Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Bounds on decaying sterile neutrinos via magnetic dipole moment from COB intensity

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Sterile neutrinos can explain the cosmic optical excess

desk verdict New application of the LORRI COB excess to the sterile-to-sterile transition magnetic moment, but the claimed bound is really a fit to a marginal central value and the intensity comparison mixes units. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03328 v3 pith:BXWEPUG7 submitted 2025-02-05 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Hriditi Howlader , Vivekanand Mohapatra , Alekha C. Nayak , Tripurari Srivastava This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords cosmicopticalbackgroundsterileneutrinotransitionmagneticmomentdarkmatterdecayLORRIkeVlow-energyeffectivefieldtheorylineintensitymapping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the unexplained optical glow measured by LORRI on NASA's New Horizons spacecraft—an anomalous intensity of $2.99 \pm 2.03\,\mathrm{nW/m^2/sr}$ after subtracting galaxy counts and foreground light—can be produced by radiatively decaying sterile neutrinos with masses of order keV. If that is right, the same dark-matter candidate that many models invoke would also be the source of a puzzling astrophysical signal, and the measurement would translate directly into bounds on the sterile-to-sterile transition magnetic moment, a poorly constrained particle-physics parameter. Working in a low-energy effective field theory, the authors derive that values of $d_{NN\gamma}$ between $3\times10^{-13}\,\mathrm{eV^{-1}}$ and $10^{-9}\,\mathrm{eV^{-1}}$ are needed to account for the reported excess. The central result is this inferred parameter range, offered as an upper bound on the transition magnetic moment for $\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{keV})$-mass sterile neutrinos.

What carries the argument

The central object is the radiative decay of a heavy sterile neutrino through the effective dipole operator $\mathcal{O}_{NN\gamma} = (\bar{N}^c_R i\sigma_{\mu\nu} N_R) F^{\mu\nu}$ in the low-energy effective field theory. The decay width is $\Gamma_{m_1} = (2|d_{NN\gamma}|^2/\pi)\, m_1^3 (2-\delta)^3 \delta^3$ with $\delta = \Delta m/m_1$, and the mean specific intensity from decaying dark matter is $I_\lambda = (c/4\pi)(\Omega_{\chi,0}\rho_c c^2 \Gamma_{m_1})/(\lambda_{\mathrm{obs}}(1+z)H(z))\,(\Delta m/m_1)$. Matching this $I_\lambda$ to LORRI's measured excess, with $\Delta m$ chosen so the emitted photons fall in the $0.4$–$0.9\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ band after redshift, is what converts an astrophysical brightness into a bound on the coupling $d_{NN\gamma}$.

What would settle it

Re-analyse the LORRI fields with a revised diffuse-galactic-light or scattered-starlight model: if the residual falls below roughly $1\,\mathrm{nW/m^2/sr}$, the inferred $d_{NN\gamma}$ range no longer has an excess to explain. Alternatively, a dedicated search for the predicted quasi-monochromatic line at $2$–$10\,\mathrm{eV}$ in the COB spectrum that finds no line at the required decay width would rule out the sterile-neutrino explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within a low-energy effective field theory, a keV-scale sterile neutrino $m_1$ can decay radiatively to a slightly lighter sterile neutrino $m_2$ plus a photon through a sterile-to-sterile transition magnetic moment $d_{NN\gamma}$, with mass splitting $\Delta m = m_1 - m_2$. The paper shows that if such sterile neutrinos are all of the dark matter, the integrated light from these decays reproduces LORRI's anomalous residual for $m_1$ in the 1–40 keV range, $\Delta m$ in the 2–10 eV range, and decay widths around $10^{-22}$–$10^{-21}\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$. The corresponding transition magnetic moment is $3\times10^{-13}\,\mathrm{eV^{-1}}$ to $10^{-9}\,\mathrm{eV^{-1}}$ for the $2.99\pm2.03\,\mathrm{nW/m^2/sr}$ excess and roughly an order of magnitude larger for the earlier $8.06\pm1.92\,\mathrm{nW/m^2/sr}$ excess. These are presented as upper bounds on $d_{NN\gamma}$ at keV masses, lying below existing X-ray line limits; sterile-to-active and active-to-active decay channels are found unable to explain the excess.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the $2.99\pm2.03\,\mathrm{nW/m^2/sr}$ residual in the cosmic optical background is a genuine excess—about $1.5\sigma$ above zero—and that keV sterile neutrinos comprising all of the dark matter are its only source.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The required decay widths ($\sim 10^{-22}$–$10^{-21}\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$) are far below the inverse age of the universe, so sterile neutrinos remain a viable cold dark matter candidate while producing the excess.
  • Sterile-to-active and active-to-active decay channels cannot reproduce the excess, singling out the sterile-to-sterile transition magnetic moment within this framework.
  • The inferred $d_{NN\gamma}$ values lie below existing X-ray upper bounds, so the scenario is not currently excluded.
  • Future surveys such as SPHEREx, GALEX, and ULTRASAT can probe the same radiative-decay signal in adjacent wavelength bands and sharpen or overturn the inferred range.
  • A verified excess would make the COB measurement a new, largely model-independent probe of keV-scale neutrino magnetic moments, complementing collider searches for long-lived particles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the $2.99\pm2.03\,\mathrm{nW/m^2/sr}$ residual is only about $1.5\sigma$ from zero, a foreground model that shaves off part of the residual would push the required $d_{NN\gamma}$ upward or eliminate the need for sterile-neutrino decays altogether.
  • The model predicts a quasi-monochromatic photon line at energy $\Delta m \sim 2$–$10\,\mathrm{eV}$; high-resolution COB spectroscopy looking for a line rather than a broadband excess would directly test the sterile-neutrino origin.
  • The same effective-field-theory machinery applies to the cosmic ultraviolet, X-ray, and infrared backgrounds; agreement across bands would strengthen the case, disagreement would point to a different source of the excess.
  • If competing explanations such as decaying axions or unmodelled intra-halo light account for part of the excess, the quoted numbers should be read as upper limits on $d_{NN\gamma}$ rather than a required value.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies radiative decay of a keV-scale sterile neutrino pair through a sterile-to-sterile transition magnetic moment, N1 -> N2 + gamma, and computes the mean specific intensity of the resulting cosmic optical background. It compares this intensity with the LORRI anomalous COB measurements I806 = 8.06 +/- 1.92 nW/m2/sr and I299 = 2.99 +/- 2.03 nW/m2/sr, solves for the required decay width and transition magnetic moment dNNgamma, and claims upper bounds on dNNgamma for m1 = 1-40 keV and Delta m = 2-10 eV. The paper also compares with X-ray bounds and sketches UV completions that produce small mass splittings.

Significance. The topic is timely: the LORRI COB excess is an interesting anomaly, and an effective-field-theory treatment of sterile-neutrino radiative decay is a reasonable framework. If the claimed bounds were correct, they would provide a new astrophysical constraint on a poorly constrained sterile-to-sterile transition magnetic moment. The paper is clearly organized, uses standard formulas for the decay width and line intensity, and makes a useful comparison to existing X-ray bounds. However, the central quantitative comparison is not performed correctly: a per-unit-wavelength intensity is equated to a band-integrated intensity, and the procedure yields required parameter values rather than upper bounds. The paper does not provide machine-checked derivations, reproducible code, or a detailed bandpass treatment, and the numerical results therefore cannot be accepted as stated.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV.A and Eq. (8)] The quantity computed in Eq. (8) is the mean specific intensity I_lambda in nW/m2/sr/um, but the analysis sets this quantity equal to the LORRI residuals I806 and I299, which are band-integrated intensities in nW/m2/sr over 0.4-0.9 um. Setting I_lambda(lambda_piv) = I299 assumes an effective bandwidth of 1 um and ignores the LORRI bandpass. For Delta m near 2 eV, lambda_e = hc/Delta m is about 0.62 um, so the predicted line begins just redward of the pivot wavelength 0.608 um; the band-integrated flux is the integral of the declining I_lambda over 0.62-0.9 um and is much smaller than I_lambda at the line onset. For larger Delta m the mismatch changes in a model-dependent way. The required Gamma and dNNgamma are therefore underestimated by a factor that must be recomputed with the actual LORRI response; this is the central quantitative comparison of the paper.
  2. [Title, Abstract, and Section IV.A] The procedure does not yield an upper bound. The text says 'we first fix the obtained intensity to I806/I299' and solves for Gamma and dNNgamma; the resulting curves are the values required to reproduce the excess, not limits. An upper bound would follow from requiring the predicted intensity to be smaller than the observed excess, or smaller than a chosen upper limit such as I299 + 1.64 sigma, and would be an inequality on dNNgamma. As they stand, the quoted ranges are either required values or, if interpreted as the minimum needed to explain all of the excess, lower bounds on dNNgamma. The abstract and title claim of 'upper bounds' is therefore not supported by the calculation.
  3. [Section IV.A and Figs. 2-3] The uncertainty on the excess is not used. The analysis matches the central values 2.99 +/- 2.03 nW/m2/sr and 8.06 +/- 1.92 nW/m2/sr rather than deriving a limit from the upper end. Since the 2.99 value is only about 1.5 sigma above zero, a 95% upper limit on a BSM contribution would be roughly 6.3 nW/m2/sr, which would shift the dNNgamma bands by about a factor sqrt(6.3/2.99) in dNNgamma before the bandpass correction. The plotted bands appear to reflect only the Delta m variation and not the intensity uncertainty.
  4. [Section I and Section IV.A] I806 from Ref. [10] and I299 from Ref. [12] are not independent measurements. Ref. [12] is a reanalysis of the same LORRI data with a revised diffuse Galactic light estimate and supersedes the earlier value. Treating both as separate anomalous intensities and deriving two bands inflates the parameter range and gives the impression of a robust constraint where there is one current excess measurement. The analysis should be based on the current best estimate I299 and should treat the older I806 only as a check of systematic variation, not as an equal-weight constraint.
  5. [Section III, Eq. (8)] The calculation sets Omega_chi,0 equal to the total dark matter density, implicitly assuming that the keV sterile neutrinos constitute all of the dark matter. No dark-matter fraction f is introduced. Since the predicted intensity scales linearly with f, every derived dNNgamma value scales as f^{-1/2} when only a fraction f of the dark matter is in the decaying state. The claimed bounds are therefore conditional on f = 1 and are not conservative for f < 1. The paper should state this assumption and propagate f through the constraint.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract quotes dNNgamma in the range 3e-13 to 1e-9 eV^-1 for the I299 analysis, while the conclusion quotes 3e-12 to 1e-9 eV^-1 for sterile neutrino masses 1-40 keV; the discrepancy should be resolved and the mass range and measurement should be specified in both places.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 4] The Froggatt-Nielsen numerical example is internally inconsistent: with M ~ TeV and epsilon ~ 1e-6, epsilon M is of order MeV, not keV. The parameters should be adjusted or the scaling relations stated more carefully.
  3. [Section I] There are typographical errors, including 'intesnity' in the introduction and inconsistent uses of 'Fig. (2)' versus 'Fig. 2'; a careful proofread would improve the presentation.
  4. [Fig. 1(b) caption] The caption refers to 'intensity I = 2.99 +/- 2.03 nW/m2/sr' while the vertical axis of the figure is I_lambda; distinguishing the band-integrated intensity from the specific intensity would prevent the units mismatch from being obscured.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the COB-derived dNNγ values are obtained by inverting a physical intensity formula against the observed excess, which is standard constraint-setting rather than a self-prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation is Eq. (8), which gives the specific intensity Iλ in terms of the sterile-neutrino decay width Γ_m1, combined with Eq. (3), which relates Γ_m1 to the transition magnetic moment dNNγ. In Section IV.A the paper sets Iλ equal to the reported anomalous intensities I806 and I299 and solves for Γ_m1 and dNNγ. This is a parameter-inversion against data, not circularity: dNNγ is not defined in terms of the COB intensity, and the functional relation between them is an independently stated radiative-decay formula. The quoted range 3e-13 to 1e-9 eV^-1 is the value needed to saturate the observed excess, so it is a conditional bound rather than a prediction of the excess from the model. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation: the X-ray excluded region in Fig. 3 comes from an external analysis (Ref. [43], which has an author overlap) and is used only to overlay an additional limit, not to produce the COB-derived bands; Section V's UV completions, including the clockwork discussion citing Ref. [57], are optional and do not support the main bound. The paper is largely self-contained against the external LORRI measurements and textbook intensity formulas. The main identifiable weakness is a units/bandwidth issue—Eq. (8) is per micron while I299 is band-integrated over 0.4-0.9 μm—but that is a calibration/correctness error, not definitional circularity. Therefore, under the stated circularity criteria, no circular step is present and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cosmology plus several domain assumptions. The most load-bearing assumptions are that the COB residual is real and entirely due to sterile neutrino decay, and that sterile neutrinos are all the dark matter. The mass splitting and mass are scanned parameters, not derived.

free parameters (3)
  • m1 (sterile neutrino mass) = 1-40 keV (scanned)
    The decay rate and intensity depend on m1; the paper scans this range and the Tremaine-Gunn bound sets the lower end.
  • Delta m (mass splitting) = 2-10 eV (scanned)
    Chosen so that decay photons fall in LORRI's 0.4-0.9 micron band after allowing redshifts up to z ~ 4.
  • Dark matter fraction f = 1 (implicit)
    The intensity formula uses Omega_chi,0 as if sterile neutrinos constitute all dark matter; no subcomponent fraction is introduced.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The standard cosmological intensity-redshift relation for decaying dark matter, Eq. (5) from Ref. [5], is valid and is applied without modification.
    Section III uses this to derive Eq. (7).
  • domain assumption The effective Lagrangian in Eq. (1) contains only the magnetic dipole operators, and no other decay or annihilation channels contribute to the COB.
    Section II defines the operator set; the analysis ignores cascades and other decay products, as acknowledged in the conclusion.
  • ad hoc to paper The observed COB residual of 2.99 nW/m2/sr is entirely due to sterile neutrino radiative decay.
    Section IV.A sets I_lambda equal to the reported anomalous intensity without considering other sources.
  • ad hoc to paper The keV sterile neutrinos constitute all of the dark matter, so Omega_chi,0 equals the total dark matter density.
    Implicit in Eq. (7) and in the derivation of required decay widths in Section IV.A.
  • domain assumption Photons produced at z > 4 are absorbed by the intergalactic medium, justifying the Delta m cutoff at 10 eV.
    Section IV.A cites Refs. [45,46] for this opacity statement.
invented entities (1)
  • Quasi-degenerate keV sterile neutrino pair N1 -> N2 + gamma with eV-level mass splitting
    purpose: Provides the decaying dark matter that produces the optical photons in the model.
    Sterile neutrinos are a pre-existing candidate, but the specific quasi-degenerate pair with Delta m = 2-10 eV and all-DM abundance is not independently evidenced; the UV completions in Section V are suggested possibilities, not established facts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bounds on decaying sterile neutrinos via magnetic dipole moment from COB intensity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BXWEPUG7

@misc{pith2026250203328,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bounds on decaying sterile neutrinos via magnetic dipole moment from COB intensity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BXWEPUG7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03328}
}
abstract

A recent observation by Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) mounted on NASA's New Horizons yielded the most accurate measurement of the cosmic optical background (COB). The reported COB intensity is $11.16\pm 1.35$ $\mathrm{nW/m^2/sr}$ at a pivot wavelength $ \lambda_{piv} = 0.608 \, \mu\mathrm{m}$ observed in the range \( 0.4 \, \mu\mathrm{m} \lesssim \lambda \lesssim 0.9 \, \mu\mathrm{m} \). After subtracting the measured intensity from the deep Hubble Space Telescope count, diffused galactic light, and scattered light from bright star foregrounds, an anomalous intensity of $2.99 \pm 2.03~\mathrm{nW/m^2/sr}$ has been found. We considered radiatively decaying sterile neutrinos of keV mass scale, as dark matter candidate, that could contribute to this anomalous reported intensity. Using this, we derive upper bounds on the sterile-to-sterile transition magnetic moment. We find that sterile neutrinos with mass of $\mathcal{O}(\rm keV)$ scale take values of the transition magnetic moment in the range $ 3\times 10^{-13}\,\rm eV^{-1} - 10^{-9}\,\rm eV^{-1}$ to explain the anomalous intensity of $2.99\pm 2.03\,\rm nW/m^2/sr$. % Future experiments such as, Cosmological Advanced Survey Telescope for Optical-UV Research (CASTOR), James Web Space Telescope (JWST), and Spectro-Photometer for the history of the Universe, Epoch of Reionization, and Ices Explorer (SPHEREx) might help us derive a better bound on the sterile neutrinos.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03328 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Illustrates the variation in specific inten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: The minimum required decay width to obtain I806 and I299 shown in red dashed and blue solid lines, respectively, for masses 1 keV−40 keV. Bottom panel: The corresponding upper bounds on dNNγ for the anomalous intensities I806 [10] and I299 [12]. The colour band repre￾sents the change of the sterile-to-sterile transition magnetic moment (dNNγ) in eV−1 versus the mass of sterile neutrino (m1) in keV scale, … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Majorana mass generation for sterile neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Measurement of the Cosmic Optical Background using the Long Range Reconnaissance Imager on New Horizons

    M. Zemcov, P. Immel, C. Nguyen, A. Cooray, C. M. Lisse, and A. R. Poppe, Nature Commun. 8, 5003 (2017), arXiv:1704.02989 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  2. [12]

    T. R. Laueret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.927, L8 (2022), arXiv:2202.04273 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [1]

    The FN symme- try constrains the structure of the mass matrix, enforcing degeneracy at leading order

    Froggatt–Nielsen Mechanism: In mod- els with a U (1)FN Froggatt–Nielsen symme- try [54, 55], sterile neutrinos are assigned flavor- dependent charges under U (1)FN, and their Ma- 7 jorana masses arise from non-renormalizable op- erators suppressed by a high scaleΛFN (the Frog- gatt–Nielsen (FN) cutoff scale, typically taken to be the GUT or Planck scale)....

    work page

  4. [2]

    This results in small loop-induced split- tings between otherwise degenerate states

    Clockwork or Radiative Symmetry Break- ing: In alternative frameworks, the degeneracy of sterile neutrino masses is protected by a dis- crete or continuous symmetry that is broken ra- diatively. This results in small loop-induced split- tings between otherwise degenerate states. The clockwork mechanism, in particular, achieves ex- ponential suppression of...

    work page

  5. [3]

    E. D. Kovetz et al. , (2017), arXiv:1709.09066 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [4]

    E. D. Kovetz et al. , Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 101 (2020), arXiv:1903.04496 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [5]

    D. Grin, G. Covone, J.-P. Kneib, M. Kamionkowski, A. Blain, and E. Jullo, Phys. Rev. D75, 105018 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0611502

    arXiv 2007

  8. [6]

    Y. Gong, A. Cooray, K. Mitchell-Wynne, X. Chen, M. Zemcov, and J. Smidt, Astrophys. J. 825, 104 (2016), arXiv:1511.01577 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 63 references
  1. [7]

    Creque-Sarbinowski and M

    C. Creque-Sarbinowski and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 98, 063524 (2018), arXiv:1806.11119 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [8]

    J. L. Bernal, G. Sato-Polito, and M. Kamionkowski, Physical Review Letters129, 231301 (2022)

    2022

  3. [9]

    Zemcov, P

    M. Zemcov, P. Immel, C. Nguyen, A. Cooray, C. M. Lisse, and A. R. Poppe, Nature Communications 8, 15003 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    T. R. Lauer et al. , Astrophys. J. 906, 77 (2021), arXiv:2011.03052 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Symons, M

    T. Symons, M. Zemcov, A. Cooray, C. Lisse, and A. R. Poppe, Astrophys. J.945, 45 (2023), arXiv:2212.07449 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Postman et al

    M. Postman et al. , Astrophys. J. 972, 95 (2024), arXiv:2407.06273 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nakayama and W

    K. Nakayama and W. Yin, Phys. Rev. D106, 103505 (2022), arXiv:2205.01079 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Carenza, G

    P. Carenza, G. Lucente, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083032 (2023), arXiv:2301.06560 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    C. M. Ho and R. J. Scherrer, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 87, 065016 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Ge and P

    S.-F. Ge and P. Pasquini, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 1 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    S.-F.GeandP.Pasquini,PhysicsLettersB 841,137911 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Voloshin, On compatibility of small mass with large magnetic moment of neutrino , Tech

    M. Voloshin, On compatibility of small mass with large magnetic moment of neutrino , Tech. Rep. (Gosu- darstvennyj Komitet po Ispol’zovaniyu Atomnoj Ehn- ergii SSSR, 1987)

    1987

  13. [21]

    Barbieri and R

    R. Barbieri and R. N. Mohapatra, Physics Letters B 218, 225 (1989)

    1989

  14. [22]

    K. Babu, S. Jana, and M. Lindner, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020, 1 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    K. Babu, S. Jana, M. Lindner, and V. PK, Journal of High Energy Physics2021, 1 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Schwetz, A

    T. Schwetz, A. Zhou, and J.-Y. Zhu, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021, 1 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Barducci, E

    D. Barducci, E. Bertuzzo, M. Taoso, and C. Toni, Jour- nal of High Energy Physics2023, 1 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    J. Y. Günther, J. de Vries, H. K. Dreiner, Z. S. Wang, and G. Zhou, Journal of High Energy Physics2024, 1 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Beltrán, P

    R. Beltrán, P. D. Bolton, F. F. Deppisch, C. Hati, and M. Hirsch, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08877 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    B. P. Crill, M. Werner, R. Akeson, M. Ashby, L. Bleem, J. J. Bock, S. Bryan, J. Burnham, J. Byunh, T.-C. Chang, Y.-K. Chiang, W. Cook, A. Cooray, A. Davis, O. Doré, C. D. Dowell, G. Dubois-Felsmann, T. Ei- fler, A. Faisst, S. Habib, C. Heinrich, K. Heit- mann, G. Heaton, C. Hi...

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Doré et al

    O. Doré et al. (SPHEREx), (2014), arXiv:1412.4872 [astro-ph.CO] . 9

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Doré et al

    O. Doré et al. (SPHEREx), (2016), arXiv:1606.07039 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Doré et al

    O. Doré et al. (SPHEREx), (2018), arXiv:1805.05489 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A. Atre, T. Han, S. Pascoli, and B. Zhang, Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 030 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Bondarenko, A

    K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, D. Gorbunov, and O. Ruchayskiy, Journal of High Energy Physics2018 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Balantekin and N

    A. Balantekin and N. Vassh, Physical Review D 89, 073013 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Gninenko and N

    S. Gninenko and N. Krasnikov, Physics Letters B450, 165 (1999)

    1999

  28. [36]

    Derbin, A

    A. Derbin, A. Chernyˇ ı, L. Popeko, V. Muratova, G. Shishkina, and S. Bakhlanov, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters57, 768 (1993)

    1993

  29. [37]

    D. Liu, Y. Ashie, S. Fukuda, Y. Fukuda, K. Ishi- hara, Y. Itow, Y. Koshio, A. Minamino, M. Miura, S. Moriyama, et al., Physical review letters93, 021802 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Agostini, K

    M. Agostini, K. Altenmüller, S. Appel, V. Atroshchenko, Z. Bagdasarian, D. Basilico, G. Bellini, J. Benziger, D. Bick, G. Bonfini, et al. , Physical Review D96, 091103 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Arpesella, H

    C. Arpesella, H. Back, M. Balata, G. Bellini, J. Ben- ziger, S. Bonetti, A. Brigatti, B. Caccianiga, L. Cado- nati, F. Calaprice,et al., Physical Review Letters101, 091302 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Lattanzi, Physical Review D110, 023510 (2024)

    P.Carenza, G.Lucente, M.Gerbino, M.Giannotti, and M. Lattanzi, Physical Review D110, 023510 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Capozzi and G

    F. Capozzi and G. Raffelt, Physical Review D 102, 083007 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Alexander, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series , Vol

    S. Alexander, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series , Vol. 718 (IOP Publishing, 2016) p. 062076

    2016

  35. [43]

    Chen and M

    X.-L. Chen and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D70, 043502 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310473

    2004 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. L. Bernal, A. Caputo, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D103, 063523 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 105, 089901 (2022)], arXiv:2012.00771 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    P. K. Natwariya and A. C. Nayak, Physics Letters B 827, 136955 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Abazajian and S

    K. Abazajian and S. M. Koushiappas, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 74, 023527 (2006)

    2006

  39. [47]

    Madau, Astrophys

    P. Madau, Astrophys. J.441, 18 (1995)

    1995

  40. [48]

    A. K. Inoue, I. Shimizu, and I. Iwata, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 442, 1805 (2014), arXiv:1402.0677 [astro- ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    H. A. Weaver, A. F. Cheng, F. Morgan, H. W. Taylor, S. J. Conard, J. I. Nunez, D. J. Rodgers, T. R. Lauer, W. M. Owen, J. R. Spencer, O. Barnouin, A. S. Rivkin, C. B. Olkin, S. A. Stern, L. A. Young, M. B. Tapley, and M. Vincent, Publications of the Astronomical So- ciety of t...

    2020

  42. [50]

    Porras-Bedmar, M

    S. Porras-Bedmar, M. Meyer, and D. Horns, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103501 (2024), arXiv:2407.10618 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    W. L. Xu, J. B. Muñoz, and C. Dvorkin, Physical Re- view D 105, 095029 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    M. Aker, K. Altenmüller, M. Arenz, M. Babutzka, J. Barrett, S. Bauer, M. Beck, A. Beglarian, J. Behrens, T.Bergmann, et al.,Physicalreviewletters 123,221802 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    T. M. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, S. Avila, D. Bacon, et al. , Physical Review D 105, 023520 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    H. Li, J. Li, H. Wong, C. Chang, C. Chen, J. Fang, C. Hu, W. Kuo, W. Lai, F. Lee,et al., Physical review letters 90, 131802 (2003)

    2003

  47. [55]

    A. Beda, V. Brudanin, V. Egorov, D. Medvedev, M. Shirchenko, and A. Starostin, Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters7, 406 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B147, 277 (1979)

    1979

  49. [57]

    Pilaftsis and T

    A. Pilaftsis and T. E. J. Underwood, Nucl. Phys. B692, 303 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309342

    2004 arXiv

  50. [58]

    G. F. Giudice and M. McCullough, JHEP 02, 036 (2017), arXiv:1610.07962 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Maharana and T

    S. Maharana and T. Srivastava, Phys. Lett. B 860, 139200 (2025), arXiv:2310.09640 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    S. Hong, G. Kurup, and M. Perelstein, JHEP10, 073 (2019), arXiv:1903.06191 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Hambye, J

    T. Hambye, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, JHEP 07, 070 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403183

    2004 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Blanchet, Z

    S. Blanchet, Z. Chacko, S. S. Granor, and R. N. Moha- patra, Phys. Rev. D82, 076008 (2010), arXiv:0904.2174 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  55. [63]

    S.LibanoreandE.D.Kovetz,Phys.Rev.D 111,063521 (2025), arXiv:2404.01500 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.