Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 49 references

A clockwork chain of U(1) gauge groups converts an O(1) dark-sector charge into a tiny electric charge and sets the relic density through Z' resonances, all without small parameters.

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 03:53 UTC pith:6SN7H3SL

load-bearing objection A new clockwork construction that generates a millicharged CHAMP and sets the relic density with the same Z' tower; the main open question is whether the direct-detection cancellation survives subleading corrections. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.06681 v2 pith:6SN7H3SL submitted 2026-02-06 hep-ph hep-th

Return of the CHAMPs: A clockwork portal to charged dark matter

Debajyoti Choudhury , Vineet K. Jha , Suvam Maharana This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords clockworkmillicharged dark matterCHAMPgauged U(1) extensionhypercharge clockworkZ' portalfreeze-out relic densitydirect detection
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.

The paper's central claim is that a weak/TeV-scale electrically charged dark-matter particle need not be tuned: replacing the hypercharge U(1)_Y by a clockwork chain U(1)^(N+1), with ordinary matter sitting at one end and dark matter at the other, turns an O(1) dark-sector charge into an electric charge of order q^-N e. For q around 3 and N around 25, this gives epsilon around 10^-12, the scale required by current direct-detection limits, with all fundamental couplings staying order one. The same heavy gauge bosons that produce the tiny charge—the clockwork Z' tower—set the relic abundance through resonant annihilation near m_chi ~ m_Z'/2, selecting dark-matter masses around 0.5–1 TeV for f near a few TeV. If correct, the scenario removes the traditional naturalness objection to CHAMP dark matter and makes it testable at dilepton colliders, next-generation direct detection, and MeV gamma-ray telescopes.

Core claim

At the technical core is the gauged clockwork: N+1 copies of U(1) with nearest-neighbour link scalars charged (1,-q) break the symmetry to a single massless U(1) whose zero mode has an exponentially falling overlap with the site where dark matter lives. The SM fields are assigned to site 0, so their hypercharge couplings are standard; a vector-like Dirac fermion chi assigned to site N has a photon coupling g_chi,gamma = Y_chi q^-N e, yielding a millicharge with no small input parameters. The paper then shows that the heavy clockwork states—N Z' bosons with masses set by g f—determine the dark-matter relic density through s-channel annihilation into SM fermions, with the correct abundance rea

What carries the argument

The central object is the clockwork mass matrix for the U(1)^(N+1) gauge fields, with off-diagonal entries -q, leading to one massless eigenvector localized at site 0 and N massive eigenstates with spacing set by g f. This single matrix simultaneously produces the exponential millicharge q^-N, the alternating-sign Z' couplings to SM fermions, and the tower of resonances that control freeze-out. The identity carrying the argument is the relation between the clockwork gauge coupling g_x, the hopping charge q, and the SM hypercharge coupling, g_Y = g_x sqrt((q^2-1)/(q^2 - q^-2N)), which pins g_x near the SM hypercharge coupling and leaves q^N as the free parameter determining the dark-matter ch

Load-bearing premise

The direct-detection viability rests on a leading-order collective cancellation among the heavy Z' contributions to DM-nucleus scattering; the neglected O(v^2/f^2) corrections to those couplings could shift individual terms by about a percent, which would be enough to break the cancellation and exclude the model.

What would settle it

For the benchmark (q=3, N=25, f=3 TeV, Y_chi=0.2), compute the O(v^2/f^2) corrections to the Z'_k couplings to chi and to quarks and re-evaluate the summed spin-independent cross section. If the summed Z' amplitude moves above the photon contribution (epsilon ≈ 10^-12), the benchmark contradicts LZ-2025; if the cancellation persists, the model survives direct detection and the remaining tests are collider and gamma-ray searches.

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

If this is right

  • The model yields a millicharge epsilon = Y_chi q^-N e with O(1) parameters, so CHAMP dark matter can satisfy the direct-detection bound without tuned couplings.
  • The same Z' tower can set the observed relic abundance through resonant annihilation at m_chi ~ m_Z'/2, fixing the CHAMP mass near the TeV scale for f around 2–3 TeV.
  • Collider bounds force f ≳ 1–2 TeV; the predicted Z' dilepton rates are near current CMS limits, so the heavy states are discoverable or exclusion-tightening at the HL-LHC and future colliders.
  • Direct detection remains dominated by photon exchange because the Z' amplitudes cancel collectively, and increasing N or q can further suppress the photon term without making the theory unnatural.
  • Annihilations to SM fermions through the Z' resonances should produce gamma-ray signals accessible to upcoming MeV telescopes, though the paper does not compute the flux in detail.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The leading-order cancellation that keeps direct detection safe is the fragile part: the paper drops O(v^2/f^2) corrections to the Z' couplings, and since v^2/f^2 ~ 10^-2 for f ~ 3 TeV, a one-percent relative shift in individual couplings could move the summed amplitude above the photon contribution and into LZ-excluded territory. A next-order calculation would settle this.
  • The clockwork localisation is a generic small-coupling generator: any field placed at site N acquires q^-N-suppressed couplings to anything at site 0, so the same mechanism could be used to hide other feebly interacting particles, not just a millicharged dark matter candidate.
  • Because the relic abundance is set by hitting one resonance at a time, the model predicts that the dark-matter mass should sit very close to half of one of the Z' masses; future precision measurements of the Z' spectrum could test this correlation directly.

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. The paper constructs a clockwork extension of the SM hypercharge group, U(1)_Y -> U(1)^{N+1}, with the SM fields localized at site 0 and a vectorlike Dirac fermion chi at site N. The unbroken clockwork zero mode is identified with SM hypercharge, fixing the universal clockwork gauge coupling via g_x O_00 = g_Y, while chi acquires an exponentially suppressed electric charge eps = Y_chi q^{-N} (Eq. 2.26). The heavy Z' tower mediates DM annihilation, and the authors show that the observed relic abundance can be obtained near the resonances m_chi ~ m_k/2. They confront the model with theoretical stability bounds, EW precision observables (T, Gamma_Z, A_e), LHC dilepton searches, and LZ-2025 direct detection limits, and they identify a benchmark (q=3, N=25, f=3 TeV, Y_chi=0.2) with m_chi ~ 1-2 TeV, plus signatures at future colliders and MeV gamma-ray telescopes.

Significance. If the construction holds, the paper is significant: it offers a parameter-natural realization of a TeV-scale CHAMP dark matter candidate, with the tiny millicharge emerging from the clockwork localization rather than from a small input coupling. The analytical treatment of the clockwork spectrum (Eqs. 2.5-2.8), the mapping of the Z mass and coupling shifts onto EW observables (Eqs. 2.22, 2.28, 3.13-3.20), and the use of MadDM for the relic computation are concrete strengths. The model makes falsifiable predictions: a tower of TeV-scale Z' bosons, a photon-mediated direct-detection signal suppressed by q^{-N}, and annihilation signals potentially visible in future MeV telescopes. However, the direct-detection viability presently rests on a leading-order collective cancellation among the Z' contributions that is not shown to survive subleading corrections.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2.2 and end of §2.2] The direct-detection amplitude is dominated by a leading-order cancellation among the heavy Z' contributions: Eq. (3.24) gives individual P_k ~ 0.1-1 pb but a summed contribution ~10^{-9} pb (Fig. 3). This cancellation is computed with Z'_k ~ B_k and m_k^2 = g_x^2 f^2 lambda_k, while Eq. (2.28) and the text explicitly neglect O(v^2/f^2) corrections to the Z' couplings. For f = 3 TeV, v^2/f^2 ~ 6.7e-3; a relative shift of order 1% in the individual P_k (well within the neglected corrections) changes the summed amplitude to ~10^{-2} pb, many orders of magnitude above the LZ-2025 bound. No symmetry is given that protects the alternating-sign cancellation in Eq. (3.24). Please provide the next-order computation or a protective argument; as it stands, the benchmark's direct-detection viability is not established.
  2. [Footnote 5, §2.1] The assertion that loop-induced kinetic mixing between adjacent U(1)s is absent is insufficiently justified. A link scalar charged under U(1)_j x U(1)_{j+1} will generically give an off-diagonal wave-function renormalization at one loop. Even if this is small (epsilon ~ g_x^2/16pi^2 ~ 10^{-3}), it changes the Z' couplings at the same order as the O(v^2/f^2) corrections neglected in §2.2 and therefore feeds into the cancellation of §3.2.2. Please quantify epsilon and its effect on the zero-mode/DM coupling, or provide a reference establishing the claimed absence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction vs §3.2.2] The Introduction quotes Q_DM <~ 10^{-10} e for m_DM <~ 10^5 GeV [18-20], while §3.2.2 derives ϵ ~ 10^{-12} from LZ-2025 for O(1) TeV DM. These differ by two orders of magnitude; please reconcile or clarify the provenance of each bound.
  2. [Fig. 3] The caption states (a) N=20 and (b) N=50, but the text and the benchmark use N=25. The summed value for N=25 is not displayed, making it hard to verify the claim that for N~25 the Z' sum is safely below the photon contribution.
  3. [Eq. (3.24)] The normalization of P_k appears to have a typo: as written it contains N/q and lacks the 2/(N+1) factor expected from the overlaps O_{0k}O_{Nk}. Please check against Eqs. (2.8) and (2.24) and correct.
  4. [Eq. (4.2)] The NWA formula has unusual dimensions: the prefactor 1/(96 m_chi^4 T K_2^2) multiplied by m_k sqrt(...) K_1 gives 1/mass^3 rather than a cross section. Please verify the expression and its normalization.
  5. [§5] In the Summary, the stability condition is written as 'N η < λξ', but Eq. (3.1) and (3.2) give N η^2 < 4 λ ξ. Please correct the typo.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the millicharge and relic density are derived from the clockwork structure and computed for fixed benchmarks, with no load-bearing self-citation or fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central result is self-contained rather than circular. The DM electric charge is not inserted as an input: it is derived by diagonalizing the clockwork gauge mass matrix, whose zero-mode overlap is O_j0 = N0 q^{-j}, leading to the relative suppression q^{-N} between the N-th site and the 0-th site and hence Eq. (2.26), g^{chi,1} = Y_chi q^{-N} e. This is a genuine algebraic consequence of the clockwork structure, not an assumption about epsilon. The relic abundance is obtained by a numerical computation (MadDM v.3.2) for explicit benchmark points, with m_chi scanned across the Z' resonances; the condition m_chi ~ m_Z'/2 is an output of the scan, not a fitted input. Direct-detection constraints are imposed from an external experiment (LZ-2025), and then q,N are chosen to satisfy them; the alternating-sign cancellation among Z' contributions in Eq. (3.24) is a computed property of the clockwork mixing matrix, not a separately assumed parameter. The references used for the clockwork framework ([25-28]), the gauged clockwork setup ([29]), and the experimental limits ([45,46]) are external to the present authors; there is no load-bearing self-citation. The reader's identified concern about O(v^2/f^2) corrections to the Z' couplings is a legitimate robustness/accuracy issue for the direct-detection cancellation, but it is not a circularity: the paper explicitly states the approximation and does not define its prediction in terms of its input. Therefore the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 2 invented entities

The ledger shows the model's input structure: 7 free parameters (q, N, f, Y_chi, m_chi, xi, eta) against which the paper checks EW, collider, and direct-detection constraints. The core exponential hierarchy is not a free parameter - it is built from q^N - which is the paper's main selling point. The fragile entries are the two loop-level assumptions (no kinetic mixing; Z'-cancellation survives subleading corrections) and the universal-coupling simplification; the paper argues the first in a footnote, does not address the second, and defers the third to an RG sketch. These, more than the benchmark choices, are what the naturalness claim actually rests on.

free parameters (7)
  • q (clockwork hopping charge) = 3.0 (benchmark); 4.0 in Section 4.2.2
    Ratio of adjacent U(1) charges, nominally >1; chosen together with N so that q^{-N} respects the direct-detection bound eps <~ 1e-12 (for q=3, N >~ 24).
  • N (number of clockwork links) = 25 (benchmark); 20 in Section 4.2.2
    Number of U(1) sites beyond site 0; sets the suppression exponent. Chosen to satisfy the measured DM charge bound; larger N makes the model less testable.
  • f (clockwork SSB scale) = 3 TeV (benchmark); ~1 TeV in Section 4.2.2
    Sets the Z' masses via m_k ~ g_x f sqrt(lambda_k). Lower bound f >~ 1-2 TeV from LHC dilepton searches; drives the DM mass scale.
  • Y_chi (DM charge under U(1)_N) = 0.2 (benchmark); 'O(1)' in Section 4.2.2
    O(1) by construction, set to 0.2 in the relic benchmark; larger values increase both annihilation and photon coupling, capped by perturbativity and direct detection.
  • m_chi (DM mass) = ~1.1-2.3 TeV (benchmark); 1.5 TeV in Section 4.2.2
    Chosen near m_k/2 to hit Z' resonances and match the measured relic density; the relic constraint converts into a mass tied to f.
  • xi (CW scalar quartic) = ~0.7 (illustrative O(1))
    Controls heavy-scalar masses and RG running; constrained by perturbativity and vacuum stability; taken O(1).
  • eta (Higgs-CW portal coupling) = <~ 0.1
    Bounded by the Higgs-mixing constraint |sin zeta| <~ 0.1 (Eq. 3.7) for f ~ 1 TeV and by the stability condition Eq. (3.2).
axioms (7)
  • standard math Clockwork spectrum and zero-mode localization of ref. [28] (mass matrix Eq. 2.5, eigenstates Eqs. 2.6-2.8)
    The paper reuses the Giudice-McCullough clockwork diagonalization; relied on in Sections 2.1-2.2 for the q^{-N} suppression and the Z' masses.
  • domain assumption Two-step symmetry breaking with v << f (SU(2)_L x U(1)^{N+1} -> SU(2)_L x U(1)_CW -> U(1)_EM)
    Required for the perturbative O(v^2/f^2) treatment of Z mass/couplings (Eqs. 2.19-2.28); benchmarks use v^2/f^2 ~ 0.007-0.06.
  • ad hoc to paper Universal gauge coupling g_x across all sites, fixed by g_Y = g_x O_00 (Eq. 3.10)
    Explicit simplification (footnote 6); RG evolution makes U(1)_0 and U(1)_N couplings differ, argued to be minimal for Lambda <~ 1e3 TeV. If violated substantially, the q^{-N} hierarchy and Z' couplings change quantitatively.
  • ad hoc to paper No significant loop-induced kinetic mixing among the U(1) factors (footnote 5)
    A Holdom-type mixing of order g^2/16pi^2 ~ 1e-3 between X_N and the hypercharge direction would swamp the q^{-N} ~ 1e-12 charge suppression; the footnote's one-loop argument mentions only the four-point vertex and is asserted, not demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper The leading-order collective cancellation among Z' contributions to direct detection is not spoiled by O(v^2/f^2) corrections to the Z' couplings
    Load-bearing premise, flagged as the weakest assumption: individual Z' amplitudes are O(0.1-1) pb and cancel to 8.7e-9 pb at N=25 (Fig. 3) at leading order; corrections of order v^2/f^2 ~ 1e-2 are neglected (end of Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption DM stability: chi is the lightest state carrying the relevant U(1)_N charge; vector-like chi avoids gauge anomalies
    The paper states in Section 5 that a single vector-like Dirac fermion 'trivially renders it stable'; needed for the CHAMP to be the dark matter.
  • domain assumption Perturbativity and vacuum stability up to a cutoff Lambda >~ 1e3 TeV (one-loop RG, Eq. 3.8)
    Underlies the 'no unnaturally small parameters' claim; the RG analysis is one-loop and assumes boundary conditions with identical g_x at Lambda.
invented entities (2)
  • Clockwork gauge sector: N+1 U(1) gauge fields X_j and N link scalars Phi_j independent evidence
    purpose: Generate the exponential q^{-N} overlap suppression that yields the DM millicharge and provide the Z' tower that sets the relic density
    Falsifiable handle: a tower of Z'_k with specific masses m_k = g_x f sqrt(1+q^2-2q cos(k pi/(N+1))) and characteristic dilepton rates R_k (Figs. 4-5), testable at HL-LHC and future colliders; the multi-peak pattern distinguishes it from single-Z' models.
  • chi: Dirac fermion CHAMP DM charged under U(1)_N independent evidence
    purpose: The dark-matter candidate carrying the effective millicharge eps = Y_chi q^{-N} e ~ 1e-12 e
    Falsifiable handle: mass tied to the Z' masses (m_chi ~ m_k/2, Fig. 6); spin-independent scattering near the LZ-2025 bound; annihilation to SM fermions giving gamma-ray signals for planned MeV telescopes. Note the benchmarks are deliberately placed near current detection edges ('such that the CHAMP is potentially sensitive to the forthcoming DM direct detection experiments', Section 4.1).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25079 in / 39935 out tokens · 383924 ms · 2026-08-03T03:53:28.455766+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

While Dark Matter (DM) is conventionally assumed to be chargeless, the possibility of a charged massive particle (CHAMP) as the DM particle remains alive. With phenomenological constraints on the charge being very severe, such a scenario is often sought to be dismissed, citing naturalness. Moreover, the establishment of the correct relic density is often a concern. We demonstrate here that such a (mini)charged DM can yet be realized within the clockwork paradigm, without the need to invoke unnaturally small parameters. The model is examined against constraints, theoretical and experimental, and the phenomenologically admissible parameter space is delineated. Several intriguing tests, at the LHC as well as at future direct and indirect detection experiments, are pointed out.

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

49 extracted references · 38 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    De Simone, G.F

    A. De Simone, G.F. Giudice and A. Strumia,Benchmarks for Dark Matter Searches at the LHC,JHEP06(2014) 081 [1402.6287]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Arcadi, Y

    G. Arcadi, Y. Mambrini and F. Richard,Z-portal dark matter,JCAP03(2015) 018 [1411.2985]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Chanda, S

    P. Chanda, S. Hamdan and J. Unwin,RevivingZand Higgs Mediated Dark Matter Models in Matter Dominated Freeze-out,JCAP01(2020) 034 [1911.02616]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Escudero, A

    M. Escudero, A. Berlin, D. Hooper and M.-X. Lin,Toward (Finally!) Ruling Out Z and Higgs Mediated Dark Matter Models,JCAP12(2016) 029 [1609.09079]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    De Rujula, S.L

    A. De Rujula, S.L. Glashow and U. Sarid,CHARGED DARK MATTER,Nucl. Phys. B333 (1990) 173

    1990

  6. [6]

    Dobroliubov and A.Y

    M.I. Dobroliubov and A.Y. Ignatiev,MILLICHARGED PARTICLES,Phys. Rev. Lett.65 (1990) 679

    1990

  7. [7]

    Dimopoulos, D

    S. Dimopoulos, D. Eichler, R. Esmailzadeh and G.D. Starkman,Getting a Charge Out of Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D41(1990) 2388

    1990

  8. [8]

    Magill, R

    G. Magill, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov and Y.-D. Tsai,Millicharged particles in neutrino experiments,Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) 071801

    2019

  9. [9]

    Haas, C.S

    A. Haas, C.S. Hill, E. Izaguirre and I. Yavin,Looking for milli-charged particles with a new experiment at the LHC,Phys. Lett. B746(2015) 117 [1410.6816]. [10]MiniBooNEcollaboration,Significant Excess of ElectronLike Events in the MiniBooNE Short-Baseline Neutrino Experiment,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 221801 [1805.12028]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [11]

    Kelly and Y.-D

    K.J. Kelly and Y.-D. Tsai,Proton fixed-target scintillation experiment to search for millicharged dark matter,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 015043 [1812.03998]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [12]

    Davidson, S

    S. Davidson, S. Hannestad and G. Raffelt,Updated bounds on millicharged particles,JHEP 05(2000) 003 [hep-ph/0001179]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  12. [13]

    Badertscher, P

    A. Badertscher, P. Crivelli, W. Fetscher, U. Gendotti, S.N. Gninenko, V. Postoev et al., Improved limit on invisible decays of positronium,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 032004

    2007

  13. [14]

    Prinz, R

    A.A. Prinz, R. Baggs, J. Ballam, S. Ecklund, C. Fertig, J.A. Jaros et al.,Search for millicharged particles at slac,Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998) 1175

    1998

  14. [15]

    Raffelt,Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles(5, 1996)

    G.G. Raffelt,Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles(5, 1996). [16]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  15. [17]

    Chuzhoy and E.W

    L. Chuzhoy and E.W. Kolb,Reopening the window on charged dark matter,JCAP07(2009) 014 [0809.0436]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  16. [18]

    Dunsky, L.J

    D. Dunsky, L.J. Hall and K. Harigaya,CHAMP Cosmic Rays,JCAP07(2019) 015 [1812.11116]. [19]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [20]

    McDermott, H.-B

    S.D. McDermott, H.-B. Yu and K.M. Zurek,Turning off the Lights: How Dark is Dark Matter?,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 063509 [1011.2907]. – 30 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  18. [21]

    Gherghetta, J

    T. Gherghetta, J. Kersten, K. Olive and M. Pospelov,Evaluating the price of tiny kinetic mixing,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 095001 [1909.00696]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [22]

    Abel and B.W

    S.A. Abel and B.W. Schofield,Brane anti-brane kinetic mixing, millicharged particles and SUSY breaking,Nucl. Phys. B685(2004) 150 [hep-th/0311051]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  20. [23]

    Abel, M.D

    S.A. Abel, M.D. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, V.V. Khoze and A. Ringwald,Kinetic Mixing of the Photon with Hidden U(1)s in String Phenomenology,JHEP07(2008) 124 [0803.1449]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [24]

    Goodsell, J

    M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald,Naturally Light Hidden Photons in LARGE Volume String Compactifications,JHEP11(2009) 027 [0909.0515]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  22. [25]

    K. Choi, H. Kim and S. Yun,Natural inflation with multiple sub-Planckian axions,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 023545 [1404.6209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [26]

    Kaplan and R

    D.E. Kaplan and R. Rattazzi,Large field excursions and approximate discrete symmetries from a clockwork axion,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 085007 [1511.01827]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [27]

    Choi and S.H

    K. Choi and S.H. Im,Realizing the relaxion from multiple axions and its UV completion with high scale supersymmetry,JHEP01(2016) 149 [1511.00132]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [28]

    Giudice and M

    G.F. Giudice and M. McCullough,A Clockwork Theory,JHEP02(2017) 036 [1610.07962]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [29]

    Lee,GaugedU(1)clockwork theory,Phys

    H.M. Lee,GaugedU(1)clockwork theory,Phys. Lett. B778(2018) 79 [1708.03564]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [30]

    Cirelli and A

    M. Cirelli and A. Kar,Prospects of future MeV telescopes in probingweak-scale dark matter, SciPost Phys.19(2025) 080 [2503.04907]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [31]

    Georgi,A Tool Kit for Builders of Composite Models,Nucl

    H. Georgi,A Tool Kit for Builders of Composite Models,Nucl. Phys. B266(1986) 274

    1986

  29. [32]

    Nelson,CONSTRAINTS ON MOOSE MODEL BUILDING,Phys

    A.E. Nelson,CONSTRAINTS ON MOOSE MODEL BUILDING,Phys. Lett. B167(1986) 200

    1986

  30. [33]

    Rothstein and W

    I. Rothstein and W. Skiba,Mother Moose: generating extra dimensions from simple groups at large N,Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 065002 [hep-th/0109175]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  31. [34]

    Arkani-Hamed, A.G

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A.G. Cohen, E. Katz, A.E. Nelson, T. Gregoire and J.G. Wacker,The Minimal moose for a little Higgs,JHEP08(2002) 021 [hep-ph/0206020]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  32. [35]

    Gregoire and J.G

    T. Gregoire and J.G. Wacker,Mooses, topology and Higgs,JHEP08(2002) 019 [hep-ph/0206023]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  33. [36]

    Robens and T

    T. Robens and T. Stefaniak,LHC Benchmark Scenarios for the Real Higgs Singlet Extension of the Standard Model,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 268 [1601.07880]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [37]

    Appelquist, B.A

    T. Appelquist, B.A. Dobrescu and A.R. Hopper,Nonexotic Neutral Gauge Bosons,Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 035012 [hep-ph/0212073]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  35. [38]

    Pruna and T

    G.M. Pruna and T. Robens,Higgs singlet extension parameter space in the light of the LHC discovery,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 115012 [1303.1150]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [39]

    Robens and T

    T. Robens and T. Stefaniak,Status of the Higgs Singlet Extension of the Standard Model after LHC Run 1,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 104 [1501.02234]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [40]

    Bojarski, G

    F. Bojarski, G. Chalons, D. Lopez-Val and T. Robens,Heavy to light Higgs boson decays at NLO in the Singlet Extension of the Standard Model,JHEP02(2016) 147 [1511.08120]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [41]

    Robens and R

    T. Robens and R. Santos,BSM: Extended Scalar Sectors, 7, 2025 [2507.21910]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [42]

    Feuerstake, E

    F. Feuerstake, E. Fuchs, T. Robens and D. Winterbottom,Interference effects in resonant – 31 – di-Higgs production at the LHC in the Higgs singlet extension,JHEP04(2025) 094 [2409.06651]. [43]ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak Working Groupcollaboration,A Combination of preliminary electroweak measurements and constraints on the standard model,hep-e...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [44]

    E. Iles, S. Heeba and K. Schutz,Dark Matter Direct Detection Experiments Are Sensitive to the Millicharged Background,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 121002 [2407.21096]. [45]LZcollaboration,Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 011802 [2410.17036]. [46]CMScollaboration,Search for...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [47]

    Hamberg, W.L

    R. Hamberg, W.L. van Neerven and T. Matsuura,A complete calculation of the orderα2 s correction to the Drell-YanKfactor,Nucl. Phys. B359(1991) 343. [48]ATLAScollaboration,Search for new high-mass phenomena in the dilepton final state using 36 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at√s= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector,JHEP10 (2017) 182 [1707.02424]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1991

  42. [49]

    Backovic, K

    M. Backovic, K. Kong and M. McCaskey,MadDM v.1.0: Computation of Dark Matter Relic Abundance Using MadGraph5,Physics of the Dark Universe5-6(2014) 18 [1308.4955]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [50]

    Backović, A

    M. Backović, A. Martini, O. Mattelaer, K. Kong and G. Mohlabeng,Direct Detection of Dark Matter with MadDM v.2.0,Phys. Dark Univ.9-10(2015) 37 [1505.04190]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [51]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini,Cosmic abundances of stable particles: Improved analysis, Nuclear Physics B360(1991) 145

    1991

  45. [52]

    Antoniadis, A

    I. Antoniadis, A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos and A. Giveon,Phenomenology of TeV Little String Theory from Holography,Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 081602 [1102.4043]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [53]

    Cox and T

    P. Cox and T. Gherghetta,Radion Dynamics and Phenomenology in the Linear Dilaton Model,JHEP05(2012) 149 [1203.5870]. [54]AMEGOcollaboration,All-sky Medium Energy Gamma-ray Observatory: Exploring the Extreme Multimessenger Universe,1907.07558

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  47. [55]

    Kierans,AMEGO: exploring the extreme multimessenger universe, inSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, J.-W.A

    C.A. Kierans,AMEGO: exploring the extreme multimessenger universe, inSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, J.-W.A. den Herder, S. Nikzad and K. Nakazawa, eds., vol. 11444 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, p. 1144431, Jan., 2021, DOI [2101.03105]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [56]

    Caputo et al.,All-sky Medium Energy Gamma-ray Observatory eXplorer mission concept, J

    R. Caputo et al.,All-sky Medium Energy Gamma-ray Observatory eXplorer mission concept, J. Astron. Telesc. Instrum. Syst.8(2022) 044003 [2208.04990]. [57]e-ASTROGAMcollaboration,The e-ASTROGAM mission,Exper. Astron.44(2017) 25 [1611.02232]. [58]e-ASTROGAMcollaboration,Science with e-ASTROGAM: A space mission for MeV–GeV gamma-ray astrophysics,JHEAp19(2018)...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [59]

    Dzhatdoev and E

    T. Dzhatdoev and E. Podlesnyi,Massive Argon Space Telescope (MAST): A concept of heavy time projection chamber forγ-ray astronomy in the 100 MeV–1 TeV energy range,Astropart. Phys.112(2019) 1 [1902.01491]. – 32 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019