Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

NLO observables for QCD-like theories and application to pion dark matter

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At next-to-leading order, the viable SIMP pion dark-matter mass window is entirely closed.

desk verdict Non-degenerate NLO chiral formulas and a first Sp(4) LEC fit are real contributions; the SIMP 'window entirely closed' claim needs a truncation-error band before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07102 v2 pith:NOPHWFQF submitted 2025-09-08 hep-ph

Helena Kolešová , Daniil Krichevskiy , Suchita Kulkarni This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords chiralperturbationtheorynext-to-leadingorderlow-energyconstantsSp(4)gaugepiondarkmatterstronglyinteractingmassiveparticlesself-interactinglatticeQCD-liketheories
open problems Dark Matter
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 establishes next-to-leading-order chiral perturbation theory expressions for QCD-like gauge theories with two non-degenerate fermion flavors in real and pseudoreal representations, covering pion masses, condensates, decay constants, and $2\to2$ scattering amplitudes. It then fits the NLO low-energy constants to existing lattice spectroscopy and scattering data for the $Sp(4)$ gauge theory with two fundamental flavors, and applies the fitted result to strongly interacting massive particle (SIMP) dark matter. The central conclusion is that NLO corrections substantially raise the non-relativistic pion self-scattering cross section: the Bullet Cluster constraint is crossed at $M_\pi/F_\pi\approx 6.5$ instead of $\approx 9$ at leading order, and in the degenerate $Sp(4)$ SIMP benchmark the viable mass window is entirely closed. If this is right, leading-order-only treatments of pion dark matter self-interactions are quantitatively inadequate precisely where SIMP models would have to live.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the $\mathcal{L}_2+\mathcal{L}_4$ chiral Lagrangian for the cosets $SU(4)/Sp(4)$ and $SU(4)/SO(4)$, with the $\mathcal{L}_4$ term containing the low-energy constants $L_0,\ldots,L_8,H_2$. The calculation combines one-loop diagrams from $\mathcal{L}_2$ with tree-level $\mathcal{L}_4$ vertices to produce NLO expressions for masses, condensates, decay constants, and the $2\to2$ scattering amplitudes; these are reduced to the non-relativistic threshold cross section $\sigma_{2\to2}$ and to the scattering length $a_0^{\mathrm{MS}}$ in the 14-dimensional channel. The fit uses scale-independent combinations $\tilde L_1,\ldots,\tilde L_4$ of the renormalized LECs so that chiral logarithms drop out of the fitted observables. The same LEC combination controls both the fitted scattering length and the dark-matter cross section, which is why the lattice fit can be converted directly into a prediction for self-interactions.

What would settle it

Measure the threshold $2\to2$ pion cross section directly on the lattice for the mass-degenerate $Sp(4)$ theory at $M_\pi/F_\pi\approx 6.5$, using the scattering length in the 14-dimensional channel at several volumes with a continuum extrapolation; if the lattice cross section lies below the Bullet Cluster bound while the NLO prediction lies above it, the claimed closure of the SIMP window is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the claim is that NLO chiral EFT with low-energy constants taken from lattice data gives the quantitative description of dark-pion self-interactions in $SU(4)/Sp(4)$-type theories, and that this description rules out the simplest $Sp(4)$ SIMP model. The paper derives NLO formulas for pion masses, condensates, decay constants, and scattering amplitudes with two non-degenerate quark masses, shows that pion mass splitting first appears at NLO, fits the four accessible combinations of NLO LECs ($\tilde L_1,\ldots,\tilde L_4$) to the $Sp(4)$ lattice data, and evaluates the threshold cross section. The fitted NLO cross section exceeds the Bullet Cluster bound for $M_\pi/F_\pi\gtrsim 6.5$, compared with $\approx 9$ at LO; for the benchmark $M_\pi=0.2$ GeV the whole viable SIMP window disappears.

Load-bearing premise

The whole exclusion rests on believing that the next-to-leading-order chiral expansion still works at the fairly heavy pions of the lattice data, even though the fit needed a cut at $r=5.5$ because the vector meson was getting close to the heavier pion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A leading-order-only analysis of SIMP dark matter in this theory is not conservative: NLO moves the self-interaction bound by about $\Delta(M_\pi/F_\pi)\approx 2.5$ and closes the window.
  • In the degenerate $Sp(4)$ case, the fitted LECs turn the earlier random-LEC estimate of the NLO cross section into a definite prediction with quantified $3\sigma$ uncertainty.
  • For non-degenerate masses the singlet pion is lighter than the four-plet; if the singlet is stable, singlet-only dark matter has a much smaller self-scattering cross section, broadening the viable parameter space.
  • For $SU(4)/SO(4)$ theories the NLO mass hierarchy typically keeps the $\pi_6,\pi_7$ doublet lightest, and its self-interaction is six times larger than the single-pion estimate used previously.
  • The NLO formulas provide the missing interpolation between the chiral limit used for composite Higgs models and the finite-mass regime where lattice simulations are performed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the exclusion is correct, realizing SIMP dark matter with this gauge group requires one of the loopholes the paper lists: working where vector mesons invalidate the pion-only EFT, adding a portal that destabilizes the singlet, or moving to $M_\pi/F_\pi$ below the lattice-fit region where the LECs are untested.
  • The same fitted LECs can be used to correct early-Universe phenomenology beyond the WZW term, since the NLO $2\to2$ amplitudes enter thermal averaging near freeze-out and are likely to shift the relic-density curve shown in the SIMP parameter space.
  • A direct lattice determination of the threshold $2\to2$ cross section in the $SU(4)/Sp(4)$ theory at $M_\pi/F_\pi\approx 6.5$ would test the NLO prediction without any dark-matter assumptions.
  • The fitting pipeline transfers to other real and pseudoreal theories: once lattice data with split masses appear for $SU(4)/SO(4)$, the same procedure yields LECs and a NLO self-interaction prediction for composite-Higgs-related pion phenomenology.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper constructs next-to-leading-order (NLO) chiral perturbation theory for QCD-like gauge theories with N_F=2 Dirac fermions in real (SU(4)/SO(4)) and pseudoreal (SU(4)/Sp(4)) representations with non-degenerate quark masses. It derives NLO formulas for pion masses, quark condensates, decay constants, and 2→2 scattering amplitudes, and shows that the degenerate-mass limits reproduce earlier results while correcting two coefficient errors in the literature. The authors then fit the scale-independent combinations L̃1,...,L̃4 of NLO low-energy constants to Sp(4) lattice data from Refs. [29,30] using a Bayesian MCMC procedure with latent variables, and use the fitted LECs to compute the non-relativistic 2→2 pion self-interaction cross-section. Applied to SIMP dark matter, the NLO cross-section exceeds the Bullet Cluster bound at Mπ/Fπ≈6.5 instead of ≈9 at LO, and the authors conclude that the previously viable SIMP mass window is entirely closed at NLO.

Significance. If the analysis is correct, this is a valuable step: it provides NLO formulas for non-degenerate masses in both real and pseudoreal two-flavour theories, a first LEC determination for Sp(4) with N_F=2 from lattice spectroscopy and scattering, and a concrete demonstration that NLO corrections shift pion self-interaction predictions in a way that matters for SIMP models. The paper ships machine-readable Mathematica code and a data release, reproduces known degenerate limits, and is careful to separate statistical fit uncertainties from the missing continuum extrapolation. The LEC extraction is not circular: the lattice data are external measurements, and the NLO formulas are independent of the dark-matter cross-section claim. The main weakness is not the derivation itself but the quantitative control of the EFT at the large values of Mπ/Fπ used in the fit and in the application; unless a truncation-error estimate is added, the 'window entirely closed' conclusion remains conditional.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. 5.1, 5.2; Fig. 11] The LEC fit is performed at Mπ/Fπ ≈5–7, where the chiral expansion parameter (Mπ/4πFπ)² is 0.16–0.31, and Sec. 6.1 reports that the NLO correction is already 100% of the LO cross-section at Mπ/Fπ≈4.0. The NLO formulas (5.7)–(5.10) are therefore not a small correction at the fitted points, and no NNLO truncation estimate is given. Because the fit uses these same NLO formulas, any NNLO or discretization contamination in the lattice data is absorbed into L̃1–L̃4 and is re-emitted in the cross-section (Eq. (6.5)), whose dominant LEC term is 456L̃1. Please add a quantitative truncation-error estimate, or explicitly frame the extraction and the subsequent SIMP exclusion as conditional on NLO convergence at Mπ/Fπ≳5.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Eqs. (3.17), (5.9)] The lattice data of Ref. [29] show a splitting between Fπ,1 and Fπ,3 that is absent at NLO in Eq. (3.17). The authors construct a single averaged dataset with a systematic error equal to half the channel difference (Sec. 5.1, Fig. 9). This prescription does not propagate the fact that the NLO model cannot describe the splitting, and it neglects correlations between the two channels; because L̃1 carries the dominant coefficient (456) in Eq. (6.5) and is pinned by the mass and decay-constant fits (5.7)–(5.9), the effect on the predicted cross-section needs to be assessed explicitly.
  3. [Sec. 5.2, Fig. 5] The fitted L̃4 shows strong β-dependence, which the authors attribute to discretization artifacts; the continuum limit is not performed. The analysis adopts the β=7.2 values as central and does not add a lattice-spacing systematic to L̃1–L̃3. Although L̃1–L̃3 are reported as mutually consistent across β, a quantitative statement of the residual β-sensitivity of the cross-section combination (456L̃1−112L̃2+105L̃3)/(245760π³) in Eq. (6.5) is necessary to support the precision of the Bullet-Cluster crossing. Please provide this propagation or a conservative systematic band.
  4. [Sec. 6.1, Fig. 13, Appendix C] The caption 'At NLO, the viable mass window is entirely closed' is stronger than the caveats in the text allow. Appendix C states that the freeze-out curve in Fig. 13 is an illustration and that vector mesons with Mρ<2Mπ for Mπ/Fπ≳4 will alter the number-changing processes that fix Mπ/Fπ for a given Mπ. The Bullet-Cluster exclusion itself is more robust, but the closing of the window combines this exclusion with the freeze-out curve; the latter is not computed with the same NLO precision. Please soften the conclusion or present the window closing as conditional on the NLO EFT and on neglect of vector-meson effects in freeze-out.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4.18)] The terms 'M^2_{4,6}' (in the L^r_5 term) and 'M^4_{4,1}' (in the log term) appear to be typos for M^2_{π,6} and M^4_{π,1}; please correct.
  2. [Sec. 5.2] The statement that the fit is robust to moderate variations of the prior width is not quantified; a short sentence or table giving the range of prior widths tested would be helpful.
  3. [Fig. 6] Since the β-dependence is a central systematic, showing all three β datasets in the same plot, or a small table of M^2_{π,1}/M^2_{π,3} at each r, would make the discretization effect easier to judge.
  4. [Footnote 8] The factor-of-two difference from Ref. [25] in the NLO condensate would benefit from a one-sentence explanation of the normalization convention, as it is otherwise easy to misread as an error.
  5. [Sec. 6.1] The statement that the 3σ band would shrink to the line width at 1σ is useful; please also state the central value and 1σ range of the crossing point Mπ/Fπ where σ2→2/Mπ equals the Bullet Cluster bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LECs are fitted to external lattice data, and the NLO self-interaction cross-section is a different projection of the amplitude than the fitted scattering length.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained: the NLO observables are computed from the standard chiral Lagrangian (2.21)-(2.22) with LECs renormalized in the MS scheme; the only inputs beyond the Lagrangian are the lattice data of Refs. [29,30] for masses, decay constants, and the isospin-2 scattering length. The LECs L̃1,...,L̃4 are extracted by a global Bayesian fit to those external data. The dark-matter self-interaction cross-section used in the SIMP application is not the same observable that was fitted: Eq. (6.5) depends on the combination 1149 + 456L̃1 -112L̃2 +105L̃3, whereas the fitted scattering length in Eq. (5.10) depends on 3 + 24L̃1 +16L̃2 -15L̃3, so the 'prediction' is a genuinely different combination of the same LECs and is not forced by construction. Self-citations to Refs. [29] and [39] provide lattice data and multiplet cross-checks, but they are external, falsifiable inputs rather than unverified premises. No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation or to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The new content is the NLO calculation with LECs fixed by lattice data. Everything else is pulled from prior literature or assumed: two LO parameters and four LEC combinations are fitted; the symmetry-breaking pattern, the operator basis, the PCAC-to-Lagrangian mass mapping, and the finite-spacing lattice approximation are assumptions. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • F (LO pion decay constant) = 0.045 +0.005 / -0.006 (inverse lattice spacing, beta=7.2)
    Leading-order parameter of the chiral Lagrangian, fit to lattice spectroscopy from [29].
  • B0 m_u = 0.029 +0.008 / -0.007 (inverse lattice spacing, beta=7.2)
    Combination B0 m_u sets M^2 = B0 m_u (1+r); fit together with F.
  • L1_tilde = Lbar4 + Lbar5
    Scale-independent NLO LEC combination fitted to mass, decay constant and scattering length data; posterior shown in Fig. 7.
  • L2_tilde = (1/4)Lbar0 - (3/4)Lbar1 - (3/2)Lbar2 - Lbar3
    Combination entering scattering length and averaged self-interaction cross section; fitted.
  • L3_tilde = Lbar6 + (8/5)Lbar8
    Combination entering mass, decay constant and scattering length; fitted.
  • L4_tilde = Lbar8 + 4 Lbar7
    Controls pion mass splitting in the non-degenerate case; fitted, beta-dependent, not used in the degenerate dark matter cross section.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The chiral condensate breaks SU(4) to Sp(4) for pseudoreal and to SO(4) for real representations, with the Goldstone manifold described by CCWZ coordinates.
    Standard symmetry-breaking pattern assumed for (pseudo)real representations; the paper relies on it to write the LO and NLO Lagrangians (Sec. 2.2.1).
  • standard math The NLO chiral Lagrangian contains only the operators listed in eq. (2.22), with LECs L0...L8 and H2, renormalized in the MS-bar scheme with coefficients from [25].
    Operator basis is taken from prior ChPT literature [25]; no additional O(p^4) operators such as external field strength tensor terms are included.
  • domain assumption The ratio of PCAC quark masses from the lattice is identified with r = m_d/m_u in the chiral Lagrangian.
    Sec. 5.1: 'the renormalization factors cancel in the ratio of PCAC masses... and we identify this ratio with the quantity r entering the NLO formula.' This mapping is not derived.
  • domain assumption Lattice data at finite beta are usable as approximate continuum input; no continuum extrapolation is performed.
    The authors fit at each beta and choose beta=7.2 for phenomenology; beta-dependence of L4 shows discretization artifacts remain (Sec. 5.2, Fig. 6).
  • ad hoc to paper The NLO EFT remains valid at the fitted lattice points, with M_pi/F_pi roughly 5 to 7 and r<=5.5.
    A cut at r>5.5 is imposed because the vector meson approaches the heavier pion; validity of NLO ChPT at these large mass ratios is assumed rather than demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NLO observables for QCD-like theories and application to pion dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NOPHWFQF

@misc{pith2026250907102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NLO observables for QCD-like theories and application to pion dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NOPHWFQF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07102}
}
abstract

QCD-like theories are of interest in various areas of beyond-Standard-Model phenomenology, including composite Higgs models or pionic dark matter. The effective field theories provide a framework for describing the dynamics of such strongly coupled gauge theories at low energies. In this work, we present next-to-leading order (NLO) expressions for masses, condensates, decay constants, and scattering amplitudes in the chiral expansion of QCD-like theories with $N_F=2$ fermions with non-degenerate masses in both real and pseudoreal representations of the gauge group. We further apply the NLO formulas to fit existing lattice spectroscopic and scattering data for $Sp(N_c=4)$ gauge theory with $N_F=2$ fermions in fundamental representation, extracting the NLO low-energy constants of the theory. Using these fits, we refine the NLO formulas describing the $2\to 2$ pion self-interactions and confirm that the NLO contributions play a crucial role in determining the viable parameter space of pion dark matter scenarios like the strongly interacting massive particles (SIMP).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Disentangling Dark Gauge Symmetries with Deep Learning on the Lund Jet Plane

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A generalized parton shower for arbitrary gauge groups plus a Mamba network on Lund jet planes can distinguish dark gauge symmetries even when non-perturbative hadronization details are unknown.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [29]

    Kulkarni, A

    S. Kulkarni, A. Maas, S. Mee, M. Nikolic, J. Pradler and F. Zierler,Low-energy effective description of darkSp(4)theories,SciPost Phys.14(2023) 044, [2202.05191]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk,Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,Phys. Rept.405(2005) 279–390, [hep-ph/0404175]

    arXiv 2005

  3. [2]

    Gildener,Gauge Symmetry Hierarchies,Phys

    E. Gildener,Gauge Symmetry Hierarchies,Phys. Rev. D14(1976) 1667

    1976

  4. [3]

    Weinberg,Implications of Dynamical Symmetry Breaking,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Implications of Dynamical Symmetry Breaking,Phys. Rev. D13(1976) 974–996

    1976

  5. [4]

    Susskind,Dynamics of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in the Weinberg-Salam Theory, Phys

    L. Susskind,Dynamics of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in the Weinberg-Salam Theory, Phys. Rev. D20(1979) 2619–2625. – 39 – Figure 13: Regions of viability for SIMPs with LO and NLO self-scattering cross-sections. The orange line shows the requiredMπ/Fπ for a givenMπ, as determined from the solution of the Boltzmann equation (BE). The value ofM π/Fπ must r...

    1979

  6. [5]

    D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi,SU(2)×U(1) Brematoking by Vacuum Misalignment,Phys. Lett. B136(1984) 183–186

    1984

  7. [6]

    D. B. Kaplan, H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos,Composite Higgs Scalars,Phys. Lett. B136 (1984) 187–190

    1984

  8. [7]

    Cacciapaglia, C

    G. Cacciapaglia, C. Pica and F. Sannino,Fundamental Composite Dynamics: A Review, Phys. Rept.877(2020) 1–70, [2002.04914]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 93 references
  1. [8]

    G. R. Farrar,Stable Sexaquark,1708.08951

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Moore and T

    M. Moore and T. R. Slatyer,Cosmology and terrestrial signals of sexaquark dark matter, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 023515, [2403.03972]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    G. D. Kribs and E. T. Neil,Review of strongly-coupled composite dark matter models and lattice simulations,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A31(2016) 1643004, [1604.04627]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [11]

    J. M. Cline,Dark atoms and composite dark matter,SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes52(2022) 1, [2108.10314]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    M. Aoki, J. Kubo and J. Yang,Inflation and dark matter after spontaneous Planck scale generation by hidden chiral symmetry breaking,JCAP01(2022) 005, [2109.04814]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Cacciapaglia, D

    G. Cacciapaglia, D. Y. Cheong, A. Deandrea, W. Isnard and S. C. Park,Composite hybrid inflation: dilaton and waterfall pions,JCAP10(2023) 063, [2307.01852]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino,Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2.,Phys. Rev.177(1969) 2247–2250

    1969

  8. [15]

    S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino,Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.,Phys. Rev.177(1969) 2239–2247. – 40 –

    1969

  9. [16]

    Scherer and M

    S. Scherer and M. R. Schindler,A Primer for Chiral Perturbation Theory, vol. 830. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012, 10.1007/978-3-642-19254-8

    2012 doi

  10. [17]

    J. B. Kogut, M. A. Stephanov, D. Toublan, J. J. M. Verbaarschot and A. Zhitnitsky,QCD - like theories at finite baryon density,Nucl. Phys. B582(2000) 477–513, [hep-ph/0001171]

    2000 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, H. Murayama, T. Volansky and J. G. Wacker,Model for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 021301, [1411.3727]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Ferretti and D

    G. Ferretti and D. Karateev,Fermionic UV completions of Composite Higgs models,JHEP 03(2014) 077, [1312.5330]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Witzel,Review on Composite Higgs Models,PoSLATTICE2018(2019) 006, [1901.08216]

    O. Witzel,Review on Composite Higgs Models,PoSLATTICE2018(2019) 006, [1901.08216]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Bellazzini, C

    B. Bellazzini, C. Cs´ aki and J. Serra,Composite Higgses,Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 2766, [1401.2457]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Nagata,Finite-density lattice QCD and sign problem: Current status and open problems, Prog

    K. Nagata,Finite-density lattice QCD and sign problem: Current status and open problems, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127(2022) 103991, [2108.12423]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Cotter, P

    S. Cotter, P. Giudice, S. Hands and J.-I. Skullerud,Towards the phase diagram of dense two-color matter,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 034507, [1210.4496]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Hansen, K

    M. Hansen, K. Langæble and F. Sannino,SIMP model at NNLO in chiral perturbation theory,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 075036, [1507.01590]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Bijnens and J

    J. Bijnens and J. Lu,Technicolor and other QCD-like theories at next-to-next-to-leading order,JHEP11(2009) 116, [0910.5424]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Bijnens and J

    J. Bijnens and J. Lu,Meson-meson Scattering in QCD-like Theories,JHEP03(2011) 028, [1102.0172]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Colangelo, J

    G. Colangelo, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler,ππscattering,Nucl. Phys. B603(2001) 125–179, [hep-ph/0103088]

    2001 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Arthur, V

    R. Arthur, V. Drach, M. Hansen, A. Hietanen, C. Pica and F. Sannino,SU(2) gauge theory with two fundamental flavors: A minimal template for model building,Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 094507, [1602.06559]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dengler, A

    Y. Dengler, A. Maas and F. Zierler,Scattering of dark pions in Sp(4) gauge theory,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 054513, [2405.06506]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Amato, T

    A. Amato, T. Rantalaiho, K. Rummukainen, K. Tuominen and S. T¨ ahtinen,Approaching the conformal window: systematic study of the particle spectrum in SU(2) field theory with Nf =2,4 and 6.,PoSLATTICE2015(2016) 225, [1511.04947]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Tulin and H.-B

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu,Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure,Phys. Rept. 730(2018) 1–57, [1705.02358]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Zhang, Y

    Z. Zhang, Y. Chen, Y. Rong, H. Wang, H. Mo, X. Luo et al.,Unexpected clustering pattern in dwarf galaxies challenges formation models,Nature642(2025) 47–52, [2504.03305]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    S. W. Randall, M. Markevitch, D. Clowe, A. H. Gonzalez and M. Bradac,Constraints on the Self-Interaction Cross-Section of Dark Matter from Numerical Simulations of the Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E 0657-56,Astrophys. J.679(2008) 1173–1180, [0704.0261]. – 41 –

    2008 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Robertson, R

    A. Robertson, R. Massey and V. Eke,What does the Bullet Cluster tell us about self-interacting dark matter?,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.465(2017) 569–587, [1605.04307]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Wittman, N

    D. Wittman, N. Golovich and W. A. Dawson,The Mismeasure of Mergers: Revised Limits on Self-interacting Dark Matter in Merging Galaxy Clusters,Astrophys. J.869(2018) 104, [1701.05877]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Brauner,Effective Field Theory for Spontaneously Broken Symmetry,Lect

    T. Brauner,Effective Field Theory for Spontaneously Broken Symmetry,Lect. Notes Phys. 1023(2024) pp., [2404.14518]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. B. Arbuzov and B. N. Latosh,Gravity and Nonlinear Symmetry Realization,Universe6 (2020) 12, [1904.06516]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Pomper and S

    J. Pomper and S. Kulkarni,Low energy effective theories of composite dark matter with real representations,2402.04176

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Amoros, J

    G. Amoros, J. Bijnens and P. Talavera,Two point functions at two loops in three flavor chiral perturbation theory,Nucl. Phys. B568(2000) 319–363, [hep-ph/9907264]

    2000 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Koleˇ sov´ a, D

    H. Koleˇ sov´ a, D. Krichevskiy and S. Kulkarni,NLO observables for QCD-like theories and application to pion dark matter - Code release, Aug., 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.14864550

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    Bijnens and G

    J. Bijnens and G. Ecker,Mesonic low-energy constants,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.64(2014) 149–174, [1405.6488]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bennett, D

    E. Bennett, D. K. Hong, J.-W. Lee, C. J. D. Lin, B. Lucini, M. Piai et al.,Sp(4) gauge theories on the lattice:N f = 2dynamical fundamental fermions,JHEP12(2019) 053, [1909.12662]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Luscher,Volume Dependence of the Energy Spectrum in Massive Quantum Field Theories

    M. Luscher,Volume Dependence of the Energy Spectrum in Massive Quantum Field Theories. 2. Scattering States,Commun. Math. Phys.105(1986) 153–188

    1986

  37. [45]

    Dengler, A

    Y. Dengler, A. Maas and F. Zierler,Scattering of dark pions in Sp(4) gauge theory - Data release, Aug., 2024. 10.5281/zenodo.12920978

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler,Low-Energy Theorems as Precision Tests of QCD,Phys. Lett. B 125(1983) 325–329

    1983

  39. [47]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler,Chiral Perturbation Theory to One Loop,Annals Phys.158 (1984) 142

    1984

  40. [48]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125(2013) 306–312, [1202.3665]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    T. A. Ryttov and F. Sannino,Ultra Minimal Technicolor and its Dark Matter TIMP,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 115010, [0809.0713]

    2008 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Essig, P

    R. Essig, P. Schuster and N. Toro,Probing Dark Forces and Light Hidden Sectors at Low-Energye +e− Colliders,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 015003, [0903.3941]

    2009 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bai and R

    Y. Bai and R. J. Hill,Weakly Interacting Stable Pions,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 111701, [1005.0008]

    2010 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. R. Buckley and E. T. Neil,Thermal Dark Matter from a Confining Sector,Phys. Rev. D 87(2013) 043510, [1209.6054]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Frigerio, A

    M. Frigerio, A. Pomarol, F. Riva and A. Urbano,Composite Scalar Dark Matter,JHEP07 (2012) 015, [1204.2808]. – 42 –

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bhattacharya, B

    S. Bhattacharya, B. Meli´ c and J. Wudka,Pionic Dark Matter,JHEP02(2014) 115, [1307.2647]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J. M. Cline, Z. Liu, G. D. Moore and W. Xue,Composite strongly interacting dark matter, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 015023, [1312.3325]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Carmona and M

    A. Carmona and M. Chala,Composite Dark Sectors,JHEP06(2015) 105, [1504.00332]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    J. Kopp, J. Liu, T. R. Slatyer, X.-P. Wang and W. Xue,Impeded Dark Matter,JHEP12 (2016) 033, [1609.02147]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Beauchesne, E

    H. Beauchesne, E. Bertuzzo and G. Grilli Di Cortona,Dark matter in Hidden Valley models with stable and unstable light dark mesons,JHEP04(2019) 118, [1809.10152]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Beauchesne and G

    H. Beauchesne and G. Grilli di Cortona,Classification of dark pion multiplets as dark matter candidates and collider phenomenology,JHEP02(2020) 196, [1910.10724]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bernreuther, F

    E. Bernreuther, F. Kahlhoefer, M. Kr¨ amer and P. Tunney,Strongly interacting dark sectors in the early Universe and at the LHC through a simplified portal,JHEP01(2020) 162, [1907.04346]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Contino, A

    R. Contino, A. Podo and F. Revello,Composite Dark Matter from Strongly-Interacting Chiral Dynamics,JHEP02(2021) 091, [2008.10607]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Alfano, N

    A. Alfano, N. Evans, S. Kulkarni and W. Porod,Surveying the theory space of pion dark matter,2509.04892

  55. [63]

    H. M. Lee and M.-S. Seo,Communication with SIMP dark mesons via Z’ -portal,Phys. Lett. B748(2015) 316–322, [1504.00745]

    2015 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik and H. Murayama,SIMP Spectroscopy,JHEP05(2016) 090, [1512.07917]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Kamada, H

    A. Kamada, H. Kim and T. Sekiguchi,Axionlike particle assisted strongly interacting massive particle,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 016007, [1704.04505]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, R. Mcgehee, H. Murayama and K. Schutz,Strongly interacting massive particles through the axion portal,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 115031, [1806.10139]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik and H. Murayama,Twin Higgs model with strongly interacting massive particle dark matter,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 015005, [1805.09345]

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Berlin, N

    A. Berlin, N. Blinov, S. Gori, P. Schuster and N. Toro,Cosmology and Accelerator Tests of Strongly Interacting Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 055033, [1801.05805]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    S.-M. Choi, H. M. Lee, P. Ko and A. Natale,Resolving phenomenological problems with strongly-interacting-massive-particle models with dark vector resonances,Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 015034, [1801.07726]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A. Katz, E. Salvioni and B. Shakya,Split SIMPs with Decays,JHEP10(2020) 049, [2006.15148]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Zierler, S

    F. Zierler, S. Kulkarni, A. Maas, S. Mee, M. Nikolic and J. Pradler,Strongly Interacting Dark Matter from Sp(4) Gauge Theory,EPJ Web Conf.274(2022) 08014, [2211.11272]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Bernreuther, N

    E. Bernreuther, N. Hemme, F. Kahlhoefer and S. Kulkarni,Dark matter relic density in strongly interacting dark sectors with light vector mesons,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 035009, [2311.17157]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Braat and M

    P. Braat and M. Postma,SIMPly add a dark photon,JHEP03(2023) 216, [2301.04513]. – 43 –

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Girmohanta and R

    S. Girmohanta and R. Shrock,Cross section calculations in theories of self-interacting dark matter,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 063013, [2206.14395]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Kamada, S

    A. Kamada, S. Kobayashi and T. Kuwahara,Perturbative unitarity of strongly interacting massive particle models,JHEP02(2023) 217, [2210.01393]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Heikinheimo, K

    M. Heikinheimo, K. Tuominen and K. Langæble,Hidden strongly interacting massive particles,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 095040, [1803.07518]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    B. L. Ioffe,Chiral effective theory of strong interactions,Phys. Usp.44(2001) 1211–1227, [hep-ph/0104017]

    2001 arXiv

  70. [78]

    S. Cha, B. Y. Cho, H. Joo, W. Lee, K. HyeongHan, Z. P. Scofield et al.,A high-caliber view of the bullet cluster through jwst strong and weak lensing analyses, 2025

    2025

  71. [79]

    Hietanen, R

    A. Hietanen, R. Lewis, C. Pica and F. Sannino,Fundamental Composite Higgs Dynamics on the Lattice: SU(2) with Two Flavors,JHEP07(2014) 116, [1404.2794]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [80]

    X. Chu, C. Garcia-Cely and H. Murayama,Velocity Dependence from Resonant Self-Interacting Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) 071103, [1810.04709]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Y.-D. Tsai, R. McGehee and H. Murayama,Resonant Self-Interacting Dark Matter from Dark QCD,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) 172001, [2008.08608]

    2022 arXiv

  74. [82]

    DeGrand, Y

    T. DeGrand, Y. Liu, E. T. Neil, Y. Shamir and B. Svetitsky,Spectroscopy of SU(4) gauge theory with two flavors of sextet fermions,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 114502, [1501.05665]

    2015 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky and J. G. Wacker,Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 171301, [1402.5143]

    2014 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Wess and B

    J. Wess and B. Zumino,Consequences of anomalous Ward identities,Phys. Lett. B37 (1971) 95–97

    1971

  77. [85]

    Witten,Global Aspects of Current Algebra,Nucl

    E. Witten,Global Aspects of Current Algebra,Nucl. Phys. B223(1983) 422–432

    1983

  78. [86]

    Witten,Current Algebra, Baryons, and Quark Confinement,Nucl

    E. Witten,Current Algebra, Baryons, and Quark Confinement,Nucl. Phys. B223(1983) 433–444

    1983

  79. [87]

    Z.-y. Duan, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva and F. Sannino,Enhanced global symmetry constraints on epsilon terms,Nucl. Phys. B592(2001) 371–390, [hep-ph/0001303]

    2001 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Brauner and H

    T. Brauner and H. Koleˇ sov´ a,Gauged Wess-Zumino terms for a general coset space,Nucl. Phys. B945(2019) 114676, [1809.05310]

    2019 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Hochberg,SIMP Dark Matter,SciPost Phys

    Y. Hochberg,SIMP Dark Matter,SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes59(2022) 1

    2022

  82. [90]

    Husdal,On Effective Degrees of Freedom in the Early Universe,Galaxies4(2016) 78, [1609.04979]

    L. Husdal,On Effective Degrees of Freedom in the Early Universe,Galaxies4(2016) 78, [1609.04979]

    2016 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Laine and M

    M. Laine and M. Meyer,Standard Model thermodynamics across the electroweak crossover, JCAP07(2015) 035, [1503.04935]

    2015 arXiv

  84. [92]

    D. S. Pereira, J. a. Ferraz, F. S. N. Lobo and J. P. Mimoso,Thermodynamics of the Primordial Universe,Entropy26(2024) 947, [2411.03018]

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Bringmann, H

    T. Bringmann, H. Koleˇ sov´ a, D. Krichevskiy, H. Melkild and J. Pomper,In preparation, 2025. – 44 –

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.