Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Dark Matter signals in solar neutrinos fluxes as probe of non-linear symmetry breaking

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 If this paper is right, solar neutrinos can tell linear from non-linear Higgs-portal dark matter: at high mass the predicted fluxes differ by five to six orders of magnitude, within reach of next-generation neutrino telescopes.

desk verdict Plausible model comparison undercut by relic-inconsistent benchmarks and an abstract that overstates the body text. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14089 v1 pith:KJEOHTN5 submitted 2025-06-17 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

A. Carrillo-Monteverde , L. López-Lozano This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE PACS 95.35.+d12.60.Fr
keywords darkmattersolarneutrinosnon-linearHiggsportalscalarsingletindirectdetectionneutrinotelescopescompositemodelsrelicdensity
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 neutrinos from dark matter captured and annihilating in the Sun can serve as a fingerprint of how electroweak symmetry is broken. It compares the Standard Model extended by a scalar singlet, whose dark-matter coupling to the Higgs is fixed by one linear term, with the Non-Linear Higgs Portal, the effective-field-theory description of composite-Higgs-like models in which the Higgs enters as a singlet through power functions of the field. The central claim is that the two frameworks predict solar neutrino fluxes differing by at least an order of magnitude and up to six (the body text reports five) at dark-matter masses near 500 GeV–1 TeV, while staying within an order of magnitude of each other near 60 GeV. If right, this means a future neutrino telescope such as IceCube-Gen2 or KM3NeT could distinguish spontaneous from dynamical symmetry breaking through the solar neutrino spectrum alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the NLHP scalar-sector Lagrangian, $\mathcal{L}_S = \tfrac{1}{2}\partial_\mu S \partial^\mu S - \tfrac{m_S^2}{2} S^2 F_{S_1}(h) - \tfrac{\lambda_S}{4} F_{S_2}(h) + \sum_{i=1}^5 c_i \mathcal{A}_i(h)$, where the power functions $F(h) = 1 + 2a h/v + b h^2/v^2$ encode the non-linear Higgs couplings and the $\mathcal{A}_i$ are the five effective operators built from the pNGB structures $U$, $T$, $V_\mu$ of the Higgs Effective Field Theory framework. The mechanism that carries the argument is the decorrelation this Lagrangian achieves: in the linear model the $SS \to h$ and $SS \to hh$ vertices share one coupling, while in the NLHP they are independent, which is what lets the non-linear couplings change the annihilation balance and hence the neutrino flux. Around this object the paper builds a computation chain: relic density and direct detection carve out the allowed $(m_S, \lambda)$ region; micrOMEGAs supplies the capture rate $C_\odot$, the equilibrium annihilation rate $\Gamma_A = C_\odot/2$, and the branching ratios into $W^+W^-$, $b\bar{b}$, $\tau^+\tau^-$, $ZZ$, $t\bar{t}$; PPPC4 supplies the per-channel neutrino spectra $dN/dE$; and equation (3.1) sums the channels into the flux at Earth. The diagnostic the paper offers is the ratio of the NLHP flux to the SM+scalar flux as a function of the non-linear couplings, plotted in Figures 6–9.

What would settle it

Recompute the relic density for $m_S = 500$ GeV and 1 TeV at $\lambda = 0.0001$ in both models: if $\Omega h^2$ comes out far above the Planck value of about 0.12, the benchmark fluxes of Figures 4 and 5 lie outside the allowed region and the enhancement claim must be re-evaluated at relic-consistent couplings. Observationally, a next-generation detector measuring the solar neutrino spectrum between 100 GeV and 1 TeV would settle it directly: with non-linear couplings of order 0.1 the NLHP flux sits orders of magnitude above the SM+scalar one, so a null result at that level would falsify the enhancement version of the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's intended discovery is that the solar neutrino flux carries a signature of the symmetry-breaking mechanism behind the Higgs portal. In the linear SM plus scalar singlet, a single coupling ties together the $SS \to h$ and $SS \to hh$ annihilation vertices; in the Non-Linear Higgs Portal (NLHP) the Higgs enters through power functions $F_{S_j}(h) = 1 + 2 a_{S_j} h/v + b_{S_j} h^2/v^2$, and the new effective couplings $c_1, c_2, c_3$ decorrelate those two channels. Restricting to parameters that survive Planck relic-density and XENON1T direct-detection bounds, the authors compute branching ratios with micrOMEGAs and fold them into PPPC4 neutrino spectra. At $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 60$ GeV the two models agree within an order of magnitude; at 500 GeV and 1 TeV the non-linear couplings move the flux by up to five orders of magnitude and can either enhance or suppress it. The abstract states the headline more strongly, with fluxes 'systematically larger' by at least one order and up to six at 1 TeV, while the body text reports the five-order spread; both versions claim the same discriminating power, namely that the non-linear symmetry-breaking structure leaves a large, model-specific imprint in the high-energy solar neutrino spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The high-mass conclusion rests on one benchmark: the 500 GeV and 1 TeV fluxes are computed at $\lambda = 0.0001$, yet the paper checks relic-density and direct-detection consistency only for masses between 45 and 75 GeV, and if a heavy scalar singlet actually needs a coupling orders of magnitude larger to avoid over-closing the universe, the plotted fluxes would sit outside the physically allowed region.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near 60 GeV the two models predict solar neutrino fluxes within an order of magnitude of each other, so solar neutrinos alone cannot discriminate them; direct-detection and collider constraints must be folded in.
  • At 500 GeV and 1 TeV the non-linear couplings $c_1, c_2, c_3$ can change the predicted flux by up to five orders of magnitude, so the NLHP prediction is a wide band rather than a single line, and a null search at one coupling choice does not close the model.
  • With non-linear couplings of order 0.1, the high-mass solar neutrino flux sits orders of magnitude above the SM+scalar expectation, putting the signal within reach of IceCube-Gen2 and KM3NeT.
  • The updated allowed-region maps show both models surviving current relic-density and direct-detection bounds only in a narrow window below 100 GeV, which is what makes the region around $m_S \simeq 60$ GeV the relevant testing ground for the two symmetry-breaking mechanisms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the safe statement supported by the body text is the size of the spread, up to five orders of magnitude at high mass, rather than its direction, because the non-linear couplings are found to suppress as well as enhance the flux; the abstract's 'systematically larger' describes the enhancement case of that spread.
  • My inference: the benchmark coupling $\lambda = 0.0001$ used for the 500 GeV and 1 TeV fluxes is not shown to be relic-consistent, since the relic-density and direct-detection scans cover only $m_S$ between 45 and 75 GeV; until a high-mass relic scan is done, those absolute fluxes are best read as an illustration of the non-linear effect's possible size.
  • My inference: the same vertex decorrelation that drives the flux spread could be probed at colliders through the invisible Higgs width and the $hh$ plus missing-energy final state, providing a ground-based cross-check of any solar-neutrino anomaly.
  • My inference: a concrete extension would be to scan positive and negative values of $c_1, c_2, c_3$ on a fine grid, overlay IceCube-Gen2 and KM3NeT sensitivity curves, and map the region of the non-linear parameter space that a null solar-neutrino search would exclude.
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. This paper compares solar-neutrino fluxes from dark-matter annihilation in the Sun for the Standard Model plus scalar singlet (SM+Scalar) and the Non-Linear Higgs Portal (NLHP). Using MicrOmegas for relic-density and direct-detection constraints and PPPC4 tables for neutrino spectra, the authors compute fluxes for m_S = 60 GeV, 500 GeV, and 1 TeV at a fixed coupling λ = 0.0001, and they claim in the abstract that NLHP fluxes are systematically larger than those of the linear case by at least one order of magnitude, reaching up to six orders at around 1 TeV. The body text, however, reports variations up to five orders and states that the non-linear couplings can either enhance or suppress the flux.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide a concrete indirect-detection discriminator between linear and non-linear Higgs portal dark matter. The use of current relic-density and XENON1T limits, the explicit FeynRules/MicrOmegas implementation, and the use of PPPC4 spectra are sensible, and the low-mass analysis is a useful update. However, the high-mass flux enhancement, which is the paper's main quantitative conclusion, is not demonstrated for physically allowed parameter space, so the significance as presented is limited.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Figs. 4–5] The high-mass flux predictions (m_S = 500 GeV and 1 TeV) are computed at the fixed benchmark λ = 0.0001, but no relic-density or direct-detection consistency check is shown for these masses. The only allowed-region analysis, Figs. 1 and 2, covers m_S between 45 and 75 GeV. For the SM+Scalar reference, a singlet at these masses requires a much larger Higgs portal coupling (typically λ ~ 0.1–1 at 1 TeV) to avoid overclosing the universe, so the SM+Scalar curves in Fig. 4 are not representative of the allowed model. Consequently, the abstract's statement that the fluxes were computed 'within the regions of parameter space consistent with both relic density and current direct detection limits' is not supported for the high-mass panels.
  2. [Abstract vs §3] The abstract states that the non-linear model predicts fluxes 'systematically larger' than the linear case, 'typically by at least one order of magnitude, and up to six orders of magnitude for DM masses around 1 TeV'. The body text (§3, discussion after Eq. (3.1) and around Figs. 6–9) instead states that the non-linear couplings 'can either enhance or suppress the neutrino fluxes' and that differences reach 'up to five orders of magnitude'. These statements are mutually incompatible as written, and the abstract overstates the quantitative result.
  3. [§3, Figs. 6–9] The flux-ratio figures are presented without a definition of the plotted ratio. It is not stated whether the ratio is taken at a fixed neutrino energy, integrated over energy, or evaluated at some peak; without this, the 'up to five orders of magnitude' claim is not reproducible. In addition, the NLHP points in these figures vary c1, c2, c3 (and a1, a2) freely, while the allowed-region analysis in Figs. 1–2 considers only one non-zero effective coupling at a time (c1 = 0.1 or c2 = 0.1). It is therefore unclear whether the extreme enhancement/suppression ratios correspond to parameter points that satisfy the relic-density and direct-detection constraints used elsewhere in the paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4] The flavour labels in Fig. 4 read 'νc', 'νμ', 'ντ'; the first label should be 'νe' for the electron neutrino to match standard notation and the text.
  2. [Eq. (3.1) and Figs. 4–5] The flux notation is inconsistent: Eq. (3.1) defines dΦν/dE, while the figure axes use dφ/dE. Please unify the notation and state the units consistently.
  3. [References] Several references have incomplete bibliographic entries, e.g., [7] 'The composite nambu-goldstone higgs' lacks journal/volume/page information, and [24] and [28] are missing publication details.
  4. [Figs. 1–2 captions] The captions state that the allowed region is bounded by the '(dotted or solid) blue line from below and the (dotted or solid) red line from above', but the solid/dashed distinction is not defined in the caption; please specify which line corresponds to which model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neutrino-flux predictions are computed from model parameters, external PPPC4 spectra, and independent relic/direct-detection constraints, with no fitting to solar-neutrino data.

full rationale

The paper's central calculation is the neutrino flux dΦν/dE = Σ_f BR_f · (Γ_A/(4πD²)) dN^f_ν/dE (Eq. 3.1), with Γ_A = C⊙/2 in capture-annihilation equilibrium (Eq. 3.2). Each input is computed independently: branching ratios from MicrOmegas, final-state neutrino spectra from the PPPC4 tables, and the capture rate from model scattering cross sections. No solar neutrino flux measurement is used to fit or normalize any parameter, so the 'prediction' is not a renamed fit or a fitted input called a prediction. The NLHP Lagrangian and operator set (Eqs. 2.2-2.11) are taken from ref. [28] (Brivio et al.), an independent source with no author overlap with the present paper, so no self-citation chain is load-bearing and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' own prior work. The relic-density and XENON1T constraints (Figs. 1-2) are externally measured inputs used to restrict the parameter space, not outputs of the model that are then fed back into the same prediction. The flux computation is therefore a genuine model-to-observable calculation conditional on chosen benchmark parameters. There are scientific concerns that are not circularity in the defined sense: the high-mass fluxes at 500 GeV and 1 TeV are plotted at λ=0.0001 without demonstrating that this coupling is relic-consistent, since the allowed-region analysis is shown only for m_S between 45 and 75 GeV, and the abstract's 'systematically larger by at least one order of magnitude' conflicts with the body text's 'can either enhance or suppress the neutrino fluxes' and 'up to five orders of magnitude.' These are consistency and physical-validity issues, but they do not exhibit the required quoted reduction of a prediction to its own input, so the circularity score remains 0.

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

The paper's central flux predictions are conditional on a set of hand-chosen NLHP couplings and a benchmark lambda that is not demonstrated to satisfy relic density at high masses. The model inputs are largely carried from prior literature; the new physics is the parameter scan and flux calculation. The ledger is short on invented entities because the model is pre-existing, but the free parameters are numerous and under-specified.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda_S (scalar quartic coupling) = 0.0001 in flux plots; relic-density-consistent values not reported for high masses
    The central flux predictions at 500 GeV and 1 TeV are shown for a single benchmark lambda=0.0001; the relic-density-consistent lambda for these masses is not given, so the absolute fluxes may not be physical.
  • c1, c2, c3 (NLHP effective couplings) = 0.1 (baseline), varied over orders of magnitude
    The flux ratio results (Figures 6-9) are computed for these scanned couplings; the scan range and step size are not specified in the text.
  • a1, a2 (form-factor coefficients) = 0.1 in Figure 5
    The NLHP form-factor expansion coefficients are set by hand to 0.1 without justification or motivation.
  • m_S (dark matter mass) = 60, 500, 1000 GeV
    Benchmark masses chosen to explore the low-mass allowed region and high-mass regions where direct detection is weaker.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Higgs sector is described by a HEFT or chiral perturbation theory expansion with U = exp(i tau^a pi^a / v), truncated at order (h/v)^3.
    The NLHP model relies on this effective expansion from Ref. [28]; the truncation order and the validity range of v are not justified in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The non-linear couplings c_i and a_i can be varied independently without violating perturbativity or the EFT expansion.
    The paper scans these couplings up to order 1 without checking perturbativity bounds or the validity of the derivative expansion in h/v.
  • domain assumption Capture-annihilation equilibrium in the Sun holds, so the annihilation rate Gamma_A = (1/2) C_sun.
    Standard WIMP assumption used in eq. (3.2); not verified for the specific benchmark points, particularly the high-mass cases.
  • domain assumption The PPPC4 tables provide the correct neutrino spectra, propagation, and oscillation effects for the final states considered.
    External simulation data used without independent validation for the NLHP model; the final states are assumed to match the tables exactly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Matter signals in solar neutrinos fluxes as probe of non-linear symmetry breaking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJEOHTN5

@misc{pith2026250614089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Matter signals in solar neutrinos fluxes as probe of non-linear symmetry breaking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJEOHTN5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14089}
}
read the original abstract

Dark matter (DM) particles gravitationally captured by the Sun can accumulate in its core and subsequently annihilate, producing neutrino fluxes that may be detectable on Earth. The intensity of these fluxes is highly sensitive to the properties of the underlying DM model, especially when the DM candidate is a scalar particle originating from spontaneous or non-linear symmetry breaking mechanisms. In this work, we explore the potential of solar neutrino fluxes to distinguish between the Standard Model extended by a scalar singlet and the non-linear Higgs portal scenarios in the context of a future DM discovery. We compute the expected neutrino fluxes within the regions of parameter space consistent with both relic density and current direct detection limits. Our results show that the non-linear model predicts neutrino fluxes that are systematically larger than those of the linear case, typically by at least one order of magnitude, and up to six orders of magnitude for DM masses around 1 TeV. These findings suggest that solar neutrino observations could provide a valuable probe to discriminate between these competing dark matter frameworks.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Englert and R

    F. Englert and R. Brout,Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons,Physical Review Letters13(1964) 321

    work page 1964

  2. [5]

    Higgs,Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons,Physical Review Letters13 (1964) 508

    P.W. Higgs,Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons,Physical Review Letters13 (1964) 508. – 12 –

    work page 1964

  3. [6]

    Higgs,Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields,Physics Letters12 (1964) 132

    P.W. Higgs,Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields,Physics Letters12 (1964) 132

    work page 1964

  4. [7]

    Panico and A

    G. Panico and A. Wulzer,The composite nambu-goldstone higgs,

    work page

  5. [8]

    Chung,Composite flavon-higgs models,Physical Review D104(2021) 095011

    Y. Chung,Composite flavon-higgs models,Physical Review D104(2021) 095011

    work page 2021

  6. [9]

    Chivukula and H

    B.S. Chivukula and H. Georgi,Composite-technicolor standard model,Physics Letters B188 (1987) 99

    work page 1987

  7. [10]

    Gripaios, A

    B. Gripaios, A. Pomarol, F. Riva and J. Serra,Beyond the minimal composite higgs model, Journal of High Energy Physics2009(2009) 070

    work page 2009

  8. [11]

    Kaplan, H

    D.B. Kaplan, H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos,Composite higgs scalars,Physics Letters B136 (1984) 187

    work page 1984

Show all 49 references
  1. [12]

    Cheng and Y

    H.C. Cheng and Y. Chung,A more natural composite higgs model,Journal of High Energy Physics2020(2020) 1

    2020

  2. [13]

    Kaplan and H

    D.B. Kaplan and H. Georgi,Su(2)×u(1) breaking by vacuum misalignment,Physics Letters B136(1984) 183

    1984

  3. [14]

    Arbey and F

    A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi,Dark matter and the early universe: A review,Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics119(2021) 103865

    2021

  4. [15]

    Arcadi, A

    G. Arcadi, A. Djouadi and M. Raidal,Dark Matter through the Higgs portal,Phys. Rept.842 (2020) 1 [1903.03616]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [16]

    Craig, H.K

    N. Craig, H.K. Lou, M. McCullough and A. Thalapillil,The higgs portal above threshold, Journal of High Energy Physics2016(2016) 127

    2016

  6. [17]

    Djouadi, A

    A. Djouadi, A. Falkowski, Y. Mambrini and J. Quevillon,Direct detection of higgs–portal dark matter at the lhc,The European Physical Journal C 2013 73:673(2013) 1

    2013

  7. [18]

    March-Russell, S.M

    J. March-Russell, S.M. West, D. Cumberbatch and D. Hooper,Heavy dark matter through the higgs portal,Journal of High Energy Physics2008(2008) 058

    2008

  8. [19]

    Bishara, J

    F. Bishara, J. Brod, P. Uttarayat and J. Zupan,Nonstandard yukawa couplings and higgs portal dark matter,Journal of High Energy Physics2016(2016) 10

    2016

  9. [20]

    Lebedev, H.M

    O. Lebedev, H.M. Lee and Y. Mambrini,Vector higgs portal dark matter and the invisible higgs,Physics Letters B707(2012) 570

    2012

  10. [21]

    Fedderke, J.-Y

    M.A. Fedderke, J.-Y. Chen, E.W. Kolb and L.-T. Wang,The fermionic dark matter higgs portal: an effective field theory approach,Journal of High Energy Physics2014(2014) 122

    2014

  11. [22]

    Lopez-Honorez, T

    L. Lopez-Honorez, T. Schwetz and J. Zupan,Higgs portal, fermionic dark matter, and a standard model like higgs at 125 gev,Physics Letters B716(2012) 179

    2012

  12. [23]

    Andreas, T

    S. Andreas, T. Hambye and M.H. Tytgat,Wimp dark matter, higgs exchange and dama, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2008(2008) 034

    2008

  13. [24]

    Patt and F

    B. Patt and F. Wilczek,Higgs-field portal into hidden sectors,

  14. [25]

    Englert, T

    C. Englert, T. Plehn, D. Zerwas and P.M. Zerwas,Exploring the higgs portal,Physics Letters B703(2011) 298

    2011

  15. [26]

    Silveira and A

    V. Silveira and A. Zee,Scalar phantoms,Physics Letters B161(1985) 136

    1985

  16. [27]

    Greljo, J

    A. Greljo, J. Julio, J.F. Kamenik, C. Smith and J. Zupan,Constraining higgs mediated dark matter interactions,Journal of High Energy Physics2013(2013) 1. – 13 –

    2013

  17. [28]

    Brivio, M.B

    I. Brivio, M.B. Gavela, L. Merlo, K. Mimasu, J.M. No, R. del Rey et al.,Non-linear higgs portal to dark matter,Journal of High Energy Physics2016(2016) 1

    2016

  18. [29]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott,The standard model as an effective field theory,Physics Reports793 (2019) 1

    2019

  19. [30]

    J. Silk, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,The photino, the sun, and high-energy neutrinos,Physical Review Letters55(1985) 257

    1985

  20. [31]

    Press and D.N

    W.H. Press and D.N. Spergel,Capture by the sun of a galactic population of weakly interacting, massive particles,The Astrophysical Journal296(1985) 679

    1985

  21. [32]

    Griest and D

    K. Griest and D. Seckel,Cosmic asymmetry, neutrinos and the sun,Nuclear Physics B283 (1987) 681

    1987

  22. [33]

    Srednicki, K.A

    M. Srednicki, K.A. Olive and J. Silk,High-energy neutrinos from the sun and cold dark matter,Nucl. Phys.279(1987) 804

    1987

  23. [34]

    Gould, Gould and Andrew,Weakly interacting massive particle distribution in and evaporation from the sun,ApJ321(1987) 560

    A. Gould, Gould and Andrew,Weakly interacting massive particle distribution in and evaporation from the sun,ApJ321(1987) 560

    1987

  24. [35]

    Gould,Resonant enhancements in weakly interacting massive particle capture by the earth,The Astrophysical Journal321(1987) 571

    A. Gould,Resonant enhancements in weakly interacting massive particle capture by the earth,The Astrophysical Journal321(1987) 571

    1987

  25. [36]

    Gould, Gould and Andrew,Cosmological density of wimps from solar and terrestrial annihilations,ApJ388(1992) 338

    A. Gould, Gould and Andrew,Cosmological density of wimps from solar and terrestrial annihilations,ApJ388(1992) 338

    1992

  26. [37]

    Bernal, J

    N. Bernal, J. Mart ´ ın-Albo and S. Palomares-Ruiz,A novel way of constraining wimps annihilations in the sun: Mev neutrinos,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013(2013) 011

    2013

  27. [38]

    Catena and B

    R. Catena and B. Schwabe,Form factors for dark matter capture by the sun in effective theories,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2015(2015) 042

    2015

  28. [39]

    Bell, M.J

    N.F. Bell, M.J. Dolan and S. Robles,Searching for dark matter in the sun using hyper-kamiokande,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(2021) 004

    2021

  29. [40]

    Chauhan, M.H

    B. Chauhan, M.H. Reno, C. Rott and I. Sarcevic,Neutrino constraints on inelastic dark matter captured in the sun,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(2024) 030

    2024

  30. [41]

    X.-J. Xu, Z. Wang and S. Chen,Solar neutrino physics,Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics131(2023) 104043

    2023

  31. [42]

    Tristram et al.,Cosmological parameters derived from the final Planck data release (PR4),Astron

    M. Tristram et al.,Cosmological parameters derived from the final Planck data release (PR4),Astron. Astrophys.682(2024) A37 [2309.10034]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [43]

    Bringmann and C

    T. Bringmann and C. Weniger,Gamma Ray Signals from Dark Matter: Concepts, Status and Prospects,Phys. Dark Univ.1(2012) 194 [1208.5481]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [44]

    Chauhan, M.H

    B. Chauhan, M.H. Reno, C. Rott and I. Sarcevic,Neutrino constraints on inelastic dark matter captured in the Sun,JCAP01(2024) 030 [2308.16134]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [45]

    O’Hare,New Definition of the Neutrino Floor for Direct Dark Matter Searches,Phys

    C.A.J. O’Hare,New Definition of the Neutrino Floor for Direct Dark Matter Searches,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 251802 [2109.03116]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [46]

    Baratella, M

    P. Baratella, M. Cirelli, A. Hektor, J. Pata, M. Piibeleht and A. Strumia,PPPC 4 DMν: a Poor Particle Physicist Cookbook for Neutrinos from Dark Matter annihilations in the Sun, JCAP03(2014) 053 [1312.6408]. – 14 –

    2014 arXiv

  36. [47]

    Cline, P

    J.M. Cline, P. Scott, K. Kainulainen and C. Weniger,Update on scalar singlet dark matter, Physical Review D88(2013) 055025

    2013

  37. [48]

    Press and D.N

    W.H. Press and D.N. Spergel,Capture by the sun of a galactic population of weakly interacting massive particles,Astrophys. J.296(1985) 679

    1985

  38. [49]

    Bertone, N

    G. Bertone, N. Bozorgnia, J.S. Kim, S. Liem, C. McCabe, S. Otten et al.,Identifying WIMP dark matter from particle and astroparticle data,JCAP03(2018) 026 [1712.04793]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [50]

    Batell, J

    B. Batell, J. Berger and A. Ismail,Probing the Higgs Portal at the Fermilab Short-Baseline Neutrino Experiments,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 115039 [1909.11670]

    2019

  40. [51]

    Alloul, N.D

    A. Alloul, N.D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2250 [1310.1921]

    2014 arXiv

  41. [52]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov,micrOMEGAs: A Tool for dark matter studies,Nuovo Cim. C033N2(2010) 111 [1005.4133]. [53]XENONcollaboration,Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 111302 [1805.12562]. – 15 –

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

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