Theoretical bounds on dark matter masses

Folkert Kuipers; Xavier Calmet

REVIEW

Theoretical bounds on dark matter masses

Xavier Calmet, Folkert Kuipers

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 24 Sep 2020 · 43 references

Pith's verdict: A transparent, order-of-magnitude estimate whose genuinely new vector-mass bound is interesting, but whose central windows hinge on an unproven O(1) Wilson coefficient assumption the authors themselves concede.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 27, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2009.11575 (version 2)

Pith IDE5ABZIEO, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationFolkert Kuipers, Xavier Calmet. "Theoretical bounds on dark matter masses." arXiv:2009.11575 (2020). https://pith.science/paper/E5ABZIEO

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Dear [Name],

I read Calmet & Kuipers. Short version: the paper is a transparent order-of-magnitude exercise, and the one genuinely new step is the vector dark matter upper bound from the dimension-five operator coupling a graviton, a photon, and the dark vector field. The rest — the scalar and fermion windows — is mostly repackaged from the authors' own earlier work, which they cite properly.

What the paper does well: the derivations are explicit, the external constraints (Eöt-Wash, lifetime of the universe, Pauli blocking) are used cleanly, and there is no parameter fitting anywhere. The authors also say plainly that the whole estimate hinges on Wilson coefficients being O(1), and they even spell out the alternatives: g^2/4π or the electron Yukawa would move the bounds by orders of magnitude. That is honest.

The soft spot is exactly that coefficient assumption. It is load-bearing, not cosmetic. The quoted windows 10^-3 eV to 10^7 eV are what you get when c_φ ~ 1; if c_φ is suppressed by the hypercharge coupling, the upper bound moves up by two to three orders of magnitude. The authors know this, and they label their results 'orders of magnitude estimates.' Still, the title says 'Theoretical bounds,' and the abstract does not advertise that the bounds are conditional on an assumption the authors cannot yet justify. A careful reader will get it; a casual one might not.

Two smaller points. The spin-2 result is imported from an earlier paper and not derived here — fine for a letter, but it means the novelty is narrower than the list of spins suggests. And the vector lower bound is a standard de Broglie wavelength argument, not a quantum gravity effect, so the 'quantum gravity bounds' label overstates what is new.

Who is this for? Particle phenomenologists thinking about dark matter model building, and anyone interested in whether quantum gravity can make concrete predictions. I would send it to a referee — it is a legitimate, executable idea, even if the central numbers carry a large asterisk. On balance I'd support publication as a letter if the title and abstract are softened to make the conditional nature explicit.

Best, [Name]

Referee report

Significance

If the order-one-coefficient assumption could be justified, the paper would provide a useful and compact set of quantum-gravity-based mass windows for gauge-singlet dark matter across spins. The authors are explicit about the main assumptions and the order-of-magnitude nature of the estimates, and they make appropriate use of well-established experimental constraints such as Eöt-Wash, magnetometry, and Tremaine-Gunn bounds. The manuscript is concise and the logical structure is easy to follow. However, as the authors themselves concede, the central quantitative claims are conditional on an unproven normalization of the dimension-five operators; because that condition can shift the quoted windows by several orders of magnitude, the results as stated are not yet robust enough for the strong conclusions drawn in the abstract and Eq. (2).

Major objections (3)

[Eqs. (1)-(10) and final discussion] The central quantitative claims, Eq. (2) and its analogues in Eqs. (3), (5), (7), (9), and (10), all assume that the dimensionless Wilson coefficients c_phi, c_a, c_psi, c_V in the dimension-five operators are of order one. The paper explicitly concedes in the final discussion that c_phi could contain a factor g^2/(4π) and c_psi could be proportional to the electron Yukawa coupling of order 10^-5, and that "this would impact our bounds." This is not a cosmetic caveat: for c_phi = 10^-5, the scalar upper bound obtained from Γ = c_phi^2 m_phi^3/(4π M_P^2) rises from about 10^7 eV to about 10^10 eV, and the Eöt-Wash lower bound, whose amplitude is proportional to c_phi^2, also moves by orders of magnitude. Since the paper provides no argument that fixes c_i away from Standard-Model-suppressed values, the quoted mass intervals are not bounds from quantum gravity alone but from quantum gravity plus an order-one-coefficient assumption. The sentence in the scalar section claiming the bound holds "independently of its potential non-gravitational couplings" is inconsistent with the later admission that c_phi may contain the U(1) gauge coupling. The letter should be revised so that all headline results are explicitly conditional, or an argument fixing the operator normalization should be supplied.
[Spin-2 paragraph, Eq. (10)] The spin-2 mass window (10) is asserted without derivation: the text states that "using the results developed in [20]" it is "straightforward to see" that the bounds are similar. No operator, decay width, or fifth-force amplitude for a spin-2 dark-matter field is given. Since this is one of the five claimed windows in the abstract and conclusions, the central claim is not self-contained. Please provide the relevant effective operators and the resulting lifetime and fifth-force constraints, or explicitly restrict the paper's claims to scalars, pseudoscalars, fermions, and vectors and relegate spin-2 to a remark citing [20].
[Vector section, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The vector analysis is not fully transparent. The text states that the dimension-four operator F_μν B^μν is expected to be exponentially suppressed and that the dimension-five operator c_{V,5} M_P^{-1} V_μ(\barψ_R i \tilde H^† γ^μ L) "simply accounts for a shift of the photon field," but it does not demonstrate why this shift removes all tree-level effects, nor why the graviton operator (8) is the only "useful" dimension-five operator. The decay width Γ ∼ c_V^2 m_V^3/M_P^2 is quoted without derivation. Since Eq. (9) is a headline result, a derivation or a specific citation to an equation in [21] or [29] is needed.

Minor objections (5)

[Throughout] The text contains OCR-like artifacts (e.g., "lower an d upper", "mφ /greaterorsimilar10−3 eV", "10 − 3eV ≲ mφ ≲ 107eV") that should be corrected in the published version.
[Eq. (1)] The sentence "there are solid arguments showing that the Wilson coefficient c1 is of order one" is not reconciled with the later statement that c_phi could contain g^2/(4π). Please clarify whether the "solid arguments" apply only to a specific normalization convention.
[Notation] The symbol M_P is used for the reduced Planck scale in Eq. (1) but the text also refers to the Planck mass; please define the notation once and use it consistently.
[Introductory paragraph] The statement that dark matter constitutes "about 75% of the matter content" of the universe is outdated; current cosmological constraints give Ω_dm/Ω_m ≈ 0.84. Consider updating the value or citing a recent determination.
[Fermion lower bound, Eq. (7)] The Tremaine-Gunn bound depends on the assumed phase-space distribution and halo profile; the paper should state this dependence explicitly, even though the multicomponent caveat is already noted.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The authors show that non-perturbative quantum gravity inevitably generates Planck-suppressed operators coupling any gauge-singlet dark matter field to Standard Model particles, and that this same physics bounds the dark matter mass from…

The reading

The paper argues that non-perturbative quantum gravity inevitably generates Planck-suppressed operators that let any gauge-singlet dark matter particle talk to Standard Model particles. Through those operators, the same physics that lets dark matter decay also lets it mediate a fifth force, so requiring the particle to live as long as the universe and to have escaped fifth-force searches bounds its mass from above and below. For a singlet scalar, the resulting window is $10^{-3}\ {\rm eV} \lesssim m_\phi \lesssim 10^{7}\ {\rm eV}$, independent of any non-gravitational couplings the scalar may have. Analogous windows are derived for pseudo-scalars, fermions, vectors, and spin-2 fields, with the lower bound for fermions coming from the Pauli exclusion principle instead of fifth forces. If the argument holds, quantum gravity alone, not new model-building, sets the mass scale of most simple dark matter candidates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the dimension-five operators that non-perturbative quantum gravity is assumed to generate, each suppressed by one power of the reduced Planck mass $M_P = 2.4\times 10^{18}\ {\rm GeV}$. For scalars and pseudo-scalars the operator couples the dark field to $F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$ or $F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde{F}^{\mu\nu}$, for fermions it couples $\bar\psi \widetilde{H}^\dagger \not{D} L$, and for vectors it couples $h_{\mu\alpha}F^{\mu}_{\ \nu}B^{\nu\alpha}$, enabling decay to a photon and a graviton. These operators do double duty: they give the dark matter candidate a Planck-suppressed decay width, so an upper mass bound follows from requiring survival for the age of the universe, and they give it a coupling to ordinary matter that would show up as a fifth force, so a lower mass bound follows from torsion-balance and magnetometry null results. For fermions, the lower bound instead comes from the spin-statistics/Pauli exclusion phase-space argument.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Quantum gravity is assumed to generate dimension-five operators of the form $c_\phi \phi F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}/M_P$, $c_a a \widetilde{F}_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}/M_P$, $c_\psi \bar\psi \widetilde{H}^\dagger \not{D} L/M_P$, and similar operators for vectors and spin-2 fields, all suppressed by one power of the reduced Planck mass $M_P = 2.4\times 10^{18}\ {\rm GeV}$. With Wilson coefficients of order one, a singlet scalar of mass $m_\phi$ has decay width $\Gamma \sim m_\phi^3/(4\pi M_P^2)$; demanding its lifetime exceed the age of the universe gives $m_\phi \lesssim 10^{7}\ {\rm eV}$, while the same operator would mediate a fifth force that the E\"ot-Wash torsion-balance experiments bound, giving $m_\phi \gtrsim 10^{-3}\ {\rm eV}$. The paper therefore claims a mass window $10^{-3}\ {\rm eV} \lesssim m_\phi \lesssim 10^{7}\ {\rm eV}$ for any singlet scalar dark matter candidate. The same machinery yields $10^{-3}$ to $10^{7}\ {\rm eV}$ (or $10^{-21}$ to $10^{7}\ {\rm eV}$ if quantum gravity preserves parity) for pseudo-scalars, $10^{2}$ to $10^{10}\ {\rm eV}$ for singlet fermions (upper from decay via off-shell $Z$, lower from the Pauli/Tremaine--Gunn bound), $10^{-22}$ to $10^{7}\ {\rm eV}$ for vectors, and $10^{-3}$ to $10^{7}\ {\rm eV}$ for spin-2 fields. The paper stresses these are order-of-magnitude bounds and that they do not apply to fields protected by gauge symmetries.

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument rests on the assumption that non-perturbative quantum gravity generates the dimension-five operators with coefficients of order one, so that the only suppression is the Planck mass and no Standard Model couplings weaken the decay or the fifth force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A pure gauge-singlet WIMP heavier than about $10^{7}\ {\rm eV}$ (scalar) or $10^{10}\ {\rm eV}$ (fermion) is ruled out unless it is charged under some gauge symmetry, because quantum gravity alone would make it decay within the age of the universe.
The windows shrink if the true quantum-gravity scale is below the reduced Planck mass, as in large-extra-dimension models, or if an infrared cutoff lowers the effective scale.
Gauged dark matter sectors evade the bounds: for a gauged scalar only dimension-six operators are generated, and the mass bound weakens to $m_\Phi \gtrsim 10^{-22}\ {\rm eV}$ with no upper bound from decay.
Axion-like particles with parity-conserving quantum gravity can be as light as $10^{-21}\ {\rm eV}$, which keeps QCD-axion-like candidates in play, while parity-violating quantum gravity would push their lower bound up to $10^{-3}\ {\rm eV}$.
The bounds are order-of-magnitude estimates: any additional suppression of the Wilson coefficients by Standard Model couplings, such as $g^2/(4\pi)$ or the electron Yukawa, widens the allowed windows.

Reading between the lines

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

An implication the authors leave implicit: any hidden-sector model with a stable scalar outside $10^{-3}$ to $10^{7}\ {\rm eV}$ must invoke a gauge symmetry or a finely tuned vanishing of the dimension-five operator, making gauge symmetry a structural requirement rather than a convenience.
A falsifiable extension: the scalar window overlaps existing and planned light-dark-matter searches such as axion haloscopes and cavity experiments, so null or positive signals around $10^{-3}$ to $10^{7}\ {\rm eV}$ would directly test not just the particles but the assumed Planck-scale origin of the operators.
A cleaner test of the assumption would be a lattice or holographic calculation of the Wilson coefficient $c_\phi$ in a specific quantum-gravity theory; if $c_\phi$ turned out to vanish for an exact gauge singlet, the upper bound would disappear.
The fermion lower bound is sensitive to the dark matter halo profile and to multicomponent dark matter, as the paper notes; a future precise determination of the local dark matter phase-space density could strengthen or relax the $10^{2}\ {\rm eV}$ bound.

Original abstract

In this letter, we show that quantum gravity leads to lower and upper bounds on the masses of dark matter candidates. These bounds depend on the spins of the dark matter candidates and the nature of interactions in the dark matter sector. For example, for singlet scalar dark matter, we find a mass range $10^{-3}{\rm eV} \lesssim m_\phi \lesssim 10^{7}{\rm eV}$. The lower bound comes from limits on fifth force type interactions and the upper bound from the lifetime of the dark matter candidate.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,572 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.20 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.01 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.05 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

In this letter, we show that quantum gravity leads to lower and upper bounds on the masses of dark matter candidates. These bounds depend on the spins of the dark matter candidates and the nature of interactions in the dark matter sector. For example, for singlet scalar dark matter, we find a mass range $10^{-3}{\rm eV} \lesssim m_\phi \lesssim 10^{7}{\rm eV}$. The lower bound comes from limits on fifth force type interactions and the upper bound from the lifetime of the dark matter candidate.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	In this letter, we show that quantum gravity leads to lower and upper bounds on the masses of dark matter candidates.	contribution 0.88	0.93	0.92	asserted 1.00
s1	These bounds depend on the spins of the dark matter candidates and the nature of interactions in the dark matter sector.	result 0.73	0.50	0.11	asserted 1.00
s2	For example, for singlet scalar dark matter, we find a mass range $10^{-3}{\rm eV} \lesssim m_\phi \lesssim 10^{7}{\rm eV}$.	result 1.00	0.95	0.22	asserted 1.00
s3	The lower bound comes from limits on fifth force type interactions and the upper bound from the lifetime of the dark matter candidate.	interpretation 0.77	0.63	0.11	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.97.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (43)

[20]

X. Calmet, Phys. Lett. B 801 (2020), 135152 [arXiv:1912.04147 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[21]

X. Calmet and F. Kuipers, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.8, 781 [arXiv:2008.06243 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[29]

X. Calmet and S. K. Majee, Phys. Lett. B 679 (2009), 267-269 [arXiv:0905.0956 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[1]

L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo and S. Trojanowski, Rept. Prog. P hys. 81 (2018) no.6, 066201 [arXiv:1707.06277 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[2]

M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J. 270 (1983), 365-370

View on Pith 1983
[3]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 083509 [arXiv:astro-ph/0403694 [astro-ph]]. 4

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[4]

J. W. Moﬀat, JCAP 03 (2006), 004 [arXiv:gr-qc/0506021 [gr-qc]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[5]

S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept. 509 (2011), 167-321 [arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[6]

X. Calmet and I. Kuntz, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.2, 132 [arXiv:1702.03832 [gr-qc]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[7]

A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, [arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[8]

K. Freese, B. Fields and D. Graﬀ, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 80 (2000), 0305 [arXiv:astro-ph/9904401 [astro-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[9]

S. Tulin and H. B. Yu, Phys. Rept. 730 (2018), 1-57 [arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[10]

D. J. Kapner, T. S. Cook, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, B. R. Heckel, C. D. Hoyle and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 021101 (2007) [hep-ph/0611184]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[11]

C. D. Hoyle, D. J. Kapner, B. R. Heckel, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, U. Schmidt and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 70, 042004 (2004) [hep-ph/0405262]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[12]

E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel, S. A. Hoedl, C. D. Hoyle, D. J. Ka pner and A. Upadhye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 131104 (2007) [hep-ph/0611223]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[13]

N. Leefer, A. Gerhardus, D. Budker, V. V. Flambaum and Y. V. Stadnik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no. 27, 271601 (2016) [arXiv:1607.04956 [physics.atom-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[14]

V. B. Braginsky and V. I. Panov, JETP 34, no. 3, 463 (1972)

View on Pith 1972
[15]

G. L. Smith, C. D. Hoyle, J. H. Gundlach, E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 61, 022001 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[16]

S. Schlamminger, K.-Y. Choi, T. A. Wagner, J. H. Gundlach and E. G. Adelberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 041101 (2008) [arXiv:0712.0607 [gr-qc]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[17]

E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, B. R. Heckel, S. Hoedl and S. Schlamminger, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 62, 102 (2009)

View on Pith 2009
[18]

L. Zhou et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no. 1, 013004 (2015) [arXiv:1503.00401 [physics.atom-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[19]

X. Calmet, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134 (2019) no.10, 503 [arXiv:1907.05680 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[22]

R. Holman, S. D. H. Hsu, T. W. Kephart, E. W. Kolb, R. Watkins an d L. M. Widrow, Phys. Lett. B 282, 132 (1992) [hep-ph/9203206]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1992
[23]

S. M. Barr and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D 46, 539 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[24]

X. Calmet and V. Sanz, Phys. Lett. B 737 (2014), 12-15 [arXiv:1403.5100 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[25]

S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B 307 (1988), 854-866

View on Pith 1988
[26]

S. R. Coleman, Nucl. Phys. B 310 (1988), 643-668. 5

View on Pith 1988
[27]

G. Gilbert, Nucl. Phys. B 328 (1989), 159-170

View on Pith 1989
[28]

Y. Mambrini, S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, Phys. Lett. B 760, 807-815 (2016)

View on Pith 2016
[30]

C. Abel, N. J. Ayres, G. Ban, G. Bison, K. Bodek, V. Bondar, M. Daum, M. Fairbairn, V. V. Flambaum, P. Geltenbort, K. Green, W. C. Griﬃth, M. van der G rinten, Z. D. Gruji´ c, P. G. Harris, N. Hild, P. Iaydjiev, S. N. Ivanov, M. Kasprzak, Y. Ke rmaidic, K. Kirch, H. C. Koch, S. Komposch, P. A. Koss, A. Kozela, J. Krempel, B. Lau ss, T. Lefort, Y. Lemi` er...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[31]

M. S. Boucenna, R. A. Lineros and J. W. F. Valle, Front. in Phys. 1 (2013), 34 [arXiv:1204.2576 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[32]

S. Tremaine and J. E. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 407-410 (1979)

View on Pith 1979
[33]

C. Di Paolo, F. Nesti and F. L. Villante, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 475, no.4, 5385-5397 (2018)

View on Pith 2018
[34]

D. Savchenko and A. Rudakovskyi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. So c. 487, no.4, 5711-5720 (2019)

View on Pith 2019
[35]

H. Davoudiasl, P. B. Denton and D. A. McGady, [arXiv:2008.06505 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[36]

J. F. Nieves and P. B. Pal, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005), 093006 [arXiv:hep-ph/0509321 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[37]

Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, [arXiv:1806.03115 [physics.atom -ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[38]

A. Eichhorn, [arXiv:2003.00044 [gr-qc]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[39]

D. Minic, [arXiv:2003.00318 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[40]

A. Strominger, [arXiv:1703.05448 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[41]

L. M. Krauss and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1221 (1989) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.1221

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevlett.62.1221 1989
[42]

T. Banks and N. Seiberg, Phys. Rev. D 83, 084019 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.084019 [arXiv:1011.5120 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[43]

C. Bœhm, X. Chu, J. L. Kuo and J. Pradler, [arXiv:2010.02954 [hep -ph]]. 6

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

How the literature uses it

5 arXiv papers cite this in 11 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 8 sentences without a confident label

Cites it as support 1 paper

* WIMPs are not massive enough and cannot provide the needed SHC interaction cross-sections. * Neutrinos are obviously bad candidates for SHC interactions even if it was possible to scale them to such high masses. * Primordial BH must have drastically larger masses in order to have survived until now and would have SHC effects that would be much stronger than observed. * There is no known mechanism to turn baryonic MACHO candidate objects like planets and brown dwarfs into microscopic bowling balls. * Scalar, pseudo- scalar, spin 1/2 and spin 2 dark matter particles which are gauge singlets are ruled out [ref] . * Massive primordial strange quark matter “nuggets” [ref] with baryon numbers of only $A ≃10^28$ would not have survived baryon evaporation [ref] .

Spontaneous Human Combustion rules out all standard candidates for Dark Matter · SHC-consistent DM candidates? · 0.97

Cites it as background 2 papers

From a particle physics point of view so far there are many candidates for dark matter particles, such as bosonic dark matter, axions, sterile neutrinos, and different possible WIMPs have been proposed in literature [ref] .

Exploring robust correlations between fermionic dark matter model parameters and neutron star properties: A two-fluid perspective · Introduction · 0.96
Numerous candidates for dark matter particles, including bosonic dark matter, axions, sterile neutrinos, and various WIMPs, are discussed in [ref] .

Feasibility of dark matter admixed neutron star based on recent observational constraints · Introduction · 0.99

What it cites · 27 sentences without a confident label

Builds on 1 paper

Using the results developed in [ref] , it is straightforward to see that for a massive spin-2 field dark matter field, one obtains similar bounds for its mass to that of a singlet scalar field dark matter candidate: [equation]

Hidden Sector and Gravity · Introduction · 0.85

Uses data or values from 6 papers

The results from the Eöt-Wash torsion pendulum experiment that searches for fifth forces [ref] imply that $m_ϕ≳10^-3 eV$ [ref] .

Test of Equivalence Principle at $10^{-8}$ Level by a Dual-species Double-diffraction Raman Atom Interferometer · Introduction · 0.92
The results from the Eöt-Wash torsion pendulum experiment that searches for fifth forces [ref] imply that $m_ϕ≳10^-3 eV$ [ref] .

Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a Rotating Torsion Balance · Introduction · 0.92
The results from the Eöt-Wash torsion pendulum experiment that searches for fifth forces [ref] imply that $m_ϕ≳10^-3 eV$ [ref] .

Search for the effect of massive bodies on atomic spectra and constraints on Yukawa-type interactions of scalar particles · Introduction · 0.92

Cites as support 1 paper

We note that there are solid arguments showing that the Wilson coefficient $c_1$ is of order one [ref] .

Bounds on Very Weakly Interacting Ultra Light Scalar and Pseudoscalar Dark Matter from Quantum Gravity · Introduction · 0.97

Cites as background 6 papers

A typical example of such a particle would be a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP), see e.g. [ref] for a review.

WIMP dark matter candidates and searches - current status and future prospects · Introduction · 1.00
The second one consists in modifying gravity see e.g. [ref] , but it is difficult to construct a proper model and even when that is case, it has been argued [ref] that this approach is identical to the first one with the caveat that the new field is only coupled gravitationally to the Standard Model particles.

What is modified gravity and how to differentiate it from particle dark matter? · Introduction · 0.95
The second one consists in modifying gravity see e.g. [ref] , but it is difficult to construct a proper model and even when that is case, it has been argued [ref] that this approach is identical to the first one with the caveat that the new field is only coupled gravitationally to the Standard Model particles.

Extended Theories of Gravity · Introduction · 0.95

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [20]

X. Calmet, Phys. Lett. B 801 (2020), 135152 [arXiv:1912.04147 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[2] [21]

X. Calmet and F. Kuipers, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.8, 781 [arXiv:2008.06243 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[3] [29]

X. Calmet and S. K. Majee, Phys. Lett. B 679 (2009), 267-269 [arXiv:0905.0956 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[4] [1]

L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo and S. Trojanowski, Rept. Prog. P hys. 81 (2018) no.6, 066201 [arXiv:1707.06277 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[5] [2]

M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J. 270 (1983), 365-370

View on Pith 1983

[6] [3]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 083509 [arXiv:astro-ph/0403694 [astro-ph]]. 4

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[7] [4]

J. W. Moﬀat, JCAP 03 (2006), 004 [arXiv:gr-qc/0506021 [gr-qc]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[8] [5]

S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept. 509 (2011), 167-321 [arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[9] [6]

X. Calmet and I. Kuntz, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.2, 132 [arXiv:1702.03832 [gr-qc]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[10] [7]

A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, [arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[11] [8]

K. Freese, B. Fields and D. Graﬀ, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 80 (2000), 0305 [arXiv:astro-ph/9904401 [astro-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[12] [9]

S. Tulin and H. B. Yu, Phys. Rept. 730 (2018), 1-57 [arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[13] [10]

D. J. Kapner, T. S. Cook, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, B. R. Heckel, C. D. Hoyle and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 021101 (2007) [hep-ph/0611184]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[14] [11]

C. D. Hoyle, D. J. Kapner, B. R. Heckel, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, U. Schmidt and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 70, 042004 (2004) [hep-ph/0405262]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[15] [12]

E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel, S. A. Hoedl, C. D. Hoyle, D. J. Ka pner and A. Upadhye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 131104 (2007) [hep-ph/0611223]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[16] [13]

N. Leefer, A. Gerhardus, D. Budker, V. V. Flambaum and Y. V. Stadnik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no. 27, 271601 (2016) [arXiv:1607.04956 [physics.atom-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[17] [14]

V. B. Braginsky and V. I. Panov, JETP 34, no. 3, 463 (1972)

View on Pith 1972

[18] [15]

G. L. Smith, C. D. Hoyle, J. H. Gundlach, E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 61, 022001 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[19] [16]

S. Schlamminger, K.-Y. Choi, T. A. Wagner, J. H. Gundlach and E. G. Adelberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 041101 (2008) [arXiv:0712.0607 [gr-qc]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[20] [17]

E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, B. R. Heckel, S. Hoedl and S. Schlamminger, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 62, 102 (2009)

View on Pith 2009

[21] [18]

L. Zhou et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no. 1, 013004 (2015) [arXiv:1503.00401 [physics.atom-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[22] [19]

X. Calmet, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134 (2019) no.10, 503 [arXiv:1907.05680 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[23] [22]

R. Holman, S. D. H. Hsu, T. W. Kephart, E. W. Kolb, R. Watkins an d L. M. Widrow, Phys. Lett. B 282, 132 (1992) [hep-ph/9203206]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1992

[24] [23]

S. M. Barr and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D 46, 539 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[25] [24]

X. Calmet and V. Sanz, Phys. Lett. B 737 (2014), 12-15 [arXiv:1403.5100 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[26] [25]

S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B 307 (1988), 854-866

View on Pith 1988

[27] [26]

S. R. Coleman, Nucl. Phys. B 310 (1988), 643-668. 5

View on Pith 1988

[28] [27]

G. Gilbert, Nucl. Phys. B 328 (1989), 159-170

View on Pith 1989

[29] [28]

Y. Mambrini, S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, Phys. Lett. B 760, 807-815 (2016)

View on Pith 2016

[30] [30]

C. Abel, N. J. Ayres, G. Ban, G. Bison, K. Bodek, V. Bondar, M. Daum, M. Fairbairn, V. V. Flambaum, P. Geltenbort, K. Green, W. C. Griﬃth, M. van der G rinten, Z. D. Gruji´ c, P. G. Harris, N. Hild, P. Iaydjiev, S. N. Ivanov, M. Kasprzak, Y. Ke rmaidic, K. Kirch, H. C. Koch, S. Komposch, P. A. Koss, A. Kozela, J. Krempel, B. Lau ss, T. Lefort, Y. Lemi` er...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[31] [31]

M. S. Boucenna, R. A. Lineros and J. W. F. Valle, Front. in Phys. 1 (2013), 34 [arXiv:1204.2576 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[32] [32]

S. Tremaine and J. E. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 407-410 (1979)

View on Pith 1979

[33] [33]

C. Di Paolo, F. Nesti and F. L. Villante, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 475, no.4, 5385-5397 (2018)

View on Pith 2018

[34] [34]

D. Savchenko and A. Rudakovskyi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. So c. 487, no.4, 5711-5720 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

[35] [35]

H. Davoudiasl, P. B. Denton and D. A. McGady, [arXiv:2008.06505 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[36] [36]

J. F. Nieves and P. B. Pal, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005), 093006 [arXiv:hep-ph/0509321 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[37] [37]

Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, [arXiv:1806.03115 [physics.atom -ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[38] [38]

A. Eichhorn, [arXiv:2003.00044 [gr-qc]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[39] [39]

D. Minic, [arXiv:2003.00318 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[40] [40]

A. Strominger, [arXiv:1703.05448 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[41] [41]

L. M. Krauss and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1221 (1989) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.1221

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevlett.62.1221 1989

[42] [42]

T. Banks and N. Seiberg, Phys. Rev. D 83, 084019 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.084019 [arXiv:1011.5120 [hep-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[43] [43]

C. Bœhm, X. Chu, J. L. Kuo and J. Pradler, [arXiv:2010.02954 [hep -ph]]. 6

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010