007 (2019)

    2019

  91. [99]

    Boudaud, J

    M. Boudaud, J. Lavalle and P. Salati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 2, 021103 (2017). 26

    2017

  92. [100]

    Bartels, D

    R. Bartels, D. Gaggero and C. Weniger, JCAP 1705, no. 05, 001 (2017)

    2017

  93. [101]

    Dutra, M

    M. Dutra, M. Lindner, S. Profumo, F. S. Queiroz, W. Rodej ohann and C. Siqueira, JCAP 1803, 037 (2018). 27

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.