Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Supernova cooling from neutrino-devouring dark matter

T0 review · 2 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 Supernova 1987A's neutrino burst, not direct detection, is the strongest probe of fermionic dark matter that converts into neutrinos.

desk verdict First SN1987A cooling bound on neutrino-devouring fermionic DM, with a full-time-evolution setup that is a genuine addition, but the head-on thermal average likely overestimates the production rate near threshold and needs a phase-space check before the window-closing claim is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22124 v1 pith:U2CDOIZI submitted 2025-07-29 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Yugen Lin , Chih-Ting Lu , Ningqiang Song This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO PACS 95.35.+d97.60.Bw
keywords supernovacoolingfermionicdarkmatterneutrinoconversionSN1987AeffectivefieldtheoryabsorptionRaffeltcriterioncore-collapse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the neutrino burst from Supernova 1987A is the most powerful existing probe of a particular class of light dark matter: fermionic dark matter that converts into neutrinos when scattering off electrons or nucleons (FDMCN). Using the full time-dependent temperature, density, and neutrino-spectrum profiles from a state-of-the-art electron-capture supernova simulation, the authors compute how much energy neutrinos would drain from the protoneutron star by producing dark matter in the neutrino-devouring process. Applying the Raffelt cooling criterion, they exclude DM-electron cross sections down to $10^{-51}$-$10^{-58}$ cm$^2$ in the keV-MeV mass range and DM-nucleon cross sections down to $10^{-49}$-$10^{-56}$ cm$^2$ in the 0.1-100 MeV range. They also show this closes almost the entire region where such fermionic dark matter would constitute an order-one fraction of the cosmological dark matter via freeze-in production. If correct, supernova cooling, not direct detection, is the dominant constraint on these operators.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the neutrino-devouring process $\nu + T \to \chi + T$, the time-reversed version of the FDMCN absorption signal searched for in direct-detection experiments. The production rate is computed from dimension-six effective operators using the supernova neutrino spectrum, the thermal electron distribution with Pauli blocking, and the full space-time evolution of an 8.8 solar mass electron-capture supernova simulation; the resulting DM luminosity is compared with the neutrino luminosity through the Raffelt criterion. A trapping limit is added by weighting the produced DM by its survival probability against scattering back into neutrinos.

What would settle it

A direct detection experiment, such as an upgraded PandaX or XENONnT run, observing fermionic DM absorption on electrons or nuclei at a cross section above the supernova-cooling exclusion band in the keV-MeV (electron) or 0.1-100 MeV (nucleon) mass range would falsify the paper's claim; equivalently, a precision measurement of the neutrino burst from a future galactic supernova that matches standard cooling with no anomalous extra energy loss would test the same production calculation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that core-collapse supernovae, and SN1987A in particular, can produce fermionic dark matter through the neutrino-devouring process $\nu + T \to \chi + T$, where $T$ is an electron or nucleon, and that the resulting energy loss severely constrains the interaction strength. Using dimension-six effective operators of vector and scalar type for both electron and nucleon targets, the paper computes the full space-time integrated DM production over the neutronization, accretion, and cooling phases of an 8.8 solar mass electron-capture supernova simulation. Comparing the DM energy loss to the neutrino luminosity via the Raffelt criterion that DM carry at most 10% of the neutrino energy, the paper excludes cross sections spanning about seven orders of magnitude. For electron targets it also closes almost the entire parameter window in which fermionic DM could constitute an $\mathcal{O}(1)$ fraction of the cosmological dark matter.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute position of the exclusion lines rests on assuming SN1987A's neutrino environment is well represented by one 8.8-solar-mass electron-capture supernova simulation and on the conventional Raffelt criterion that dark matter carries less than 10% of the neutrino energy; if SN1987A's progenitor was a heavier iron-core star with a different neutrino luminosity and spectrum, the boundaries of the excluded region would shift, and no systematic error budget is provided for this choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Supernova cooling excludes DM-electron scattering cross sections down to $10^{-51}$-$10^{-58}$ cm$^2$ for keV-MeV masses, making SN1987A the strongest probe of these operators in this mass range.
  • For vector-type coupling to electrons, almost the entire parameter space where fermionic DM constitutes an $\mathcal{O}(1)$ fraction of cosmological DM via freeze-in is closed.
  • The limits extend to arbitrarily small DM masses and do not require the new particle to be the cosmological DM, so they apply to any fermionic state coupling to neutrinos and electrons or nucleons.
  • The trapping limits are robust to the treatment of DM propagation: fixing time at 1 s or radius at 10 km gives nearly identical results.
  • For nucleon coupling, the cooling limit rules out cross sections down to $10^{-56}$ cm$^2$ for $M_\chi \gtrsim 0.1$ MeV, leaving only a narrow band that LHC, direct detection, or future low-threshold experiments can cover.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the production rate scales with neutrino luminosity, heavier iron-core progenitors with stronger neutrino fluxes would likely shift the exclusion boundaries rather than erase them; a dedicated simulation of such a progenitor would quantify the shift.
  • The same neutrino-devouring production in pre-supernova stars or through the diffuse supernova neutrino background might extend the exclusion to coupling strengths too small to affect SN1987A, since the integrated emission over many stars accumulates.
  • If a future galactic supernova is observed, comparing the measured neutrino light curve to the predicted excess-cooling signature would provide a direct test of the production calculation without relying on the 1987A benchmark.
  • The technique transfers directly to other dark-sector fermions or bosons whose interactions with neutrinos are described by dimension-six operators, making the cross-section reach found here a template for a broad class of neutrino-portal models.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the production of fermionic dark matter (DM) inside a core-collapse supernova via the 'neutrino-devouring' process, in which supernova neutrinos scatter off electrons or nucleons and convert into a fermionic DM particle. Using an 8.8 solar-mass electron-capture supernova simulation from the Garching group and retaining the full time evolution of the stellar profiles, the authors compute the DM production rate, apply the Raffelt cooling criterion that DM must carry less than 10% of the neutrino energy, and add a trapping suppression for strongly interacting DM. They report exclusions of DM-electron scattering cross sections down to 10^-51 to 10^-58 cm^2 in the keV-MeV mass range and DM-nucleon cross sections down to 10^-49 to 10^-56 cm^2 in the 0.1-100 MeV range, and claim that almost the entire parameter region where fermionic DM constitutes an O(1) fraction of the cosmological DM for electron couplings is closed. The paper also compares the cooling limits with direct-detection, collider, cosmological, and DM-decay constraints.

Significance. If the quantitative result holds, supernova cooling would be the dominant probe of these effective FDMCN operators, extending sensitivity many orders of magnitude below current direct-detection experiments and providing a first supernova-based limit on this class of models. The paper is careful to use a state-of-the-art simulation with time-dependent profiles, to include trapping effects through two independent approximations, and to show complementarity with existing constraints. The central claim, however, rests on a set of uncontrolled kinematic approximations in the production-rate calculation that have not been validated against a full phase-space integration; because the quoted exclusion lines and the window-closing statement depend directly on that rate, the quantitative conclusions need further support before publication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (3)-(7)] The central production rate is computed by replacing the thermal average over electron and neutrino distributions with an evaluation at the average electron energy and in a head-on collision, using the ad hoc relation E_nu = (E_chi + p_chi)/2. This approximation is not conservative: for an isotropic initial angular distribution the factor (1 - cos theta) averages to 1, whereas a head-on collision gives 2, so the Mandelstam s and hence the COM cross section are inflated. Near the m_chi threshold the effect is larger because only the high-energy tails of the distributions contribute. Since the Raffelt bound is set by the total DM energy loss, which is proportional to this production rate, an O(1) error in the rate shifts the exclusion boundaries in Figs. 2 and 3 upward by a comparable factor, and the claim that 'almost the entire O(1) DM window' is closed is sensitive to this shift. The authors should either perform the full phase-space integration over the electron and neutrino distributions or provide a conservative, systematically lower production rate with an explicit uncertainty estimate before the quantitative limits are accepted.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (8), and Appendix B] The absolute normalization of the cooling bound is anchored to a single 8.8 solar-mass electron-capture supernova simulation, with no systematic error budget for the progenitor choice or for the 10% Raffelt threshold. The text states that the results are expected to be robust against progenitor mass, but no comparison is shown. Because SN1987A likely had a more massive iron-core progenitor, the neutrino luminosity, mean energies, and time profiles can differ, and this directly shifts the position of the exclusion lines. A quantitative assessment of the progenitor sensitivity, or at least a demonstration that the window-closing conclusion survives a conservative variation, is needed for the claimed precision.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, paragraph after Eq. (4)] The definition of the average electron energy E_e = 3T Li_4(-e^{mu/T})/Li_3(-e^{mu/T}) should be stated more carefully, including whether the electron rest mass is included, and the symbol E_e is used both for this average and for the electron energy in the cross-section formulas.
  2. [Sec. IV] The two trapping approaches are said to give limits 'in close proximity', but no numerical comparison is provided; a short quantitative statement of the difference in the resulting boundary would strengthen the robustness claim.
  3. [Fig. 2] The scalar-type panel does not show the trapping limit and the caption does not say whether trapping is included for scalar interactions; this should be stated explicitly to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. III, after Eq. (6)] The statement that the calculation 'sums over all flavor species' should clarify whether the same alpha and mean neutrino energy are used for all flavors, since the simulation provides separate spectra for nu_e, anti-nu_e, and nu_x.
  5. [Appendix B] There is a typo, 'simulaitons', in the figure caption of Fig. 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the supernova cooling limits are computed from EFT cross sections integrated over external simulation data, with model parameters scanned rather than fitted.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained against external inputs. The DM production rate is computed from the effective operators in Eqs. (1) and (2) through the explicit COM cross sections in Eqs. (3) and (4), then combined with neutrino spectra, electron densities, temperatures, and luminosities extracted from the Garching 8.8 solar mass supernova simulation [46] in Eqs. (5)-(7). The Raffelt criterion (DM carries at most 10% of the neutrino energy) is an externally imposed benchmark, not derived from the model. The model parameters Lambda and m_chi are scanned over a grid; they are not fitted to any target exclusion curve. The quoted constraints are therefore predictions of the EFT for each parameter point, not re-statements of input data. No load-bearing step rests on a self-citation: the cited decay rates, freeze-in overproduction lines, and direct detection projections come from independent prior groups (e.g., Refs. [4-6,33]) and are used only for complementarity, not to define the cooling limit. The approximation in Sec. III of replacing the thermal average by the cross section at average electron energy in a head-on collision, with E_nu = (E_chi + p_chi)/2, is a systematic-error concern about the production rate, not a circular step: the target result is not used to set that approximation, and correcting it would shift limits numerically without making the derivation equivalent to its inputs. The progenitor-mass dependence is likewise an astrophysical benchmark uncertainty, conservative in direction according to the paper's cited robustness claim, and does not constitute circularity. For these reasons, no circularity is present and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central supernova limit is a direct phase-space integral with no fitted parameters; the model parameters (Lambda, m_chi) are scanned rather than fitted. The calculation relies on external simulation data, the conventional Raffelt criterion, and a set of stated approximations whose uncertainties are not quantified. The free parameters listed are hand-chosen benchmarks (the fractional energy-loss threshold and the radial cutoff), not quantities fitted to data. No new entities are invented; the fermionic dark matter model is adopted from the existing FDMCN literature.

free parameters (2)
  • Raffelt cooling threshold = 0.1
    The cooling bound is drawn where DM energy loss equals 10 percent of neutrino energy loss; this conventional factor is chosen by hand and directly sets the exclusion contours.
  • Radial production cutoff = 40 km
    The radial integral in Eq. (7) stops at 40 km; the authors argue the neutrino sphere is at roughly 30 km so production outside is negligible, but the cutoff is a chosen approximation without a derived error.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Raffelt cooling criterion: DM energy loss must stay below 10 percent of the neutrino energy loss.
    Used in Sec. III to convert DM production into an exclusion curve ('by requiring DM production to carry at most 10% of the energy released in the form of neutrinos'); the 10 percent threshold is conventional, not a measured quantity.
  • domain assumption The Garching 8.8 solar mass electron-capture supernova simulation is a representative benchmark for the SN1987A neutrino environment.
    Sec. III and Appendix B extract T, mu, n_e, n_nu, Ebar_nu and alpha from Ref. [46]; the paper asserts robustness against progenitor mass by citing Ref. [38], but does not quantify the shift for a more massive Fe-core progenitor like SN1987A.
  • ad hoc to paper Thermally averaged cross sections can be evaluated at the average electron energy and in head-on collisions, with Pauli blocking inserted as a multiplicative occupation factor.
    Sec. III explicitly adopts this approximation because including both the electron and neutrino energy distributions is computationally intensive; no systematic error is estimated.
  • ad hoc to paper DM produced in the supernova travels on radial trajectories, and the trapping survival probability can be computed with the mean free path evaluated either at t=1 s or at R=10 km.
    Sec. IV uses two simplified treatments of back-conversion; the proximity of the resulting trapping limits is taken as evidence of robustness rather than a rigorous bound.
  • domain assumption Neutrino flavor dependence is negligible; cross sections are summed over all flavors and antineutrinos.
    Sec. III states 'We assume no flavor dependence in the cross section and sum over all flavor species'; if the UV completion gives flavor-dependent couplings, the limits would not directly apply.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supernova cooling from neutrino-devouring dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U2CDOIZI

@misc{pith2026250722124,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supernova cooling from neutrino-devouring dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U2CDOIZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22124}
}
abstract

Supernova cooling provides a powerful probe of physics beyond the Standard Model (SM), in particular for new, light states interacting feebly with SM particles. In this work, we investigate for the first time the production of fermionic dark matter (DM) via the neutrino-devouring process inside a core-collapse supernova, which contributes to the excessive cooling. By incorporating state-of-the-art supernova simulation data and the full time evolution information, we derive stringent and robust limits on DM interactions. We exclude the cross sections down to $10^{-51}-10^{-58}$ cm$^2$ in the keV-MeV mass range for DM-electron scattering, and $10^{-49}-10^{-56}$ cm$^2$ in the 0.1-100 MeV mass range for DM-nucleon scattering, supplemented by complementary constraints from cosmology, astrophysics, LHC and direct detection experiments in the larger cross section regime. We also close almost the entire window in which fermionic DM constitutes $\mathcal{O}(1)$ fraction of DM for its coupling to electrons in the keV-MeV mass range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22124 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the relevant processes in this work. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Supernova cooling limits (gray shaded regions) for DM-electron scattering via vector-type (left) and scalar-type (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Supernova cooling limits (gray shaded region) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Supernova energy loss from fermionic DM production [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The profile of baryons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Probing Light Dark Particles in Neutrino Scattering Experiments

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A dark fermion produced in neutrino scattering could be probed at DUNE's near detector up to cutoff scales near 1 TeV, beyond CHARM II and LEP, while current COHERENT/CONUS+ limits stay below LHC bounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aprile et al.(XENON), First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys

    E. Aprile et al.(XENON), First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041003 (2023), arXiv:2303.14729 [hep- ex]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 011802 (2025), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Bo et al.(PandaX), Dark Matter Search Results from 1.54 Tonne·Year Exposure of PandaX-4T, Phys

    Z. Bo et al.(PandaX), Dark Matter Search Results from 1.54 Tonne·Year Exposure of PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 011805 (2025), arXiv:2408.00664 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    J. A. Dror, G. Elor, and R. Mcgehee, Directly Detecting Signals from Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 18 (2020), arXiv:1905.12635 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    J. A. Dror, G. Elor, and R. Mcgehee, Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter by Nuclear Targets, JHEP 02, 134, arXiv:1908.10861 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1908

  6. [6]

    J. A. Dror, G. Elor, R. McGehee, and T.-T. Yu, Ab- sorption of sub-MeV fermionic dark matter by electron targets, Phys. Rev. D 103, 035001 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 105, 119903 (2022)], arXiv:2011.01940 [hep- ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Chang and J

    W.-F. Chang and J. Liao, Constraints on light sin- glet fermion interactions from coherent elastic neutrino- nucleus scattering, Phys. Rev. D 102, 075004 (2020), arXiv:2002.10275 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Hurtado, H

    N. Hurtado, H. Mir, I. M. Shoemaker, E. Welch, and J. Wyenberg, Dark Matter-Neutrino Interconversion at COHERENT, Direct Detection, and the Early Universe, Phys. Rev. D 102, 015006 (2020), arXiv:2005.13384 [hep- ph]. 7 t=1s t=4s t=8s Nucleon Electron 0 10 20 30 40 1030 1033 1036 1039 R[km] n[cm -3] t=1s t=4s t=8s νe ν e νx 0 10 20 30 40 1031 1032 1033 103...

    arXiv 2020

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Li and J

    T. Li and J. Liao, Loop effect in the coherent neutrino- nucleus scattering, JHEP02, 099, arXiv:2008.00743 [hep- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Z. Chen, T. Li, and J. Liao, Constraints on gen- eral neutrino interactions with exotic fermion from neutrino-electron scattering experiments, JHEP 05, 131, arXiv:2102.09784 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    W. Chao, T. Li, J. Liao, and M. Su, Loop effects with a vector mediator in coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095017 (2021), arXiv:2108.02341 [hep- ph]. 8

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    T. Li, J. Liao, and R.-J. Zhang, Dark magnetic dipole property in fermionic absorption by nucleus and elec- trons, JHEP 05, 071, arXiv:2201.11905 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Berger et al., Snowmass 2021 White Paper: Cos- mogenic Dark Matter and Exotic Particle Searches in Neutrino Experiments, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2207.02882 [hep-ph]

    J. Berger et al., Snowmass 2021 White Paper: Cos- mogenic Dark Matter and Exotic Particle Searches in Neutrino Experiments, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2207.02882 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    S. J. Haselschwardt, B. G. Lenardo, T. Daniels, S. W. Finch, F. Q. L. Friesen, C. R. Howell, C. R. Malone, E. Mancil, and W. Tornow, Observation of Low-Lying Isomeric States in Cs136: A New Avenue for Dark Matter and Solar Neutrino Detection in Xenon Detectors, Phys. Rev. Lett...

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    P. M. Candela, V. De Romeri, and D. K. Papoulias, CO- HERENT production of a dark fermion, Phys. Rev. D 108, 055001 (2023), arXiv:2305.03341 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    P. Cox, M. J. Dolan, and J. Wood, Absorption of fermionic dark matter via the scalar portal, Phys. Rev. D 109, 095013 (2024), arXiv:2308.00309 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ma, Exploring Four Fermion Contact Couplings of a Dark Fermion and an Electron at Hadron Colliders and Direct Detection Experiments, (2024), arXiv:2404.06419 [hep-ph]

    K. Ma, Exploring Four Fermion Contact Couplings of a Dark Fermion and an Electron at Hadron Colliders and Direct Detection Experiments, (2024), arXiv:2404.06419 [hep-ph]

    2024

  10. [18]

    Ma, S.-F

    K. Ma, S.-F. Ge, L.-Y. He, and N. Zhou, Com- plementary Search of Fermionic Absorption Operators at Hadron Collider and Direct Detection Experiments (2024) arXiv:2405.16878 [hep-ph]

    2024

  11. [19]

    Ge and O

    S.-F. Ge and O. Titov, Incoherent fermionic dark mat- ter absorption with nucleon Fermi motion, Phys. Rev. D 110, 055003 (2024), arXiv:2405.05728 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ma and L.-Y

    K. Ma and L.-Y. He, Constraining gluonic contact inter- action of a neutrino-philic dark fermion at hadron collid- ers and direct detection experiments, Phys. Dark Univ. 48, 101933 (2025), arXiv:2405.20890 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ge and X.-D

    S.-F. Ge and X.-D. Ma, Nucleon consumption and mass- energy conversion induced by dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 110, 115004 (2024), arXiv:2406.00445 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ma and L.-Y

    K. Ma and L.-Y. He, Mono-lepton signature of a neutrino-philic dark fermion at hadron colliders, Nucl. Phys. B 1018, 117028 (2025), arXiv:2502.21096 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    X. P. Geng, B. Zhong, and Z. H. Zhang, Novel Search for absorption of ultra-light fermionic dark matter on elec- tron with cosmic ray boost, (2025), arXiv:2502.15282 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gu et al

    L. Gu et al. (PandaX), First Search for the Ab- sorption of Fermionic Dark Matter with the PandaX- 4T Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 161803 (2022), arXiv:2205.15771 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhang et al

    D. Zhang et al. (PandaX), Search for Light Fermionic Dark Matter Absorption on Electrons in PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 161804 (2022), arXiv:2206.02339 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Zeng et al

    X. Zeng et al. (PandaX), Exploring New Physics with PandaX-4T Low Energy Electronic Recoil Data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 041001 (2025), arXiv:2408.07641 [hep- ex]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    I. J. Arnquist et al. (Majorana), Exotic Dark Matter Search with the Majorana Demonstrator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 041001 (2024), arXiv:2206.10638 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    W. H. Dai et al. (CDEX), Exotic Dark Matter Search with the CDEX-10 Experiment at China’s Jinping Un- derground Laboratory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 221802 (2022), arXiv:2209.00861 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. X. Liu et al. (CDEX), First Search for Light Fermionic Dark Matter Absorption on Electrons Using Germanium Detector in CDEX-10 Experiment, (2024), arXiv:2404.09793 [hep-ex]

    2024

  22. [30]

    Adams et al

    E. Adams et al. (PICO), Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter in the PICO-60 C3F8 Bubble Chamber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 011001 (2025), arXiv:2504.13089 [hep- ex]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    S. A. Kharusi et al.(EXO-200), Search for MeV electron recoils from dark matter in EXO-200, Phys. Rev. D 107, 012007 (2023), arXiv:2207.00897 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    G. Richardson et al., Sensitivity of nEXO to 136Xe Charged-Current Interactions: Background-free Searches for Solar Neutrinos and Fermionic Dark Matter, (2025), arXiv:2506.22586 [nucl-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ge, X.-G

    S.-F. Ge, X.-G. He, X.-D. Ma, and J. Sheng, Revisiting the fermionic dark matter absorption on electron target, JHEP 05, 191, arXiv:2201.11497 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hirata et al

    K. Hirata et al. (Kamiokande-II), Observation of a Neu- trino Burst from the Supernova SN 1987a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1490 (1987)

    1987

  27. [35]

    J. R. Ellis and K. A. Olive, Constraints on Light Particles From Supernova Sn1987a, Phys. Lett. B193, 525 (1987)

    1987

  28. [36]

    Raffelt and D

    G. Raffelt and D. Seckel, Bounds on Exotic Particle Inter- actions from SN 1987a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1793 (1988)

    1988

  29. [37]

    G. G. Raffelt, Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles(1996)

    1996

  30. [38]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, Super- nova 1987A Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Sectors, Mil- licharged Particles, the QCD Axion, and an Axion-like Particle, JHEP 09, 051, arXiv:1803.00993 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Li and Z

    Y. Li and Z. Liu, Supernova constraints on lepton flavor violating ALPs, (2025), arXiv:2501.12075 [hep-ph]

    2025

  32. [40]

    C. V. Cappiello, P. S. B. Dev, and A. V. Patwardhan, New Supernova Constraints on Neutrinophilic Dark Sec- tor, (2025), arXiv:2503.09691 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Caputo, H.-T

    A. Caputo, H.-T. Janka, G. Raffelt, and S. Yun, Cooling the Shock: New Supernova Constraints on Dark Photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 151002 (2025), arXiv:2502.01731 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    C. A. Arg¨ uelles, V. Brdar, and J. Kopp, Production of keV Sterile Neutrinos in Supernovae: New Constraints and Gamma Ray Observables, Phys. Rev. D 99, 043012 (2019), arXiv:1605.00654 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Brdar, A

    V. Brdar, A. de Gouvˆ ea, Y.-Y. Li, and P. A. N. Machado, Neutrino magnetic moment portal and super- novae: New constraints and multimessenger opportuni- ties, Phys. Rev. D 107, 073005 (2023), arXiv:2302.10965 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    M. T. Keil, G. G. Raffelt, and H.-T. Janka, Monte Carlo study of supernova neutrino spectra formation, Astro- phys. J. 590, 971 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208035

    2003 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Brdar, M

    V. Brdar, M. Lindner, and X.-J. Xu, Neutrino as- tronomy with supernova neutrinos, JCAP 04, 025, arXiv:1802.02577 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Hudepohl, B

    L. Hudepohl, B. Muller, H. T. Janka, A. Marek, and G. G. Raffelt, Neutrino Signal of Electron-Capture Su- pernovae from Core Collapse to Cooling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 251101 (2010), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 105, 249901 (2010)], arXiv:0912.0260 [astro-ph.SR]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [47]

    H. K. Dreiner, J.-F. Fortin, C. Hanhart, and L. Ubaldi, Supernova constraints on MeV dark sectors from e+e− annihilations, Phys. Rev. D 89, 105015 (2014), 9 arXiv:1310.3826 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    H. K. Dreiner, C. Hanhart, U. Langenfeld, and D. R. Phillips, Supernovae and light neutralinos: SN1987A bounds on supersymmetry revisited, Phys. Rev. D 68, 055004 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0304289

    2003 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Belyaev, E

    A. Belyaev, E. Bertuzzo, C. Caniu Barros, O. Eboli, G. Grilli Di Cortona, F. Iocco, and A. Pukhov, Inter- play of the LHC and non-LHC Dark Matter searches in the Effective Field Theory approach, Phys. Rev. D 99, 015006 (2019), arXiv:1807.03817 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Essig, E

    R. Essig, E. Kuflik, S. D. McDermott, T. Volansky, and K. M. Zurek, Constraining Light Dark Matter with Dif- fuse X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Observations, JHEP 11, 193, arXiv:1309.4091 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Liao et al., Background model for the Low-Energy Telescope of Insight − HXM T, JHEAp 27, 24 (2020), arXiv:2004.01432 [astro-ph.IM]

    J.-Y. Liao et al., Background model for the Low-Energy Telescope of Insight − HXM T, JHEAp 27, 24 (2020), arXiv:2004.01432 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Krivonos, D

    R. Krivonos, D. Wik, B. Grefenstette, K. Madsen, K. Perez, S. Rossland, S. Sazonov, and A. Zoglauer, N uST ARmeasurement of the cosmic X-ray background in the 3–20 keV energy band, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 502, 3966 (2021), arXiv:2011.11469 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    K. C. Y. Ng, B. M. Roach, K. Perez, J. F. Beacom, S. Horiuchi, R. Krivonos, and D. R. Wik, New Con- straints on Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter from N uST AR M31 Observations, Phys. Rev. D 99, 083005 (2019), arXiv:1901.01262 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    D. E. Gruber, J. L. Matteson, L. E. Peterson, and G. V. Jung, The spectrum of diffuse cosmic hard x-rays measured with heao-1, Astrophys. J. 520, 124 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9903492

    1999 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Bouchet, E

    L. Bouchet, E. Jourdain, J. P. Roques, A. Strong, R. Diehl, F. Lebrun, and R. Terrier, INTEGRAL SPI All- Sky View in Soft Gamma Rays: Study of Point Source and Galactic Diffuse Emissions, Astrophys. J. 679, 1315 (2008), arXiv:0801.2086 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bouchet, A

    L. Bouchet, A. W. Strong, T. A. Porter, I. V. Moskalenko, E. Jourdain, and J.-P. Roques, Diffuse emission measurement with INTEGRAL/SPI as indirect probe of cosmic-ray electrons and positrons, Astrophys. J. 739, 29 (2011), arXiv:1107.0200 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Gong and X

    Y. Gong and X. Chen, Cosmological Constraints on In- visible Decay of Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 77, 103511 (2008), arXiv:0802.2296 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  50. [58]

    De Lope Amigo, W

    S. De Lope Amigo, W. M.-Y. Cheung, Z. Huang, and S.- P. Ng, Cosmological Constraints on Decaying Dark Mat- ter, JCAP 06, 005, arXiv:0812.4016 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Audren, J

    B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, G. Mangano, P. D. Serpico, and T. Tram, Strongest model-independent bound on the lifetime of Dark Matter, JCAP 12, 028, arXiv:1407.2418 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Poulin, P

    V. Poulin, P. D. Serpico, and J. Lesgourgues, A fresh look at linear cosmological constraints on a decaying dark matter component, JCAP 08, 036, arXiv:1606.02073 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Franco Abell´ an, R

    G. Franco Abell´ an, R. Murgia, and V. Poulin, Linear cos- mological constraints on two-body decaying dark matter scenarios and the S8 tension, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123533 (2021), arXiv:2102.12498 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Hapitas, D

    T. Hapitas, D. Tuckler, and Y. Zhang, General ki- netic mixing in gauged U(1)L µ-Lτ model for muon g- 2 and dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 105, 016014 (2022), arXiv:2108.12440 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Angloher et al.(CRESST), Results on light dark mat- ter particles with a low-threshold CRESST-II detector, Eur

    G. Angloher et al.(CRESST), Results on light dark mat- ter particles with a low-threshold CRESST-II detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 25 (2016), arXiv:1509.01515 [astro- ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Petricca et al

    F. Petricca et al. (CRESST), First results on low-mass dark matter from the CRESST-III experiment, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1342, 012076 (2020), arXiv:1711.07692 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide), First Results from the DarkSide-50 Dark Matter Experiment at Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, Phys. Lett. B 743, 456 (2015), arXiv:1410.0653 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide), Low-Mass Dark Mat- ter Search with the DarkSide-50 Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 081307 (2018), arXiv:1802.06994 [astro- ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Agnese et al

    R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS), Search for Low-Mass Weakly Interacting Massive Particles with SuperCDMS, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 241302 (2014), arXiv:1402.7137 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Amole et al.(PICO), Dark matter search results from the PICO-60 CF 3I bubble chamber, Phys

    C. Amole et al.(PICO), Dark matter search results from the PICO-60 CF 3I bubble chamber, Phys. Rev. D 93, 052014 (2016), arXiv:1510.07754 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Amole et al.(PICO), Dark Matter Search Results from the PICO-60 C 3F8 Bubble Chamber, Phys

    C. Amole et al.(PICO), Dark Matter Search Results from the PICO-60 C 3F8 Bubble Chamber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 251301 (2017), arXiv:1702.07666 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    D. S. Akerib et al.(LUX), Results from a search for dark matter in the complete LUX exposure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 021303 (2017), arXiv:1608.07648 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Cui et al

    X. Cui et al. (PandaX-II), Dark Matter Results From 54-Ton-Day Exposure of PandaX-II Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 181302 (2017), arXiv:1708.06917 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302 (2018), arXiv:1805.12562 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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