Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Evading Dark Matter Bounds through NLSP-Assisted Freeze-Out with Long-Lived Signatures

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the observed dark matter abundance can be produced by ordinary freeze-out even when dark matter couples to ordinary matter only feebly, because a slightly heavier partner, the NLSP, keeps it in equilibrium and later…

desk verdict First CDFO application to the four-chiral-fermion B-L model, but the line-plot benchmark contradicts the model's own coupling relations. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10618 v1 pith:5FYOTRVH submitted 2025-06-12 hep-ph

Sarif Khan This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d
keywords conversion-drivenfreeze-outdarkmatterrelicdensitylong-livedparticleU(1)B-Lgaugeextensionnext-to-lighteststableMATHUSLAandFASERdirectindirectdetectionBBNconstraints
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 observed dark matter abundance can be produced by ordinary freeze-out even when the dark matter particle itself couples to ordinary matter only feebly. The key is a slightly heavier partner, the NLSP, which stays in thermal equilibrium with the Standard Model bath, keeps the dark matter in equilibrium through conversion reactions, and later decays into dark matter. In the $U(1)_{B-L}$ extension studied here, this opens a large parameter space that evades current direct, indirect, and collider bounds while remaining within reach of future direct detection and long-lived particle searches. The paper establishes conversion-driven freeze-out as a viable production mechanism in this model and identifies what future experiments must see.

What carries the argument

The engine is the conversion-driven freeze-out chain for two fermions: the NLSP $\psi_2$ is kept in chemical equilibrium with the Standard Model bath through $\psi_2\psi_2 \to \mathrm{SM}\,\mathrm{SM}$, while the dark matter $\psi_1$ is kept in equilibrium with $\psi_2$ through $\psi_2\, \mathrm{SM} \leftrightarrow \psi_1\, \mathrm{SM}$, even though $\psi_1\psi_1 \to \mathrm{SM}\,\mathrm{SM}$ stays below the Hubble rate. Once $\psi_2$ freezes out, the conversion process sets the $\psi_1/\psi_2$ ratio, and the late decay $\psi_2 \to \psi_1 X$ dumps the NLSP abundance into dark matter. The freeze-out of $\psi_2$ is controlled by its coupling $\alpha_{222}$, the conversion efficiency by the Yukawa couplings $\alpha_{12i} = \alpha_{21i}$ and the Boltzmann factor $e^{-\Delta M_\psi/T}$ coming from the mass splitting, whereas the DM-nucleon cross section is controlled separately by $\alpha_{11i}$ and $g_{BL}$, which do not affect the abundance. This separation is what keeps the scenario below direct detection limits.

What would settle it

A future direct-detection experiment such as DARWIN that excludes the paper's predicted spin-independent cross-section band for $100\,\mathrm{GeV} \lesssim M_{\psi_1} \lesssim 1\,\mathrm{TeV}$, with the relic density still fixed at the Planck value, would close the viable parameter space; likewise, a null search at MATHUSLA or FASER with $3\,\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$ in the predicted decay-length versus production-cross-section plane for $\psi_2 \to \psi_1 Z_{BL}$ would exclude the long-lived regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dark matter relic density is set by the NLSP's annihilation to Standard Model particles and by the conversion process $\psi_2\, \mathrm{SM} \leftrightarrow \psi_1\, \mathrm{SM}$, with the NLSP's abundance later transferred to dark matter through its decay. The relic density is therefore highly sensitive to the NLSP-SM coupling $\alpha_{222}$ and to the mass difference $\Delta M_\psi = M_{\psi_2} - M_{\psi_1}$, but essentially insensitive to the dark matter's direct couplings to the visible sector. The paper shows that the measured Planck relic abundance can be reproduced with the spin-independent DM-nucleon cross section sitting below the current LUX-ZEPLIN bound yet within DARWIN's projected reach, while the indirect detection rate stays unobservably small because of p-wave and coupling suppression. For some parameters the NLSP decays to $\psi_1$ via an on-shell gauge boson or through three-body channels, producing long-lived signatures at MATHUSLA and FASER, whereas the CP-odd Higgs channel decays promptly inside the LHC detectors. The paper also identifies parameter choices where the NLSP lifetime is so long that BBN and CMB predictions are altered, and shows that arbitrarily small gauge coupling or fermionic mixing violates those bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes the Higgs mixing matrix $U_{ij}$ stays nearly diagonal (Eq. A1) with $v_1 \ll v_2$, so that $\psi_2$ has WIMP-like couplings while $\psi_1$'s direct SM couplings stay feeble; if the Higgs mixing angles became sizable, $\psi_1$ would regain direct SM annihilation and the direct-detection cross section could reach the current LUX-ZEPLIN bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dark matter can have a huge, currently untested parameter space: its direct couplings can be weak or feeble and the observed abundance still comes from freeze-out, so null results at LUX-ZEPLIN and Fermi-LAT do not rule it out.
  • The DM-nucleon cross section is predicted to lie just below the LUX-ZEPLIN line and inside DARWIN's projected reach, giving a concrete target for next-generation direct detection.
  • Long-lived NLSP decays to $\psi_1 Z_{BL}$ or through three-body channels could produce displaced vertices at MATHUSLA and FASER, while the $\psi_1 A$ channel decays promptly inside CMS-like detectors.
  • The mass splitting $\Delta M_\psi$ cannot exceed roughly 60 GeV without overproducing dark matter, in contrast to standard co-annihilation, so the model predicts a tight mass-degeneracy between the NLSP and DM.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mechanism is not tied to the specific $U(1)_{B-L}$ charges: any model with a SM-coupled NLSP and a more weakly coupled DM should exhibit the same decoupling between the abundance-setting and detection processes, so the paper's strategy generalizes to other dark-sector constructions.
  • Because the relic density depends on $\Delta M_\psi$ through $e^{-\Delta M_\psi/T}$, measuring the NLSP-DM mass splitting and the NLSP couplings at a collider would effectively measure the freeze-out temperature, tying the model to a specific thermal history.
  • The BBN-bound floor on $g_{BL} \sin^2 \theta_L$ means the 'feeblest possible' limit is not what produces the right abundance; the paper thus implies a minimal coupling strength below which conversion-driven freeze-out is not viable, which can be tested independently of DM detection.
  • The long-lived $\psi_2 \to \psi_1 Z_{BL}$ signature with a light $Z_{BL}$ (0.1–10 GeV) suggests that future displaced-vertex searches with dilepton final states at FASER2 and MATHUSLA could cover parameter regions complementary to the direct-detection reach plotted in this work.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies conversion-driven freeze-out (CDFO) in an alternative U(1)_B-L extension of the Standard Model with four chiral fermions, where the next-to-lightest stable particle ψ2 (NLSP) keeps the DM candidate ψ1 in thermal contact through processes such as ψ2 SM ↔ ψ1 SM, while ψ1's direct couplings to the visible sector remain feeble. The authors solve the coupled Boltzmann equations with micrOMEGAs, claim to reproduce the observed DM relic abundance, and explore the resulting phenomenology: direct detection (below LUX-ZEPLIN but within DARWIN reach), indirect detection (strongly suppressed), long-lived ψ2 decays at MATHUSLA/FASER, and BBN/CMB constraints. The central claims are that the DM abundance is controlled by the NLSP-SM interaction strength and the mass difference ΔM_ψ rather than by the DM-SM direct interaction, and that the viable parameter space remains testable at future experiments.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper offers a concrete model-building realization of CDFO with falsifiable long-lived-particle signatures and a clear separation between the couplings that set the relic density and those probed by direct detection. The work is transparent in presenting the Boltzmann equations, the scalar/fermion mixing structure, and the decay-width expressions, and it uses the public code micrOMEGAs with cross-checks against analytical formulas. The BBN constraints on the gauge coupling and the fermion mixing angle, and the MATHUSLA/FASER projections, are relevant for future searches. However, the central demonstration relies on a benchmark that is internally inconsistent with the model's coupling relations, so the current manuscript does not yet establish that the claimed mechanism operates at a valid point of the model.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4 and Eq. (12)] The benchmark used for the line plots in Fig. 4 (and consequently Figs. 5–7) is inconsistent with the model's Yukawa structure. The caption sets |α12i| = |α21i| = 4.5×10⁻⁶ for i = 1,2,3,A simultaneously, while also taking the Higgs mixing matrix to be nearly diagonal (Eq. A1, with U ≈ I). Equation (12) gives α12i = (√2 M2 / (v1 v2)) (U3i v1 − U2i v2) sinθL cosθL. With U ≈ I and the stated scan ranges (Eq. 22), the coefficients (U3i v1 − U2i v2) scale as ∼ v2 for i = 2 and i = A, as ∼ v1 for i = 3, and are suppressed by the small off-diagonal U-matrix elements for i = 1. No choice of v1, v2, θL can make all four α12i equal in magnitude. Thus the line plots do not correspond to an actual point of the model defined by Eqs. (1)–(13); either the couplings were treated as independent inputs (outside the model), or the listed values are not derivable from Eq. (12). This undermines the illustrative demonstration of the CDFO mechanism and the claimed sensitivity to |α12i|. The authors should provide a benchmark that is consistent with Eq. (12) (or otherwise explicitly demonstrate that such a point exists within the scan).
  2. [Section III.B, Eq. (16)] The acceptance window in Eq. (16) permits 10⁻³ ≤ Ωψ1 h² ≤ 0.1284, and the scatter plots show the percentage contribution of ψ1 to the total DM density. However, the abstract and Section IV claim that the observed relic abundance is successfully reproduced. No benchmark or scan point is exhibited with Ωψ1 h² equal to the Planck value Ωh² ≈ 0.12 within uncertainties; the statement in Section III.B that 'by a slight change of the model parameters... we can easily get 100% of the DM' is not substantiated by a numerical example. The central claim of the paper would be much stronger if a single consistent parameter point (with explicitly listed values) that satisfies all constraints and yields Ωψ1 h² ≈ 0.12 were provided.
  3. [Section VI, Eq. (24) and approximation for Yψ2] The BBN bounds in Fig. 12 are obtained using the approximation Yψ2 ≃ exp(−ΔMψ/Tf) Yψ1 with Tf = Mψ2/25. This approximation is acknowledged as approximate, but no validation against the full numerical solution of the coupled Boltzmann equations is shown. Since the conclusion that 'choosing arbitrarily small values of the gauge coupling or BSM fermionic mixing angle can violate successful BBN predictions' is a quantitative claim (g_BL sin²θL < 10⁻¹⁴), the authors should verify the approximation for representative points by evolving the equations down to T around 1 MeV, or at least quantify the expected error. Without such a check, the BBN exclusion boundaries in Fig. 12 should be regarded as indicative rather than firm constraints.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The notation 'α12 = α121 = −α122 = ...' is confusing because α12 is not separately defined; please write |α12i| explicitly for all i, and similarly for α21i.
  2. [Section IV.B and Figs. 6–7] The notation 'α222,22A' is cryptic; it should be written as 'α222 and α22A' throughout the text and figure captions.
  3. [General] There are several minor typos and awkward phrasings, e.g. 'the other d.o.f' on page 5 and 'the d.o.f' in Section IV.A; a careful proofreading would improve readability.
  4. [References] Reference [12] (Khan and Lee, arXiv:2503.02635) is a preprint that is used for detailed model discussions and for the h3 production cross section; it would be helpful to note its publication status or add a footnote when it becomes published.
  5. [Eq. (B3) and Appendix B] In the three-body decay width, the integration limits are given in Eq. (B4), but the definitions of a1, a2, a3 are not explicitly listed; please define them right before or after Eq. (B4) for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: relic density is computed by an external Boltzmann solver from explicitly stipulated couplings, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

Applying the hard rules, I find no circular step. The model is stipulated rather than derived: the particle content, Lagrangian, and coupling definitions appear in the paper itself (Eqs. 1-13), so citing the author's earlier model paper [12] supplies a definitional source, not an unverified premise that the CDFO conclusion depends on. The relic density is obtained by integrating the coupled Boltzmann equations (Eq. 20) with the external package micrOMEGAs v6.1.5 [53], and the couplings fed into that solver are explicit functions of the Lagrangian parameters (Eq. 12). The scan imposes only a 1-100\% relic-density window (Eq. 16); no parameter is fitted to the Planck value and then renamed a prediction. The claimed sensitivities of Omega h^2 to alpha_222 and Delta M_psi follow from the exponential Boltzmann suppression and freeze-out structure of the coupled equations, not from setting output equal to input. Citations to [12] and [29] are self-citations, but they provide model definitions and a production cross-section normalization, and the relevant expressions are written out in the present work. The Fig. 4 benchmark consistency with Eq. 12 is a separate numerical/correctness concern: an internally inconsistent or non-representative benchmark would not establish a valid scan point, but that is not a case of a result reducing to its inputs by construction under the rubric. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central claims rest on a hierarchy of vevs and mixings that makes psi2 WIMP-like while psi1 remains feebly coupled. All model parameters are scanned rather than predicted. The only genuinely new postulated content beyond the prior model is the specific scan range and signature analysis; no new force or particle beyond the B-L extension is introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • g_BL = scanned 10^-1 to 10^-5; benchmark 6.2e-8
    U(1)B-L gauge coupling; controls Z_BL interactions, NLSP two-body decay width, and the BBN bound.
  • theta_L = scanned 10^-1 to 10^-5
    Mixing angle between the extra Dirac fermions; enters Z_BL couplings and decay widths.
  • v1 = scanned 1 to 10^3 GeV
    vev of phi1; sets M1 and determines alpha11i and alpha12i.
  • v2 = scanned 10^5 to 10^9 GeV
    vev of phi2; sets M2 and provides the hierarchy between psi2 and psi1 SM couplings.
  • M_psi1 = scanned 100 to 1000 GeV; benchmark 860.1 GeV
    DM mass; controls relic density through the mass splitting with psi2.
  • Delta M_psi = M_psi2 - M_psi1 = scanned 1 to 100 GeV
    Mass difference between NLSP and DM; exponentially controls the conversion freeze-out.
  • Higgs mixing angles theta_12, theta_13, theta_23 = scanned 10^-3 to 0.1
    Determine Uij and hence the Yukawa couplings alpha to physical scalars; constrained by Higgs signal strength.
  • M_h2, M_h3, M_A, M_Z_BL = scanned in ranges of Eq. (22)
    Physical scalar and gauge boson masses; control resonance positions and decay kinematics.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard cosmological history with radiation domination and standard BBN/CMB evolution.
    The relic density and BBN bounds assume the standard model of cosmology with the usual thermal history.
  • domain assumption micrOMEGAs 'darkOmegaNTR' correctly solves the coupled Boltzmann equations for this multi-component system.
    The paper relies on the numerical solution of Eq. (20) via micrOMEGAs v6.1.5; no independent solver comparison is shown.
  • standard math The analytic decay widths in Appendix B are correct and match micrOMEGAs.
    The paper states it verified the widths against micrOMEGAs routines, but no formal proof or code is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The approximation Y_psi2 ~ e^{-Delta M / T_f} Y_psi1 in Section VI is adequate for the BBN bounds.
    The paper acknowledges in footnote 6 that a proper determination requires evolving the coupled Boltzmann equations to a lower T_end; the BBN contours depend on this approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper The LHC production cross-section for h3 is taken from Ref. [29] with proper K-factors.
    Eq. (23) uses sigma_pp->h3 from Ref. [29], a preprint by the same author, without reproducing the calculation or providing public code.
  • domain assumption Direct detection form factors f_N = 0.3 and f_Z_BL = 3 from Refs. [38,39].
    Eq. (17) uses these values to convert quark-level couplings to nuclear cross sections; they are standard but model-dependent.
invented entities (4)
  • U(1)_B-L gauge boson Z_BL
    purpose: Mediates psi2 -> psi1 Z_BL two-body decay and contributes to DM direct detection; the dominant long-lived signature at MATHUSLA.
    From the B-L model of Refs. [10,12]; no direct detection or collider evidence is available at the small couplings considered.
  • psi2 (NLSP)
    purpose: Sets the DM abundance through conversion-driven freeze-out and decays to psi1, providing the long-lived particle signature.
    One of the four chiral fermions added for anomaly cancellation; not yet observed.
  • psi1 (DM)
    purpose: Dark matter candidate with weak direct couplings to the SM, evading direct detection.
    No direct detection signal has been seen; its existence is inferred from the model and cosmology.
  • Heavy scalars h3 and A
    purpose: h3 is produced at the LHC and decays to psi2 pairs; A provides the prompt psi2 -> psi1 A decay channel.
    Scalars from the B-L model; no experimental evidence is available.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evading Dark Matter Bounds through NLSP-Assisted Freeze-Out with Long-Lived Signatures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FYOTRVH

@misc{pith2026250610618,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evading Dark Matter Bounds through NLSP-Assisted Freeze-Out with Long-Lived Signatures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FYOTRVH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10618}
}
abstract

In this work, we explore a conversion-driven freeze-out scenario, where the next-to-lightest stable particle (NLSP) sets the dark matter (DM) abundance through the process ``NLSP SM $\leftrightarrow$ DM SM". Although DM is produced via a freeze-out mechanism, its interaction strength with the visible sector can range from weak to feeble couplings. This results in a vast, largely unexplored parameter space that evades current direct, indirect, and collider bounds, while remaining testable in the near future. We study this mechanism in the context of an alternative $U(1)_{B-L}$ model, where four chiral fermions are required to cancel gauge anomalies, unlike the usual case with three right-handed neutrinos. The observed relic abundance is successfully reproduced within this framework. The viable parameter space can be probed by future direct detection experiments, while remaining inaccessible to indirect searches. Our results show that the DM relic density is highly sensitive to the NLSP-SM interaction strength and the mass difference between the NLSP and DM, but not to the DM-SM direct interaction. For certain parameter choices, the NLSP decays to DM via two or three body processes involving an extra gauge boson and SM particles, leading to long-lived decays outside the CMS or ATLAS detectors at the LHC. In contrast, if the decay proceeds via a CP-odd Higgs, it occurs promptly within the detector. We investigate prospects for detecting such long-lived NLSPs at the proposed MATHUSLA detector, with similar expectations for the ongoing FASER experiment. Finally, we find that choosing arbitrarily small values of the gauge coupling or BSM fermionic mixing angle can violate successful BBN predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10618 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DM direct detection diagrams relevant in our study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DM indirect detection diagrams relevant in our study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagrams relevant in setting the DM and NLSP abundances. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: In the LP and RP, we have shown the variation of interaction rates of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The LP shows the variation of DM relic density with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LP (RP) shows the ψ1 DM density with the variation of the coupling |α12i | (α222) for three values of α222,22A (|α12i |). The other parameters kept fixed at values presented in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: LP and RP show the variation of DM relic density with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The LP and RP show the scatter plots in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: LP shows the scatter plot in the Mψ1 − v1 plane after satisfying all the constraints, where the colour bar shows the percentage of ψ1 DM. In the RP, we have shown the MZBL − gBL plane, where the colour variation shows the different values of α 2 113, which is the inter…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scatter plots in the Mψ1 −σ ψ1 SI and Mψ1 −(σv)WW planes have been shown, where the colour bar in the LP (RP) shows the different values of α 2 113 (α 2 112). In the LP and RP of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: All the plots are displayed in the ¯bcτ − σpp→ψ1ψ1jj plane, where the colour bar in each plot represents different values of the model parameters as follows: U 2 13 (B), gBL sin2 θL (C), Γ 2−body ψ2 /Γ tot ψ2 (D), σSI (E), and Mψ1 (F). The letters in the bracket label…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: LP and RP show the allowed regions after implementing the BBN and CMB bounds, taking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sofue and V

    Y. Sofue and V. Rubin, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.39, 137-174 (2001) doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.137 [arXiv:astro-ph/0010594 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 2001

  2. [2]

    Clowe, A

    D. Clowe, A. Gonzalez and M. Markevitch, Astrophys. J.604, 596-603 (2004) doi:10.1086/381970 [arXiv:astro-ph/0312273 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Harvey, R

    D. Harvey, R. Massey, T. Kitching, A. Taylor and E. Tittley, Science347, 1462-1465 (2015) doi:10.1126/science.1261381 [arXiv:1503.07675 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.594, A13 (2016) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 [arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Taoso, G

    M. Taoso, G. Bertone and A. Masiero, JCAP03, 022 (2008) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/03/022 [arXiv:0711.4996 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Fukudaet al.[Super-Kamiokande], Phys

    Y. Fukudaet al.[Super-Kamiokande], Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 1562-1567 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1562 [arXiv:hep-ex/9807003 [hep-ex]]. 29

    arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Q. R. Ahmadet al.[SNO], Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 011301 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.011301 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2002

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Eguchiet al.[KamLAND], Phys

    K. Eguchiet al.[KamLAND], Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 021802 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.021802 [arXiv:hep-ex/0212021 [hep-ex]]

    2003 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Patra, W

    S. Patra, W. Rodejohann and C. E. Yaguna, JHEP09, 076 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)076 [arXiv:1607.04029 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Biswas, S

    A. Biswas, S. Choubey and S. Khan, JHEP08, 062 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2018)062 [arXiv:1805.00568 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Khan and H

    S. Khan and H. M. Lee, [arXiv:2503.02635 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Garny, J

    M. Garny, J. Heisig, B. Lülf and S. Vogl, Phys. Rev. D96, no.10, 103521 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103521 [arXiv:1705.09292 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    R. T. D’Agnolo, D. Pappadopulo and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, no.6, 061102 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.061102 [arXiv:1705.08450 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Garny, J

    M. Garny, J. Heisig, M. Hufnagel and B. Lülf, Phys. Rev. D97, no.7, 075002 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.075002 [arXiv:1802.00814 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Díaz Sáez, J

    B. Díaz Sáez, J. Lahiri and K. Möhling, JCAP10, 001 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/001 [arXiv:2404.19057 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. J. Zhang, Z. L. Han, A. Liu and F. L. Shao, Nucl. Phys. B1014, 116864 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.116864 [arXiv:2411.06744 [hep-ph]]

    2025

  10. [18]

    Aalberset al.[LZ], Phys

    J. Aalberset al.[LZ], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.4, 041002 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002 [arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [20]

    M. L. Ahnenet al.[MAGIC and Fermi-LAT], JCAP02, 039 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2016/02/039 [arXiv:1601.06590 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP05, 106 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)106 [arXiv:2402.01392 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP05, 106 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)106 [arXiv:2402.01392 [hep-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [22]

    H. M. Lee, [arXiv:2505.01769 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  14. [23]

    Constantin, S

    L. Constantin, S. Kraml and F. Mahmoudi, [arXiv:2505.11251 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  15. [24]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B793, 520-551 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.04.025 [arXiv:1809.05937 [hep-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Tumasyanet al.[CMS], JHEP11, 153 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2021)153 [arXiv:2107.13021 [hep-ex]]

    A. Tumasyanet al.[CMS], JHEP11, 153 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2021)153 [arXiv:2107.13021 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [26]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.1, 13 (2021) [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.4, 333 (2021)] doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08739-5 [arXiv:2008.04735 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B360, 145-179 (1991) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90438-4

    1991 doi

  19. [28]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S. M. West, JHEP03, 080 (2010) 30 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2010)080 [arXiv:0911.1120 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [29]

    L. Covi, S. Dey, S. Khan and S. K. Rai, [arXiv:2504.09632 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  21. [30]

    Arcadi, F

    G. Arcadi, F. Costa, A. Goudelis and O. Lebedev, JHEP07, 044 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2024)044 [arXiv:2405.03760 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Silva-Malpartida, N

    J. Silva-Malpartida, N. Bernal, J. Jones-Pérez and R. A. Lineros, JCAP09, 015 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/09/015 [arXiv:2306.14943 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [32]

    H. M. Lee, M. Park and V. Sanz, JHEP05, 126 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)126 [arXiv:2412.07850 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [33]

    S. Khan, J. Kim and H. M. Lee, [arXiv:2503.17621 [hep-ph]]

  25. [34]

    Nanda and D

    D. Nanda and D. Borah, Phys. Rev. D96, no.11, 115014 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.115014 [arXiv:1709.08417 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [35]

    L. Covi, J. E. Kim and L. Roszkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4180-4183 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.4180 [arXiv:hep-ph/9905212 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  27. [36]

    darkOmegaNTR(TR, Y, fast, Beps, &err)

    (with similar prospects at FASER [37] expected). Depending on the choice of parameter values,ψ 2 can decay dominantly via the two-body channelsψ2 →ψ 1Aorψ 2 →ψ 1ZBL, or via the three-body decayψ 2 →ψ 1f ¯f. Moreover, we find that certain parameter regions scanned during our an...

    2018

  28. [37]

    Abreuet al.[FASER], JINST19, no.05, P05066 (2024) doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05066 [arXiv:2207.11427 [physics.ins-det]]

    H. Abreuet al.[FASER], JINST19, no.05, P05066 (2024) doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05066 [arXiv:2207.11427 [physics.ins-det]]

    2024

  29. [38]

    Curtin, M

    D. Curtin, M. Drewes, M. McCullough, P. Meade, R. N. Mohapatra, J. Shelton, B. Shuve, E. Accomando, C. Alpigiani and S. Antusch,et al.Rept. Prog. Phys.82, no.11, 116201 (2019) doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ab28d6 [arXiv:1806.07396 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun.180, 747-767 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2008.11.019 [arXiv:0803.2360 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  31. [40]

    J. M. Cline, K. Kainulainen, P. Scott and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. D88, 055025 (2013) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D92, no.3, 039906 (2015)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.055025 [arXiv:1306.4710 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Aalberset al.[DARWIN], JCAP11, 017 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/11/017 [arXiv:1606.07001 [astro-ph.IM]]

    J. Aalberset al.[DARWIN], JCAP11, 017 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/11/017 [arXiv:1606.07001 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Aalberset al.[LZ], [arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]]

    J. Aalberset al.[LZ], [arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  34. [43]

    Carena, A

    M. Carena, A. Daleo, B. A. Dobrescu and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D70, 093009 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.093009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0408098 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Acharyyaet al.[CTA], JCAP01, 057 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/01/057 [arXiv:2007.16129 [astro-ph.HE]]

    A. Acharyyaet al.[CTA], JCAP01, 057 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/01/057 [arXiv:2007.16129 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Chatrchyanet al.[CMS], Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B720, 63-82 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.02.003 [arXiv:1212.6175 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Cacciapaglia, C

    G. Cacciapaglia, C. Csaki, G. Marandella and A. Strumia, Phys. Rev. D74, 033011 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.033011 [arXiv:hep-ph/0604111 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Y. Heo, D. W. Jung and J. S. Lee, Phys. Rev. D110, no.1, 013003 (2024) 31 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.013003 [arXiv:2402.02822 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Rev. D90, no.5, 052005 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.052005 [arXiv:1405.4123 [hep-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [49]

    T. A. Aaltonenet al.[CDF and D0], Phys. Rev. D88, no.5, 052018 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.052018 [arXiv:1307.7627 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi and Y. Takaesu, Phys. Rev. D97, no.2, 023502 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.023502 [arXiv:1709.01211 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP01, 036 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2022)036 [arXiv:2109.01113 [hep- ex]]

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP01, 036 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2022)036 [arXiv:2109.01113 [hep- ex]]

    2022

  43. [52]

    Aaboudet al.[ATLAS], Eur

    M. Aaboudet al.[ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.2, 110 (2018) [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.11, 898 (2018)] doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5475-4 [arXiv:1701.07240 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Alguero, G

    G. Alguero, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, S. Chakraborti, A. Goudelis, S. Kraml, A. Mjallal and A. Pukhov, Comput. Phys. Commun.299, 109133 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109133 [arXiv:2312.14894 [hep-ph]]

    2024

  45. [54]

    T. A. Aaltonenet al.[CDF], Phys. Rev. D89, no.7, 072003 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.072003 [arXiv:1311.0894 [hep-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Bélanger, S

    G. Bélanger, S. Choubey, R. M. Godbole, S. Khan, M. Mitra and A. Roy, JHEP11, 133 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2022)133 [arXiv:2208.00849 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Drlica-Wagneret al.[LSST Dark Matter Group], [arXiv:1902.01055 [astro-ph.CO]]

    A. Drlica-Wagneret al.[LSST Dark Matter Group], [arXiv:1902.01055 [astro-ph.CO]]

    1902 arXiv

  48. [58]

    Griest and D

    K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D43, 3191-3203 (1991) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.3191 32

    1991 doi

  49. [113]

    pWidth(pName,&address)

    In the LP, we can see that a sharply correlated region is allowed in theMψ2 −v 1 plane after satisfying all the constraints. In 20 particular, the lower region is disallowed because we have demanded|α22i|< √ 4π, which implies we cannot take a very high value ofMψ2 for a partic...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.