Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Cosmological observations already rule out most sub-GeV dark matter with magnetic dipole couplings to a dark photon, leaving only masses below about 6 MeV.

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 03:45 UTC pith:HNCQYSLQ

load-bearing objection Useful constraint mapping for dark-dipole DM, but the abstract overstates the finality of the cosmological exclusion; the paper's own caveat about additional annihilation channels applies. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.06861 v2 pith:HNCQYSLQ submitted 2026-02-06 hep-ph

Direct Detection and Cosmological Constraints of Dark Matter with Dark Dipoles

Takumi Kuwahara , Jun-Chen Wang , Shu-Run Yuan This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords dark matterdark photondark dipole momentsub-GeV dark matterdirect detectionMigdal effectsemiconductor detectorscosmological constraints
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 examines fermionic dark matter that carries no ordinary electric charge but interacts with ordinary matter only through electric or magnetic dipole couplings to a massive dark photon, a hidden-force particle that mixes with the photon. It asks how much of this 'dark dipole' parameter space is still alive after combining thermal relic abundance, CMB and BBN energy-injection bounds, cosmic-ray limits, and direct searches (nuclear recoils with the Migdal effect, dark-matter-electron scattering, and semiconductor targets). The main result is that in the thermal freeze-out scenario with the dark photon heavier than the dark matter, the magnetic-dipole regime is almost closed: only dark matter lighter than roughly 6 MeV survives. Electric-dipole dark matter remains open over a wide sub-GeV range because its annihilation is p-wave and velocity-suppressed, and it is here that direct detection—especially the Migdal effect and electron-recoil searches—bites hardest. The paper concludes that future low-threshold semiconductor detectors are the key probe for the surviving sub-10 MeV electric-dipole window.

Core claim

The central claim is that a fermionic dark matter particle neutral under a hidden U(1)_D and coupled to the standard model only through dark electric and magnetic dipole operators is already severely constrained by existing data. For the benchmark m_A' = 3 m_chi with thermal freeze-out, the combination of relic abundance, CMB, BBN, and cosmic-ray bounds closes the magnetic-dipole parameter space except for m_chi <~ 6e-3 GeV, because magnetic-dipole annihilation is s-wave and injects energy at late times. Direct detection provides the complementary handle: electric-dipole scattering grows as q^2 and is strongly bounded by Migdal-effect nuclear recoils near a few GeV, while magnetic-dipole sca

What carries the argument

The machinery is the pair of dipole operators coupling a U(1)_D-neutral fermion to the dark photon—electric d_chi chi sigma^{mu nu} gamma^5 chi F'_mu nu and magnetic mu_chi chi sigma^{mu nu} chi F'_mu nu—combined with kinetic mixing epsilon between dark photon and hypercharge. These operators do double duty: they set the annihilation cross section that fixes the relic abundance and late-time energy injection, and they set the scattering cross sections seen in detectors. The decisive difference is that magnetic-dipole annihilation is s-wave (no velocity suppression, strong CMB/BBN/cosmic-ray bounds) while electric-dipole annihilation is p-wave (velocity suppressed, weaker cosmological bounds)

Load-bearing premise

The closure of the magnetic-dipole region assumes the two dipole operators are the only annihilation channels; the paper states that additional annihilation channels would easily relax the cosmological bounds.

What would settle it

A targeted calculation settles it: for m_chi = 10 MeV and m_A' = 3 m_chi, fix the magnetic dipole moment to reproduce Omega_chi h^2 = 0.12 and evaluate the CMB and BBN energy-injection bounds. The paper predicts this point is excluded; if a recalculation found it allowed, the central closure claim would fail. Observationally, an s-wave annihilation signal from dark matter heavier than 6 MeV would contradict the paper's conclusion.

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

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, thermal magnetic-dipole sub-GeV dark matter heavier than about 6 MeV is essentially excluded; future searches should not expect a signal in that channel unless new annihilation channels exist.
  • For electric-dipole dark matter, current Migdal-effect and electron-recoil data already exclude the largest viable couplings above a few GeV; the remaining open region sits at lower masses and smaller couplings.
  • Semiconductor detectors with eV band gaps are the decisive next probes below 10 MeV; skipper-CCD experiments can extend the reach projected in this paper.
  • In asymmetric dark matter scenarios where the dark photon is the lightest dark-sector state, relic abundance, CMB, BBN, and cosmic-ray bounds weaken or disappear, and direct-detection constraints become the primary guide.
  • For dipole moments scaled like the nuclear magneton, the kinetic-mixing parameter epsilon is more strongly bounded by colliders, fixed-target searches, and N_eff than by direct detection for m_A' above about 1 MeV, but a substantial sub-GeV window remains.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct corollary the paper leaves implicit: if magnetic-dipole thermal dark matter is truly closed, a future positive detection in the magnetic channel would point to non-thermal production or additional dark-sector states rather than this minimal model.
  • The paper's own caveat that extra annihilation channels relax the cosmological bounds means the 'almost closed' statement is a statement about the minimal dipole-only model; adding a light scalar or a second mediator could reopen the excluded region, a testable modification.
  • Because the magnetic dipole has a q^4 scattering spectrum, comparing event shape in low-threshold detectors with the q^2 electric-dipole prediction would give a model-discriminating observable; the paper does not develop this shape analysis.
  • One could extend the calculation to phonon and quasi-particle excitations in cryogenic semiconductor detectors, which the paper mentions as future work; such channels would probe the same dipole operators at even lower thresholds and lower masses.

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 studies a fermionic dark matter (DM) candidate that is neutral under a hidden U(1)_D and couples to the Standard Model only through electric and magnetic dipole operators involving a massive dark photon. The authors compute thermal relic abundances, late-time cosmological and astrophysical constraints (CMB, BBN, cosmic rays, N_eff), and direct-detection rates from nuclear-recoil/Migdal, DM-electron scattering, and semiconductor targets. They present results for two benchmark mass hierarchies: m_A' = 3 m_χ with thermal freeze-out, and m_A' = 0.1 m_χ with an asymmetric DM interpretation. The main conclusion is that cosmological observations already close most of the magnetic-dipole parameter space for sub-GeV DM, while direct detection, especially the DarkSide-50 Migdal bound, strongly constrains the electric-dipole case, and future low-threshold semiconductor detectors can extend sensitivity below 10 MeV.

Significance. If the cross sections and bounds are correct, the paper gives a fairly comprehensive phenomenology of dipole-portal sub-GeV DM and identifies semiconductor experiments as the key future probe. It provides a detailed non-relativistic derivation in Appendix B, uses public codes (wimprates, QEDark) and publicly reported experimental limits, and makes concrete, falsifiable predictions about which parts of the dipole parameter space remain open. The central result, however, is conditional: the 'cosmology already constrains most of the parameter space' claim relies on a minimal dark sector with only the two dipole annihilation channels, and it also depends on several equations that appear to contain typos or dimensional errors. Until those are corrected and the numerics rechecked, the quantitative conclusions should be treated as provisional.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Eqs. (8)–(9)] The denominator in Eqs. (8) and (9) is written as (1 - m_A'^2/(4 m_f^2))^{-2}, whereas Eq. (6) has the propagator factor (1 - m_A'^2/(4 m_χ^2))^{-2} (with r_A' = m_A'^2/m_χ^2). For f = e and m_A' = 3 m_χ, the printed form gives a suppression factor ~ (4 m_e^2/m_A'^2)^2, which is many orders of magnitude for sub-GeV DM, severely changing the s-wave/p-wave coefficients that enter the relic abundance and CMB/BBN/cosmic-ray bounds. Please correct m_f^2 to m_χ^2 in the denominator and verify that the numerical results in Fig. 1 were obtained with the correct expression.
  2. [§3, Eqs. (10) and (14); Appendix B] The EDM scattering formulas appear internally inconsistent. Eq. (10) has a different mass prefactor structure from Eq. (11) and, as written, does not have the correct mass dimension of a cross section (the extra m_f^{-2} in the second factor is not canceled). More importantly, the EDM term in Eq. (14) (and Eq. (72)) scales as d_χ^2 q_T^2 / m_N^2 after factoring out the common (q^2/(q^2+m_A'^2))^2, while the amplitude in Eq. (66) and the squared amplitude in Eq. (69) imply a scaling d_χ^2 m_N^2 / q_T^2. For typical nuclear recoil momenta q_T << m_N, the two differ by q_T^4/m_N^4, i.e., by many orders of magnitude. This directly affects the EDM direct-detection constraints, including the quoted DarkSide-50 Migdal bound d_χ ≲ 3.5×10^{-18} e cm at m_χ ≃ 5 GeV. The prefactor needs to be corrected and the figures rerun.
  3. [Abstract; §4.1; §5] The abstract's statement that 'cosmological observations have already constrained most of the parameter space' is presented without qualification, but Sec. 4.1 explicitly concedes that the cosmological and astrophysical constraints 'can be easily relaxed if there are additional annihilation channels for DM particles.' The composite dark-sector framework used to motivate the dipole (Refs. [22–30]) generically contains additional dark states and annihilation channels, which could weaken or remove the near-closure of the magnetic-dipole region. The claim should be restricted to the minimal two-field dark sector in the abstract and conclusions, or accompanied by an estimate of how extra channels change the bounds.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says 'electric dipole d_χ (top) and magnetic dipole μ_χ (bottom)', but the axes and the main text (Sec. 4.1) identify the top-left panel as the magnetic dipole and the bottom-left as the electric dipole. Please correct the caption.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos and duplicated phrases, e.g., 'for for light mediator' near Eq. (20), the accented 'Land´e' in Section 3, and the duplicated sentence 'Now, we turn to the cases with m_A' = 0.1 m_χ' in Section 4.1. These should be cleaned up.
  3. [Eq. (13)] Eq. (13) writes dσ/dE_R on the left and dσ_0/dE_R on the right; the distinction between the full and the nuclear-only differential cross section should be made explicit in the notation to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction; all constraints compare model rates to independent external data, with the relic abundance imposed as a standard input condition.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce any output to its own input. The dipole couplings are constrained by imposing the observed relic abundance (Omega_chi h^2=0.12) and by comparing the predicted scattering and annihilation rates to external experimental and cosmological measurements: DarkSide-50 Migdal/nuclear-recoil limits, XENON10/XENONnT electron-scattering data, SENSEI and DAMIC-M semiconductor bounds, and CMB/BBN/cosmic-ray constraints. These are independent observables, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The central 'almost closed' magnetic-dipole region in Sec. 4.1 follows from the combination of the s-wave relic-abundance requirement and late-time s-wave annihilation constraints; both are standard uses of the same cross-section formula, not a self-definitional identity. The paper explicitly flags its key assumption and limitation in Sec. 4.1: 'the cosmological and astrophysical constraints can be easily relaxed if there are additional annihilation channels for DM particles.' That is an honest model-dependence caveat, not circularity. The self-citations (Refs. [28,29,55]) appear only in lists of composite/asymmetric-dark-matter examples and are not load-bearing: no quantitative result is imported from them, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked. The nuclear-response and crystal-form-factor inputs come from external sources and public codes (Refs. [80,81,85-87]). No equation in the paper is equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted quantity is later presented as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model has a small number of free couplings (mu_chi, d_chi, epsilon, mass ratio) and relies on standard but nontrivial assumptions about cosmology, halo velocity, and atomic/crystal physics. The authors are transparent about some assumptions, but the central exclusion contours depend on them.

free parameters (6)
  • magnetic dipole moment mu_chi = scanned; excluded above ~1e-5 to 1e-14 e cm depending on m_chi
    Central model parameter; the paper derives constraints on it, plotted in Fig. 1.
  • electric dipole moment d_chi = scanned; e.g. d_chi <~ 3.5e-18 e cm at m_chi ~ 5 GeV
    Central model parameter; the paper derives constraints on it, plotted in Fig. 1.
  • kinetic mixing parameter epsilon = fixed to 1e-3 for Fig. 1; constrained in Fig. 2
    Sets the overall DM-SM coupling strength; the authors note constraints scale as epsilon^-1.
  • dark photon mass ratio m_A'/m_chi = benchmarks 3 and 0.1
    Two hand-chosen mass hierarchies drive the thermal and asymmetric scenarios; direct detection strength depends on the propagator.
  • U(1)_D gauge coupling e'/e and CP phase theta' = e'=e, theta'=0 in Sec. 4.2
    When dipole moments are rescaled like a nuclear magneton, these choices set the extracted epsilon limits.
  • halo velocity parameters v0, vesc = 238 km/s, 544 km/s
    Standard Maxwell-Boltzmann halo parameters from Ref. [82] used in direct-detection rate calculations.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The dominant DM-SM interaction is exactly the two dipole operators in Eq. (2); no other annihilation or scattering channels contribute.
    Central to the closed cosmological parameter space; the paper itself notes additional channels would relax the bounds (Sec. 4.1).
  • domain assumption Dark photon kinetic mixing with hypercharge (Eq. 1) and the assumption that F'_mu_nu is CP-even.
    Defines the model and the identification of the two dipole terms as electric vs magnetic.
  • domain assumption Standard thermal freeze-out or asymmetric dark matter cosmology, with the observed Omega_chi h^2 = 0.12 used as the relic condition.
    Used in Sec. 2.1; if the relic abundance were set by other processes, the required dipole strengths would change.
  • domain assumption Maxwell-Boltzmann DM velocity distribution with v0=238 km/s and vesc=544 km/s (Eq. 16).
    Affects all direct-detection rate predictions; standard but not exact.
  • standard math The non-relativistic operator basis and nuclear response functions from Refs. [80] and [81].
    Used in Appendix B to derive the DM-nucleus cross section, Eq. (14).
  • domain assumption Hydrogen-like atomic wavefunctions with electron-electron interactions and screening neglected in the Migdal form factor.
    Stated in Appendix A; this approximation affects the Migdal event rates and derived bounds.
  • domain assumption Published CMB/BBN/cosmic-ray and Neff limits can be applied by mapping the dipole annihilation cross sections onto s-wave and p-wave channels.
    Relies on Refs. [56-60,77]; no explicit recasting calculation is shown.
invented entities (1)
  • Dark photon A' independent evidence
    purpose: Massive mediator coupling the dipole moments of dark matter to the standard-model photon via kinetic mixing.
    The dark photon is not invented by this paper; it is a standard dark-sector portal already constrained independently by BaBar, KLOE, APEX, and SN1987A (Fig. 2), though no specific mass is predicted here.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24961 in / 13513 out tokens · 125486 ms · 2026-08-03T03:45:16.764056+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study a fermionic dark matter candidate that couples to the standard model particles exclusively through electric and magnetic dipole operators mediated by a massive dark photon. Such dipole portals naturally arise in dark sectors where the dark matter is neutral under a hidden $U(1)_D$, and they lead to phenomenology distinct from conventional vector-current interactions. We consider the direct-detection signals arising from dark matter-nucleus scattering including the Migdal effect, dark matter-electron scattering, and semiconductor targets, which allow sensitivity to sub-GeV dark matter masses, together with the cosmological bounds from such as thermal relic abundance, cosmic microwave background, big-bang nucleosynthesis, and cosmic-rays. We find that the dark dipole coupling can be largely constrained by direct detection (in particular, electric dipole coupling). However, the cosmological observations have already constrained most of the parameter space, in particular for magnetic dipole interactions of $U(1)_D$ for sub-GeV dark matter. For the dark matter mass below 10 MeV, the semiconductor (in particular, using skipper-CCD) experiments can play a crucial role in probing the dark dipole interactions: future low-threshold experiments utilizing the semiconductor targets can further extend the constraints. Our results have demonstrated that the sub-GeV dark matter with dark dipole interactions can be still safe from the direct-detection constraints, and the future low-threshold semiconductor experiments may play a significant role in constraining the dark dipole interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06861 by Jun-Chen Wang, Shu-Run Yuan, Takumi Kuwahara.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Constraints on the dark dipole moments with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Constraints on the dark photon kinetic-mixing parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Dark Neutrons as Dark Matter: Collisions in Halos and Direct Detection from Dark CP Violation

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    A non-zero topological angle in a confining dark sector induces CP-violating pion-baryon couplings that naturally generate velocity-dependent dark matter self-interactions and dark electric dipole moments for direct d...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [16]

    Migdal Effect in Dark Matter Direct Detection Experiments,

    M. Ibe, W. Nakano, Y. Shoji, and K. Suzuki, “Migdal Effect in Dark Matter Direct Detection Experiments,”JHEP03(2018) 194,arXiv:1707.07258 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [17]

    Probing sub-GeV Dark Matter with conventional detectors,

    C. Kouvaris and J. Pradler, “Probing sub-GeV Dark Matter with conventional detectors,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118no. 3, (2017) 031803,arXiv:1607.01789 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [18]

    Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter,

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, “Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 076007,arXiv:1108.5383 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [19]

    First Direct Detection Limits on sub-GeV Dark Matter from XENON10,

    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, arXiv:1206.2644 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  5. [20]

    New Constraints and Prospects for sub-GeV Dark Matter Scattering off Electrons in Xenon,

    R. Essig, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, “New Constraints and Prospects for sub-GeV Dark Matter Scattering off Electrons in Xenon,”Phys. Rev. D96no. 4, (2017) 043017, arXiv:1703.00910 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [21]

    Dark-matter electric and magnetic dipole moments,

    K. Sigurdson, M. Doran, A. Kurylov, R. R. Caldwell, and M. Kamionkowski, “Dark-matter electric and magnetic dipole moments,”Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 083501, arXiv:astro-ph/0406355. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 73, 089903 (2006)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  7. [22]

    Leptogenesis as a Common Origin for Matter and Dark Matter,

    H. An, S.-L. Chen, R. N. Mohapatra, and Y. Zhang, “Leptogenesis as a Common Origin for Matter and Dark Matter,”JHEP03(2010) 124,arXiv:0911.4463 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  8. [23]

    Twin mechanism for baryon and dark matter asymmetries,

    M. Farina, A. Monteux, and C. S. Shin, “Twin mechanism for baryon and dark matter asymmetries,”Phys. Rev. D94no. 3, (2016) 035017,arXiv:1604.08211 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [24]

    Asymmetric Dark Matter and the hadronic spectra of hidden QCD,

    S. J. Lonsdale, M. Schroor, and R. R. Volkas, “Asymmetric Dark Matter and the hadronic spectra of hidden QCD,”Phys. Rev. D96no. 5, (2017) 055027,arXiv:1704.05213 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [25]

    Comprehensive asymmetric dark matter model,

    S. J. Lonsdale and R. R. Volkas, “Comprehensive asymmetric dark matter model,”Phys. Rev. D97no. 10, (2018) 103510,arXiv:1801.05561 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [26]

    Composite Asymmetric Dark Matter with a Dark Photon Portal,

    M. Ibe, A. Kamada, S. Kobayashi, and W. Nakano, “Composite Asymmetric Dark Matter with a Dark Photon Portal,”JHEP11(2018) 203,arXiv:1805.06876 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [27]

    Mirror neutrons as dark matter in the Mirror Twin Two Higgs Doublet Model,

    H. Beauchesne, “Mirror neutrons as dark matter in the Mirror Twin Two Higgs Doublet Model,”JHEP09(2020) 048,arXiv:2007.00052 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [28]

    Maximally self-interacting dark matter: models and predictions,

    A. Kamada, H. J. Kim, and T. Kuwahara, “Maximally self-interacting dark matter: models and predictions,”JHEP12(2020) 202,arXiv:2007.15522 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [29]

    LHC lifetime frontier and visible decay searches in composite asymmetric dark matter models,

    A. Kamada and T. Kuwahara, “LHC lifetime frontier and visible decay searches in composite asymmetric dark matter models,”JHEP03(2022) 176,arXiv:2112.01202 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [30]

    A closer look in the mirror: reflections on the matter/dark matter coincidence,

    A. Bodas, M. A. Buen-Abad, A. Hook, and R. Sundrum, “A closer look in the mirror: reflections on the matter/dark matter coincidence,”JHEP06(2024) 052,arXiv:2401.12286 [hep-ph]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [31]

    TECHNOCOSMOLOGY: COULD A TECHNIBARYON EXCESS PROVIDE A ’NATURAL’ MISSING MASS CANDIDATE?,

    S. Nussinov, “TECHNOCOSMOLOGY: COULD A TECHNIBARYON EXCESS PROVIDE A ’NATURAL’ MISSING MASS CANDIDATE?,”Phys. Lett.165B(1985) 55–58

    1985

  17. [32]

    Electroweak Fermion Number Violation and the Production of Stable Particles in the Early Universe,

    S. M. Barr, R. S. Chivukula, and E. Farhi, “Electroweak Fermion Number Violation and the Production of Stable Particles in the Early Universe,”Phys. Lett.B241(1990) 387–391

    1990

  18. [33]

    Baryogenesis, sphalerons and the cogeneration of dark matter,

    S. M. Barr, “Baryogenesis, sphalerons and the cogeneration of dark matter,”Phys. Rev.D44 (1991) 3062–3066

    1991

  19. [34]

    A Single explanation for both the baryon and dark matter densities,

    D. B. Kaplan, “A Single explanation for both the baryon and dark matter densities,”Phys. Rev. Lett.68(1992) 741–743

    1992

  20. [35]

    Baryogenesis, dark matter and the width of the Z,

    S. Dodelson, B. R. Greene, and L. M. Widrow, “Baryogenesis, dark matter and the width of the Z,”Nucl. Phys.B372(1992) 467–493

    1992

  21. [36]

    A Simultaneous solution to baryogenesis and dark matter problems,

    V. A. Kuzmin, “A Simultaneous solution to baryogenesis and dark matter problems,”Phys. Part. Nucl.29(1998) 257–265,arXiv:hep-ph/9701269 [hep-ph]. [Phys. Atom. Nucl.61,1107(1998)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  22. [37]

    A Solution to the coincidence puzzle of Omega(B) and Omega (DM),

    M. Fujii and T. Yanagida, “A Solution to the coincidence puzzle of Omega(B) and Omega (DM),”Phys. Lett.B542(2002) 80–88,arXiv:hep-ph/0206066 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  23. [38]

    Was ordinary matter synthesized from mirror matter? An Attempt to explain why Omega(Baryon) approximately equal to 0.2 Omega(Dark),

    R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, “Was ordinary matter synthesized from mirror matter? An Attempt to explain why Omega(Baryon) approximately equal to 0.2 Omega(Dark),”Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 021304,arXiv:hep-ph/0304261

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  24. [39]

    Explaining Omega(Baryon) approximately 0.2 Omega(Dark) through the synthesis of ordinary matter from mirror matter: A More general analysis,

    R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, “Explaining Omega(Baryon) approximately 0.2 Omega(Dark) through the synthesis of ordinary matter from mirror matter: A More general analysis,”Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 123510,arXiv:hep-ph/0402267

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  25. [40]

    Dark matter from baryon asymmetry,

    R. Kitano and I. Low, “Dark matter from baryon asymmetry,”Phys. Rev.D71(2005) 023510, arXiv:hep-ph/0411133 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  26. [41]

    Dark matter and the baryon asymmetry,

    G. R. Farrar and G. Zaharijas, “Dark matter and the baryon asymmetry,”Phys. Rev. Lett.96 (2006) 041302,arXiv:hep-ph/0510079 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  27. [42]

    Towards working technicolor: Effective theories and dark matter,

    S. B. Gudnason, C. Kouvaris, and F. Sannino, “Towards working technicolor: Effective theories and dark matter,”Phys. Rev.D73(2006) 115003,arXiv:hep-ph/0603014 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  28. [43]

    Unified origin of baryons and dark matter,

    R. Kitano, H. Murayama, and M. Ratz, “Unified origin of baryons and dark matter,”Phys. Lett.B669(2008) 145–149,arXiv:0807.4313 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [44]

    Asymmetric Dark Matter,

    D. E. Kaplan, M. A. Luty, and K. M. Zurek, “Asymmetric Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev.D79 (2009) 115016,arXiv:0901.4117 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [45]

    On Relating the Genesis of Cosmic Baryons and Dark Matter,

    H. Davoudiasl and R. N. Mohapatra, “On Relating the Genesis of Cosmic Baryons and Dark Matter,”New J. Phys.14(2012) 095011,arXiv:1203.1247 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  31. [46]

    Review of asymmetric dark matter,

    K. Petraki and R. R. Volkas, “Review of asymmetric dark matter,”Int. J. Mod. Phys.A28 (2013) 1330028,arXiv:1305.4939 [hep-ph]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [47]

    Asymmetric Dark Matter: Theories, Signatures, and Constraints,

    K. M. Zurek, “Asymmetric Dark Matter: Theories, Signatures, and Constraints,”Phys. Rept. 537(2014) 91–121,arXiv:1308.0338 [hep-ph]. [48]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navaset al., “Review of particle physics,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 3, (2024) 030001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [49]

    Darkogenesis: A baryon asymmetry from the dark matter sector,

    J. Shelton and K. M. Zurek, “Darkogenesis: A baryon asymmetry from the dark matter sector,”Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 123512,arXiv:1008.1997 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  34. [50]

    Asymmetric Dark Matter from Leptogenesis,

    A. Falkowski, J. T. Ruderman, and T. Volansky, “Asymmetric Dark Matter from Leptogenesis,”JHEP05(2011) 106,arXiv:1101.4936 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  35. [51]

    Scale of dark QCD,

    Y. Bai and P. Schwaller, “Scale of dark QCD,”Phys. Rev. D89no. 6, (2014) 063522, arXiv:1306.4676 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [52]

    Light Dark Matter from Leptogenesis,

    A. Falkowski, E. Kuflik, N. Levi, and T. Volansky, “Light Dark Matter from Leptogenesis,” Phys. Rev. D99no. 1, (2019) 015022,arXiv:1712.07652 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [53]

    Asymmetric matter from a dark first-order phase transition,

    E. Hall, T. Konstandin, R. McGehee, and H. Murayama, “Asymmetric matter from a dark first-order phase transition,”Phys. Rev. D107no. 5, (2023) 055011,arXiv:1911.12342 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [54]

    Baryogenesis From a Dark First-Order Phase Transition,

    E. Hall, T. Konstandin, R. McGehee, H. Murayama, and G. Servant, “Baryogenesis From a Dark First-Order Phase Transition,”JHEP04(2020) 042,arXiv:1910.08068 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [55]

    Composite Asymmetric Dark Matter from Primordial Black Holes,

    T. Kuwahara and Y. Uchida, “Composite Asymmetric Dark Matter from Primordial Black Holes,”arXiv:2511.16354 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  40. [56]

    Constraints on Light Dark Matter from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,

    B. Henning and H. Murayama, “Constraints on Light Dark Matter from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,”arXiv:1205.6479 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [57]

    Constraining Dark Matter Late-Time Energy Injection: Decays and P-Wave Annihilations,

    R. Diamanti, L. Lopez-Honorez, O. Mena, S. Palomares-Ruiz, and A. C. Vincent, “Constraining Dark Matter Late-Time Energy Injection: Decays and P-Wave Annihilations,” JCAP02(2014) 017,arXiv:1308.2578 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  42. [58]

    BBN constraints on the annihilation of MeV-scale dark matter,

    P. F. Depta, M. Hufnagel, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and S. Wild, “BBN constraints on the annihilation of MeV-scale dark matter,”JCAP04(2019) 029,arXiv:1901.06944 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [59]

    Novel cosmic-ray electron and positron constraints on MeV dark matter particles,

    M. Boudaud, J. Lavalle, and P. Salati, “Novel cosmic-ray electron and positron constraints on MeV dark matter particles,”Phys. Rev. Lett.119no. 2, (2017) 021103,arXiv:1612.07698 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [60]

    Robust cosmic-ray constraints onp-wave annihilating MeV dark matter,

    M. Boudaud, T. Lacroix, M. Stref, and J. Lavalle, “Robust cosmic-ray constraints onp-wave annihilating MeV dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D99no. 6, (2019) 061302,arXiv:1810.01680 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [61]

    A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering,

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, “A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering,”Astrophys. J.490(1997) 493–508,arXiv:astro-ph/9611107. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  46. [62]

    The Inner structure of Lambda-CDM halos 3: Universality and asymptotic slopes,

    J. F. Navarro, E. Hayashi, C. Power, A. Jenkins, C. S. Frenk, S. D. M. White, V. Springel, J. Stadel, and T. R. Quinn, “The Inner structure of Lambda-CDM halos 3: Universality and asymptotic slopes,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.349(2004) 1039,arXiv:astro-ph/0311231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  47. [63]

    Testing Light Dark Matter Coannihilation With Fixed-Target Experiments,

    E. Izaguirre, Y. Kahn, G. Krnjaic, and M. Moschella, “Testing Light Dark Matter Coannihilation With Fixed-Target Experiments,”Phys. Rev. D96no. 5, (2017) 055007, arXiv:1703.06881 [hep-ph]. [64]LDMXCollaboration, T. ˚Akessonet al., “Light Dark Matter eXperiment (LDMX),” arXiv:1808.05219 [hep-ex]. [65]BaBarCollaboration, J. P. Leeset al., “Search for a Dark...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [68]

    Limit on the production of a low-mass vector boson in e +e− →Uγ, U→e +e− with the KLOE experiment,

    A. Anastasiet al., “Limit on the production of a low-mass vector boson in e +e− →Uγ, U→e +e− with the KLOE experiment,”Phys. Lett. B750(2015) 633–637, arXiv:1509.00740 [hep-ex]. [69]KLOE-2Collaboration, A. Anastasiet al., “Limit on the production of a new vector boson in e+e− →Uγ, U→π +π− with the KLOE experiment,”Phys. Lett. B757(2016) 356–361, arXiv:160...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [70]

    ForwArd Search ExpeRiment at the LHC,

    J. L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling, and S. Trojanowski, “ForwArd Search ExpeRiment at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D97no. 3, (2018) 035001,arXiv:1708.09389 [hep-ph]. [71]F ASERCollaboration, A. Arigaet al., “F ASER’s physics reach for long-lived particles,”Phys. Rev. D99no. 9, (2019) 095011,arXiv:1811.12522 [hep-ph]. [72]SHiPCollaboration, M. Anelliet al., “A facility...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [73]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [74]

    New Prospects in Fixed Target Searches for Dark Forces with the SeaQuest Experiment at Fermilab,

    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. D93no. 11, (2016) 115015, arXiv:1509.00050 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  52. [75]

    Dark Sectors at the Fermilab SeaQuest Experiment,

    A. Berlin, S. Gori, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, “Dark Sectors at the Fermilab SeaQuest Experiment,”Phys. Rev. D98no. 3, (2018) 035011,arXiv:1804.00661 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [76]

    Revisiting Supernova 1987A Constraints on Dark Photons,

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, “Revisiting Supernova 1987A Constraints on Dark Photons,”JHEP01(2017) 107,arXiv:1611.03864 [hep-ph]. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [77]

    Cosmological constraint on dark photon from Nef f,

    M. Ibe, S. Kobayashi, Y. Nakayama, and S. Shirai, “Cosmological constraint on dark photon from Nef f,”JHEP04(2020) 009,arXiv:1912.12152 [hep-ph]. [78]PlanckCollaboration, N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,”Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6,arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [79]

    Direct observation of the Migdal effect induced by neutron bombardment,

    D. Yiet al., “Direct observation of the Migdal effect induced by neutron bombardment,” Nature649no. 8097, (2026) 580–583

    2026

  56. [80]

    The Theory of Direct Dark Matter Detection: A Guide to Computations,

    E. Del Nobile, “The Theory of Direct Dark Matter Detection: A Guide to Computations,” arXiv:2104.12785 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [81]

    Weakly interacting massive particle-nucleus elastic scattering response,

    N. Anand, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. C. Haxton, “Weakly interacting massive particle-nucleus elastic scattering response,”Phys. Rev. C89no. 6, (2014) 065501,arXiv:1308.6288 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  58. [82]

    Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches,

    D. Baxteret al., “Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches,”Eur. Phys. J. C81no. 10, (2021) 907,arXiv:2105.00599 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [83]

    Jelleaalbers/wimprates: v0.5.0,

    J. Aalbers, B. Pelssers, Joran R. Angevaare, and K. D. Mor ˚ a, “Jelleaalbers/wimprates: v0.5.0,” 2023.https://zenodo.org/record/7636982. [84]DarkSideCollaboration, P. Agneset al., “Search for Dark-Matter–Nucleon Interactions via Migdal Effect with DarkSide-50,”Phys. Rev. Lett.130no. 10, (2023) 101001, arXiv:2207.11967 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  60. [85]

    Direct Detection of sub-GeV Dark Matter with Semiconductor Targets,

    R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, “Direct Detection of sub-GeV Dark Matter with Semiconductor Targets,”JHEP05(2016) 046, arXiv:1509.01598 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  61. [86]

    Asingal, “Qcdark,” 2023.https://github.com/asingal14/QCDark

    A. Asingal, “Qcdark,” 2023.https://github.com/asingal14/QCDark

    2023

  62. [87]

    Fully ab-initio all-electron calculation of dark matter-electron scattering in crystals with evaluation of systematic uncertainties,

    C. E. Dreyer, R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, A. Singal, and C. Zhen, “Fully ab-initio all-electron calculation of dark matter-electron scattering in crystals with evaluation of systematic uncertainties,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 11, (2024) 115008,arXiv:2306.14944 [hep-ph]. [88]SENSEICollaboration, P. Adariet al., “First Direct-Detection Results on Sub-GeV Dark Ma...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [92]

    Constraints on sub-GeV hidden sector gauge bosons from a search for heavy neutrino decays,

    S. N. Gninenko, “Constraints on sub-GeV hidden sector gauge bosons from a search for heavy neutrino decays,”Phys. Lett. B713(2012) 244–248,arXiv:1204.3583 [hep-ph]. [93]NA48/2Collaboration, J. R. Batleyet al., “Search for the dark photon inπ 0 decays,”Phys. Lett. B746(2015) 178–185,arXiv:1504.00607 [hep-ex]. [94]LSNDCollaboration, C. Athanassopouloset al....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  64. [95]

    Exploring Portals to a Hidden Sector Through Fixed Targets,

    B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, “Exploring Portals to a Hidden Sector Through Fixed Targets,”Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 095024,arXiv:0906.5614 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  65. [96]

    New Exclusion Limits for Dark Gauge Forces from Beam-Dump Data,

    J. Bl¨ umlein and J. Brunner, “New Exclusion Limits for Dark Gauge Forces from Beam-Dump Data,”Phys. Lett. B701(2011) 155–159,arXiv:1104.2747 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  66. [97]

    New Exclusion Limits on Dark Gauge Forces from Proton Bremsstrahlung in Beam-Dump Data,

    J. Bl¨ umlein and J. Brunner, “New Exclusion Limits on Dark Gauge Forces from Proton Bremsstrahlung in Beam-Dump Data,”Phys. Lett. B731(2014) 320–326,arXiv:1311.3870 [hep-ph]. [98]F ASERCollaboration, H. Abreuet al., “Search for dark photons with the F ASER detector at the LHC,”Phys. Lett. B848(2024) 138378,arXiv:2308.05587 [hep-ex]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014