Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 4 cited by

The paper shows that dark photons—hypothetical light particles that mix kinetically with the ordinary photon—are produced efficiently in the hot early universe through a plasma-assisted resonance, and that their resulting abundance can be c

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 17:38 UTC pith:CJMWBTLS

load-bearing objection Solid analytic dark-photon production paper; the central machinery checks out, but the sub-MeV yield rests on an unquantified T-only fit to the photon self-energy. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.08528 v2 pith:CJMWBTLS submitted 2025-12-09 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-ex

Dark Photons in the Early Universe: From Thermal Production to Cosmological Constraints

Xun-Jie Xu , Boting Zhou This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-ex
keywords dark photonkinetic mixingfreeze-incosmological constraintsbig bang nucleosynthesisNeffplasma resonancethermal production
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper establishes that dark photons, hypothetical light particles that mix kinetically with the ordinary photon, are produced efficiently in the hot early universe through a plasma-assisted resonance, and that their resulting abundance can be computed analytically across a wide mass range. For dark photons heavier than the electron-positron threshold, it derives a parameter-free ratio: resonant production supplies only about 0.14 of the comoving yield, with inverse decay after the resonance providing the rest. For lighter dark photons, resonant production alone gives an accurate freeze-in yield, so off-resonance processes can be neglected. On this basis the paper derives cosmological constraints from energy density at nucleosynthesis and recombination that are stronger than stellar and supernova bounds for dark-photon masses between 0.1 and 6 MeV, reaching kinetic mixing values as small as 10^-12.

Core claim

The central result is a two-stage picture of dark-photon thermal production in the early plasma. In the first stage, the photon's thermal self-energy Π_γγ lets the dark photon mix resonantly with the photon when Re Π_γγ ≈ m_γ'^2; the effective mixing is ε_m = m_γ'^2 ε/(m_γ'^2 − Re Π_γγ), and the production rate near resonance becomes a sharp peak that is nearly independent of damping. In the second stage, for m_γ' > 2m_e, the ordinary inverse decay e+e− → γ' continues to produce dark photons after the resonance has passed. The paper's central quantitative claim is that the two stages contribute in a fixed ratio—resonant production is only a fraction 4πe/27 ≈ 0.14 of the inverse-decay yield—i

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the in-medium photon self-energy Π_γγ(T, ω, k), which renormalizes the kinetic mixing to ε_m and creates a resonant enhancement when Re Π_γγ ≈ m_γ'^2. Around the resonance the production rate becomes a delta-function-like peak whose integral is nearly independent of the photon damping width, allowing the yield to be written as a closed formula in terms of the resonance temperature T_* and the self-energy slope. A second ingredient is the analytic collision-term table for inverse decay, annihilation, and semi-Compton scattering—electron-photon scattering analogous to Compton scattering but with a dark photon in the final state—verified against numerical Monte

Load-bearing premise

The analytic freeze-in yields for dark photons below about 0.05 MeV depend on an empirical curve fit to the plasma photon self-energy; if that fit is inaccurate at those low temperatures, the derived abundance and constraints shift.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop thermal photon self-energy Re Π_γγ from first principles at T = 0.01–0.05 MeV and compare with the fitted F_{T,L} used in the paper; a deviation of order unity in the real part would change the resonant yield for sub-0.05 MeV dark photons and shake the claimed exclusion region at low masses.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For dark photons below 2m_e, the freeze-in yield is given by the resonant formula alone; no separate scattering calculation is needed in the mass range 0.1 keV–1 MeV.
  • For dark photons above 2m_e, the total comoving number is the resonant contribution plus an inverse-decay contribution about seven times larger, with the ratio 4πe/27 valid across the freeze-in regime.
  • Energy-density constraints probe kinetic mixing ε down to 10^-12–10^-10 for masses 0.1–6 MeV, closing a gap where stellar cooling and supernova limits are weaker.
  • Dark photons that cannot decay to e+e− live long enough to act as dark matter at recombination; requiring ρ_γ' ≤ ρ_DM at T = 1 eV excludes much of the sub-MeV parameter space.
  • Dark photons that do decay near big bang nucleosynthesis contribute positively to N_eff^BBN at T ≈ 1 MeV and can contribute negatively to N_eff^CMB if they decay after neutrino decoupling; the derived bounds are conservative because they ignore electromagnetic energy injection.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the 4πe/27 ratio likely applies to any freeze-in vector whose production passes through the same photon self-energy resonance, so similar analytic shortcuts may work for other U(1) extensions.
  • Editorial inference: the light-mass yield below 0.05 MeV rests on the empirical self-energy fit; an independent first-principles evaluation at T ≲ 0.05 MeV would show whether the claimed exclusion region changes.
  • Editorial inference: adding electromagnetic energy injection from dark-photon decay—photo-dissociation of light nuclei, CMB spectral distortions—would likely strengthen, not weaken, the stated bounds, because the paper deliberately uses only energy-density requirements.
  • Editorial inference: measuring N_eff to about 0.1 with future cosmic microwave background surveys would directly confront the predicted ΔN_eff from dark photons in the 0.1–1 MeV window, independent of astrophysical modeling.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper computes the thermal production of dark photons in the early universe for masses from 0.1 keV to 100 MeV, considering inverse decay, e+e- annihilation, and semi-Compton scattering. It provides analytic collision terms (Tab. 1) and uses an in-medium effective mixing to derive resonant-production yield formulas. The central claims are: (i) for m_gamma' < 2 m_e the freeze-in yield is accurately described by resonant production alone; (ii) for m_gamma' > 2 m_e, post-resonance inverse decay dominates over resonant production by a fixed factor 4 pi e / 27 ≈ 0.14 (Eq. 4.14); and (iii) the resulting cosmological energy-density constraints are more stringent than stellar and supernova bounds in the 0.1–6 MeV range, probing epsilon down to ~1e-12–1e-10.

Significance. If the calculations are correct, the paper provides a useful analytic toolkit for early-universe dark-photon bounds, including a simple parameter-free ratio. The collision terms are checked against Monte Carlo integration (Fig. 2), and the main benchmark yields are checked against numerical Boltzmann solutions (Fig. 4). The cosmological constraints are based on conservative energy-density considerations. The principal weakness is the empirical T-only fit to the photon self-energy (Eq. C.20), which is load-bearing for the light-mass analytic yield formulas and is not validated for the relevant kinematics or for its derivative.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Eq. (C.20); Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (4.10)–(4.12)] The fit F_{T,L} ≈ 5e-5 sqrt(x) + exp(-x^{-6/5}/9) is presented as fitting the numerical evaluation of Π_T,L, but the manuscript does not state at which (ω,k) the numerical integrals in Eqs. (C.12)–(C.13) are evaluated. At the resonant on-shell point k^2 = ω^2 - m_gamma'^2 with m_gamma'^2 = ReΠ, one has k ≈ ω, far from the k << ω limit where Π_T ≈ Π_L ≈ 4παT^2/9. Because Eq. (4.9) is proportional to |dReΠ/da|^{-1}, errors in the fit or its derivative propagate directly into the yield. Fig. 7 validates only √Π versus T, not dΠ/dT or dΠ/da, and no Boltzmann validation is given for m_gamma' < 0.05 MeV, where Eq. (4.12) is recommended. Please specify the kinematics used for the fit, compare the fitted derivative with the direct numerical derivative, and test a low-mass benchmark (e.g., m_gamma' = 0.01 MeV) in the Boltzmann solver.
  2. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.1)–(4.2); Appendix C, Eqs. (C.4)–(C.17)] The in-medium mixing and the production rate are written with a single, unpolarized Π_γγ, while the appendix explicitly distinguishes longitudinal and transverse self-energies, which differ strongly at k ≈ ω. It is not stated whether Eq. (4.2) is applied separately to each polarization with its own Π_T or Π_L and its own Γ_γ, or whether a scalar average is used. At the resonance of interest the longitudinal and transverse dispersion relations are very different, so this choice can shift the resonance temperature and the yield by O(1). The authors should specify the polarization treatment and show that the final results are insensitive to it.
  3. [Sec. 6, Fig. 6; Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.13)] The left panel of Fig. 6 and the associated constraints extend below m_gamma' = 0.05 MeV, but Eq. (4.13) is stated to be valid only for m_gamma' ≳ 0.05 MeV, and the lower-mass range is deferred to Eq. (4.12) with the same fitted F_{T,L}. The headline claim that the cosmological bounds are most stringent in 0.1–6 MeV sits close to the boundary of the validated region, so the low-mass side of the exclusion should be supported either by an explicit numerical study at low mass or by a quantified uncertainty estimate on the fit. At present the low-mass constraints rest on an unquantified modeling assumption.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.11)] Equation (4.11) is typeset in a garbled way in the manuscript (subscripts and coefficients are unclear). Please rewrite it cleanly, for example as F1(x) = (1/3)[2x c5 + (...) exp(-2/(9x^{6/5}))], and define all symbols.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 2] The matching points T = 2 m_e for annihilation and T = m_e for semi-Compton are chosen pragmatically. A sentence quantifying the error at the matching point (e.g., from Fig. 2) would strengthen the statement that the matched expressions are accurate across the full range.
  3. [Tab. 1] In the low-T semi-Compton row, the chemical potentials μ_{e±} are introduced; the relation between μ_e+ and μ_e- and the value used in the numerical calculations should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central derivations are analytic consequences of standard QFT inputs, the only fitted function is an intermediate self-energy approximation, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The collision terms in Tab. 1 are obtained from standard QFT matrix elements and phase-space integrals; the 2-to-2 expressions are independently validated against Monte Carlo integration. The in-medium mixing Eq. (4.1) is supported by external references [41–43] as well as the authors' prior work [35], so no load-bearing self-citation is present. The resonant yield Eqs. (4.8)–(4.12) follow analytically from the delta-function resonance limit and the derivative of ReΠγγ; the ratio (4.14) is the algebraic ratio of the analytic resonant and inverse-decay yields, not a fitted output. The only fitting in the paper is the temperature-only approximation F_TL ≈ 5e-5*sqrt(x)+exp(-x^{-6/5}/9) (Eq. C.20) to the numerically computed ReΠγγ. That fit is to an intermediate physical quantity, not to the final abundance or constraints; the yield formulas are then evaluated at the resonance using this fit. Any inaccuracy in F_TL or its derivative would shift the predictions, but that is a modeling/correctness risk, not a circular reduction. Self-citations (Refs. [34,35,38,39,56]) are used for standard steps or comparisons and are backed by independent literature or by internal numerical checks. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; the dark photon is a pre-existing construct. The main externally-pulled inputs are standard cosmology (g_*, η_b, N_eff), QED, and the in-medium self-energy formalism. The most significant auxiliary assumption is the fitted functional form for the photon self-energy, which is used to obtain analytic yields but is not central to the numerical constraints.

free parameters (4)
  • High/low-T matching point for annihilation = T = 2m_e
    Chosen by hand to stitch high- and low-T approximate collision terms; Fig. 2 shows agreement, but no systematic error is propagated.
  • High/low-T matching point for semi-Compton = T = m_e
    Same as above; a hand-set matching point used for the collision-term approximations.
  • F_{T,L} fit coefficients = 5×10^-5, exponent 6/5, denominator 9 in Eq. (C.20)
    Semi-analytic expression fitted to the numerical photon self-energy; used in the analytic yield formulas (4.10)–(4.12).
  • Electron-asymmetry constant c5 = 5.0×10^-5
    Appears in F1 (Eq. 4.11) and is determined by the electron asymmetry; it is an input parameter, not fitted to the final constraints, but it affects low-mass analytic yields.
axioms (8)
  • standard math Kinetic-mixing Lagrangian and mass diagonalization produce Eq. (2.2) interactions
    Standard result from Holdom; not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Freeze-in regime f_γ' ≪ 1 so backreaction can be neglected
    Used for the integral forms (2.5) and (2.7); invalid near thermal equilibrium, though Fig. 5 checks the equilibrium boundary.
  • domain assumption Radiation-dominated Hubble rate H = g_H T^2/m_pl
    Assumed throughout the epoch 1 eV–100 MeV.
  • domain assumption Bath consists of γ, e± and neutrinos; μ±/π± above 100 MeV are neglected
    Explicit in Sec. 3; stated to be safe for light γ′ but not quantified for heavy γ′.
  • domain assumption Boltzmann statistics for collision terms
    Stated in Sec. 3; may mis-estimate Bose-enhancement factors for photons.
  • domain assumption Photon remains in thermal equilibrium, with detailed balance Eq. (4.5)
    Used to relate ImΠ to the photon interaction rate Γγ via Eqs. (4.3)–(4.6).
  • domain assumption In-medium production rate factorizes as Eq. (4.2) with ReΠ and ImΠ
    Standard result, but load-bearing for the resonant production treatment.
  • ad hoc to paper Functional fit Eq. (C.20) is accurate for ReΠ at all relevant T
    A fit to numerical integration; no proof of validity in all corners of the parameter space.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23049 in / 15849 out tokens · 162915 ms · 2026-08-03T17:38:03.400990+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Dark photons, a generic class of light gauge bosons that interact with the Standard Model (SM) exclusively through kinetic mixing, arise naturally in many gauge extensions of the SM. Motivated by these theoretical considerations, we present a comprehensive analysis of their thermal production in the early universe. Our calculation covers a broad range of dark photon masses from 0.1 keV to 100 MeV and include inverse decay, annihilation, and semi-Compton processes. Wherever possible, we present analytical estimates of the production rates and yields, and verify their accuracy numerically. For dark photons lighter than twice the electron masses (around 1 MeV), we find that our analytical estimate of the freeze-in yield based on resonant production is very accurate, implying that off-resonance contributions can be neglected in practice. For heavy dark photons, although this conclusion no longer holds, we derive an interesting ratio, $4\pi e/27\approx0.14$, with $e$ the coupling constant of QED, that can be used to estimate the relative importance of on- and off-resonance contributions. Finally, using the calculated abundance of dark photons in the early universe, we derive cosmological constraints on the dark photon mass and kinetic mixing. Compared with bounds from stellar cooling and supernovae, the cosmological constraints are most stringent in the mass range from 0.1 MeV to 6 MeV, within which kinetic mixing at the level of $10^{-12}\sim10^{-10}$ can be probed.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Dark Photons from Red Dwarfs

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Red dwarf mass-radius data from eclipsing binaries combined with dark-photon-inclusive evolution simulations produce competitive constraints on light dark photons.

  2. A new approach to dark photon

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Dark photon and hypercharge arise from two U(1) groups related by broken mirror symmetry that suppresses their kinetic mixing at one loop.

  3. Dynamics of Self-Interacting Dark Sectors

    hep-ph 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The thesis solves coupled Boltzmann equations for freeze-in production and cannibal interactions in scalar theories with Z2/Z3 symmetries, mediator-coupled dark matter, cannibal production during reheating, and a hidd...

  4. Thermal effects on Dark Matter production during cosmic reheating

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Thermal corrections to reheating and freeze-in DM production rates are generally small in the computable regime but can be large in constructed counter-examples.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 48 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Holdom,Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,Phys

    B. Holdom,Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,Phys. Lett. B166(1986) 196–198

    1986

  2. [2]

    Jaeckel and A

    J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald,The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60(2010) 405–437, [1002.0329]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    Essiget al.,Working Group Report: New Light Weakly Coupled Particles, inCommunity Summer Study 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi, 10, 2013.1311.0029

    R. Essiget al.,Working Group Report: New Light Weakly Coupled Particles, inCommunity Summer Study 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi, 10, 2013.1311.0029

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Alexanderet al.,Dark Sectors 2016 Workshop: Community Report, 8, 2016.1608.08632

    J. Alexanderet al.,Dark Sectors 2016 Workshop: Community Report, 8, 2016.1608.08632

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Ilten, Y

    P. Ilten, Y. Soreq, M. Williams, and W. Xue,Serendipity in dark photon searches,JHEP06 (2018) 004, [1801.04847]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Bauer, P

    M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer, and J. Jaeckel,Hunting All the Hidden Photons,JHEP18(2020) 094, [1803.05466]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi,The Dark Photon,2005.01515. – 26 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Caputo, A

    A. Caputo, A. J. Millar, C. A. J. O’Hare, and E. Vitagliano,Dark photon limits: A handbook,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 9 095029, [2105.04565]. [9]Belle-II Collaboration, F. Abudinénet al.,Search for a Dark Photon and an Invisible Dark Higgs Boson inµ+µ- and Missing Energy Final States with the Belle II Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023), no. 7 071804, [...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [10]

    J. L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling, and S. Trojanowski,ForwArd Search ExpeRiment at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D97(2018), no. 3 035001, [1708.09389]. [11]F ASER Collaboration, H. Abreuet al.,First Direct Observation of Collider Neutrinos with FASER at the LHC,2303.14185

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [12]

    Alekhinet al.,A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case,Rept

    S. Alekhinet al.,A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case,Rept. Prog. Phys.79(2016), no. 12 124201, [1504.04855]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [13]

    Gardner, R

    S. Gardner, R. J. Holt, and A. S. Tadepalli,New Prospects in Fixed Target Searches for Dark Forces with the SeaQuest Experiment at Fermilab,Phys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 11 115015, [1509.00050]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [14]

    Berlin, S

    A. Berlin, S. Gori, P. Schuster, and N. Toro,Dark Sectors at the Fermilab SeaQuest Experiment,Phys. Rev. D98(2018), no. 3 035011, [1804.00661]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [15]

    J. P. Chou, D. Curtin, and H. J. Lubatti,New Detectors to Explore the Lifetime Frontier, Phys. Lett. B767(2017) 29–36, [1606.06298]. [16]MA THUSLA Collaboration, C. Alpigianiet al.,An Update to the Letter of Intent for MATHUSLA: Search for Long-Lived Particles at the HL-LHC,2009.01693

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [17]

    Redondo and M

    J. Redondo and M. Postma,Massive hidden photons as lukewarm dark matter,JCAP02 (2009) 005, [0811.0326]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  15. [18]

    Fradette, M

    A. Fradette, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz,Cosmological Constraints on Very Dark Photons,Phys. Rev. D90(2014), no. 3 035022, [1407.0993]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [19]

    Berger, K

    J. Berger, K. Jedamzik, and D. G. E. Walker,Cosmological Constraints on Decoupled Dark Photons and Dark Higgs,JCAP11(2016) 032, [1605.07195]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [20]

    Pospelov, J

    M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, J. T. Ruderman, and A. Urbano,Room for New Physics in the Rayleigh-Jeans Tail of the Cosmic Microwave Background,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018), no. 3 031103, [1803.07048]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [21]

    M. Ibe, S. Kobayashi, Y. Nakayama, and S. Shirai,Cosmological constraint on dark photon from Nef f,JHEP04(2020) 009, [1912.12152]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [22]

    S. D. McDermott and S. J. Witte,Cosmological evolution of light dark photon dark matter, Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 6 063030, [1911.05086]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [23]

    Coffey, L

    J. Coffey, L. Forestell, D. E. Morrissey, and G. White,Cosmological Bounds on sub-GeV Dark Vector Bosons from Electromagnetic Energy Injection,JHEP07(2020) 179, [2003.02273]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [24]

    J.-T. Li, G. M. Fuller, and E. Grohs,Probing dark photons in the early universe with big bang nucleosynthesis,JCAP12(2020) 049, [2009.14325]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [25]

    Caputo, H

    A. Caputo, H. Liu, S. Mishra-Sharma, M. Pospelov, and J. T. Ruderman,Radio excess from stimulated dark matter decay,Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 12 123033, [2206.07713]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [26]

    Pîrvu, J

    D. Pîrvu, J. Huang, and M. C. Johnson,Patchy screening of the CMB from dark photons, JCAP01(2024) 019, [2307.15124]. – 27 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [27]

    Gan and D

    X. Gan and D. Liu,Cosmologically varying kinetic mixing,JHEP11(2023) 031, [2302.03056]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [28]

    Cyncynates and Z

    D. Cyncynates and Z. J. Weiner,Detectable and Defect-Free Dark Photon Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025), no. 21 211002, [2310.18397]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [29]

    Aramburo-Garcia, K

    A. Aramburo-Garcia, K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, P. Kashko, J. Pradler, A. Sokolenko, R. Kugel, M. Schaller, and J. Schaye,Dark photon constraints from CMB temperature anisotropies,JCAP11(2024) 049, [2405.05104]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [30]

    McCarthy, D

    F. McCarthy, D. Pirvu, J. C. Hill, J. Huang, M. C. Johnson, and K. K. Rogers,Dark Photon Limits from Patchy Dark Screening of the Cosmic Microwave Background,Phys. Rev. Lett. 133(2024), no. 14 141003, [2406.02546]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [31]

    Trost, J

    A. Trost, J. S. Bolton, A. Caputo, H. Liu, S. Cristiani, and M. Viel,Constraints on dark photon dark matter from Lyman-αforest simulations and an ultrahigh signal-to-noise quasar spectrum,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 8 083034, [2410.02858]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [32]

    Cyncynates and Z

    D. Cyncynates and Z. J. Weiner,Experimental targets for dark photon dark matter,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 10 103535, [2410.14774]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [33]

    A. Hook, J. Huang, and M. Shalaby,No cosmological constraints on dark photon dark matter from resonant conversion: Impact of nonlinear plasma dynamics,2510.13956

    arXiv

  31. [34]

    Lindner, F

    M. Lindner, F. S. Queiroz, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu,Neutrino-electron scattering: general constraints onZ′ and dark photon models,JHEP05(2018) 098, [1803.00060]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [35]

    Li and X.-J

    S.-P. Li and X.-J. Xu,Production rates of dark photons and Z’ in the Sun and stellar cooling bounds,JCAP09(2023) 009, [2304.12907]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [36]

    E. C. G. Stueckelberg,Interaction energy in electrodynamics and in the field theory of nuclear forces,Helv. Phys. Acta11(1938) 225–244

    1938

  34. [37]

    Feldman, Z

    D. Feldman, Z. Liu, and P. Nath,The Stueckelberg Z-prime Extension with Kinetic Mixing and Milli-Charged Dark Matter From the Hidden Sector,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 115001, [hep-ph/0702123]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  35. [38]

    Li and X.-J

    S.-P. Li and X.-J. Xu,Dark matter produced from right-handed neutrinos,JCAP06(2023) 047, [2212.09109]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [39]

    X. Luo, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu,Dirac neutrinos and Nef f. Part II. The freeze-in case,JCAP03(2021) 082, [2011.13059]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [40]

    cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits

    C. O’Hare, “cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits.” https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/, July, 2020

    2020

  38. [41]

    Redondo,Helioscope Bounds on Hidden Sector Photons,JCAP07(2008) 008, [0801.1527]

    J. Redondo,Helioscope Bounds on Hidden Sector Photons,JCAP07(2008) 008, [0801.1527]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  39. [42]

    H. An, M. Pospelov, and J. Pradler,New stellar constraints on dark photons,Phys. Lett. B 725(2013) 190–195, [1302.3884]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [43]

    Redondo and G

    J. Redondo and G. Raffelt,Solar constraints on hidden photons re-visited,JCAP08(2013) 034, [1305.2920]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [44]

    Braaten and D

    E. Braaten and D. Segel,Neutrino energy loss from the plasma process at all temperatures and densities,Phys. Rev. D48(1993) 1478–1491, [hep-ph/9302213]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  42. [45]

    H. A. Weldon,Simple Rules for Discontinuities in Finite Temperature Field Theory,Phys. Rev. D28(1983) 2007. – 28 –

    1983

  43. [46]

    Wolfenstein,Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,Phys.Rev.D17(1978) 2369–2374

    L. Wolfenstein,Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,Phys.Rev.D17(1978) 2369–2374

    1978

  44. [47]

    S. P. Mikheev and A. Yu. Smirnov,Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.42(1985) 913–917. [Yad. Fiz.42,1441(1985)]

    1985

  45. [48]

    S. P. Mikheev and A. Yu. Smirnov,Resonant amplification of neutrino oscillations in matter and solar neutrino spectroscopy,Nuovo Cim.C9(1986) 17–26

    1986

  46. [49]

    Wu and X.-J

    Q.-f. Wu and X.-J. Xu,A comprehensive calculation of the Primakoff process and the solar axion flux,JCAP07(2024) 013, [2402.16083]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [50]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin,Bosonic super-WIMPs as keV-scale dark matter, Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 115012, [0807.3279]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  48. [51]

    S. D. McDermott, H. H. Patel, and H. Ramani,Dark Photon Decay Beyond The Euler-Heisenberg Limit,Phys. Rev. D97(2018), no. 7 073005, [1705.00619]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [52]

    Linden, T

    T. Linden, T. T. Q. Nguyen, and T. M. P. Tait,Indirect Searches for Dark Photon-Photon Tridents in Celestial Objects,2402.01839

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [53]

    Linden, T

    T. Linden, T. T. Q. Nguyen, and T. M. P. Tait,X-Ray Constraints on Dark Photon Tridents,2406.19445. [54]Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navaset al.,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 3 030001. [55]Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanimet al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6, [1807.06209]. [...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [56]

    Li and X.-J

    S.-P. Li and X.-J. Xu,Nef fconstraints on light mediators coupled to neutrinos: the dilution-resistant effect,JHEP10(2023) 012, [2307.13967]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [57]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi, and Y. Takaesu,Revisiting Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Long-Lived Decaying Particles,Phys. Rev. D97(2018), no. 2 023502, [1709.01211]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [58]

    Hufnagel, K

    M. Hufnagel, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and S. Wild,BBN constraints on MeV-scale dark sectors. Part II. Electromagnetic decays,JCAP11(2018) 032, [1808.09324]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [59]

    Forestell, D

    L. Forestell, D. E. Morrissey, and G. White,Limits from BBN on Light Electromagnetic Decays,JHEP01(2019) 074, [1809.01179]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [60]

    Hu and J

    W. Hu and J. Silk,Thermalization constraints and spectral distortions for massive unstable relic particles,Phys. Rev. Lett.70(1993) 2661–2664

    1993

  56. [61]

    Chluba and R

    J. Chluba and R. A. Sunyaev,The evolution of CMB spectral distortions in the early Universe,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.419(2012) 1294–1314, [1109.6552]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [62]

    Poulin, J

    V. Poulin, J. Lesgourgues, and P. D. Serpico,Cosmological constraints on exotic injection of electromagnetic energy,JCAP03(2017) 043, [1610.10051]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [63]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott,Revisiting Supernova 1987A Constraints on Dark Photons,JHEP01(2017) 107, [1611.03864]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [64]

    Caputo, J

    A. Caputo, J. Park, and S. Yun,The Heavy Dark Photon Handbook: Cosmological and Astrophysical Bounds,2511.15785. – 29 –

    arXiv

  60. [65]

    X. Luo, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu,Dirac neutrinos andNeff,JCAP06(2020) 058, [2005.01629]. – 30 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020