Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Upper Bound on Parity Breaking Scale for Doublet WIMP Dark Matter

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that doublet WIMP dark matter in a Parity-symmetric theory forces the Parity breaking scale to be at most 25–60 TeV.

desk verdict The doublet-pair WIMP model is well worth knowing, but the mass-splitting function printed in Eqs. (16)-(17) violates decoupling for v_R >> m_psi, so the advertised 25-60 TeV bound should not be used until that is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22113 v1 pith:CLQF2OEC submitted 2025-07-29 hep-ph

Matthew J. Baldwin , Keisuke Harigaya , Isaac R. Wang This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d12.60.Cn
keywords darkmatterWIMPParitysymmetrystrongCPproblemleft-rightsymmetricmodelthermalrelicabundancecoannihilationheavygaugebosons
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 considers a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) as dark matter in a theory where a 'Parity' symmetry solves the strong CP problem—the mystery of why the strong force appears not to violate a symmetry called CP. In this theory the dark matter has a partner under Parity, and both the dark matter and its partner can annihilate through the heavy gauge bosons $W_R$ and $Z'$ that appear when Parity is broken. The authors compute the thermal relic abundance and find that if the Parity breaking scale $v_R$ exceeds a critical range, dark matter is overproduced even when annihilation runs at an s-channel resonance. The resulting upper bound is $v_R \lesssim 25$–$60$ TeV, depending on whether the dark matter and its Parity partner coannihilate. This matters because, without such a bound, $v_R$ could be almost arbitrarily high and the new physics would be out of reach of near-future experiments.

What carries the argument

The machinery is thermal freeze-out with coannihilation, evaluated for a specific multiplet: a Dirac pair $(\psi_\ell,\psi_r)$ transforming as $(2,1,-1/2)\oplus(1,2,-1/2)$ under $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_X$, with the lightest neutral state $\psi^0_r$ as dark matter. The annihilation cross section is dominated by s-channel exchange of the heavy gauge bosons $W_R$ and $Z'$, including Sommerfeld corrections from long-range potentials, and is computed numerically and analytically for all two-particle states in the multiplet. Whether $\psi_\ell$ and $\psi_r$ coannihilate is controlled by a single higher-dimensional operator $\frac{1}{\Lambda}\psi_\ell\psi_r H_L H_R^*$, which also lets $\psi_\ell$ decay into the dark matter; this operator's scale $\Lambda$ determines the two extreme cases of full coannihilation versus independent freeze-out followed by decay. The upper bound follows because the resonance annihilation cross section decreases with increasing $v_R$, so requiring $\Omega_{\rm DM}h^2\simeq 0.12$ cuts off the parameter space at a maximum $v_R$.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of $v_R$ (for instance from the masses of $W_R$ or $Z'$) above the 25–60 TeV range together with an observed dark matter abundance that still matches thermal freeze-out in this model would falsify the bound; conversely, finding a long-lived charged partner with dark matter mass near 260 GeV would overturn the exclusion that removes the low-mass branch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the requirement of reproducing the observed dark matter abundance places an upper bound on the Parity and $SU(2)_R\times U(1)_X$ breaking scale $v_R$ in the doublet-pair WIMP model. The dark matter candidate is the neutral component $\psi^0_r$ of a Parity partner doublet; its charged partner and its $SU(2)_L$ counterparts are heavier by calculable one-loop gauge corrections. For freeze-out to yield the right abundance, the dark matter must annihilate resonantly, through an intermediate $W_R$ or $Z'$ whose mass is about twice the dark matter mass, so its mass is tied to $m_{W_R}/2$ or $m_{Z'}/2$ (a separate branch at about 260 GeV is excluded by searches for long-lived charged particles). Along these resonance branches, the annihilation cross section is fixed by the gauge coupling and $v_R$, and once $v_R$ is too large the cross section is too small, so the relic abundance exceeds the observed value. The paper finds the resulting upper bound is $v_R \simeq 25$–$60$ TeV, with the precise value depending on whether the dark matter and its Parity partner coannihilate; direct detection and collider searches place complementary lower bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The bound assumes the only interaction connecting the two Parity-partner dark matter fields, besides gauge forces, is a single higher-dimensional operator whose only role is to let the heavier partner decay into the lighter one; if extra annihilation channels open near the $v_R$ scale, the relic abundance could drop and the upper bound would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $v_R$ exceeds about 60 TeV, the thermal abundance of $\psi^0_r$ overcloses the universe, so the Parity breaking scale cannot be arbitrarily high in this model.
  • The viable dark matter mass sits near $m_{W_R}/2$ or $m_{Z'}/2$, predicting new heavy gauge bosons with masses in the 10–100 TeV range that future colliders can search for.
  • Direct detection through $Z'$ exchange gives a lower bound on $v_R$ that is already comparable to collider bounds, and near-future direct detection experiments can probe almost the entire non-coannihilation parameter space.
  • The $Z'$ resonance branch predicts a present-day annihilation cross section close to the current gamma-ray upper limit from the Galactic Center, so its detectability depends on the dark-matter halo profile.
  • Even if a Majorana mass term suppresses direct detection signals, collider searches for $W_R$ and $Z'$ still provide an unavoidable lower bound on $v_R$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the same overproduction logic applies more broadly: any WIMP whose annihilation is mediated by a heavy gauge boson tied to a spontaneously broken symmetry will impose an upper bound on the breaking scale whenever the gauge coupling is fixed, so similar bounds should appear in other left-right or mirror-symmetric dark matter models.
  • If the bound is correct, a future measurement of $v_R$ above 60 TeV in a universe with thermal dark matter would imply the minimal model is incomplete; new annihilation channels or non-thermal production would be required, giving a sharp target for combined collider and cosmological tests.
  • The paper leaves rare-process searches as future work; we infer that $\mu\to e\gamma$ and the electron electric dipole moment, which can probe scales up to the 60 TeV range, deserve priority as collider-independent checks of the high-$v_R$ end of the allowed window.
  • A concrete extension would be to compute the relic density with a second higher-dimensional operator that splits $\psi^0_r$ into Majorana states; this changes the direct detection and indirect detection signals in ways that can be compared with the same resonance machinery.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies dark matter in a Parity-symmetric extension of the Standard Model with minimal Higgs content, where the WIMP is a pair of vector-like doublets ψℓ⊂(2,1,-1/2) and ψr⊂(1,2,-1/2). The neutral component ψ0r is the dark matter candidate, and a dimension-five operator (1/Λ)ψℓψrHLHR* controls ψℓ decay and, depending on Λ, whether ψℓ and ψr coannihilate during freeze-out. The authors compute one-loop mass splittings, thermally averaged relic abundances with coannihilation and Sommerfeld corrections, and identify parameter regions where the predicted abundance matches the observed dark matter density. Their central result is an upper bound on the Parity/SU(2)R breaking scale, vR ≈ 25-60 TeV, above which thermal production of ψ0r overcloses the Universe even at s-channel resonances; this is supplemented by a lower bound from colliders and direct detection. The paper also discusses indirect detection and future collider probes.

Significance. If correct, the result is significant: it converts dark matter overproduction into an upper bound on a scale that is otherwise only bounded from below in this class of models, and it yields correlated predictions for HL-LHC, future colliders, direct detection, and gamma-ray searches. The paper is unusually complete in its analytic content: Appendix D gives cross sections and Sommerfeld potentials for all initial states, Appendix E gives gauge-boson decay widths, and the calculations use explicit Feynman-amplitude packages. The bound is not fitted to data; it follows from the model's gauge interactions and the requirement that the predicted abundance not exceed the observed value. The main caveat is model-dependence: the dimension-five operator is assumed to be the only interaction coupling ψℓ and ψr, and new states near the vR scale could open additional annihilation channels and weaken the bound. I found no circularity in the derivation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 and Appendix D] The central upper bound is controlled by s-channel resonances in the Z′ and WR propagators, but the numerical treatment of the resonance is not fully specified. Section 3.2 introduces s = 4mψ² + mψ²v² only in propagator denominators, while Appendix D states that displayed cross sections omit the Breit-Wigner width. Please state explicitly the propagator formula used in the numerical scan, including whether the widths from Appendix E are included, and how the velocity average is evaluated. A sensitivity estimate showing how the 25-60 TeV bound changes under a conservative variation of the width or of the s-channel prescription is also needed; without this, the central numerical result cannot be independently reproduced.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (17)] The large-z behavior of f(z) is delicate: expanding Eq. (17) gives f(z) = 3 log z + 3/2 + O(1/z), because the first and third terms cancel at leading order. The manuscript should state this expansion explicitly, since a naive reading suggests f ~ z² log z. It should also give the real analytic continuation for 0 < z < 4, where the square root in Eq. (17) is imaginary.
  2. [Eq. (20)] As printed, H(x) = sqrt(g*/90) π M_Pl (mψ/x)² is dimensionally inconsistent; the Hubble rate should scale as T²/M_Pl rather than M_Pl T². Please verify that the published version has the correct factor (presumably 1/M_Pl).
  3. [Eqs. (28)-(29)] The notation mψr is used in Eq. (28) but the model defines ψr as a doublet; the mass splitting condition should refer to mψ0r, as in Eq. (29). Please make the notation uniform.
  4. [Fig. 3] The caption of Fig. 3 would be clearer if it stated the plotted ranges of mψ0r and vR and identified each shaded region explicitly; the current caption is understandable but terse for a figure that carries the paper's main quantitative claim.
  5. [References] Reference [72] appears both in the text of Sec. 4.3 and in the reference list; please unify the citation style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the relic-density bound uses the observed DM density as an external constraint, not as a fitted input.

full rationale

The central claim is an upper bound on vR obtained by solving the thermal relic abundance from the model's gauge interactions and the stated dimension-5 operator. In Eq. (19), the Boltzmann equation is solved with the effective cross section of Eqs. (21)-(27); the mass splittings entering the Boltzmann weights come from the one-loop self-energy computation of Appendix C, Eqs. (74)-(76), not from a fit to the relic density. The observed value ΩDM h^2 = 0.1186 ± 0.0022 is used as the green band in Fig. 2 and as the condition for the blue relic-density curves in Fig. 3; this is the standard use of an external measurement to constrain model parameters, not a prediction that is equivalent to its input by construction. The two cases (coannihilation and non-coannihilation) are organized by the decay-lifetime condition Eq. (29), with the free scale Λ determining which regime applies; this is parameter sensitivity, not circularity, since the dependence of the relic density on Λ is computed, not imposed. The self-citations in the paper, e.g., Ref. [19] for the minimal Higgs content and Ref. [45] for related electroweak-charged DM, are used for model setup and motivation rather than to justify the relic-density derivation, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the choice of model. Any concern about the large-z behavior of the loop function f(z) in Eq. (17) would be a technical correctness question, not a circularity: for z ≫ 1 the leading z^2 log z term of f(z) is cancelled by the second log term, leaving logarithmic growth, so the bound does not reduce to an input by construction. For these reasons, the derivation is self-contained and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model's prediction of the vR bound depends on the fermion content, the Z2 symmetry, the dimension-5 operator, and standard freeze-out cosmology. No data fitting besides using the observed DM density as a boundary; no hidden circularity.

free parameters (4)
  • vR (Parity/SU(2)R breaking scale) = scanned; upper bound 25-60 TeV
    The central model parameter; the thermal relic calculation is performed on the (mψ, vR) plane.
  • mψ0r (DM mass) = scanned along the relic curve (roughly 0.5-5 TeV)
    The second free mass scale; the relic density is computed as a function of mψ0r for fixed vR.
  • Λ (cutoff of dimension-5 operator) = not fitted; assumed > 10^9-10^11 GeV in coannihilation case, > 10^16-10^18 GeV for BBN in non-coannihilation case
    Controls whether ψℓ and ψr coannihilate; the two extreme cases have different upper bounds.
  • Λ' (Majorana mass operator scale) = not fitted; introduced in Sec. 4.1 with Λ' ~ 10^11 GeV giving 4 MeV splitting
    Ad hoc operator that allows DM to become a Majorana fermion and suppress direct detection; not needed for the central bound.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Standard freeze-out Boltzmann equation and thermally-averaged cross section formulas (Sec. 3.1)
    Used without proof; standard cosmology and Boltzmann statistics.
  • domain assumption Radiation-dominated universe with no entropy injection during freeze-out
    The relic abundance calculation uses standard H(x), s(x), g*(x) relations from the SM plus the model; no modified cosmology.
  • domain assumption Z2 symmetry under which DM multiplets are odd ensures DM stability
    Assigned in Sec. 2.2; no dynamical origin is given.
  • domain assumption Parity enforces gL = gR above vR, and the authors set gL = gR = g in cross sections
    Sec. 2.1; central to the numerical cross sections.
  • domain assumption Right-handed neutrinos are lighter than DM, so DM annihilation into them is allowed
    Stated in Sec. B.2; needed for full annihilation final states.
  • ad hoc to paper The dimension-5 operator 1/Λ ψℓψrHLH*R is the only new interaction coupling ψℓ and ψr
    Introduced in Sec. 2.2 to make ψℓ decay and to define coannihilation/non-coannihilation cases; its scale Λ is not predicted by the theory.
  • domain assumption A fermion sector (e.g., vector-like quarks) generates SM fermion masses and does not significantly affect DM annihilation
    Sec. 2.1 sketches the Yukawa sector without specifying parameters; DM calculations assume its effects are negligible.
  • standard math The s-wave non-relativistic limit and Sommerfeld enhancement formalism (Eqs. 23-27)
    Used to compute annihilation including long-range forces; standard in DM literature.
invented entities (3)
  • ψℓ = (2,1,-1/2) and ψr = (1,2,-1/2) fermion doublets independent evidence
    purpose: Constitute the WIMP dark matter sector: ψ0r is the DM candidate, ψℓ enables decay/coannihilation and gives LHC charged-track signals.
    They predict observable charged tracks (ψ−r), Z'/WR resonant production, and direct detection rates; these are falsifiable handles.
  • Dimension-5 operator 1/Λ ψℓψrHLH*R
    purpose: Allows ψℓ to decay into ψr and sets whether ψℓ and ψr coannihilate during freeze-out.
    No direct observable outside the model; its existence and scale are postulated to satisfy the direct-detection bound on ψℓ and to define the two phenomenologically distinct cases.
  • Mass operator 1/Λ' (ψrHR*)²
    purpose: Splits ψ0r into two Majorana states to suppress direct detection signals.
    Introduced in Sec. 4.1 as an optional way to evade direct detection; the scale Λ' is not predicted and the operator is not needed for the central bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Upper Bound on Parity Breaking Scale for Doublet WIMP Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CLQF2OEC

@misc{pith2026250722113,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Upper Bound on Parity Breaking Scale for Doublet WIMP Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CLQF2OEC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22113}
}
abstract

We consider weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) dark matter in a Parity solution to the strong CP problem. The WIMP phenomenology can be drastically affected by the presence of Parity partners of the WIMP and electroweak gauge bosons. We focus on a Parity extension of $SU(2)_L$-doublet fermion dark matter, identify the viable parameter space, and derive the predictions of the theory. We find that the Parity symmetry breaking scale is bounded from above, with the bound given by $25-60$ TeV, depending on whether or not dark matter and its Parity partner coannihilate with each other. The High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider, future colliders, and direct and indirect detection experiments can probe the parameter space further, with correlated signal rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22113 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mass splitting between particles in the DM sector generated by quantum corrections from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The DM relic density as a function of the DM mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Constraints on the DM mass mψ0 r and the Parity symmetry breaking scale vR. Left: coannihilation case. Right: non-coannihilation case. On the blue curves, the observed DM density is obtained. The shaded regions are excluded by the respectively labeled searches. The dashed curves are future projections. The Z ′ boson resonance region is ruled out by the H.E.S.S. experiment assuming the Einasto profile. However, if a … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dark matter annihilation cross section in the Milky Way Galaxy and the upper limits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: DM relic density for the bi-doublet scenario with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Constraints on the DM mass mΨ0 and the Parity symmetry breaking scale vR for the bi-doublet DM model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Loop diagrams generating a DM Majorana mass term (left) and kinetic mixing (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mixing between WL and WR induced at one loop via the quark sector. A lower bound on mQ is given by collider experiments. The requirement of xQ being O(1) and mQ ≪ vR allows us to integrate out heavy states. The model then predicts an exotic EW doublet charged under the…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radiatively generated mass splitting between DM Majorana states for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Loop diagram for fermion self-energy. Diagram made with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Universal Seesaw Leptogenesis

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Leptogenesis can proceed from single-generation gauge-singlet mediator decays in a Universal Seesaw model if parity is broken in the neutrino sector; the lightest right-handed neutrino is a sub-eV dark-radiation relic.

  2. Accidentally Stable Dark Matter in a Parity Solution to the Strong CP Problem

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SU(2)_L×SU(2)_R bi-triplet fermions are accidentally stable dark matter in a parity solution to strong CP, with relic abundance forcing v_R ≲ 150 TeV.

  3. Lepton number violating signals of a parity symmetric model at $\mu$TRISTAN

    hep-ph 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a parity-symmetric model with TeV-scale lepton number violation, a 10 TeV μ+μ+ collider can probe W' boson masses up to 16 TeV via on-shell and off-shell lepton number violating production.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Measurement of the permanent electric dipole moment of the neutron,

    nEDM Collaboration, C. Abelet al., “Measurement of the permanent electric dipole moment of the neutron,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) no. 8, 081803,arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1440–1443

    1977

  3. [3]

    Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,” Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 1791–1797

    1977

  4. [4]

    Naturally Weak CP Violation,

    A. E. Nelson, “Naturally Weak CP Violation,”Phys. Lett. B 136 (1984) 387–391

    1984

  5. [5]

    Solving the Strong CP Problem Without the Peccei-Quinn Symmetry,

    S. M. Barr, “Solving the Strong CP Problem Without the Peccei-Quinn Symmetry,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 (1984) 329

    1984

  6. [6]

    A Minimal model with natural suppression of strong CP violation,

    L. Bento, G. C. Branco, and P. A. Parada, “A Minimal model with natural suppression of strong CP violation,” Phys. Lett. B 267 (1991) 95–99

    1991

  7. [7]

    Solving the Strong CP Problem with Supersymmetry,

    G. Hiller and M. Schmaltz, “Solving the Strong CP Problem with Supersymmetry,”Phys. Lett. B 514 (2001) 263–268, arXiv:hep-ph/0105254

    arXiv 2001

  8. [8]

    Spontaneous CP violation and the strong CP problem,

    L. Vecchi, “Spontaneous CP violation and the strong CP problem,”JHEP 04 (2017) 149, arXiv:1412.3805 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Challenges for the Nelson-Barr Mechanism,

    M. Dine and P. Draper, “Challenges for the Nelson-Barr Mechanism,”JHEP 08 (2015) 132, arXiv:1506.05433 [hep-ph] . 34

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A natural model of spontaneous CP violation,

    S. Girmohanta, S. J. Lee, Y. Nakai, and M. Suzuki, “A natural model of spontaneous CP violation,” JHEP 12 (2022) 024, arXiv:2203.09002 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    P and CP solution of the strong CP puzzle,

    R. Kuchimanchi, “P and CP solution of the strong CP puzzle,”Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no. 9, 095023, arXiv:2306.03039 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Solving the strong CP problem without axions,

    F. Feruglio, M. Parriciatu, A. Strumia, and A. Titov, “Solving the strong CP problem without axions,” JHEP 08 (2024) 214, arXiv:2406.01689 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Strong P, T Noninvariances in a Superweak Theory,

    M. Beg and H.-S. Tsao, “Strong P, T Noninvariances in a Superweak Theory,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 41 (1978) 278

    1978

  6. [14]

    Natural Suppression of Strong p and t Noninvariance,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Natural Suppression of Strong p and t Noninvariance,”Phys. Lett. B 79 (1978) 283–286

    1978

  7. [15]

    Solution to the strong CP problem: Supersymmetry with parity,

    R. Kuchimanchi, “Solution to the strong CP problem: Supersymmetry with parity,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 3486–3489, arXiv:hep-ph/9511376

    1996 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Simple supersymmetric solution to the strong CP problem,

    R. N. Mohapatra and A. Rasin, “Simple supersymmetric solution to the strong CP problem,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 3490–3493, arXiv:hep-ph/9511391

    1996 arXiv

  9. [17]

    CP Violation in Seesaw Models of Quark Masses,

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, “CP Violation in Seesaw Models of Quark Masses,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 1079

    1989

  10. [18]

    A Solution to the Strong CP Problem Without an Axion,

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, “A Solution to the Strong CP Problem Without an Axion,”Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 1286

    1990

  11. [19]

    Implications of Higgs Discovery for the Strong CP Problem and Unification,

    L. J. Hall and K. Harigaya, “Implications of Higgs Discovery for the Strong CP Problem and Unification,” JHEP 10 (2018) 130, arXiv:1803.08119 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of109 Muon Decays?,

    P. Minkowski, “µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of109 Muon Decays?,” Phys. Lett. 67B (1977) 421–428

    1977

  13. [21]

    Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,

    T. Yanagida, “Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,”Conf. Proc. C7902131 (1979) 95–99

    1979

  14. [22]

    Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912. [,231(1979)]

    1980

  15. [23]

    Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, “Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,”Conf. Proc. C790927 (1979) 315–321, arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    1979 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, “Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,”Phys. Lett. B 174 (1986) 45–47

    1986

  17. [25]

    Leptogenesis for pedestrians,

    W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari, and M. Plumacher, “Leptogenesis for pedestrians,”Annals Phys. 315 (2005) 305–351, arXiv:hep-ph/0401240 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Towards a complete theory of thermal leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM,

    G. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto, and A. Strumia, “Towards a complete theory of thermal leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM,”Nucl. Phys. B 685 (2004) 89–149, arXiv:hep-ph/0310123

    2004 arXiv

  19. [27]

    DIRAC NEUTRINO MASSES AS TWO LOOP RADIATIVE CORRECTIONS,

    K. S. Babu and X. G. He, “DIRAC NEUTRINO MASSES AS TWO LOOP RADIATIVE CORRECTIONS,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4 (1989) 61. 35

    1989

  20. [28]

    Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter in Left-Right Theories,

    J. A. Dror, D. Dunsky, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, “Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter in Left-Right Theories,” JHEP 07 (2020) 168, arXiv:2004.09511 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter and Leptogenesis in Left-Right Higgs Parity,

    D. Dunsky, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, “Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter and Leptogenesis in Left-Right Higgs Parity,” JHEP 01 (2021) 125, arXiv:2007.12711 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Axiogenesis fromSU (2)R phase transition,

    K. Harigaya and I. R. Wang, “Axiogenesis fromSU (2)R phase transition,” JHEP 10 (2021) 022, arXiv:2107.09679 [hep-ph] . [Erratum: JHEP 12, 193 (2021)]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Naturally light Dirac and pseudo-Dirac neutrinos from left-right symmetry,

    K. S. Babu, X.-G. He, M. Su, and A. Thapa, “Naturally light Dirac and pseudo-Dirac neutrinos from left-right symmetry,” JHEP 08 (2022) 140, arXiv:2205.09127 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Baryogenesis in a parity solution to the strong CP problem,

    K. Harigaya and I. R. Wang, “Baryogenesis in a parity solution to the strong CP problem,”JHEP 11 (2023) 189, arXiv:2210.16207 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Leptogenesis in parity solutions to the strong CP problem and Standard Model parameters,

    J. Carrasco-Martinez, D. I. Dunsky, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, “Leptogenesis in parity solutions to the strong CP problem and Standard Model parameters,”JHEP 06 (2024) 048, arXiv:2307.15731 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Radiative Majorana neutrino masses in a parity solution to the strong CP problem,

    L. J. Hall, K. Harigaya, and Y. Shpilman, “Radiative Majorana neutrino masses in a parity solution to the strong CP problem,”JHEP 03 (2024) 047, arXiv:2311.10274 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A Flavor of SO(10) Unification with a Spinor Higgs,

    J. Carrasco-Martinez, L. J. Hall, K. Harigaya, and K. Langhoff, “A Flavor of SO(10) Unification with a Spinor Higgs,” arXiv:2506.20708 [hep-ph]

  28. [36]

    The present and future status of heavy neutral leptons,

    A. M. Abdullahiet al., “The present and future status of heavy neutral leptons,”J. Phys. G 50 (2023) no. 2, 020501,arXiv:2203.08039 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Search for a heavy charged boson in events with a charged lepton and missing transverse momentum frompp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Search for a heavy charged boson in events with a charged lepton and missing transverse momentum frompp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no. 5, 052013,arXiv:1906.05609 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Prospects for searches for heavyZ ′ and W ′ bosons in fermionic final states with the ATLAS experiment at the HL-LHC,

    A TLASCollaboration, “Prospects for searches for heavyZ ′ and W ′ bosons in fermionic final states with the ATLAS experiment at the HL-LHC,”

  31. [39]

    Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb−1 of pp collision data collected at√s =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb−1 of pp collision data collected at√s =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,”Phys. Lett. B 796 (2019) 68–87, arXiv:1903.06248 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Higgs Parity, Strong CP, and Dark Matter,

    D. Dunsky, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, “Higgs Parity, Strong CP, and Dark Matter,”JHEP 07 (2019) 016, arXiv:1902.07726 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Dark matter in a mirror solution to the strong CP problem,

    Q. Bonnefoy, L. Hall, C. A. Manzari, A. McCune, and C. Scherb, “Dark matter in a mirror solution to the strong CP problem,”Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no. 5, 055045,arXiv:2311.00702 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Dark Matter,

    J. Heeck and S. Patra, “Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) no. 12, 121804,arXiv:1507.01584 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Phenomenology of left-right symmetric dark matter,

    C. Garcia-Cely and J. Heeck, “Phenomenology of left-right symmetric dark matter,”JCAP 03 (2016) 021, arXiv:1512.03332 [hep-ph] . 36

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    WIMP dark matter in the parity solution to the strong CP problem,

    J. Kawamura, S. Okawa, Y. Omura, and Y. Tang, “WIMP dark matter in the parity solution to the strong CP problem,”JHEP 04 (2019) 162, arXiv:1812.07004 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Electroweak-Charged Dark Matter and SO(10) Unification with Parity,

    M. J. Baldwin and K. Harigaya, “Electroweak-Charged Dark Matter and SO(10) Unification with Parity,” arXiv:2407.01696 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses,

    B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, “Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 165–168

    1977

  39. [47]

    Search for heavy charged long-lived particles in the ATLAS detector in 36.1 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at√s = 13 TeV,

    A TLASCollaboration, M. Aaboudet al., “Search for heavy charged long-lived particles in the ATLAS detector in 36.1 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at√s = 13 TeV,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no. 9, 092007, arXiv:1902.01636 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Novel loop-diagrammatic approach to QCDθ parameter and application to the left-right model,

    J. Hisano, T. Kitahara, N. Osamura, and A. Yamada, “Novel loop-diagrammatic approach to QCDθ parameter and application to the left-right model,”JHEP 03 (2023) 150, arXiv:2301.13405 [hep-ph]

    2023

  41. [49]

    Large N Chiral Dynamics,

    E. Witten, “Large N Chiral Dynamics,”Annals Phys. 128 (1980) 363

    1980

  42. [50]

    Topology of the Gauge Condition and New Confinement Phases in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Topology of the Gauge Condition and New Confinement Phases in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 190 (1981) 455–478

    1981

  43. [51]

    Theta dependence in the large N limit of four-dimensional gauge theories,

    E. Witten, “Theta dependence in the large N limit of four-dimensional gauge theories,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 2862–2865, arXiv:hep-th/9807109

    1998 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Theta, Time Reversal, and Temperature,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, Z. Komargodski, and N. Seiberg, “Theta, Time Reversal, and Temperature,” JHEP 05 (2017) 091, arXiv:1703.00501 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    IsN = 2 Large?,

    R. Kitano, N. Yamada, and M. Yamazaki, “IsN = 2 Large?,” JHEP 02 (2021) 073, arXiv:2010.08810 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Viable range of the mass scale of the standard model,

    V. Agrawal, S. M. Barr, J. F. Donoghue, and D. Seckel, “Viable range of the mass scale of the standard model,” Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 5480–5492, arXiv:hep-ph/9707380

    1998 arXiv

  47. [55]

    The Weak Scale from BBN,

    L. J. Hall, D. Pinner, and J. T. Ruderman, “The Weak Scale from BBN,”JHEP 12 (2014) 134, arXiv:1409.0551 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Direct anthropic bound on the weak scale from supernovæ explosions,

    G. D’Amico, A. Strumia, A. Urbano, and W. Xue, “Direct anthropic bound on the weak scale from supernovæ explosions,” Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no. 8, 083013,arXiv:1906.00986 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Minimal dark matter,

    M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo, and A. Strumia, “Minimal dark matter,”Nucl. Phys. B 753 (2006) 178–194, arXiv:hep-ph/0512090

    2006 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Mass Splitting between Charged and Neutral Winos at Two-Loop Level,

    M. Ibe, S. Matsumoto, and R. Sato, “Mass Splitting between Charged and Neutral Winos at Two-Loop Level,” Phys. Lett. B 721 (2013) 252–260, arXiv:1212.5989 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances,

    K. Griest and D. Seckel, “Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances,”Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 3191–3203

    1991

  52. [60]

    Über die Beugung und Bremsung der Elektronen,

    A. Sommerfeld, “Über die Beugung und Bremsung der Elektronen,”Annalen Phys. 403 (1931) no. 3, 257–330. 37

    1931

  53. [61]

    Non-perturbative effect on dark matter annihilation and gamma ray signature from galactic center,

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri, and O. Saito, “Non-perturbative effect on dark matter annihilation and gamma ray signature from galactic center,”Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 063528, arXiv:hep-ph/0412403

    2005 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Non-perturbative effect on thermal relic abundance of dark matter,

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. Nagai, O. Saito, and M. Senami, “Non-perturbative effect on thermal relic abundance of dark matter,”Phys. Lett. B 646 (2007) 34–38, arXiv:hep-ph/0610249

    2007 arXiv

  55. [63]

    A Theory of Dark Matter,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, “A Theory of Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 015014, arXiv:0810.0713 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Sommerfeld factor for arbitrary partial wave processes,

    S. Cassel, “Sommerfeld factor for arbitrary partial wave processes,”J. Phys. G 37 (2010) 105009, arXiv:0903.5307 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  57. [65]

    The Sommerfeld enhancement for dark matter with an excited state,

    T. R. Slatyer, “The Sommerfeld enhancement for dark matter with an excited state,”JCAP 02 (2010) 028, arXiv:0910.5713 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Sommerfeld Enhancements for Thermal Relic Dark Matter,

    J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat, and H.-B. Yu, “Sommerfeld Enhancements for Thermal Relic Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 083525, arXiv:1005.4678 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Search for long-lived charged particles using large specific ionisation loss and time of flight in 140f b−1 of pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Search for long-lived charged particles using large specific ionisation loss and time of flight in 140f b−1 of pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” JHEP 07 (2025) 140, arXiv:2502.06694 [hep-ex]

    2025

  60. [68]

    Revisiting Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Long-Lived Decaying Particles,

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi, and Y. Takaesu, “Revisiting Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Long-Lived Decaying Particles,”Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no. 2, 023502,arXiv:1709.01211 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,

    LZ Collaboration, J. Aalberset al., “Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,”arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    DARWIN: towards the ultimate dark matter detector,

    DAR WINCollaboration, J. Aalberset al., “DARWIN: towards the ultimate dark matter detector,” JCAP 11 (2016) 017, arXiv:1606.07001 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Search for Dark Matter Annihilation Signals in the H.E.S.S. Inner Galaxy Survey,

    H.E.S.S. Collaboration, H. Abdallaet al., “Search for Dark Matter Annihilation Signals in the H.E.S.S. Inner Galaxy Survey,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) no. 11, 111101,arXiv:2207.10471 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022

  64. [72]

    Prospects for searches for heavyZ ′ and W ′ bosons in fermionic final states with the ATLAS experiment at the HL-LHC,

    A TLASCollaboration, “Prospects for searches for heavyZ ′ and W ′ bosons in fermionic final states with the ATLAS experiment at the HL-LHC,” tech. rep., CERN, Geneva, Dec, 2018. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2650549. All figures including auxiliary figures are available at https:...

    2018

  65. [73]

    Z’ boson mass reach and model discrimination at muon colliders,

    K. Korshynska, M. Löschner, M. Marinichenko, K. Mękała, and J. Reuter, “Z’ boson mass reach and model discrimination at muon colliders,”Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no. 6, 568,arXiv:2402.18460 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates,

    M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, “Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates,”Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 3059

    1985

  67. [75]

    Limits on Cold Dark Matter Candidates from an Ultralow Background Germanium Spectrometer,

    S. P. Ahlen, F. T. Avignone, R. L. Brodzinski, A. K. Drukier, G. Gelmini, and D. N. Spergel, “Limits on Cold Dark Matter Candidates from an Ultralow Background Germanium Spectrometer,”Phys. Lett. B 195 (1987) 603–608. 38

    1987

  68. [76]

    Laboratory Limits on Galactic Cold Dark Matter,

    D. O. Caldwell, R. M. Eisberg, D. M. Grumm, M. S. Witherell, B. Sadoulet, F. S. Goulding, and A. R. Smith, “Laboratory Limits on Galactic Cold Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 510

    1988

  69. [77]

    Search for pair-production of vector-like quarks in lepton+jets final states containing at least one b-tagged jet using the Run 2 data from the ATLAS experiment,

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Search for pair-production of vector-like quarks in lepton+jets final states containing at least one b-tagged jet using the Run 2 data from the ATLAS experiment,” Phys. Lett. B 854 (2024) 138743, arXiv:2401.17165 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Search for single-production of vector-like quarks decaying into Wb in the fully hadronic final state in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Search for single-production of vector-like quarks decaying into Wb in the fully hadronic final state in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,”JHEP 02 (2025) 075, arXiv:2409.20273 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Search for single production of vector-like quarks decaying into W (ℓν)b in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Search for single production of vector-like quarks decaying into W (ℓν)b in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,”arXiv:2506.15515 [hep-ex]

  72. [80]

    TikZ-Feynman: Feynman diagrams with TikZ,

    J. Ellis, “TikZ-Feynman: Feynman diagrams with TikZ,”Comput. Phys. Commun. 210 (2017) 103–123, arXiv:1601.05437 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Package-X: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals,

    H. H. Patel, “Package-X: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 197 (2015) 276–290, arXiv:1503.01469 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Package-X 2.0: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals,

    H. H. Patel, “Package-X 2.0: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 218 (2017) 66–70, arXiv:1612.00009 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  75. [83]

    FeynCalc 10: Do multiloop integrals dream of computer codes?,

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, “FeynCalc 10: Do multiloop integrals dream of computer codes?,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 306 (2025) 109357, arXiv:2312.14089 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    FeynCalc 9.3: New features and improvements,

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, “FeynCalc 9.3: New features and improvements,”Comput. Phys. Commun. 256 (2020) 107478, arXiv:2001.04407 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  77. [85]

    New Developments in FeynCalc 9.0,

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, “New Developments in FeynCalc 9.0,”Comput. Phys. Commun. 207 (2016) 432–444, arXiv:1601.01167 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  78. [86]

    FEYN CALC: Computer algebraic calculation of Feynman amplitudes,

    R. Mertig, M. Bohm, and A. Denner, “FEYN CALC: Computer algebraic calculation of Feynman amplitudes,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 64 (1991) 345–359

    1991

  79. [87]

    FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,

    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) 2250–2300, arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3,

    T. Hahn, “Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3,”Comput. Phys. Commun. 140 (2001) 418–431, arXiv:hep-ph/0012260. 39

    2001 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.