WIMP/FIMP dark matter and primordial black holes with memory burden effect

Amane Takeshita; Teruyuki Kitabayashi

arxiv: 2506.20071 · v5 · submitted 2025-06-25 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.CO

WIMP/FIMP dark matter and primordial black holes with memory burden effect

Teruyuki Kitabayashi , Amane Takeshita This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 08:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.CO

keywords primordial black holesdark matterWIMPsFIMPsmemory burden effectHawking radiationrelic abundance

0 comments

The pith

Dark matter relic density is the sum of thermal WIMPs or FIMPs, Hawking-radiated particles, and surviving primordial black holes when memory burden extends their lifetimes.

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

The paper studies how primordial black holes can contribute to dark matter today because the memory burden effect slows their evaporation. It models dark matter as three parts: particles produced thermally in the early universe, particles emitted by the black holes through Hawking radiation, and the black holes that remain. The analysis focuses on cases where thermal production supplies most of the dark matter and the black holes never dominate the total energy density. Under a stated condition the particles coming from the black holes stay out of thermal equilibrium with the background, so the three contributions can simply be added to match the observed relic density. Purely gravitational production is shown to stay small throughout the same parameter space.

Core claim

In the regime where thermal production dominates and PBHs never dominate the energy density, the total DM relic abundance can be consistently obtained as the sum of the three components: thermally produced WIMPs or FIMPs, WIMPs or FIMPs produced via the Hawking radiation of PBHs, and PBHs that survived Hawking evaporation via the memory burden effect, with a sufficient condition identified under which DM particles emitted from PBHs do not thermalize with the thermal bath and the contribution from gravitational freeze-in via graviton exchange remains subdominant.

What carries the argument

The memory burden effect, which lengthens the lifetime of primordial black holes so light ones can survive to the present and act as dark matter alongside thermally produced and Hawking-radiated particles in a three-component model.

If this is right

The relic abundance is obtained by direct addition of the three contributions once the non-thermalization condition holds.
Light PBHs become viable dark matter candidates because the memory burden effect allows them to persist until today.
Both WIMP and FIMP dark matter can be treated within the same three-component framework.
Gravitational freeze-in production stays subdominant and does not affect the main result.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If confirmed, the memory burden mechanism could open a window for light PBHs to be probed through gravitational-wave or microlensing observations.
Mixed particle-plus-black-hole dark matter might produce distinctive signals in direct detection or indirect searches that differ from pure WIMP or pure PBH models.
The approach could be extended to other early-universe production channels or to different initial PBH mass distributions.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen parameter regions keep PBHs from ever dominating the energy density and the memory burden effect extends their lifetimes to the present without further back-reaction or quantum gravity corrections altering the evaporation rate.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the dark matter relic density that deviates from the sum of the three calculated components in a region where thermal production is dominant and PBHs avoid energy domination would show the consistency claim is incorrect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20071 by Amane Takeshita, Teruyuki Kitabayashi.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Constraints on initial PBH density β considering WIMPs and PBHs. Top left: β and βc according to Min for q = 5×10−6 . Top right: β according to Min for various q values. Bottom left: β according to mass of WIMPs, mχ. Bottom right: β according to coupling of WIMPs, αWIMP. limit of Min per dotted curve is due to requirement β < βc ∝ 1/(q 5/2+kM1+k in ) (see also the top-left panel in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Relic abundance of DM and constraint on initial PBH density for FIMPs and PBHs. Only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The lifetime of primordial black holes (PBHs), which formed in the early universe, can be extended by the memory burden effect. Light PBHs may exist today and be candidates for dark matter (DM). We assume that DM is made of thermally produced weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), WIMPs produced via the Hawking radiation of PBHs, and PBHs that survived Hawking evaporation via the memory burden effect. Feebly interacting massive particles (FIMPs) are alternatives to WIMPs. Focusing on parameter regions where thermal production dominates and PBHs never dominate the energy density of the Universe, we identify a sufficient condition under which DM particles emitted from PBHs do not thermalize with the thermal bath. In this regime, the total DM relic abundance can be consistently obtained as the sum of the three components. In addition, we show that the contribution from gravitational freeze-in via graviton exchange remains subdominant within the parameter space considered.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper mixes thermal WIMP/FIMP DM with Hawking particles and memory-burden PBHs but the non-domination assumption looks hard to maintain once lifetimes are extended.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper explores a three-part dark matter composition consisting of thermally produced WIMPs or FIMPs, particles from PBH Hawking radiation, and the PBHs themselves that survive thanks to the memory burden effect. They restrict to regions where thermal production is dominant and PBHs do not dominate the energy density at any time, and they provide a sufficient condition so that the Hawking-emitted DM particles do not thermalize with the bath. In that setup the relic density is just the sum of the three contributions. What is new here is the identification of that non-thermalization condition specifically under the memory burden modification, plus the demonstration that gravitational freeze-in via graviton exchange stays subdominant in the considered space. The approach relies on standard analytic expressions from Boltzmann equations and Hawking radiation, which keeps things straightforward and reproducible in principle. They do a good job flagging the free parameters like the memory burden strength and the initial PBH mass and abundance. The soft spot is the self-consistency of assuming PBHs never dominate the energy density while their lifetimes are extended by memory burden. Extending the lifetime slows evaporation and shifts the epoch where PBH density could peak, potentially allowing domination even from small initial fractions. The non-thermalization condition is derived with the standard Hawking spectrum, but the memory burden alters the emission rate and temperature, which might move the interaction rate relative to Hubble and break the condition in the same parameters. The paper appears to choose regions post-hoc rather than presenting broad scans or uncertainty estimates. This work is aimed at cosmologists interested in PBH dark matter and extensions involving quantum effects like memory burden. A reader who follows papers on mixed DM scenarios or modified PBH evaporation would get value from the parameter discussion and the subdominance check. I recommend sending it for peer review. The core setup is standard enough that referees can verify the consistency of the assumptions and the new condition.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript explores a multi-component dark matter scenario in which the relic density arises from the sum of thermally produced WIMPs (or FIMPs), particles emitted via Hawking radiation from primordial black holes, and a surviving population of PBHs whose lifetimes are extended by the memory burden effect. Focusing on parameter regions where thermal production dominates and PBHs never dominate the energy density, the authors identify a sufficient condition ensuring that PBH-emitted DM particles do not thermalize with the bath; they further show that gravitational freeze-in via graviton exchange remains subdominant.

Significance. If the non-domination and non-thermalization assumptions hold under the modified evaporation dynamics, the work supplies a concrete, calculable framework for mixed WIMP/PBH dark matter that remains consistent with standard Boltzmann evolution and observed relic density. It usefully demonstrates how an external lifetime-extension mechanism can be incorporated without immediately violating early-universe constraints.

major comments (2)

[parameter selection and energy-density evolution] The central claim rests on the existence of parameter regions in which PBHs never dominate the energy density while their lifetimes are extended by the memory burden effect. Because the memory burden slows the evaporation rate, the epoch at which Ω_PBH peaks relative to radiation is shifted; the manuscript must demonstrate explicitly (via the modified mass-loss equation and the resulting Ω_PBH(t) evolution) that the selected initial mass and abundance fractions keep Ω_PBH ≪ 1 at all times. Without this check the non-domination premise is not self-consistent.
[non-thermalization condition] The sufficient condition for non-thermalization of PBH-emitted particles is derived using the unmodified Hawking temperature and spectrum. Once the memory-burden modification alters the instantaneous emission rate and effective temperature, the comparison between the DM–bath interaction rate and the Hubble rate must be re-evaluated; the paper should show that the same parameter window still satisfies the condition after this modification.

minor comments (2)

Clarify whether the FIMP case is developed in parallel with the WIMP case or treated only as a brief alternative; the relic-abundance summation should be written uniformly for both.
Add a short paragraph comparing the memory-burden lifetime extension to other PBH lifetime-modification mechanisms already in the literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments help clarify the consistency requirements for our assumptions regarding PBH non-domination and non-thermalization under the memory-burden modification. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested explicit checks.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [parameter selection and energy-density evolution] The central claim rests on the existence of parameter regions in which PBHs never dominate the energy density while their lifetimes are extended by the memory burden effect. Because the memory burden slows the evaporation rate, the epoch at which Ω_PBH peaks relative to radiation is shifted; the manuscript must demonstrate explicitly (via the modified mass-loss equation and the resulting Ω_PBH(t) evolution) that the selected initial mass and abundance fractions keep Ω_PBH ≪ 1 at all times. Without this check the non-domination premise is not self-consistent.

Authors: We agree that an explicit verification is required to confirm self-consistency of the non-domination assumption once the memory-burden modification is included. Although our parameter choices were selected to ensure Ω_PBH remains subdominant even with extended lifetimes, the manuscript does not presently display the full time evolution under the modified mass-loss rate. In the revised version we will add the explicit modified mass-loss equation, derive the corresponding Ω_PBH(t) evolution, and show that Ω_PBH ≪ 1 for the benchmark points throughout the relevant epochs. revision: yes
Referee: [non-thermalization condition] The sufficient condition for non-thermalization of PBH-emitted particles is derived using the unmodified Hawking temperature and spectrum. Once the memory-burden modification alters the instantaneous emission rate and effective temperature, the comparison between the DM–bath interaction rate and the Hubble rate must be re-evaluated; the paper should show that the same parameter window still satisfies the condition after this modification.

Authors: We acknowledge that the memory-burden effect changes the instantaneous emission rate and effective temperature, so the original non-thermalization criterion should be re-checked with the modified dynamics. In the revised manuscript we will recompute the DM–bath interaction rate using the altered Hawking spectrum and emission rate, compare it to the Hubble rate, and demonstrate that the previously identified parameter regions continue to satisfy the non-thermalization condition. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; relic abundance is additive sum under stated assumptions

full rationale

The paper explicitly restricts analysis to parameter regions where thermal production dominates and PBHs never dominate the energy density, then computes the total DM relic density as the direct sum of three separately calculated contributions (thermal WIMPs, Hawking-emitted particles, and memory-burden-surviving PBHs). Each component follows from standard Boltzmann equations or Hawking evaporation rates modified by an external memory-burden prescription taken from prior literature. The sufficient non-thermalization condition is derived from interaction-rate versus Hubble comparisons within the same framework. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no central result reduces to a self-citation chain by construction, and the memory-burden lifetime extension is an imported functional form rather than an ansatz smuggled via self-reference. The derivation remains self-contained once the external inputs and regime restrictions are granted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation assumes standard radiation-dominated cosmology, unmodified Hawking radiation spectrum except for the memory-burden lifetime factor, and that the memory burden effect can be parameterized without new quantum-gravity degrees of freedom. No new particles or forces are invented beyond the standard WIMP/FIMP and graviton channels.

free parameters (2)

memory burden parameter
Controls the extension of PBH lifetime; its value is chosen to allow survival to today and is not derived from first principles within the paper.
PBH initial mass and abundance fraction
Scanned or chosen so that PBHs never dominate energy density; these are external inputs fitted to the desired relic contribution.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Standard Boltzmann equation for thermal freeze-out of WIMPs/FIMPs remains valid when PBH evaporation is present.
Invoked when adding the three relic components without back-reaction on the thermal bath.
domain assumption Hawking radiation spectrum is unmodified except for overall lifetime extension from memory burden.
Used to compute the emitted DM particle yield.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5695 in / 1638 out tokens · 43867 ms · 2026-05-19T08:31:35.781638+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Memory burden effect of regular primordial black holes
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Combining regular black hole metrics with memory burden suppresses evaporation and opens a 10^6-10^8 g PBH mass window that can comprise all dark matter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Arbey and F

A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 119, 103865 (2021)

work page 2021
[2]

E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe , Frontiers in Physics. 69, 1 (1990)

work page 1990
[3]

L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S. M. West, J. High Energy Phys. 03, 080 (2010)

work page 2010
[4]

Bernal, M

N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuominen, and Vaskonen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 2017 (1730023)

work page 2017
[5]

B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J. 201, 1 (1975)

work page 1975
[6]

Carr and F

B. Carr and F. K¨ uhnel, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 355 (2020)

work page 2020
[7]

B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rep. Prog. Phys. 84, 116902 (2021)

work page 2021
[8]

Auffinger, Prog

J. Auffinger, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 131, 104040 (2023)

work page 2023
[9]

M. Yu. Khlopov. Res. Astron. Astrophys. (2010) V.10,PP. 495-528. 9

work page 2010
[10]

K. M. Belotsky, A. D. Dmitriev, E. A. Esipova, V. A. Gani, A. V. Grobov, M. Yu. Khlopov, A. A. Kirillov, S. G. Rubin, I. V. Svadkovsky, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1440005 (2014)

work page 2014
[11]

K. M. Belotsky, V. I. Dokuchaev, Yu. N. Eroshenko, E. A. Esipova, M. Yu. Khlopov, L. A. Khromykh, A. A. Kirillov, V. V. Nikulin, S. G. Rubin and I. V. Svadkovsky, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 246 (2019)

work page 2019
[12]

Heydari and K

S. Heydari and K. Karami, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 83 (2022)

work page 2022
[13]

Heydari and K

S. Heydari and K. Karami, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03, 033 (2022)

work page 2022
[14]

Heydari and K

S. Heydari and K. Karami, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 047 (2024)

work page 2024
[15]

Heydari and K

S. Heydari and K. Karami, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 127 (2024)

work page 2024
[16]

Heydari and K

S. Heydari and K. Karami, ApJ 975 148 (2024), Astrophys. J. 975, 148 (2024)

work page 2024
[17]

S. W. Hawking, Commn. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975)

work page 1975
[18]

Dvali, Fortschr

G. Dvali, Fortschr. Phys. 64, 106 (2016)

work page 2016
[19]

Dvali, L

G. Dvali, L. Eisemann, M. Michel, and S. Zell, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103523 (2020)

work page 2020
[20]

Alexandre, G

A. Alexandre, G. Dvali, and E. Koutsangelas, Phys. Rev. D 110, 036004 (2024)

work page 2024
[21]

Dvali, J

G. Dvali, J. S. Valbuena-Berm´ udez, and M. Zantedeschi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056029 (2024)

work page 2024
[22]

Thoss, A

V. Thoss, A. Burkert, and K. Kohri, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 532, 451 (2024)

work page 2024
[23]

M. R. Haque, S. Maity, D. Maity, and Y. Mambrini, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07, 002 (2024)

work page 2024
[24]

Montefalcone, D

G. Montefalcone, D. Hooper, K. Freese, C. Kelso, F. K¨ uhnel, and P. Sandick, arXiv:2503.21005 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[25]

Dvali, M

G. Dvali, M. Zantedeschi, and S. Zell, arXiv:2503.21740 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

Kohri, T

K. Kohri, T. Terada, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063543 (2025)

work page 2025
[27]

Bandyopadhyay, D

D. Bandyopadhyay, D. Borah, and N. Das, arXiv:2501.04076 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[28]

Bhaumik, M

N. Bhaumik, M. R. Haque, R. K. jain, and M. Lewicki, arXiv:2409.04436 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[29]

N. P. D. Loc, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023509 (2025)

work page 2025
[30]

Barman, K

B. Barman, K. Loho, and O. Zapata, arXiv:2412.13254 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[31]

Calabrese, M

R. Calabrese, M. Chianese, and N. Saviano, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083008 (2025)

work page 2025
[32]

Borah and N

D. Borah and N. Das, arXiv:2410.16403 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[33]

Chianese, A

M. Chianese, A. Boccia, F. Iocco, G. Miele, and N. Saviano, arXiv:2410.07604 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[34]

Chaudhuri, K

A. Chaudhuri, K. Pal, and R. Mohanta, arXiv:2025.09153 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[35]

Dondarini, G

A. Dondarini, G. Marino, P. Panci, and M. Zantedeschi, arXiv:2506.13861(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[36]

Basumatary, N

U. Basumatary, N. Raj, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. D 111, L041306 (2025)

work page 2025
[37]

Federico and S

K. Federico and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063006 (2025)

work page 2025
[38]

Gondolo, P

P. Gondolo, P. Sandick, and B. S. E. Haghi, Phys. Rev. D 102, 0595018 (2020)

work page 2020
[39]

Fujita, K

T. Fujita, K. Harigaya, M. Kawasaki, and R. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. D 89, 103501 (2014). 10

work page 2014
[40]

Cheek, L, Heurtier, Y

A. Cheek, L, Heurtier, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and J. Turner, Phys. Rev. D105, 015023 (2022)

work page 2022
[41]

Chanda, S

P. Chanda, S. Mukherjee, and J. Unwin, arXiv:2505.02935 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[42]

Kitabayashi, Int

T. Kitabayashi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36, 2150139 (2021)

work page 2021
[43]

Kitabayashi, Prog

T. Kitabayashi, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022, 033B02 (2022)

work page 2022
[44]

Kitabayashi, Prog

T. Kitabayashi, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022, 123B01 (2022)

work page 2022
[45]

Kitabayashi, Int

T. Kitabayashi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37, 2250181 (2022)

work page 2022
[46]

Kitabayashi, Phys

T. Kitabayashi, Phys. Dark. Univ. 45, 101506 (2024)

work page 2024
[47]

Takeshita and T

A. Takeshita and T. Kitabayashi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 40, 2550036 (2025)

work page 2025
[48]

Mambrini, Particles in the Dark Universe , Springer Ed

Y. Mambrini, Particles in the Dark Universe , Springer Ed. (2021)

work page 2021
[49]

Aghanim, et al., (Planck Collaboration), Astron

N. Aghanim, et al., (Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020)

work page 2020
[50]

D’Eramo, N

F. D’Eramo, N. Fernandez, and S. Profumo, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 046 (2018). 11

work page 2018

[1] [1]

Arbey and F

A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 119, 103865 (2021)

work page 2021

[2] [2]

E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe , Frontiers in Physics. 69, 1 (1990)

work page 1990

[3] [3]

L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S. M. West, J. High Energy Phys. 03, 080 (2010)

work page 2010

[4] [4]

Bernal, M

N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuominen, and Vaskonen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 2017 (1730023)

work page 2017

[5] [5]

B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J. 201, 1 (1975)

work page 1975

[6] [6]

Carr and F

B. Carr and F. K¨ uhnel, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 355 (2020)

work page 2020

[7] [7]

B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rep. Prog. Phys. 84, 116902 (2021)

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Auffinger, Prog

J. Auffinger, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 131, 104040 (2023)

work page 2023

[9] [9]

M. Yu. Khlopov. Res. Astron. Astrophys. (2010) V.10,PP. 495-528. 9

work page 2010

[10] [10]

K. M. Belotsky, A. D. Dmitriev, E. A. Esipova, V. A. Gani, A. V. Grobov, M. Yu. Khlopov, A. A. Kirillov, S. G. Rubin, I. V. Svadkovsky, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1440005 (2014)

work page 2014

[11] [11]

K. M. Belotsky, V. I. Dokuchaev, Yu. N. Eroshenko, E. A. Esipova, M. Yu. Khlopov, L. A. Khromykh, A. A. Kirillov, V. V. Nikulin, S. G. Rubin and I. V. Svadkovsky, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 246 (2019)

work page 2019

[12] [12]

Heydari and K

S. Heydari and K. Karami, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 83 (2022)

work page 2022

[13] [13]

Heydari and K

S. Heydari and K. Karami, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03, 033 (2022)

work page 2022

[14] [14]

Heydari and K

S. Heydari and K. Karami, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 047 (2024)

work page 2024

[15] [15]

Heydari and K

S. Heydari and K. Karami, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 127 (2024)

work page 2024

[16] [16]

Heydari and K

S. Heydari and K. Karami, ApJ 975 148 (2024), Astrophys. J. 975, 148 (2024)

work page 2024

[17] [17]

S. W. Hawking, Commn. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975)

work page 1975

[18] [18]

Dvali, Fortschr

G. Dvali, Fortschr. Phys. 64, 106 (2016)

work page 2016

[19] [19]

Dvali, L

G. Dvali, L. Eisemann, M. Michel, and S. Zell, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103523 (2020)

work page 2020

[20] [20]

Alexandre, G

A. Alexandre, G. Dvali, and E. Koutsangelas, Phys. Rev. D 110, 036004 (2024)

work page 2024

[21] [21]

Dvali, J

G. Dvali, J. S. Valbuena-Berm´ udez, and M. Zantedeschi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056029 (2024)

work page 2024

[22] [22]

Thoss, A

V. Thoss, A. Burkert, and K. Kohri, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 532, 451 (2024)

work page 2024

[23] [23]

M. R. Haque, S. Maity, D. Maity, and Y. Mambrini, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07, 002 (2024)

work page 2024

[24] [24]

Montefalcone, D

G. Montefalcone, D. Hooper, K. Freese, C. Kelso, F. K¨ uhnel, and P. Sandick, arXiv:2503.21005 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[25] [25]

Dvali, M

G. Dvali, M. Zantedeschi, and S. Zell, arXiv:2503.21740 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[26] [26]

Kohri, T

K. Kohri, T. Terada, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063543 (2025)

work page 2025

[27] [27]

Bandyopadhyay, D

D. Bandyopadhyay, D. Borah, and N. Das, arXiv:2501.04076 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[28] [28]

Bhaumik, M

N. Bhaumik, M. R. Haque, R. K. jain, and M. Lewicki, arXiv:2409.04436 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

[29] [29]

N. P. D. Loc, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023509 (2025)

work page 2025

[30] [30]

Barman, K

B. Barman, K. Loho, and O. Zapata, arXiv:2412.13254 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

[31] [31]

Calabrese, M

R. Calabrese, M. Chianese, and N. Saviano, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083008 (2025)

work page 2025

[32] [32]

Borah and N

D. Borah and N. Das, arXiv:2410.16403 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

[33] [33]

Chianese, A

M. Chianese, A. Boccia, F. Iocco, G. Miele, and N. Saviano, arXiv:2410.07604 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

[34] [34]

Chaudhuri, K

A. Chaudhuri, K. Pal, and R. Mohanta, arXiv:2025.09153 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[35] [35]

Dondarini, G

A. Dondarini, G. Marino, P. Panci, and M. Zantedeschi, arXiv:2506.13861(2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[36] [36]

Basumatary, N

U. Basumatary, N. Raj, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. D 111, L041306 (2025)

work page 2025

[37] [37]

Federico and S

K. Federico and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063006 (2025)

work page 2025

[38] [38]

Gondolo, P

P. Gondolo, P. Sandick, and B. S. E. Haghi, Phys. Rev. D 102, 0595018 (2020)

work page 2020

[39] [39]

Fujita, K

T. Fujita, K. Harigaya, M. Kawasaki, and R. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. D 89, 103501 (2014). 10

work page 2014

[40] [40]

Cheek, L, Heurtier, Y

A. Cheek, L, Heurtier, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and J. Turner, Phys. Rev. D105, 015023 (2022)

work page 2022

[41] [41]

Chanda, S

P. Chanda, S. Mukherjee, and J. Unwin, arXiv:2505.02935 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[42] [42]

Kitabayashi, Int

T. Kitabayashi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36, 2150139 (2021)

work page 2021

[43] [43]

Kitabayashi, Prog

T. Kitabayashi, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022, 033B02 (2022)

work page 2022

[44] [44]

Kitabayashi, Prog

T. Kitabayashi, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022, 123B01 (2022)

work page 2022

[45] [45]

Kitabayashi, Int

T. Kitabayashi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37, 2250181 (2022)

work page 2022

[46] [46]

Kitabayashi, Phys

T. Kitabayashi, Phys. Dark. Univ. 45, 101506 (2024)

work page 2024

[47] [47]

Takeshita and T

A. Takeshita and T. Kitabayashi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 40, 2550036 (2025)

work page 2025

[48] [48]

Mambrini, Particles in the Dark Universe , Springer Ed

Y. Mambrini, Particles in the Dark Universe , Springer Ed. (2021)

work page 2021

[49] [49]

Aghanim, et al., (Planck Collaboration), Astron

N. Aghanim, et al., (Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020)

work page 2020

[50] [50]

D’Eramo, N

F. D’Eramo, N. Fernandez, and S. Profumo, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 046 (2018). 11

work page 2018