Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 93 references

SND@LHC can probe sub-GeV dipolar dark states in a low-mass window that direct detection, beam-dumps, and colliders currently miss, including masses near 0.5 MeV at the HL-LHC.

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 12:21 UTC pith:BKGEVIM6

load-bearing objection SND@LHC dipole sensitivity study with a solid setup but a load-bearing omission: the meson invisible-width bounds from Fig. 7 are never overlaid on the final reach curves. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.03186 v2 pith:BKGEVIM6 submitted 2026-01-06 hep-ph

Study of sub-GeV Dipolar Dark States at SND@LHC within Invisible Bounds on Meson Decays

Debajyoti Biswas This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords dipolar dark mattermagnetic dipole momentelectric dipole momentSND@LHCfeebly interacting particlesinvisible meson decaysDrell-Yanfar-forward detector
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 sets out to show that the SND@LHC experiment, a scattering detector placed far forward along the LHC beam line, could detect a simple dark sector: a Dirac fermion that interacts with ordinary matter only through dimension-five magnetic and electric dipole operators. Because the couplings are tiny, these particles are feebly interacting and would pass through conventional detectors; SND@LHC would catch them by the electron and nuclear recoils they deposit when they scatter inside its tungsten target. The paper computes the dark-state flux from meson decays and Drell-Yan production, folds in existing invisible-decay-width bounds on mesons, and derives sensitivity reaches for the current Run-3 and the High-Luminosity LHC. If a background-free search with unit detection efficiency can be achieved, SND@LHC would map out a low-mass dipole parameter space that other experiments do not currently constrain, making it a concrete near-term test of a minimal dark-matter portal.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, under a background-free search with unit detection efficiency, SND@LHC can set 90% confidence limits on the magnetic and electric dipole couplings of a sub-GeV Dirac dark state that complement—and in places exceed—existing constraints. For magnetic dipole moments, solar-reflected dark matter bounds already exclude much of the low-mass region, but at the High-Luminosity LHC the detector's sensitivity near mχ ≈ 0.5 MeV surpasses that of silicon direct-detection experiments. For both moment types, the sensitivity curve is controlled by the flux of dark states arriving at the target, and the paper identifies which production channels dominate at each mass: meso

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of dimension-five operators (c_MDM/Λ) χ̄ σ^{μν} χ F_{μν} and (ic_EDM/Λ) χ̄ σ^{μν} γ5 χ F_{μν}, which give the Dirac fermion χ a magnetic or electric dipole moment and let it interact with the Standard Model photon. This single vertex controls both production—via meson decays (P→γ*γ, V→γ*→χχ̄) and Drell-Yan q q̄→γ*→χχ̄—and detection, since the same photon mediates elastic scattering off electrons and nuclei in the SND@LHC target. The reach is computed as the coupling that yields 2.3 signal events in a background-free search, and the production flux is normalized by invisible meson decay widths, which impose an upper bound on the couplings. The effective-the

Load-bearing premise

The reach calculation assumes a background-free search with unit detection efficiency: neutrino neutral-current and elastic-scattering events can all be removed by topology and kinematics, and every dark-state scattering in the tungsten target is recorded.

What would settle it

Run the detector's neutrino-background simulation with the exact event-selection cuts used for the dipole signal and count surviving neutral-current events in the target volume; if more than about one event survives at 150 fb^-1, the 2.3-event threshold rises enough to erase the claimed 0.5 MeV reach. A second check is whether the experimental invisible branching ratio of Υ(1S) improves beyond the value used here, since that meson provides the most stringent production bound and tighter data would push the reach upward.

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

If this is right

  • If SND@LHC achieves the projected sensitivity, it would place the first direct laboratory constraints on dipolar dark states in the sub-MeV-to-MeV window, where no beam-dump or collider result currently reaches.
  • A null result would tighten the allowed dipole couplings below currently probed values, narrowing the parameter space for UV completions that generate the dimension-five operators.
  • An excess consistent with 2.3 or more scattering events would be a discovery signature of a feebly interacting particle with a dipole moment, providing a concrete target for follow-up experiments and for the SND@LHC upgrade.
  • The flux-enhancement requirement (roughly a factor of five) quantifies what a detector upgrade must achieve to open new O(1) GeV parameter space, informing the design of the SND@LHC successor in the HL-LHC era.
  • Improved measurements of invisible meson branching ratios directly sharpen the reach, since the production flux is normalized to these bounds; the Υ(1S) channel is the most restrictive.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The projected reach relies on achieving a background-free selection; a natural next step is a dedicated study of neutrino neutral-current rejection in the signal region, since the paper quotes 450–550 such events at the target.
  • The paper's production-flux machinery—meson spectra, invisible-width bounds, and Drell-Yan—transfers directly to other far-forward LHC detectors, so the method provides a template for a broader forward physics program even though only SND@LHC is studied here.
  • A natural extension would include the Z-boson channel and CP-violating mixtures of MDM and EDM; the paper omits Z exchange on the grounds that its invisible width is negligible, but at masses near the Z pole that assumption could be re-examined.
  • The projected recoil-energy spectrum for dipole scattering is distinctive; comparing observed electron recoils in SND@LHC against that predicted shape—rather than only event counts—would sharpen the discrimination from neutrino backgrounds.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the sensitivity of SND@LHC to a Dirac fermion dark state χ interacting with the SM through dimension-five magnetic and electric dipole operators. Production is computed from Drell-Yan and from decays of unflavored vector and pseudoscalar mesons using MadGraph5_aMC@NLO and FORESEE. The authors derive upper bounds on the dipole coupling from measured invisible branching ratios of mesons; compute χe and χN scattering cross sections; and use a 2.3-event, background-free, unit-efficiency assumption to project 90% C.L. sensitivity for 250 fb−1 and 3000 fb−1. They compare the resulting coverage with direct-detection, beam-dump, fixed-target, and e+e− collider constraints and include an EFT validity region. The main claim is that SND@LHC, especially in the HL-LHC era, can probe sub-GeV dipole dark states in regions complementary to existing constraints, including mχ∼0.5 MeV more effectively than DAMIC.

Significance. If the projections are correct, the paper provides a useful addition to the FPF/SND@LHC physics case for a minimal and predictive dark-state model. The work has several strengths: the meson invisible-width bounds are derived in the same framework as the production, the comparison includes many experimental constraints, and the appendices provide RGE running and a model-independent production-rate estimate. The central result is a falsifiable forward prediction from an external model rather than a fit to data, so there is no circularity in the usual sense. However, because the Fig. 7 meson bounds are never overlaid on the final sensitivity curves, the headline 'better than DAMIC' claim is not yet established.

major comments (2)
  1. [§V; Figs. 7, 10, 11] The SND@LHC sensitivity curves do not overlay the meson invisible-width upper bounds derived in Fig. 7, although the title and the low-mass production mechanism make this the controlling constraint. Signal events scale as (production BR)×(scattering cross-section) ∝ (c/Λ)^4, while the invisible-width bound is an upper limit on the same (c/Λ)^2. A 2.3-event reach quoted in Figs. 10–11 is therefore valid only if the required coupling lies below the Fig. 7 exclusion line. The paper never states or demonstrates this. In particular the Conclusions claim that HL-LHC SND@LHC probes mχ∼0.5 MeV better than DAMIC is not supported unless this overlay is shown. Please add the Fig. 7 bounds to Figs. 10 and 11 and revise the affected reach claims accordingly.
  2. [§III.C, §V] The sensitivity line is defined by 2.3 signal events with unit efficiency and zero background. The paper states in §III.C that neutrino elastic-scattering backgrounds can be eliminated by topology and kinematics, but then notes that the time-of-flight separation is not applicable for the average FIP energies of this model. No quantitative residual-background estimate is given. Because the reach scales with the inverse square root of the background-free exposure, a small residual background or detection inefficiency moves the accessible coupling upward and can erase the claimed new coverage at mχ∼0.5 MeV. Please provide an explicit background budget for the χe signal or, at minimum, a sensitivity curve for a few assumed background levels.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The MDM operator is written with χ_R in the text; for a Dirac fermion the dipole operator should involve the full field χ. If a chiral projection is intended, please define it explicitly and explain how it is reconciled with the treatment of χ as a Dirac state.
  2. [Fig. 6] The histograms appear to be based on a Monte Carlo sample of 100 events; the distributions are noisy. Please state the statistical uncertainty or use a larger sample so that the quoted average momenta are meaningful.
  3. [References [29], [83]] References [29] and [83] are the same paper (Chu, Kuo, Pradler, Phys. Rev. D 101, 075035). Please remove the duplicate.
  4. [Figs. 10–11] Please state explicitly whether the vertical axis is c/Λ in GeV^-1 or in units of μ_B, and how the conversion to the limits quoted from [41] is made. This is needed for the reader to connect the figures to the invisible-width bounds of Fig. 7.
  5. [§V.A / Abstract] The Abstract and Conclusions state that scattering off both electrons and nuclei is considered, and the Conclusions say signal rates for nuclei and electrons were evaluated. However, the sensitivity projections in Figs. 10 and 11 are based on χe scattering only; §V.A quotes χN benchmark cross-sections but does not turn them into a reach curve. Either add the nuclear-recoil sensitivity or correct the scope statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the SND@LHC sensitivity projection is a forward model calculation; the main caveat is a missing overlay of meson invisible-width bounds, which is a consistency/correctness issue rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. Production rates for the dipole model are computed with MadGraph/FORESEE at fixed coupling c/Lambda = 1 GeV^-1 using matrix elements from the Lagrangian in Eq. (1), and the 2.3-event sensitivity line is obtained by rescaling the resulting flux and scattering probability; no parameter is fitted to make the projection match any of the sensitivity data it claims to predict. The meson invisible-width constraints in Fig. 7 are genuine external inputs taken from measured invisible branching ratios, and although the same decay formulas enter the production calculation, that overlap reflects the model dynamics rather than a fitted prediction. The comparison limits from direct detection, beam-dump, fixed-target, and collider experiments are independent external bounds. There are no load-bearing self-citations: references to earlier dipole/FLArE work are background and are not used to force the conclusion, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the author's own papers. The one substantive weakness is that the Fig. 7 invisible-width exclusions (especially the Upsilon(1S) bound, which the text calls the most stringent) are not overlaid on the sensitivity curves in Figs. 10-11, so part of the claimed low-mass reach may lie in already-excluded parameter space. This is a presentation/consistency omission and a possible overclaim, but it is not a case of a prediction reducing by construction to its own input, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The analysis rests chiefly on the assumed validity of the dipole EFT, stable propagation of chi, forward meson spectra from CRMC/Pythia generators, the assignment of all invisible meson width to chi-chibar, and a background-free unit-efficiency detector. No free parameters are fitted to data; the numerical quantities chosen by hand are the EFT validity factor (10), the 2.3-event threshold, and unit efficiency.

free parameters (3)
  • EFT validity separation factor = 10
    The validity criterion c/Lambda < (10 qmax)^{-1} is made by hand ('factor of 10 is chosen to ensure a comfortable separation'). It sets the boundary of the EFT-valid region shown in Fig. 12.
  • Signal event threshold = 2.3 events
    The sensitivity line is set by a background-free 90% C.L. Poisson threshold (described as 'one-χ or 2.3 events'). This is a statistical choice, not a fit, but it directly sets the reach.
  • Detection efficiency = 1
    The analysis assumes unit efficiency of detection; no trigger, reconstruction, or fiducial-mass efficiency is folded in.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The dimension-5 MDM/EDM dipole operators in Eq. (1) are the only relevant interactions; Higgs and Z couplings are negligible.
    Section II states Z/Higgs interactions are heavily constrained and irrelevant; no UV completion is used.
  • domain assumption The dark state chi is a stable Dirac fermion that survives propagation to SND@LHC without decay or absorption.
    The paper treats chi as a dark matter candidate; no lifetime or re-interaction along the 480 m path is computed.
  • domain assumption Forward meson spectra from EPOS LHC and Pythia8 tuned to LHCb data accurately describe production in SND@LHC acceptance.
    Section IV.B.2 relies on FORESEE with these generators for meson production spectra.
  • domain assumption The entire measured invisible width of each meson is available for chi-chibar decays.
    Section IV.B.1: 'We assume the entire invisible width is available for decays into dark state pairs.'
  • domain assumption Neutrino backgrounds can be removed by topology/kinematics and the search is background-free.
    Section III.C says elastic neutrino backgrounds can be eliminated and FIPs can be resolved; sensitivity curves use 2.3 background-free events.
  • standard math The analytic decay-width and scattering formulas from [40,41] are correct and applicable.
    Equations (2)-(9), (A1)-(A5) are taken from prior literature; the paper does not re-derive them.
invented entities (1)
  • Dirac dark state chi with electric/magnetic dipole moment independent evidence
    purpose: Sub-GeV dark matter candidate interacting with SM photons; produced by meson decays and Drell-Yan at the LHC and detected via chi-e/chi-N scattering in SND@LHC.
    The particle is not new to this paper (prior dipole dark matter literature [9,40,41]), but it is the postulated state underpinning the analysis. Falsifiable through predicted SND@LHC recoil rates and invisible-meson-decay constraints.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15806 in / 19372 out tokens · 186353 ms · 2026-08-03T12:21:02.034201+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Electromagnetic form factors constitute a natural portal for accessing states beyond the Standard Model. In particular, dimension-5 magnetic and electric dipole moment operators offer a minimal and predictive framework for Feebly Interacting Particles (FIPs). In this work, we perform a study of the sensitivity reach of the Scattering and Neutrino Detector (SND@LHC) in the detection of dipolar dark states through photon-mediated interactions with the Standard Model particles. The far-forward region of the LHC provides FIPs with large momenta that scatter off electrons and nuclei inside the target. Production of dark states from meson decays is constrained by invisible decay widths, while the Drell-Yan process offers a production channel in the GeV range. We present sensitivity plots for magnetic and electric dipole moment interactions at SND@LHC and compare them with constraints from direct detection, beam dump, fixed-target, and collider experiments. The validity of the effective theory that describes the dipole model is also studied by considering conservative bounds on the couplings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.03186 by Debajyoti Biswas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 24 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    We then proceed to constrain the resulting values with the invisible branching fractions as 7 presented in [ 30]

    Meson Decay Widths We calculate the decay widths and branching ratios of mesons into χ ¯χ pairs according to the model (1) as mentioned in [29] with individual treatment of MDM and EDM components. We then proceed to constrain the resulting values with the invisible branching fractions as 7 presented in [ 30]. The branching ratio of the vector mesons( V ) ...

  2. [2]

    Cross-Sections and Spectra We employ FORESEE [27] to simulate the production of dark state χ from the decays of unflavored vector and pseudoscalar mesons. FORESEE is a package that enables us to simulate different production and decay modes of BSM states when pre-defined interactions along with geometric cuts specific to a detector are applied by the user. It...

  3. [3]

    Anchordoqui et al., The Forward Physics Facility: Sites, experiments, and physics potential, Phys

    L.A. Anchordoqui et al., The Forward Physics Facility: Sites, experiments, and physics potential, Phys. Rept. 968 (2022) 1 [2109.10905]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Feng et al., The Forward Physics Facility at the High-Luminosity LHC , J

    J.L. Feng et al., The Forward Physics Facility at the High-Luminosity LHC , J. Phys. G 50 (2023) 030501 [2203.05090]. 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    FPF Working Groups collaboration, The Forward Physics Facility at the Large Hadron Collider, 3, 2025 [ 2503.19010]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Harnik and G.D

    R. Harnik and G.D. Kribs, An Effective Theory of Dirac Dark Matter , Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 095007 [0810.5557]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Adhikary et al., Scientific program for the Forward Physics Facility , Eur

    J. Adhikary et al., Scientific program for the Forward Physics Facility , Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 430 [2411.04175]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    FPF collaboration, Letter of Intent: The Forward Physics Facility , 2510.26260

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Sigurdson, M

    K. Sigurdson, M. Doran, A. Kurylov, R.R. Caldwell and M. Kamionkowski, Dark-matter electric and magnetic dipole moments , Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 083501

    2004

  10. [10]

    C. Han, M. López-Ibáñez, B. Peng and J.M. Yang, Dirac dark matter in u(1)bl with the stueckelberg mechanism, Nuclear Physics B 959 (2020) 115154

    2020

  11. [11]

    Yaguna and Ó

    C.E. Yaguna and Ó. Zapata, Singlet dirac dark matter streamlined , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024 (2024) 049

    2024

  12. [12]

    Masso, S

    E. Masso, S. Mohanty and S. Rao, Dipolar Dark Matter , Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 036009 [0906.1979]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  13. [13]

    D’Ambrosio, S

    G. D’Ambrosio, S. Chatterjee, R. Laha and S.K. Vempati, Freezing in with lepton flavored fermions, SciPost Physics 11 (2021) 006

    2021

  14. [14]

    Ibarra, M

    A. Ibarra, M. Reichard and G. Tomar, Probing dark matter electromagnetic properties in direct detection experiments , JCAP 02 (2025) 072 [2408.15760]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Boyarsky, O

    A. Boyarsky, O. Mikulenko, M. Ovchynnikov and L. Shchutska, Searches for new physics at SND@LHC, JHEP 03 (2022) 006 [2104.09688]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Acampora, C

    G. Acampora, C. Ahdida, R. Albanese, C. Albrecht, A. Alexandrov, M. Andreini et al., SND@LHC: the scattering and neutrino detector at the LHC , Journal of Instrumentation 19 (2024) P05067

    2024

  17. [17]

    Ahdida, M

    C. Ahdida, M. De Magistris, M. Gorshenkov, E. Zaffaroni, L. Dedenko, M. Chernyavskiy et al., SND@LHC-Scattering and Neutrino Detector at the LHC , Tech. Rep. CERN-LHCC-2021-003, LHCC-P-016 , CERN, Geneva (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    SHiP collaboration, A facility to Search for Hidden Particles (SHiP) at the CERN SPS , 1504.04956

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Batell, J.L

    B. Batell, J.L. Feng and S. Trojanowski, Detecting dark matter with far-forward emulsion and liquid argon detectors at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 075023 . 24

    2021

  20. [20]

    Kim, K.Y

    Y.G. Kim, K.Y. Lee and S.-h. Nam, Novel search for light dark photon in the forward experiments at the LHC , The European Physical Journal C 84 (2024) 1050

    2024

  21. [21]

    Auerbach, R.L

    L.B. Auerbach, R.L. Burman, D.O. Caldwell, E.D. Church, J.B. Donahue, A. Fazely et al., Measurement of electron-neutrino electron elastic scattering , Physical Review D 63 (2001)

    2001

  22. [22]

    Al-Turany, D

    M. Al-Turany, D. Bertini, R. Karabowicz, D. Kresan, P. Malzacher, T. Stockmanns et al., The FairRoot framework, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 396 (2012) 022001

    2012

  23. [23]

    Andreopoulos et al., The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator , Nucl

    C. Andreopoulos et al., The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 614 (2010) 87 [0905.2517]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [24]

    Tomalak and R.J

    O. Tomalak and R.J. Hill, Theory of elastic neutrino-electron scattering , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 033006

    2020

  25. [25]

    Marciano and Z

    W.J. Marciano and Z. Parsa, Neutrino electron scattering theory , J. Phys. G 29 (2003) 2629 [hep-ph/0403168]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  26. [26]

    Formaggio and G.P

    J.A. Formaggio and G.P. Zeller, From eV to EeV: Neutrino cross sections across energy scales, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84 (2012) 1307

    2012

  27. [27]

    Kling and S

    F. Kling and S. Trojanowski, Forward experiment sensitivity estimator for the LHC and future hadron colliders , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 035012 [2105.07077]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations , Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014) 1

    2014

  29. [29]

    Alloul, N.D

    A. Alloul, N.D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks, FeynRules 2.0 A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology , Computer Physics Communications 185 (2014) 22502300

    2014

  30. [30]

    Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001

    2024

  31. [31]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Fuks and G. Serret, MadAnalysis 5, A User-Friendly Framework for Collider Phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 222 [1206.1599]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    Chu, J.-L

    X. Chu, J.-L. Kuo and J. Pradler, Dark sector-photon interactions in proton-beam experiments, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 075035 [2001.06042]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Barnett, C.D

    R.M. Barnett, C.D. Carone, D.E. Groom, T.G. Trippe, C.G. Wohl, B. Armstrong et al., Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 1

    1996

  34. [34]

    HPQCD collaboration, B-meson decay constants: a more complete picture from full lattice 25 QCD, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 114509 [1503.05762]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  35. [35]

    Chang, X.-N

    Q. Chang, X.-N. Li, X.-Q. Li and F. Su, Decay constants of pseudoscalar and vector mesons with improved holographic wavefunction , Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018) 073102 [1805.00718]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    Bierlich, S

    C. Bierlich, S. Chakraborty, N. Desai, L. Gellersen, I. Helenius, P. Ilten et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 , 2022

    2022

  37. [37]

    Pierog, I

    T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J.M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko and K. Werner, EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider , Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 034906

    2015

  38. [38]

    Ulrich, T

    R. Ulrich, T. Pierog and C. Baus, Cosmic Ray Monte Carlo Package, CRMC , Zenodo (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    R. Aaij, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, Z. Ajaltouni, S. Akar, J. Albrecht et al., Measurement of Υ production in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV , Journal of High Energy Physics 2018 (2018) 134

    2018

  40. [40]

    R. Aaij, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, A. Affolder, Z. Ajaltouni, S. Akar et al., Measurement of forwardJ/ψ production cross-sections in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV , Journal of High Energy Physics 2015 (2015) 172

    2015

  41. [41]

    also addresses bounds placed by rare meson decays such as K + →π+χ ¯χ and B+ → K +χ ¯χ. The K + decay constraints cM DM A or cEDM A ≲ 1.5 × 10−4µB in certain momentum ranges when the mass of χ is in the MeV scale while the B+ decay puts the constraint cM DM A or cEDM A ≲ 3 × 10−3µB, where µB is the Bohr magneton. 12 FIG. 7. Bounds derived from inv. B.R. o...

  42. [42]

    Aaij, C.A

    R. Aaij, C.A. Beteta, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, C.A. Aidala, Z. Ajaltouni et al., Measurement of ψ(2S) production cross-sections in proton-proton collisions at √s =7 and 13 TeV , The European Physical Journal C 80 (2020) 185

    2020

  43. [43]

    Kling, J.-L

    F. Kling, J.-L. Kuo, S. Trojanowski and Y.-D. Tsai, FLArE up dark sectors with EM form factors at the LHC forward physics facility , Nucl. Phys. B 987 (2023) 116103 [2205.09137]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    X. Chu, J. Pradler and L. Semmelrock, Light dark states with electromagnetic form factors , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 015040 [1811.04095]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    LUX Collaboration collaboration, Results from a Search for Dark Matter in the Complete LUX Exposure , Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 021303

    2017

  46. [46]

    PandaX-II Collaboration collaboration, Dark Matter Results from 54-Ton-Day Exposure of PandaX-II Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 181302

    2017

  47. [47]

    XENON Collaboration 7 collaboration, Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 111302

    2018

  48. [48]

    DarkSide Collaboration collaboration, Low-Mass Dark Matter Search with the 26 DarkSide-50 Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 081307

    2018

  49. [49]

    SuperCDMS Collaboration collaboration, Low-mass dark matter search with CDMSlite , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 022002

    2018

  50. [50]

    CDEX Collaboration collaboration, Limits on light WIMPs with a germanium detector at 177 eVee threshold at the China Jinping Underground Laboratory , Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 032003

    2014

  51. [51]

    CDEX Collaboration collaboration, First results on low-mass WIMPs from the CDEX-1 experiment at the China Jinping underground laboratory , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 052004

    2013

  52. [52]

    CDEX Collaboration collaboration, Limits on light weakly interacting massive particles from the CDEX-1 experiment with a p-type point-contact germanium detector at the China Jinping Underground Laboratory, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 091701

    2014

  53. [53]

    CDEX Collaboration collaboration, Search of low-mass WIMPs with a p-type point contact germanium detector in the CDEX-1 experiment , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 092003

    2016

  54. [54]

    Yang, H.-B

    L.-T. Yang, H.-B. Li, Q. Yue, K.-J. Kang, J.-P. Cheng, Y.-J. Li et al., Limits on light WIMPs with a 1 kg-scale germanium detector at 160 eVee physics threshold at the China Jinping Underground Laboratory, Chinese Physics C 42 (2018) 023002

    2018

  55. [55]

    CDEX Collaboration collaboration, Limits on Light Weakly Interacting Massive Particles from the First 102.8 kg × day Data of the CDEX-10 Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 241301

    2018

  56. [56]

    Jiang et al., Performances of a prototype point-contact germanium detector immersed in liquid nitrogen for light dark matter search , Sci

    H. Jiang et al., Performances of a prototype point-contact germanium detector immersed in liquid nitrogen for light dark matter search , Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62 (2019) 31012 [1810.08808]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    CDEX Collaboration collaboration, Search for Light Weakly-Interacting-Massive-Particle Dark Matter by Annual Modulation Analysis with a Point-Contact Germanium Detector at the China Jinping Underground Laboratory , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 221301

    2019

  58. [59]

    CDEX Collaboration collaboration, Studies of the Earth shielding effect to direct dark 27 matter searches at the China Jinping Underground Laboratory , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 052005

    2022

  59. [60]

    CDEX Collaboration collaboration, Constraints on Spin-Independent Nucleus Scattering with sub-GeV Weakly Interacting Massive Particle Dark Matter from the CDEX-1B Experiment at the China Jinping Underground Laboratory , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 161301

    2019

  60. [61]

    CRESST collaboration, Results on MeV-scale dark matter from a gram-scale cryogenic calorimeter operated above ground , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 637 [1707.06749]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [62]

    SENSEI Collaboration collaboration, SENSEI: Direct-Detection Results on sub-GeV Dark Matter from a New Skipper CCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 171802

    2020

  62. [63]

    DAMIC Collaboration collaboration, Constraints on Light Dark Matter Particles Interacting with Electrons from DAMIC at SNOLAB , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 181802

    2019

  63. [64]

    EDEL WEISS Collaboration collaboration, First Germanium-Based Constraints on Sub-MeV Dark Matter with the EDEL WEISS Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 141301

    2020

  64. [65]

    Amaral, T

    D.W. Amaral, T. Aralis, T. Aramaki, I.J. Arnquist, E. Azadbakht, S. Banik et al., Constraints on low-mass, relic dark matter candidates from a surface-operated SuperCDMS single-charge sensitive detector , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 091101

    2020

  65. [66]

    Agnese, T

    R. Agnese, T. Aralis, T. Aramaki, I.J. Arnquist, E. Azadbakht, W. Baker et al., First Dark Matter Constraints from a SuperCDMS Single-Charge Sensitive Detector , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 051301

    2018

  66. [67]

    XENON Collaboration collaboration, Light Dark Matter Search with Ionization Signals in XENON1T , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 251801

    2019

  67. [68]

    Essig, T

    R. Essig, T. Volansky and T.-T. Yu, New constraints and prospects for sub-GeV dark matter scattering off electrons in xenon , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 043017

    2017

  68. [69]

    The DarkSide Collaboration collaboration, Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark-Matter–Electron Scattering from the DarkSide-50 Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 111303

    2018

  69. [70]

    Essig, A

    R. Essig, A. Manalaysay, J. Mardon, P. Sorensen and T. Volansky, First Direct Detection Limits on Sub-GeV Dark Matter from XENON10 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 021301

    2012

  70. [71]

    PandaX-II Collaboration collaboration, Search for Light Dark Matter–Electron 28 Scattering in the PandaX-II Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 211803

    2021

  71. [72]

    Emken, R

    T. Emken, R. Essig, C. Kouvaris and M. Sholapurkar, Direct detection of strongly interacting sub-GeV dark matter via electron recoils , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019 (2019) 070

    2019

  72. [73]

    SENSEI Collaboration collaboration, SENSEI: Direct-Detection Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Matter from a Shallow Underground Run Using a Prototype Skipper CCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 161801

    2019

  73. [74]

    CDEX collaboration, Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Matter–Electron Scattering from the CDEX-10 Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 221301 [2206.04128]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [75]

    H. An, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler and A. Ritz, Directly Detecting MeV-Scale Dark Matter Via Solar Reflection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 141801

    2018

  75. [76]

    H. An, H. Nie, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler and A. Ritz, Solar reflection of dark matter , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 103026 [2108.10332]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  76. [77]

    CDEX Collaboration collaboration, Experimental Limits on Solar Reflected Dark Matter with a New Approach on Accelerated-Dark-Matter–Electron Analysis in Semiconductors , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 171001

    2024

  77. [78]

    Emken, Solar reflection of light dark matter with heavy mediators , Phys

    T. Emken, Solar reflection of light dark matter with heavy mediators , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 063020

    2022

  78. [79]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon and T. Volansky, Direct detection of sub-GeV dark matter , Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 076007

    2012

  79. [80]

    Aubert, A

    B. Aubert, A. Bazan, A. Boucham, D. Boutigny, I. De Bonis, J. Favier et al., The BABAR detector, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 479 (2002) 1

    2002

  80. [81]

    CHARMII collaboration, A detector for the study of neutrino-electron scattering , Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., A 278 (1989) 670

    1989

Showing first 80 references.