Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Constraining the Secluded and Catalyzed Annihilation Dark Matter with Fermi-LAT and Planck Data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the correct annihilation chain for secluded dark matter is 2DM → 2A' → 4SM, and that using this full chain weakens Fermi-LAT and Planck bounds enough to reopen DM masses previously excluded.

desk verdict Full 4-body treatment relaxes Fermi-LAT/Planck limits for secluded and catalyzed DM, but the quoted mass bounds rest on an unfinished kinetic-equilibrium patch. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09647 v2 pith:7NA3ETWB submitted 2025-01-16 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-ex

Yu-Hang Su , Chengfeng Cai , Hong-Hao Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-ex PACS 95.35.+d98.70.Rz98.80.Cq
keywords secludeddarkmattercatalyzedannihilationphotonmediatorkineticmixingFermi-LATgammaraysCMBconstraintscomplexscalarU(1)L_mu-L_tauportal
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 previous Fermi-LAT and CMB constraints on secluded and catalyzed dark matter used the wrong annihilation final state: they assumed 2DM → 2SM, whereas in these models the mediator A' is nearly as heavy as the dark matter and the actual chain is 2DM → 2A' → 4SM. Computing the gamma-ray yield and ionizing energy injection for the full chain, the authors find the bounds are weaker, and therefore much of the parameter space previously excluded is viable again. For a complex scalar dark matter with mediator mass ratio r = 1.2, masses above 709 GeV (catalyzed) and 16 GeV (secluded) survive all constraints in the U(1)$_D$ × U(1)$_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ model, while the U(1)$_D$ × U(1)$_Y$ model is more restrictive. The result matters because it shows how model-dependent indirect limits are when mediators decay into mixed hadronic and leptonic final states.

What carries the argument

The central object is the annihilation chain 2DM → 2A' → 4SM together with the mediator decay width $\Gamma_{A'}$, which interpolates between the secluded regime (prompt decay) and the catalyzed regime (long-lived mediator with 3A' → 2DM). The paper computes thermally averaged cross sections $\langle\sigma_2 v\rangle$ and $\langle\sigma_3 v^2\rangle$ for scalar, Dirac, and vector dark matter, solves the coupled Boltzmann equations for the DM and A' number densities, and feeds Pythia8 spectra into the Fermi-LAT 42-dSphs joint likelihood and the Planck $f_\text{eff}$-based $p_\text{ann}$ bound. The key identity enabling the weakening is that the mediator is almost degenerate with the DM (r ≈ 1–1.5), so the four-body final states contain neutrinos and mixed leptonic and hadronic products that radiate fewer gamma rays per annihilation than the pure channels used previously.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to include the thermal evolution of the Ψ scalar: if a population of light Ψ particles is needed to maintain kinetic equilibrium, its contribution to ΔN_eff or its decay products would distort the Planck CMB spectra, and the quoted mass windows would close. Alternatively, recomputing the Fermi-LAT limits with the mediator's finite decay length, so that some A' decays occur outside the dwarf galaxies, would change the J-factor weighting and could either tighten or further relax the bounds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the U(1)$_D$ dark-photon framework the dominant DM annihilation is 2Φ → 2A' followed by A' → SM, i.e. 2DM → 2A' → 4SM, with a 3A' → 2Φ process also active when the A' is long-lived (catalyzed annihilation). By generating the complete gamma-ray spectra of the four-body final states with Pythia8, including electroweak showers, and computing the CMB deposition efficiency $f_\text{eff}$ for the same spectra, the paper derives 95% CL upper limits on $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ that are uniformly weaker than the simplified single-channel $b\bar{b}$ or $\tau^+\tau^-$ limits. In the leptophilic U(1)$_D$ × U(1)$_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ model the mediator decays only to μ, τ, and neutrinos, so the constraints are the weakest. Consequently, with r = 1.2 the catalyzed complex-scalar scenario survives for $m_\Phi \gtrsim 709$ GeV in that model and $m_\Phi \gtrsim 1052$ GeV in the U(1)$_D$ × U(1)$_Y$ model; the secluded scenario survives for $m_\Phi \gtrsim 16$ GeV and 59 GeV respectively. Equivalent relaxations hold for Dirac fermion DM (catalyzed lower limits about 665 versus 910 GeV) and for vector DM (the catalyzed Fermi-LAT limit is relaxed from about 4.4 TeV to 706 GeV).

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the dark sector stays in kinetic equilibrium with the ordinary matter bath until freeze-out (T_DM = T_SM), even though the mixing angle is as small as $10^{-10}$, and this equilibrium is enforced by an auxiliary scalar Ψ introduced in Appendix B whose mass, decay width, and cosmological effects are not worked out.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The simplified single-channel bounds (b\bar{b} or τ+τ−) that previously excluded secluded and catalyzed DM should not be used; the full four-body chain is required.
  • Leptophilic portals such as U(1)$_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ are systematically less constrained than hadrophilic portals, so surviving DM candidates favor mediators that decay to muons, taus, and neutrinos.
  • Fermionic DM near 1 TeV in the catalyzed annihilation scenario, excluded in prior work, remains viable under the U(1)$_D$ × U(1)$_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ model.
  • For vector DM with r = 1.2, the catalyzed Fermi-LAT limit is relaxed from about 4.4 TeV to 706 GeV.
  • The semi-catalyzed regime interpolates between the two extremes and has intermediate DM mass limits set by the value of $\Gamma_{A'}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same full-chain treatment applied to other gauge extensions such as U(1)$_{L_e-L_\mu}$, U(1)$_{B-L}$, or other leptophilic portals would map out a spectrum of model-dependent indirect limits, with the ordering (leptonic weakest) robust while the absolute masses shift.
  • Because the mediator is nearly degenerate with dark matter, the off-shell and t-channel contributions in 2DM → 2A' are kinematically special; future gamma-ray observatories sensitive to the 10 GeV-to-TeV range could probe the r > 1 region that this paper finds open.
  • The auxiliary scalar Ψ required to maintain kinetic equilibrium is a testable input: its coupling $\lambda_{\Phi\Psi}\sim 10^{-3}$ and mass must satisfy BBN and CMB bounds, but its mass, decay width, and cosmological effects are left unanalyzed here.
  • The paper assumes prompt A' decay inside dwarf galaxies; a long-lived mediator that decays outside the dwarf would change the J-factor weighting and could either tighten or further relax the gamma-ray limits depending on the decay length.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies thermal relic dark matter in a U(1)_D dark photon model with complex scalar dark matter, and with fermionic and vector extensions, focusing on secluded annihilation (2DM -> 2A' -> 4SM) and catalyzed annihilation (with 3A' -> 2DM). The relic density is computed from coupled Boltzmann equations with the gauge coupling g_D tuned to reproduce Omega h^2 = 0.12, and gamma-ray energy spectra are generated with Pythia8 for the full 2A' -> 4SM chains in the U(1)_D x U(1)_Y and U(1)_D x U(1)_{L_mu-L_tau} portal models. Using Fermi-LAT 14.3-year 42-dSph likelihoods and the Planck 2018 p_ann bound, the authors derive upper limits on <sigma v> and g_D, finding considerably weaker constraints than the simplified 2DM -> 2SM analyses. For complex scalar DM with r = 1.2, the catalyzed lower mass bound becomes 709 GeV (1052 GeV) and the secluded bound 16 GeV (59 GeV) for the L_mu-L_tau (hypercharge) portal.

Significance. The main contribution is a more realistic treatment of indirect-detection constraints for secluded and catalyzed dark matter: replacing single-channel 2DM -> 2SM limits with full 2DM -> 2A' -> 4SM spectra changes the limits by factors of a few to several. The analysis is carefully validated by reproducing the official Fermi-LAT b bbar and tau+ tau- limits and the Planck 2015 bounds from Ref. [58], and the use of Pythia8 with electroweak showers is appropriate for this problem. The comparison of the hypercharge and L_mu-L_tau portals is physically well motivated, and the conclusion that the leptophilic portal is less constrained is robust in direction. If the relic-density assumptions are completed, the paper gives falsifiable mass and coupling targets for Fermi-LAT, CTA, and Planck. The central weakness is that the mass limits quoted in Section IV depend on a kinetic-equilibrium patch that is not fully specified, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.A and Appendix B] The assumption that the dark sector remains in kinetic equilibrium with the SM bath until freeze-out, so that T_DM = T_SM, is load-bearing for the relic-density curves in Fig. 5 and Fig. 11 and hence for the quoted mass bounds such as 709 GeV and 16 GeV. Appendix B attempts to justify this with the scalar Psi and the quartic interaction (B1), but the patch is incomplete: the mass of Psi is not specified, no decay operator is written down, and the quartic (B1) does not by itself make Psi unstable. The abundance of Psi, its decay width, the decay temperature, and the resulting entropy injection or contribution to the dark matter density are not analyzed. If Psi is long-lived or over-abundant, it can alter the expansion history and shift the relic-density curve, moving the headline mass limits. Please either provide a complete Psi sector with mass and decay operators and show that BBN, CMB, and Delta N_eff constraints are satisfied, or demonstrate that the quoted limits are insensitive to relaxing the T_DM = T_SM assumption.
  2. [Section II.A, Eqs. (2)-(3), and Fig. 5(a)] In the catalyzed regime with s_epsilon as small as 10^-10, the A' lifetime can be much longer than the DM freeze-out time. The Boltzmann system (2)-(3) tracks the A' number density but does not include the effect of A' decay products on the SM bath temperature or the dilution of the DM yield by late entropy injection. If the A' abundance at freeze-out is non-negligible, the subsequent decays inject entropy and reduce the final DM relic density, so the values of g_D tuned to Omega h^2 = 0.12 in Fig. 5(a) and Fig. 11(a) would change. Please quantify the A' yield at freeze-out, the A' decay temperature, and the resulting dilution for the catalyzed benchmarks, or restrict the claimed mass limits to the parameter region where this effect is negligible.
  3. [Section III.A and Fig. 10] The Fermi-LAT and Planck upper limits on <sigma v> are presented in Fig. 10 as functions of m_DM only, but in the 2DM -> 2A' -> 4SM chain the final-state spectra depend on the mediator mass, i.e. on r = m_DM/m_A', through the boost of A' and the energies of its decay products. The text does not state the value of r used to generate the spectra in Fig. 6 and the limits in Fig. 10, and Fig. 11(b) applies constraints across a range of r without describing any recomputation of the spectra. If the same <sigma v> limits are used for all r, the r-dependence of the gamma-ray and CMB deposition spectra is neglected, which would affect the exclusion curves. Please state the r value assumed in Fig. 10 and specify how the limits are recomputed for each r shown in Fig. 11(b).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II.A, Eq. (8)] The direct-detection bound in Eq. (8) is derived assuming m_A' approximately equal to m_Phi, but the benchmarks used throughout the paper have r = m_Phi/m_A' = 1.2; please use m_A' = m_Phi/r so that the numerical coefficient is consistent with the parameter space studied.
  2. [Section III.A, Figs. 6 and 10] The captions of Figs. 6 and 10 should state the mass ratio r used in the spectral simulations; without this information the reader cannot tell whether the plotted constraints are meant to be universal or benchmark-specific.
  3. [Section III.A] The text refers to 'PPPC4DM' while the cited code is 'PPPC 4 DM ID'; please use the official name consistently.
  4. [Section IV, Fig. 11(c)] The relation between the horizontal axis Gamma_A' and the model parameters s_epsilon or s'_epsilon is not stated in Fig. 11(c); since the two portal models have different decay widths for the same mixing angle, please specify which relation is used or state that Gamma_A' is treated as a free parameter.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Fermi-LAT and Planck constraints come from external data, gD is fitted to the observed relic abundance only before constraints are applied, and the 2DM -> 2A' -> 4SM spectra are computed with Pythia8 rather than derived from the constraints.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is between two independent calculations: Fermi-LAT/Planck upper limits on <sigma v> for the full 2DM -> 2A' -> 4SM spectra (computed with Pythia8 from the model Lagrangians) and the same external data applied to simplified 2DM -> 2SM channels. Neither limit is defined in terms of the other. The relic-density green bands fix gD to reproduce Omega h^2 = 0.12 before the external constraints are applied; this is a standard parameter fit, not a prediction used as evidence. The scalar and fermionic cross-sections (Eqs. (4)-(5) and (11)-(12)) are taken from Cline et al. [15], an external reference; the vector cross-sections (Eqs. (14)-(16)) are cited to the same group's earlier paper [21], but they are analytic, model-defined results independent of Fermi-LAT/Planck data and are not tuned to match those constraints. The authors also validate their Fermi-LAT and Planck pipelines by reproducing the published bbar and tautau limits (Figs. 8-9), confirming that the external anchors are genuine. The Appendix B Psi mechanism is incomplete (no mass or decay width specified for Psi), but that is a model-building/assumption gap affecting the relic-density calculation, not a circular reduction: the quoted mass bounds are conditional on T_DM = T_SM, and the Fermi/Planck exclusion curves are external. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no circularity step meets the evidentiary bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The core model is a standard dark-photon portal with a complex scalar DM; the cross sections and Boltzmann formalism are inherited from prior work. The paper's main addition is the spectral calculation. The most fragile input is the kinetic equilibrium assumption, which requires an extra scalar not present in the model.

free parameters (6)
  • Dark gauge coupling g_D = Varies; e.g., 1.3, 1.03, 0.62 for scalar benchmarks; ranges in Figs. 11-12
    Adjusted to reproduce Omega_DM h^2 = 0.12; central to relic density and annihilation rate.
  • Kinetic mixing s_epsilon (or s'_epsilon) = Scanned; benchmarks 10^{-10}, 2x10^{-9}, 10^{-6}; constrained by LZ direct detection
    Sets the decay width of A' and the freeze-out regime (catalyzed vs secluded).
  • Mass ratio r = m_DM/m_A' = Fixed to 1.2 or 1.45 in benchmarks
    Determines kinematics and the 2->2 and 3->2 cross sections; the paper restricts to 1<r<1.5.
  • Mediator decay width Gamma_A' = Scanned in Fig. 11(c); related to s_epsilon
    Controls the catalyzed-to-secluded transition; indirectly set by s_epsilon and portal model.
  • L_mu-L_tau coupling g_x and mixing s'_epsilon = Not independently scanned; combined in Gamma_A'
    In the U(1)_D x U(1)_{L_mu-L_tau} model, these set A' decay modes and width; the paper does not derive individual constraints.
  • Quartic coupling lambda_PhiPsi = Not fitted; shown to be ~10^{-3} in Appendix B viable region
    Introduced to maintain kinetic equilibrium; its value is chosen in the allowed band; introduces new physics not otherwise constrained.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Boltzmann equations with the thermally averaged cross sections <sigma2 v> and <sigma3 v^2> from [15] and [21] accurately describe the thermal evolution.
    The paper uses these cited cross sections without re-deriving them; errors would propagate into relic density and freeze-out scenario.
  • domain assumption A' is a mass eigenstate and its decay width is given by Gamma_A' ~ 27 alpha s_epsilon^2 m_A'/(16 c_W^2), with s_epsilon << 1.
    Used to compute A' lifetime and the catalyzed/secluded regime; direct detection also assumes this mixing.
  • ad hoc to paper The dark and SM sectors maintain kinetic equilibrium until freeze-out.
    Required for T_DM = T_SM; justified only by the ad hoc Psi scalar in Appendix B.
  • standard math The gamma-ray spectra from Pythia8, plus the Fermi-LAT and Planck likelihoods, correctly model the constraints.
    Established tools and public data; the paper validates against official single-channel limits.
  • domain assumption The U(1)_{L_mu-L_tau} gauge boson Z' only couples to muon and tau flavor, and A' mixes only with Z' so that A' decays to muons, taus, and neutrinos.
    Sets the decay channels and the low gamma-ray yield in that model.
  • domain assumption The scalar DM cross sections (Eqs. 4-5) are correct.
    Quoted from [15] formulas; the paper does not derive them, but they are from peer-reviewed work.
invented entities (1)
  • Scalar Psi
    purpose: Maintains kinetic equilibrium between dark and SM sectors before DM freeze-out; couples to DM via lambda_PhiPsi |Phi|^2|Psi|^2.
    Introduced in Appendix B solely to keep T_DM = T_SM for small s_epsilon; its mass, decays, and cosmological impact are not constrained or discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining the Secluded and Catalyzed Annihilation Dark Matter with Fermi-LAT and Planck Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7NA3ETWB

@misc{pith2026250109647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining the Secluded and Catalyzed Annihilation Dark Matter with Fermi-LAT and Planck Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7NA3ETWB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09647}
}
abstract

We propose a dark matter (DM) model with a complex scalar charged under a hidden gauge symmetry, denoted as $U(1)_D$. The scalar field is the DM candidate while the $U(1)_D$ gauge field $A'$ plays the role of a mediator, which connects the dark sector to the standard model (SM) sector via a tiny kinetic mixing. We find that both the secluded and catalyzed annihilation scenarios can be realized in this model. The phenomenology of DM, including relic density, indirect detection (Fermi-LAT), and CMB (Planck) constraints, is discussed. We also extend our discussion to DM with other spins, including Dirac fermion and vector boson. Our analysis is carried out in two models, denoted as $U(1)_D \times U(1)_Y$ and $U(1)_D \times U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$, with the former corresponding to $A'$ kinetically mixing with the $U(1)_Y$ gauge field $B$ and the latter corresponding to $A'$ mixing with the $U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ gauge field $Z'$. We find that, in previous studies, the indirect detection limits were overly restrictive because they only considered the simplified $2\mathrm{DM} \to 2\mathrm{SM}$ annihilation channel. In contrast, by performing a complete calculation of the gamma-ray and CMB constraints from the process $2\mathrm{DM} \to 2A' \to 4\mathrm{SM}$ in the models we consider, we observe weaker constraints in both the $U(1)_D \times U(1)_Y$ and $U(1)_D \times U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ models, with the $U(1)_D \times U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ model being subject to the weakest constraints overall since it involves less hadronic decay processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09647 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman diagram for DM annihilating into mediator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Feynman diagrams for catalyzed annihilation of DM with catalyst [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Feynman diagrams of 2Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Feynman diagrams of 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The evolution of the yields of DM Φ (solid red) and mediator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Gamma-ray spectra for DM annihilates into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Gamma-ray spectra for 10 GeV DM annihilating through various channels. Red solid lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. A comparison of the 95% CL upper limits on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison of our derived 95% CL upper limits (red) from Planck 2015 result on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. 95% CL upper limits on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Parameter spaces for complex scalar DM. The first panel shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Fermi-LAT and CMB constraints for fermionic and vector DM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Parameter space for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Probing the Phenomenology of Dark Matter from Decoupled Freeze-Out

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a scalar-plus-pseudoscalar mediator model, decoupled freeze-out can produce the observed dark matter relic density via s-wave annihilation while evading CMB limits, though indirect-detection and BBN bounds leave on...

  2. Interpreting the KM3-230213A PeV Neutrino Event via Vector Dark Matter Decay and Its Multi-Messenger Signatures

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A U(1)_X vector dark matter model explains the KM3-230213A PeV neutrino via DM decay and predicts a cosmic string gravitational wave background consistent with PTA observations, but with several parameters fitted to the data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [58]

    Detecting dark matter annihilation with CMB polarization: Signatures and experimental prospects,

    N. Padmanabhan and D. P. Finkbeiner, “Detecting dark matter annihilation with CMB polarization: Signatures and experimental prospects,” Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 023508, arXiv:astro-ph/0503486

    arXiv 2005

  2. [1]

    The interaction must be strong enough to maintain DM in kinetic equilibrium until freeze- out. 22

    work page

  3. [2]

    The new annihilation cross section of 2Φ → 2Ψ must be sufficiently small to avoid altering the thermal evolution of DM described in Sect. II. The interaction between Φ and Ψ fields can be the following quartic term: LΦΨ = λΦΨ|Φ|2|Ψ|2. (B1) The thermally averaged cross section for the processes 2Φ → 2Ψ and ΦΨ → ΦΨ can be easily derived as: ⟨σv⟩2Φ→2Ψ = λ2 Φ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Supersymmetric dark matter,

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, “Supersymmetric dark matter,” Phys. Rept. 267 (1996) 195–373, arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    arXiv 1996

  5. [4]

    Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, “Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,” Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279–390, arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    arXiv 2005

  6. [5]

    Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection,

    J. L. Feng, “Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.48 (2010) 495–545, arXiv:1003.0904 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2010

  7. [6]

    Bauer and T

    M. Bauer and T. Plehn, Yet Another Introduction to Dark Matter: The Particle Physics Approach, vol. 959 of Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer, 2019. arXiv:1705.01987 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses,

    B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, “Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 165–168

    work page 1977

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment,

    XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., “First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) 041003, arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Dark Matter Search Results from 1.54 Tonne ·Year Exposure of PandaX-4T,

    PandaX Collaboration, Z. Bo et al., “Dark Matter Search Results from 1.54 Tonne ·Year Exposure of PandaX-4T,” Phys. Rev. Lett.134 (2025) 011805, arXiv:2408.00664 [hep-ex]. 23 101 102 103 104 mDM (GeV) 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 λΦΨ Kinetic decoupling KE (catalyzed) ...

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,

    LZ Collaboration, J. Aalbers et al., “Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,” arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints,

    G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, “The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 203, arXiv:1703.07364 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects,

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, “WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects,” Rept. Prog. Phys.81 (2018) 066201, arXiv:1707.06277 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, “Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 171301, arXiv:1402.5143 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Model for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, H. Murayama, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, “Model for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015) 021301, arXiv:1411.3727 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [15]

    New Freezeout Mechanism for Strongly Interacting Dark Matter,

    J. Smirnov and J. F. Beacom, “New Freezeout Mechanism for Strongly Interacting Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020) 131301, arXiv:2002.04038 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Light Dark Matter from Forbidden Channels,

    R. T. D’Agnolo and J. T. Ruderman, “Light Dark Matter from Forbidden Channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 061301, arXiv:1505.07107 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Enabling Forbidden Dark Matter,

    J. M. Cline, H. Liu, T. Slatyer, and W. Xue, “Enabling Forbidden Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 083521, arXiv:1702.07716 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    New pathways to the relic abundance of vector-portal dark matter,

    P. J. Fitzpatrick, H. Liu, T. R. Slatyer, and Y.-D. Tsai, “New pathways to the relic abundance of vector-portal dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 083517, arXiv:2011.01240 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Secluded WIMP Dark Matter,

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, “Secluded WIMP Dark Matter,” Phys. Lett. B662 (2008) 53–61, arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Secluded U(1) below the weak scale,

    M. Pospelov, “Secluded U(1) below the weak scale,” Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 095002, arXiv:0811.1030 [hep-ph]. 24

    2009 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Astrophysical Signatures of Secluded Dark Matter,

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, “Astrophysical Signatures of Secluded Dark Matter,” Phys. Lett. B671 (2009) 391–397, arXiv:0810.1502 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Dark Matter Freeze-Out via Catalyzed Annihilation,

    C.-Y. Xing and S.-H. Zhu, “Dark Matter Freeze-Out via Catalyzed Annihilation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 061101, arXiv:2102.02447 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Vector dark matter production from catalyzed annihilation,

    C. Cai and H.-H. Zhang, “Vector dark matter production from catalyzed annihilation,” JHEP 01 (2022) 099, arXiv:2107.13475 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Simplified Dark Matter Models for the Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess,

    A. Berlin, D. Hooper, and S. D. McDermott, “Simplified Dark Matter Models for the Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess,” Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 115022, arXiv:1404.0022 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Scalar Dark Matter: Real vs Complex,

    H. Wu and S. Zheng, “Scalar Dark Matter: Real vs Complex,” JHEP 03 (2017) 142, arXiv:1610.06292 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Complex scalar dark matter in the gauged two-Higgs-doublet model,

    C.-R. Chen, Y.-X. Lin, C. S. Nugroho, R. Ramos, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and T.-C. Yuan, “Complex scalar dark matter in the gauged two-Higgs-doublet model,” Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 035037, arXiv:1910.13138 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Fermionic and scalar dark matter with hidden U(1) gauge interaction and kinetic mixing,

    J. Lao, C. Cai, Z.-H. Yu, Y.-P. Zeng, and H.-H. Zhang, “Fermionic and scalar dark matter with hidden U(1) gauge interaction and kinetic mixing,” Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 095031, arXiv:2003.02516 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Complex scalar dark matter in a new gauged U(1) symmetry with kinetic and direct mixings,

    Y.-H. Su, C. Cai, Y.-P. Zeng, and H.-H. Zhang, “Complex scalar dark matter in a new gauged U(1) symmetry with kinetic and direct mixings,” Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 095014, arXiv:2406.18170 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Searching for Secluded Dark Matter with H.E.S.S., Fermi-LAT, and Planck,

    S. Profumo, F. S. Queiroz, J. Silk, and C. Siqueira, “Searching for Secluded Dark Matter with H.E.S.S., Fermi-LAT, and Planck,” JCAP 03 (2018) 010, arXiv:1711.03133 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Secluded Dark Matter in light of the Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA),

    C. Siqueira, “Secluded Dark Matter in light of the Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA),” Phys. Lett. B 797 (2019) 134840, arXiv:1901.11055 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Indirect Searches for Secluded Dark Matter,

    C. Siqueira, G. N. Fortes, A. Viana, and F. S. Queiroz, “Indirect Searches for Secluded Dark Matter,” PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 577, arXiv:2107.04053 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Present and future constraints on secluded dark matter in the Galactic Halo with TeV Gamma-ray observatories,

    G. N. Fortes, F. S. Queiroz, C. Siqueira, and A. Viana, “Present and future constraints on secluded dark matter in the Galactic Halo with TeV Gamma-ray observatories,” JCAP 07 (2023) 043, arXiv:2212.05075 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Constraining the interaction strength between dark matter and visible matter: I. fermionic dark matter,

    J.-M. Zheng, Z.-H. Yu, J.-W. Shao, X.-J. Bi, Z. Li, and H.-H. Zhang, “Constraining the interaction strength between dark matter and visible matter: I. fermionic dark matter,” Nucl. Phys. B854 (2012) 350–374, arXiv:1012.2022 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Constraining the interaction strength between dark matter and visible matter: II. scalar, vector and spin-3/2 dark matter,

    Z.-H. Yu, J.-M. Zheng, X.-J. Bi, Z. Li, D.-X. Yao, and H.-H. Zhang, “Constraining the interaction strength between dark matter and visible matter: II. scalar, vector and spin-3/2 dark matter,” Nucl. Phys. B860 (2012) 115–151, arXiv:1112.6052 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Dark matter and spin-1 milli-charged particles,

    E. Gabrielli, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and H. Veerm¨ ae, “Dark matter and spin-1 milli-charged particles,” JHEP 08 (2015) 150, arXiv:1507.00571 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641 (2020) A6, arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [37]

    PPPC 4 DM ID: A Poor Particle Physicist Cookbook for Dark Matter Indirect Detection,

    M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. Hutsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci, M. Raidal, F. Sala, and A. Strumia, “PPPC 4 DM ID: A Poor Particle Physicist Cookbook for Dark Matter Indirect Detection,” JCAP 03 (2011) 051, arXiv:1012.4515 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JCAP 10, E01 (2012)]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [38]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,

    C. Bierlich et al., “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,” SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022) 8, arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Solving the electron and muon g − 2 anomalies in Z ′ models,

    A. Bodas, R. Coy, and S. J. D. King, “Solving the electron and muon g − 2 anomalies in Z ′ models,” Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 1065, arXiv:2102.07781 [hep-ph]. 25

    2021 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Unveiling neutrino phenomenology, (g-2)e, µ and leptogenesis through U(1) gauge symmetries in an inverse seesaw model,

    P. Panda, M. K. Behera, P. Mishra, and R. Mohanta, “Unveiling neutrino phenomenology, (g-2)e, µ and leptogenesis through U(1) gauge symmetries in an inverse seesaw model,” Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 035032, arXiv:2203.14536 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Lepton anomalous magnetic moment with singlet-doublet fermion dark matter in a scotogenic U(1)L µ-Lτ model,

    D. Borah, M. Dutta, S. Mahapatra, and N. Sahu, “Lepton anomalous magnetic moment with singlet-doublet fermion dark matter in a scotogenic U(1)L µ-Lτ model,” Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 015029, arXiv:2109.02699 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Probing light mediators at the MUonE experiment,

    G. Grilli di Cortona and E. Nardi, “Probing light mediators at the MUonE experiment,” Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) L111701, arXiv:2204.04227 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Leptophilic dark matter in gauged U (1)Le−Lµ model in light of DAMPE cosmic ray e+ + e− excess,

    G. H. Duan, X.-G. He, L. Wu, and J. M. Yang, “Leptophilic dark matter in gauged U (1)Le−Lµ model in light of DAMPE cosmic ray e+ + e− excess,” Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 323, arXiv:1711.11563 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Dark Matter Annihilation Explanation for e+- Excesses in Cosmic Ray,

    X.-G. He, “Dark Matter Annihilation Explanation for e+- Excesses in Cosmic Ray,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A24 (2009) 2139–2160, arXiv:0908.2908 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Searching for Dark Matter Annihilation from Milky Way Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies with Six Years of Fermi Large Area Telescope Data,

    F ermi-LA TCollaboration, M. Ackermann et al., “Searching for Dark Matter Annihilation from Milky Way Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies with Six Years of Fermi Large Area Telescope Data,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015) 231301, arXiv:1503.02641 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Legacy analysis of dark matter annihilation from the Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies with 14 years of Fermi-LAT data,

    A. McDaniel, M. Ajello, C. M. Karwin, M. Di Mauro, A. Drlica-Wagner, and M. A. S´ anchez-Conde, “Legacy analysis of dark matter annihilation from the Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies with 14 years of Fermi-LAT data,” Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 063024, arXiv:2311.04982 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Limits to Dark Matter Annihilation Cross-Section from a Combined Analysis of MAGIC and Fermi-LAT Observations of Dwarf Satellite Galaxies,

    MAGIC, F ermi-LA TCollaboration, M. L. Ahnen et al., “Limits to Dark Matter Annihilation Cross-Section from a Combined Analysis of MAGIC and Fermi-LAT Observations of Dwarf Satellite Galaxies,” JCAP 02 (2016) 039, arXiv:1601.06590 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Extending Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. Limits on Gamma-ray Lines from Dark Matter Annihilation,

    S. Profumo, F. S. Queiroz, and C. E. Yaguna, “Extending Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. Limits on Gamma-ray Lines from Dark Matter Annihilation,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.461 (2016) 3976–3981, arXiv:1602.08501 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Scaling Relations for Dark Matter Annihilation and Decay Profiles in Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies,

    A. B. Pace and L. E. Strigari, “Scaling Relations for Dark Matter Annihilation and Decay Profiles in Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.482 (2019) 3480–3496, arXiv:1802.06811 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [50]

    A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering,

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, “A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering,” Astrophys. J. 490 (1997) 493–508, arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    1997 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Empirical models for Dark Matter Halos. I. Nonparametric Construction of Density Profiles and Comparison with Parametric Models,

    A. W. Graham, D. Merritt, B. Moore, J. Diemand, and B. Terzic, “Empirical models for Dark Matter Halos. I. Nonparametric Construction of Density Profiles and Comparison with Parametric Models,” Astron. J. 132 (2006) 2685–2700, arXiv:astro-ph/0509417

    2006 arXiv

  45. [52]

    The Structure of dark matter halos in dwarf galaxies,

    A. Burkert, “The Structure of dark matter halos in dwarf galaxies,” Astrophys. J. Lett.447 (1995) L25, arXiv:astro-ph/9504041

    1995 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Dark matter scaling relations,

    P. Salucci and A. Burkert, “Dark matter scaling relations,” Astrophys. J. Lett.537 (2000) L9–L12, arXiv:astro-ph/0004397

    2000 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Milky Way Satellite Census. I. The Observational Selection Function for Milky Way Satellites in DES Y3 and Pan-STARRS DR1,

    DES Collaboration, A. Drlica-Wagner et al., “Milky Way Satellite Census. I. The Observational Selection Function for Milky Way Satellites in DES Y3 and Pan-STARRS DR1,” Astrophys. J. 893 (2020) 1, arXiv:1912.03302 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters,

    Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade et al., “Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.594 (2016) A13, arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [56]

    CMB anisotropy in the decaying neutrino cosmology,

    J. A. Adams, S. Sarkar, and D. W. Sciama, “CMB anisotropy in the decaying neutrino cosmology,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.301 (1998) 210–214, arXiv:astro-ph/9805108

    1998 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Particle decays during the cosmic dark ages,

    X.-L. Chen and M. Kamionkowski, “Particle decays during the cosmic dark ages,” Phys. Rev. D70 26 (2004) 043502, arXiv:astro-ph/0310473

    2004 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Indirect Dark Matter Signatures in the Cosmic Dark Ages II. Ionization, Heating and Photon Production from Arbitrary Energy Injections,

    T. R. Slatyer, “Indirect Dark Matter Signatures in the Cosmic Dark Ages II. Ionization, Heating and Photon Production from Arbitrary Energy Injections,” Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 023521, arXiv:1506.03812 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Indirect dark matter signatures in the cosmic dark ages. I. Generalizing the bound on s-wave dark matter annihilation from Planck results,

    T. R. Slatyer, “Indirect dark matter signatures in the cosmic dark ages. I. Generalizing the bound on s-wave dark matter annihilation from Planck results,” Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 023527, arXiv:1506.03811 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Damping scales of neutralino cold dark matter,

    S. Hofmann, D. J. Schwarz, and H. Stoecker, “Damping scales of neutralino cold dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 083507, arXiv:astro-ph/0104173

    2001 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Kinetic decoupling of WIMPs: analytic expressions,

    L. Visinelli and P. Gondolo, “Kinetic decoupling of WIMPs: analytic expressions,” Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 083526, arXiv:1501.02233 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.