Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The Simplest Dark Matter Model at the Edge of Perturbativity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that NLO corrections push the simplest scalar dark matter models to the edge of perturbativity, leaving only a narrow viable window for the real scalar singlet.

desk verdict Solid NLO update on scalar singlet dark matter; the real-scalar lower bound is robust across schemes, but the 'entire perturbative region excluded' claim for the complex scalar depends on a perturbativity convention and overstates the model verdict. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02408 v2 pith:DQ62NZJS submitted 2025-05-05 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Miguel Escudero , Thomas Hambye This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords singletscalardarkmatterHiggsportalthermalfreeze-outdirectdetectionnext-to-leadingorderperturbativityLZexperimentWIMP
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks how far the simplest possible thermal dark matter model, a single real or complex scalar field coupled only to the Higgs boson, can survive once next-to-leading-order radiative corrections are included. Using the latest LZ direct-detection limits, it finds the complex scalar version is excluded across the whole range where perturbative calculations can be trusted. For the real scalar version, NLO corrections lower the required dark matter mass to roughly 20 TeV, leaving a narrow viable window from about 20 TeV up to roughly 40-50 TeV with a Higgs-portal coupling of order 7-15. A three-fold improvement in direct-detection sensitivity would fully test this remaining window, and only a narrow resonant region near half the Higgs mass survives at low masses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Higgs-portal interaction $\lambda_{\phi H} H^\dagger H \phi^\dagger\phi$, the single coupling that controls both thermal freeze-out of the dark scalar and its spin-independent scattering off nucleons. The argument proceeds by computing the NLO corrections to both rates in three renormalization schemes (MSbar, OS-DD, OS-FO), chosen so that scheme dependence reveals the size of missing higher-order terms. Perturbativity is quantified by requiring the two-loop next-to-leading-log contribution to the $\beta$ function to be at most 25% of the one-loop contribution, which gives $\lambda_{\phi H}\lesssim 15$, and Landau-pole locations are estimated from the same running.

What would settle it

A spin-independent direct-detection search with three times LZ's current sensitivity that finds no recoil events for WIMP masses between 20 and 50 TeV would contradict the paper's conclusion that the real scalar singlet has a surviving perturbative window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, at next-to-leading order, the complex scalar singlet model is excluded by direct detection over its entire perturbative parameter space, while the real scalar singlet model survives only in a narrow high-mass window. For the real scalar the lower mass bound moves from about 31 TeV at leading order to roughly 22-24 TeV at NLO depending on renormalization scheme, with the upper edge of the perturbative regime around 40-50 TeV; below about 20 TeV the model is firmly excluded. For the complex scalar the NLO lower bound is 26-40 TeV depending on scheme, which lies at or above the mass reachable with a perturbative coupling, so no perturbative solution remains. The paper also identifies a scheme-independent combination: the difference between the NLO correction to freeze-out and the NLO correction to direct detection is independent of the renormalization scheme.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the definition of where perturbativity ends: the paper takes the theory to be perturbative only while $\lambda_{\phi H}\lesssim 15$, a threshold obtained by requiring the two-loop contribution to the $\beta$ function to be at most 25% of the one-loop contribution; if the true boundary is higher, the complex scalar could still have an allowed window.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The real scalar singlet model can be a complete thermal dark matter candidate only with $m_\phi$ between about 20 TeV and roughly 40-50 TeV and Higgs-portal coupling $\lambda_{\phi H}$ between about 7 and 15.
  • The complex scalar singlet version is ruled out in its perturbative regime, so in this model dark matter cannot be a complex singlet unless non-perturbative dynamics or additional fields intervene.
  • A three-fold improvement in spin-independent direct-detection sensitivity will fully probe, and if null exclude, the real scalar's remaining perturbative window.
  • Both models still allow a narrow resonant region near $m_\phi\simeq 59-63$ GeV, which would need roughly a factor 12-25 improvement in direct-detection sensitivity to be fully tested.
  • Because the annihilation that sets the relic density proceeds through the same $H^\dagger H \phi^\dagger\phi$ operator, these conclusions carry over to other dark matter models whose freeze-out is driven by the Higgs portal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: The exclusion of the complex scalar stands or falls with the $\lambda_{\phi H}\lesssim 15$ perturbativity threshold; if the boundary were instead the tree-level unitarity limit $|\lambda_{\phi H}|<8\pi\approx 25$, the complex scalar would keep a viable window around 26-50 TeV in the MSbar scheme.
  • Editorial: The paper's Landau-pole estimates imply that, if the real scalar is indeed the dark matter, new physics must enter below roughly 300-500 TeV (or below about 7400 TeV in the most conservative scheme) to tame the running coupling, making the scenario testable in principle through signatures of that new sector.
  • Editorial: The scheme-independence of $\Delta^{\rm FO}_{\rm NLO}-\Delta^{\rm DD}_{\rm NLO}$ suggests a robust relation between relic-density and direct-detection rates that could be carried over to other Higgs-portal dark matter models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript revisits the simplest scalar singlet dark matter models, real and complex, coupled to the Higgs boson through a portal interaction, and confronts them with the latest LZ direct-detection limits and the Planck relic-density measurement. The authors compute next-to-leading-order corrections to both the freeze-out annihilation cross section and the direct-detection cross section, working in three renormalization schemes (MSbar, OS-DD, and OS-FO) and providing analytic expressions in the m_h/m_phi expansion. Their main numerical results are that the real scalar is excluded below roughly 20-24 TeV at NLO (compared with about 30 TeV at LO), with a possible perturbative window up to approximately 40-50 TeV, while the complex scalar is claimed to be excluded in its entire perturbative regime, with only a narrow window near the Higgs resonance m_phi ~ m_h/2 remaining. The paper also discusses vacuum stability, Landau-pole scales, and the effect of a potentially large quartic self-coupling.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper is a useful and timely quantitative update for two benchmark WIMP models in the multi-TeV regime. Its main strengths are the explicit analytic NLO expressions, the transparent three-scheme comparison, and the robustness of the real-scalar lower bound, which varies only between 22 and 24 TeV across schemes; this is a solid, scheme-stable result. The paper also identifies a concrete experimental target: a factor-three improvement in spin-independent sensitivity would fully probe the real-scalar perturbative window. The complex-scalar verdict, however, is less robust than the abstract suggests, because it depends on the adopted perturbativity cutoff rather than on a scheme-independent calculation; this should be fixed before the paper is accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV, Table I] The abstract claim that "the entire perturbative region is excluded" for the complex scalar is stronger than Table I supports. In the MSbar scheme the direct-detection bound is m_phi > 26 TeV while the perturbativity ceiling for lambda = 15 is 29 TeV, and in the OS-FO scheme the corresponding numbers are 32 TeV and 33 TeV. Thus, at the paper's own adopted cutoff lambda = 15, there are formally allowed windows of several TeV in two of the three schemes. The conclusion is only strictly true in the OS-DD scheme, where both numbers coincide at 41 TeV. The abstract and conclusions should be qualified, for example by saying that the complex scalar is excluded at the edge of perturbativity or that any allowed window is narrow and scheme-dependent.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (9)] The central exclusion claim for the complex scalar and the upper edge of the real-scalar allowed window depend directly on the perturbativity criterion lambda_phiH < 15 obtained by requiring the two-loop NLL contribution to the beta function to be at most 25% of the one-loop term. This is a defensible convention, but it is not a rigorous bound, and the same section quotes the tree-level unitarity bound |lambda_phiH| < 8*pi ~ 25. If the cutoff were taken at the unitarity value, the relic-density ceiling in Table I would rise well above the direct-detection bound in every scheme, leaving a viable complex-scalar window. The paper should present the allowed mass windows as a function of the adopted maximum coupling, or at least state explicitly that the model verdict is contingent on this 25% perturbativity convention rather than being a scheme-independent conclusion.
  3. [Section IV, footnote 2 and Table I] There is a numerical inconsistency and a conceptual tension in the treatment of the complex scalar. Footnote 2 states that in the OS-FO and MSbar schemes the direct-detection constraint turns back at about 34 TeV and 26 TeV, but Table I lists the OS-FO direct-detection bound as 32 TeV, not 34 TeV. More importantly, if the fact that the NLO direct-detection bound crosses the perturbativity ceiling is taken as evidence that non-perturbativity is close in those schemes, then the OS-DD case, where the two numbers coincide at 41 TeV, should be interpreted with the same standard. The authors should state precisely what criterion they use to declare the complex scalar excluded, and apply it uniformly across schemes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Figure 1 caption] The abstract and the Figure 1 caption should specify that the displayed exclusion for the complex scalar corresponds to the OS-DD scheme; as written, the claim appears scheme-independent, which is not the case in Table I.
  2. [Table I] The table would be easier to read if the masses were explicitly labeled in TeV and if the heading made clear that the "Pert." columns are the maximum masses consistent with the relic density at the perturbativity cutoff lambda_phiH = 15.
  3. [Section III, Eqs. (6) and (7)] The notation x_h is used before it is defined; x_h = m_h/m_phi should be introduced immediately before Eq. (6), and the phrase "s-wave contribution" should be clarified, since the Boltzmann calculation includes p-wave contributions as well.
  4. [Section IV, footnote 2] The number 34 TeV quoted for the OS-FO scheme disagrees with the value 32 TeV in Table I; please correct this inconsistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NLO mass bounds follow from external LZ and Planck inputs plus a literature-based perturbativity criterion, and the scheme choices are transparently defined and cross-checked.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The LO and NLO cross sections are computed explicitly (with SARAH used for the beta functions and with the amplitudes given in Appendix A), not fitted to the conclusions. The mass bounds combine the LZ 90% C.L. direct-detection limit, the Planck relic-density measurement, and a perturbativity ceiling lambda_phiH < 15 obtained from the 25% next-to-leading-log criterion. That criterion is a convention imported from the lambda-phi^4 lattice literature (refs. [24-26]); although ref. [26] includes a co-author of the present paper, the rule is independently stated in refs. [24,25], and the paper explicitly notes that the quoted masses are conditional on this choice. Changing the convention would shift the numbers, but that is fragility or robustness concern, not circularity. The OS-DD and OS-FO schemes are defined by construction to make one of the NLO corrections vanish, but the paper labels them as prescriptions and compares all three schemes, so no quantity is simultaneously the input and the predicted output. Table I reports the scheme dependence and even notes that in the MSbar and OS-FO schemes the complex scalar has narrow windows 'above or very close' to the perturbativity ceiling; the abstract's stronger wording is a model verdict, not a redefinition. No step reduces Eq. X to Eq. Y by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The perturbativity criterion is an external input, not an output of the paper's calculation, so the central claims are not equivalent to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or interactions. Its conclusions rest on the standard scalar singlet model, external experimental data (LZ, Planck), and a literature-based perturbativity criterion. The only hand-chosen number entering the central claims is the perturbativity cutoff λ ≈ 15.

free parameters (1)
  • perturbativity cutoff λφH_max = ≈15 (32π^2/21)
    This number is chosen by hand from the condition that the next-to-leading-log contribution to the β function be ≤25% of the leading-log contribution (Section IV, Eq. (9)). The central conclusion that the complex scalar is excluded depends on this threshold; a more permissive unitarity-based cutoff (λ ≈ 25) would reopen a viable window.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dark matter candidate is a Z2-odd real or complex scalar singlet coupled to the SM only through the Higgs portal (Eq. 1).
    This defines the model under study; no direct detection signal has been observed, so the model is an assumption about the dark sector.
  • domain assumption The scalar singlet constitutes all of the observed dark matter.
    The relic density is required to match Planck ΩDM h² = 0.120 ± 0.001 (Section 'Relic abundance calculation'). If the particle were only a fraction of DM, the constraints would weaken.
  • domain assumption Perturbativity is defined by the 25% next-to-leading-log criterion on the β function.
    Taken from λφ^4 lattice and resummation literature (Refs. [24-26]); the paper applies it to the Higgs portal coupling, giving λ < 15 (Section IV). Different criteria would change the bounds.
  • domain assumption The standard halo model and fN = 0.308 describe the local dark matter distribution and Higgs-nucleon coupling.
    Used to translate LZ limits into bounds on λφH (Section IV 'Direct detection bounds'). The paper notes lattice results may imply a slightly larger fN.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Simplest Dark Matter Model at the Edge of Perturbativity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DQ62NZJS

@misc{pith2026250502408,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Simplest Dark Matter Model at the Edge of Perturbativity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DQ62NZJS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02408}
}
abstract

Increasingly sensitive direct detection dark matter experiments are testing important regions of parameter space for WIMP dark matter and pushing many models to the multi-TeV regime. This brings into question the perturbativity of these models. In this context, and in light of the new limits from the LZ experiment, we investigate the status of the simplest thermal dark matter model: a singlet scalar, real or complex, coupled to the Higgs boson. We calculate the next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections to the direct detection rates as well as for the annihilations driving thermal freeze-out. For the complex case, we find that the entire perturbative region is excluded by direct detection. For the real case we find that the mass should be $\gtrsim 20\,{\rm TeV}$ at NLO, compared with the $\gtrsim 30\,{\rm TeV}$ LO limit. We highlight that a three-fold improvement on WIMP spin independent interactions can fully test the real scalar model in the perturbative regime. Finally, for both models, there is still an allowed (albeit narrow) region near the Higgs resonance where couplings are perturbative.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02408 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Parameter space for the singlet scalar dark matter model in the multi-TeV scale region. Left: real scalar, right: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. LO and NLO diagrams for direct detection (left) and for annihilations (right) in the Higgs portal coupling, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

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. Computing singlet scalar freeze-out with plasmon and plasmino states

    hep-ph 2025-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A full thermal-resummation computation shows that plasmon and plasmino corrections leave the TeV-scale singlet scalar annihilation cross section essentially unchanged, reconfirming existing relic density constraints.

  2. Dark Matter in the General 2HDM with Extra Top Yukawa Couplings

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    G2HDM plus a Z2-odd real scalar singlet yields viable top-window dark matter and six LHC benchmarks, including flavor-violating mono-top production of invisible H→SS.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    MSbar: The most commonly used scheme and amounts to subtract the 1 /ϵ pole in dimensional regularization and the γE and 4π constants

    work page

  2. [2]

    on-shell

    OS-DD: Our prescription here is to make the di- rect detection cross section to be the same at both LO and NLO, that is: σSI|NLO =σSI|LO. This is a type of “on-shell” scheme and brings all the NLO corrections to the freeze-out calculation

    work page

  3. [3]

    unappropriate

    OS-FO: Our prescription here is the opposite one, requiring the annihilation cross section to be the same at LO and at NLO at the kinematical point s = 4m2 ϕ, t = u =−m2 ϕ. This implies that for the dominant s-wave contribution: σvlab|NLO = σvlab|LO. This brings the entire effect of radiative corrections into the direct detection cross section. We define ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), (2024), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, Front. Phys. 69, 1 (1990)

    1990

  6. [6]

    V. A. Rubakov and D. S. Gorbunov, Introduction to the Theory of the Early Universe: Hot big bang theory (World Scientific, Singapore, 2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Silveira and A

    V. Silveira and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B 161, 136 (1985)

    1985

  8. [8]

    McDonald, Phys

    J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3637 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/0702143

    arXiv 1994

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    C. P. Burgess, M. Pospelov, and T. ter Veldhuis, Nucl. Phys. B 619, 709 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0011335

    2001 arXiv

  2. [10]

    J. R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, Phys. Rev. D 76, 076004 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701145

    2007 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Andreas, T

    S. Andreas, T. Hambye, and M. H. G. Tytgat, JCAP 10, 034 (2008), arXiv:0808.0255 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J. M. Cline, K. Kainulainen, P. Scott, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. D 88, 055025 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 92, 039906 (2015)], arXiv:1306.4710 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Escudero, A

    M. Escudero, A. Berlin, D. Hooper, and M.-X. Lin, JCAP 12, 029 (2016), arXiv:1609.09079 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Athron et al

    P. Athron et al. (GAMBIT), Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 568 (2017), arXiv:1705.07931 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), (2025), arXiv:2502.18005 [hep-ex]

    2025

  8. [16]

    Bo et al

    Z. Bo et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 011805 (2025), arXiv:2408.00664 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B 360, 145 (1991)

    1991

  10. [18]

    Steigman, B

    G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 86, 023506 (2012), arXiv:1204.3622 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Laine and M

    M. Laine and M. Meyer, JCAP 07, 035 (2015), arXiv:1503.04935 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Biondini, M

    S. Biondini, M. Eriksson, and M. Laine, (2025), arXiv:2505.05206 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Garcia-Cely, M

    C. Garcia-Cely, M. Gustafsson, and A. Ibarra, JCAP 02, 043 (2016), arXiv:1512.02801 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Aghanim et al

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

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hoferichter, P

    M. Hoferichter, P. Klos, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 181803 (2017), arXiv:1708.02245 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gupta, S

    R. Gupta, S. Park, M. Hoferichter, E. Mereghetti, B. Yoon, and T. Bhattacharya, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 242002 (2021), arXiv:2105.12095 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. M. Alarcon, J. Martin Camalich, and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D 85, 051503 (2012), arXiv:1110.3797 [hep- ph]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    R. D. Cousins and V. L. Highland, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 320, 331 (1992)

    1992

  19. [27]

    Riesselmann and S

    K. Riesselmann and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D 55, 311 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9608280

    1997 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Luscher and P

    M. Luscher and P. Weisz, Phys. Lett. B 212, 472 (1988)

    1988

  21. [29]

    Hambye and K

    T. Hambye and K. Riesselmann, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7255 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9610272

    1997 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Staub, (2008), arXiv:0806.0538 [hep-ph]

    F. Staub, (2008), arXiv:0806.0538 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Staub, Adv

    F. Staub, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015, 840780 (2015), arXiv:1503.04200 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Brod and Z

    J. Brod and Z. Polonsky, JHEP 09, 158 (2020), arXiv:2007.13755 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bandyopadhyay and P

    P. Bandyopadhyay and P. M. P. Robin, (2025), arXiv:2504.18086 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. D. Goodsell and F. Staub, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 649 (2018), arXiv:1805.07306 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Griest and M

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

    1990

  28. [36]

    M. D. Goodsell and R. Moutafis, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 808 (2021), arXiv:2012.09022 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Falkowski, C

    A. Falkowski, C. Gross, and O. Lebedev, JHEP 05, 057 (2015), arXiv:1502.01361 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Agodi, G

    A. Agodi, G. Andronico, and M. Consoli, Z. Phys. C 66, 439 (1995), arXiv:hep-lat/9410001

    1995 arXiv

  31. [39]

    P. Cea, L. Cosmai, M. Consoli, and R. Fiore, (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9603019

    1996 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Binder, T

    T. Binder, T. Bringmann, M. Gustafsson, and A. Hryczuk, Phys. Rev. D 96, 115010 (2017), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 099901 (2020)], arXiv:1706.07433 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Binder, T

    T. Binder, T. Bringmann, M. Gustafsson, and A. Hryczuk, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 577 (2021), arXiv:2103.01944 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 251802 (2021), arXiv:2109.03116 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Cirelli, N

    M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo, and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 753, 178 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0512090

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Cirelli and A

    M. Cirelli and A. Strumia, New J. Phys. 11, 105005 (2009), arXiv:0903.3381 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bottaro, D

    S. Bottaro, D. Buttazzo, M. Costa, R. Franceschini, P. Panci, D. Redigolo, and L. Vittorio, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 31 (2022), arXiv:2107.09688 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    I. M. Bloch, S. Bottaro, D. Redigolo, and L. Vittorio, (2024), arXiv:2410.02723 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Barbieri, L

    R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, and V. S. Rychkov, Phys. Rev. D 74, 015007 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603188

    2006 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Lopez Honorez, E

    L. Lopez Honorez, E. Nezri, J. F. Oliver, and M. H. G. Tytgat, JCAP 02, 028 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612275

    2007 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Hambye, F

    T. Hambye, F. S. Ling, L. Lopez Honorez, and J. Rocher, JHEP 07, 090 (2009), [Erratum: JHEP 05, 066 (2010)], arXiv:0903.4010 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. Ibe, S. Matsumoto, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 708, 112 (2012), arXiv:1110.5452 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Dhen and T

    M. Dhen and T. Hambye, Phys. Rev. D 92, 075013 (2015), arXiv:1503.03444 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.