Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The DUNE near detector could probe dark-particle interaction scales up to about 1 TeV, beyond the reach of CHARM II and LEP, for dark fermion masses up to roughly 50 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 03:19 UTC pith:FKH3ZE3J

load-bearing objection Solid EFT survey with a plausible DUNE ND projection; the real issues are the escape assumption in Sec. 2.2 and an internal mismatch on the mass reach, not the DUNE rate. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.08314 v2 pith:FKH3ZE3J submitted 2026-02-09 hep-ph hep-ex

Probing Light Dark Particles in Neutrino Scattering Experiments

Ruofei Feng , Shao-Feng Ge , Yongchao Zhang This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex PACS 12.60.-i14.60.Lm95.35.+d
keywords dark fermionneutrino scatteringeffective field theoryDUNE near detectorcoherent neutrino-nucleus scatteringneutrino-electron scatteringcutoff scaledark sector
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper establishes that a light dark fermion, chi, can be produced in neutrino scattering off electrons or nuclei through effective four-fermion interactions, and that the DUNE near detector, with seven years of data, would be sensitive to such production for dark particle masses up to about 50 MeV, reaching cutoff scales around 0.6–1.1 TeV depending on the Lorentz structure. This would exceed the existing CHARM II and LEP limits for the leptonic operators. The paper also shows that current COHERENT and CONUS+ data constrain nucleon couplings only up to about 700 GeV, which is weaker than existing LHC and supernova bounds, so the unique discovery potential lies in the electron couplings at DUNE.

Core claim

The paper claims that neutrino scattering experiments can act as dark-particle factories: a neutrino can scatter off an electron or a nucleus and, through a dimension-six effective operator, convert into a dark fermion chi, with the target recoiling. For all five Lorentz structures (scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial-vector, tensor), the paper computes the recoil spectra and derives limits. It finds current COHERENT and CONUS+ data exclude cutoff scales up to roughly 450–700 GeV for scalar and vector nucleon couplings, but these are weaker than LHC and SN1987A constraints. The headline result is that the DUNE near detector, using neutrino-electron scattering, could exclude cutoff scales up

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective four-fermion absorption operator O_i = (\bar{chi} \Gamma_i P_L \nu)(\bar{f} \Gamma_i f), where \Gamma_i runs over scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial-vector, and tensor Lorentz structures, and \Lambda_i,f is the associated cutoff scale (a smaller \Lambda means a stronger interaction). The paper uses these operators to compute differential cross sections for neutrino-nucleus and neutrino-electron scattering, including a kinematic threshold that depends on the dark particle mass. For nuclei, the cross sections involve weak nuclear form factors and spin structure functions; for electrons, they are simpler. The DUNE near-detector analysis separates signal from

Load-bearing premise

The dark fermion chi is assumed to escape the detector without decaying, so every recoil-only event is counted as a chi production; if chi decays inside the detector, the event topology changes and the derived limits would not apply.

What would settle it

For the parameter space DUNE is claimed to probe, measure or compute the decay length of chi for the relevant couplings. If c*tau for chi is smaller than the detector dimensions (e.g., the paper's Eq. 2.12 gives c*tau ~ 0.05 cm for tensor hadronic couplings with Lambda=25 GeV and m_chi=50 MeV), then chi decays inside the target and the missing-energy interpretation fails; the claimed limits would need to be re-derived including visible decay products.

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

If this is right

  • If the DUNE near detector sees no excess, it would place the strongest laboratory bounds on neutrino–dark-fermion–electron interactions for dark masses up to ~50 MeV, exceeding CHARM II and LEP.
  • The tensor interaction is the most sensitive channel, reaching cutoff scales around 1.07 TeV, so DUNE would be a unique probe of that operator.
  • Current reactor and spallation-source coherent scattering experiments do not beat LHC and SN1987A bounds on the nucleon operators; their role is complementary, not leading.
  • The sensitivity of DUNE is for on-axis operation; off-axis PRISM data would likely improve it, making the quoted limits conservative.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If chi decays inside the detector (short lifetime), the missing-energy signature would be contaminated by visible decay products; the paper's lifetime estimates for some tensor hadronic couplings suggest this could happen in a small excluded patch, so a dedicated decay-visible search could test the same operators independently.
  • The same EFT operators imply chi absorption on electrons or nuclei (chi + f -> nu + f); if chi is stable, DUNE limits would also inform dark-matter direct-detection searches for sub-GeV dark fermions.
  • The EFT description assumes the cutoff scale is much larger than the momentum transfer; near the kinematic threshold the momentum transfer grows, and simplified-mediator models would be needed to cross-check DUNE sensitivity in that corner of parameter space.

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 studies the production of a dark fermion chi in neutrino scattering via dimension-6 four-fermion operators involving neutrinos, chi, and SM fermions, for all five Lorentz structures (S, P, V, A, T). It analyzes neutrino-nucleus scattering at COHERENT and CONUS+ and neutrino-electron scattering at the DUNE near detector, and compares the derived cutoff-scale limits with LHC, FCNC meson-decay, SN1987A, CHARM II, and LEP bounds. The main quantitative claims are: COHERENT and CONUS+ exclude Lambda_i,N up to a few hundred GeV, less strongly than existing LHC and SN1987A constraints, while DUNE ND could probe Lambda_i,e up to about 560 GeV (S/P), 650 GeV (V/A), and 1.07 TeV (T) for m_chi -> 0, exceeding CHARM II and LEP up to m_chi around 50 MeV. The paper emphasizes complementarity between neutrino experiments and collider searches.

Significance. If the DUNE ND projection is correct, the paper provides a useful, model-independent map of where neutrino-scattering experiments sit relative to LHC, LEP, CHARM II, and SN1987A for all five Lorentz structures. Its strengths are the systematic operator inventory, explicit and traceable cross-section formulas, use of public COHERENT CsI-2021 templates and CONUS+ data, and the cross-experiment comparison in Tables 1 and 2. The DUNE claim is falsifiable and would constitute a genuine complementarity statement. However, two issues currently prevent full confidence: the assumed long-lived-chi escape is violated in a reported hadronic-tensor region by the paper's own Eq. (2.12), and the numerical DUNE event rates underlying the headline sensitivity are not reported, so the central projection cannot be independently checked from the text.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.12), Fig. 5 (bottom)] The assumption that chi leaves every detector without interacting is violated for the hadronic tensor case in a region that the paper itself reports as excluded. Inserting Lambda_T,N = 25 GeV and m_chi = 50 MeV into Eq. (2.12) gives c tau ~ 0.05 cm, far smaller than the COHERENT or CONUS+ detector dimensions. The bottom panel of Fig. 5 excludes this point. If chi decays inside the target via chi -> nu gamma, the event topology is no longer recoil-only missing energy; the limits labeled as COHERENT/CONUS+ in that panel therefore require either a full decay-product treatment or an explicit restriction to the long-lived regime. This does not affect the DUNE-leptonic central claim, but it undermines a reported part of the hadronic analysis and must be fixed.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (3.16), Fig. 4, Table 2] The DUNE ND sensitivity, which is the paper's headline result, is not numerically reproducible from the text. Equation (3.16) depends on an on-axis flux dPhi/dE_nu and on the target electron number N_e, but neither the integrated flux nor the resulting SM and NP event yields are quoted. Figure 4 has no labeled vertical axis, and the only quantitative outputs are the Lambda_i,e values in Table 2. The statistical power of the projection depends directly on the total event counts: for Lambda_i,e ~ 650 GeV the NP/SM ratio from Eq. (2.5c) is of order one percent, so whether DUNE beats CHARM II depends on whether the SM sample is hundreds or thousands of events. Please report expected signal and background yields per bin per year, and validate the flux normalization against the published DUNE flux files or Ref. [89]. The current manuscript does not provide enough information to support the abs
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4] The vertical axis of Fig. 4 is unlabeled. Please state whether the plotted quantity is events per bin per year, and give the bin width and integrated exposure, so the visual separation of the NP curves can be interpreted quantitatively.
  2. [Table 2] Table 2 is malformed: the entry 'A 480' floats without proper row/column alignment, and the CHARM II and LEP columns do not line up with the row labels. The table should either separate S, P, V, A, T or explicitly combine S/P and V/A with clear column headers.
  3. [Abstract vs. Secs. 5.1 and 6] The abstract says the DUNE reach extends to m_chi up to roughly 50 MeV, while Sec. 5.1 says O(100) MeV and Sec. 6 says roughly 100 MeV. The correct statement is that the 1-TeV cutoff reach extends beyond CHARM II/LEP up to about 50 MeV; please harmonize the wording.
  4. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.8)] The quantity called 'proper decay length tau_chi' in Eq. (2.8) has dimensions of length; it should be denoted c tau. Please use consistent notation.
  5. [Sec. 5.1, first bullet] Typo: 'reaching Lambda_S(P),e ~ 560 GeV up to 560 GeV' should read 'reaching Lambda_S(P),e ~ 560 GeV'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central limits rely on public data and standard EFT cross sections; self-citations are secondary.

full rationale

The paper's main constraints (COHERENT, CONUS+) and DUNE ND projection are computed from published experimental data and standard effective-field-theory cross sections in Eqs. (2.3)-(2.5), with detector response, fluxes, and backgrounds taken from external public releases. The DUNE sensitivity is a prospective projection, not a fit to data, and the comparison with CHARM II/LEP/LHC/SN1987A uses external, publicly derived bounds. Some self-citations appear: Ref. [13] (with co-author S.-F. Ge) supplies LHC recasts and nucleon form factors, and Ref. [18] (also with Ge) supplies future collider projections and decay widths. These are orthogonal benchmarks and are not used to define the DUNE reach, so they are not load-bearing. One internal inconsistency is worth noting: Sec. 2.2 claims chi leaves detectors without signal, but Eq. (2.12) implies c*tau ~ 0.01 cm for Lambda_T,N = 25 GeV and m_chi = 50 MeV, which would make the escape assumption invalid in that region. This is a physics-validity concern, not a circular-derivation concern. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. A score of 1 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations rather than any actual circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central calculation relies on the EFT operator basis and external nuclear inputs, not on ad hoc fitted parameters. The constrained Lambda_i,f are the target observables and are scanned rather than fitted to force a result. The main hidden assumption is the chi longevity axiom, which is violated in one reported corner.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Dimension-6 four-fermion operators with Gamma_i in {S,P,V,A,T}, flavor-universal couplings, and no charged-lepton counterparts are a sufficient description of the new physics.
    Used throughout Secs. 2-5; loop-induced gluon operators and chi-charged-lepton couplings are neglected, so the quoted limits apply only to this restricted operator set.
  • ad hoc to paper The dark fermion chi is long-lived enough to leave the detectors in all reported parameter regions.
    Stated in Sec. 2.2, but Eq. (2.12) gives c*tau ~ 0.05 cm for Lambda_T,N = 25 GeV and m_chi = 50 MeV, contradicting the assumption for the hadronic tensor exclusion region of Fig. 5.
  • domain assumption Weak nuclear form factor (A.1) and spin structure functions (A.2) from Refs. [198-201] correctly describe CsI and Ge targets.
    These enter the nuclear cross sections (2.3) for every COHERENT and CONUS+ limit.
  • domain assumption Nucleon form factors F_i from Ref. [13] convert quark-level LHC limits to nucleon-level cutoff scales.
    Used in Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.3); values F_S=3.90, F_P=6.43, F_V=3, F_A=0.49, F_T=0.59 are taken verbatim from Ref. [13].
  • domain assumption The EFT contact-interaction approximation is valid, i.e. Lambda >> |q|, for the excluded/projected parameter space.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.3; the paper checks it only after obtaining the limits, which is standard but unverified near kinematic threshold where recoil |q| is largest.
invented entities (1)
  • Dark fermion chi no independent evidence
    purpose: New invisible particle produced in nu+N -> chi+N and nu+e -> chi+e; the searched-for state whose mass m_chi and cutoff scales Lambda_i,f are bounded.
    The paper treats chi as a generic dark-sector fermion, explicitly not requiring it to be stable dark matter; no UV completion, no mass prediction, and no independent signal channel are provided outside its own recoil signature.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34943 in / 19880 out tokens · 212692 ms · 2026-08-03T03:19:43.956146+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work we investigate the production of a dark fermionic particle $\chi$ in the neutrino scattering experiments. In the framework of effective field theory, such process can be induced by the effective four-fermion interactions involving neutrinos, the dark particle $\chi$ and standard model particles. We perform a comprehensive analysis of all possible Lorentz structures, considering representative neutrino experiments with distinct neutrino sources and target particles. In particular, we examine the constraints on the effective couplings for the neutrino-nucleus scattering by the latest COHERENT CsI and CONUS+ data, as well as the prospects at the DUNE near detector from neutrino-electron scattering. It turns out the current COHERENT and CONUS+ constraints on the cutoff scales are less stringent than those from the existing Large Hadron Collider data and the SN1987A observations. However, the DUNE near detector could probe the cutoff scales beyond the existing CHARM II and LEP limits up to roughly 1 TeV, for the dark particle mass up to roughly 50 MeV. Our results demonstrate the complementarity between neutrino experiments and collider searches in probing the dark sector physics.

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. Searches for heavy neutral lepton decays at spallation neutron sources

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Current and future COHERENT detectors at the SNS can set competitive limits on HNL–neutrino mixings through pion/muon DAR production and in-detector e+e− decays, with muon mixing offering the strongest near-term reach.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

164 extracted references · 148 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Status and perspectives of neutrino physics,

    Mohammad Sajjad Athar et al., “Status and perspectives of neutrino physics,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.124(2022) 103947, [arXiv:2111.07586[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [3]

    Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,

    Gianfranco Bertone, Dan Hooper, and Joseph Silk, “Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,” Phys. Rept.405(2005) 279–390, [arXiv:hep-ph/0404175]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  3. [4]

    History of dark matter,

    Gianfranco Bertone and Dan Hooper, “History of dark matter,” Rev. Mod. Phys.90no. 4, (2018) 045002, [arXiv:1605.04909[astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [5]

    WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects,

    Leszek Roszkowski, Enrico Maria Sessolo, and Sebastian Trojanowski, “WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects,” Rept. Prog. Phys.81no. 6, (2018) 066201, [arXiv:1707.06277[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [6]

    Dark Matter,

    Marco Cirelli, Alessandro Strumia, and Jure Zupan, “Dark Matter,” [arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [7]

    New Constraints on Neutrino-Dark Matter Interactions: A Comprehensive Analysis,

    P. S. Bhupal Dev, Doojin Kim, Deepak Sathyan, Kuver Sinha, and Yongchao Zhang, “New Constraints on Neutrino-Dark Matter Interactions: A Comprehensive Analysis,” [arXiv:2507.01000[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [8]

    Constraints on light singlet fermion interactions from coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering,

    We-Fu Chang and Jiajun Liao, “Constraints on light singlet fermion interactions from coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering,” Phys. Rev. D102no. 7, (2020) 075004, [arXiv:2002.10275[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [9]

    Constraints on general neutrino interactions with exotic fermion from neutrino-electron scattering experiments,

    Zikang Chen, Tong Li, and Jiajun Liao, “Constraints on general neutrino interactions with exotic fermion from neutrino-electron scattering experiments,” JHEP05(2021) 131, [arXiv:2102.09784[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [10]

    Absorption of sub-MeV fermionic dark matter by electron targets,

    Jeff A. Dror, Gilly Elor, Robert McGehee, and Tien-Tien Yu, “Absorption of sub-MeV fermionic dark matter by electron targets,” Phys. Rev. D103no. 3, (2021) 035001, [arXiv:2011.01940[hep-ph]]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 105, 119903 (2022)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [11]

    Revisiting the fermionic dark matter absorption on electron target,

    Shao-Feng Ge, Xiao-Gang He, Xiao-Dong Ma, and Jie Sheng, “Revisiting the fermionic dark matter absorption on electron target,” JHEP05(2022) 191, [arXiv:2201.11497[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [12]

    Directly Detecting Signals from Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter,

    Jeff A. Dror, Gilly Elor, and Robert Mcgehee, “Directly Detecting Signals from Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124no. 18, (2020) 18, [arXiv:1905.12635 [hep-ph]]. – 30 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [13]

    Complementary search of fermionic absorption operators at hadron colliders and direct detection experiments,

    Kai Ma, Shao-Feng Ge, Lin-Yun He, and Ning Zhou, “Complementary search of fermionic absorption operators at hadron colliders and direct detection experiments,” Phys. Rev. D 113no. 1, (2026) 015027, [arXiv:2405.16878[hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2026

  13. [14]

    Constraining gluonic contact interaction of a neutrino-philic dark fermion at hadron colliders and direct detection experiments,

    Kai Ma and Lin-Yun He, “Constraining gluonic contact interaction of a neutrino-philic dark fermion at hadron colliders and direct detection experiments,” Phys. Dark Univ.48 (2025) 101933, [arXiv:2405.20890[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [15]

    Review of LHC Dark Matter Searches,

    Felix Kahlhoefer, “Review of LHC Dark Matter Searches,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32no. 13, (2017) 1730006, [arXiv:1702.02430[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [16]

    Dark Matter Searches at Colliders,

    Antonio Boveia and Caterina Doglioni, “Dark Matter Searches at Colliders,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68(2018) 429–459, [arXiv:1810.12238[hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [17]

    A Snowmass Whitepaper: Dark Matter Production at Intensity-Frontier Experiments,

    G. Krnjaic et al., “A Snowmass Whitepaper: Dark Matter Production at Intensity-Frontier Experiments,” [arXiv:2207.00597[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [18]

    Associated production of neutrino and dark fermion at future lepton colliders,

    Shao-Feng Ge, Kai Ma, Xiao-Dong Ma, and Jie Sheng, “Associated production of neutrino and dark fermion at future lepton colliders,” JHEP11(2023) 190, [arXiv:2306.00657 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [19]

    Can we discover multi-component WIMP dark matter?,

    Stefano Profumo, Kris Sigurdson, and Lorenzo Ubaldi, “Can we discover multi-component WIMP dark matter?,” JCAP12(2009) 016, [arXiv:0907.4374[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  19. [20]

    LEP Shines Light on Dark Matter,

    Patrick J. Fox, Roni Harnik, Joachim Kopp, and Yuhsin Tsai, “LEP Shines Light on Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 014028, [arXiv:1103.0240[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  20. [21]

    Characterising WIMPs at a future e+e− Linear Collider,

    Christoph Bartels, Mikael Berggren, and Jenny List, “Characterising WIMPs at a future e+e− Linear Collider,” Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 2213, [arXiv:1206.6639[hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  21. [22]

    Illuminating Dark Matter at the ILC,

    Herbert Dreiner, Moritz Huck, Michael Kr¨ amer, Daniel Schmeier, and Jamie Tattersall, “Illuminating Dark Matter at the ILC,” Phys. Rev. D87no. 7, (2013) 075015, [arXiv:1211.2254[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [23]

    Dark Matter Search at a Linear Collider: Effective Operator Approach,

    Yoonseok John Chae and Maxim Perelstein, “Dark Matter Search at a Linear Collider: Effective Operator Approach,” JHEP05(2013) 138, [arXiv:1211.4008[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [24]

    Leptophilic Dark Matter in Lepton Interactions at LEP and ILC,

    Ayres Freitas and Susanne Westhoff, “Leptophilic Dark Matter in Lepton Interactions at LEP and ILC,” JHEP10(2014) 116, [arXiv:1408.1959[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [25]

    MeV Dark Matter: Model Independent Bounds,

    Enrico Bertuzzo, Cristian J. Caniu Barros, and Giovanni Grilli di Cortona, “MeV Dark Matter: Model Independent Bounds,” JHEP09(2017) 116, [arXiv:1707.00725[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [26]

    WIMP Dark Matter at the International Linear Collider,

    Moritz Habermehl, Mikael Berggren, and Jenny List, “WIMP Dark Matter at the International Linear Collider,” Phys. Rev. D101no. 7, (2020) 075053, [arXiv:2001.03011 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [27]

    Effective Field Theory approach to lepto-philic self conjugate dark matter,

    Hrishabh Bharadwaj and Ashok Goyal, “Effective Field Theory approach to lepto-philic self conjugate dark matter,” Chin. Phys. C45no. 2, (2021) 023114, [arXiv:2008.13621 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [28]

    Sensitivity of future linear e +e− colliders to processes of dark matter production with light mediator exchange,

    Jan Kalinowski, Wojciech Kotlarski, Krzysztof Mekala, Pawel Sopicki, and Aleksander Filip Zarnecki, “Sensitivity of future linear e +e− colliders to processes of dark matter production with light mediator exchange,” Eur. Phys. J. C81no. 10, (2021) 955, [arXiv:2107.11194 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [29]

    EFT analysis – 31 – of leptophilic dark matter at future electron-positron colliders in the mono-photon and mono-Z channels,

    Saumyen Kundu, Atanu Guha, Prasanta Kumar Das, and P. S. Bhupal Dev, “EFT analysis – 31 – of leptophilic dark matter at future electron-positron colliders in the mono-photon and mono-Z channels,” Phys. Rev. D107no. 1, (2023) 015003, [arXiv:2110.06903[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [30]

    Effective Leptophilic WIMPs at the e +e− collider,

    Basabendu Barman, Subhaditya Bhattacharya, Sudhakantha Girmohanta, and Sahabub Jahedi, “Effective Leptophilic WIMPs at the e +e− collider,” JHEP04(2022) 146, [arXiv:2109.10936[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [31]

    Probing sub-GeV leptophilic dark matter at Belle II and NA64,

    Jinhan Liang, Zuowei Liu, and Lan Yang, “Probing sub-GeV leptophilic dark matter at Belle II and NA64,” JHEP05(2022) 184, [arXiv:2111.15533[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [32]

    Light dark states with electromagnetic form factors,

    Xiaoyong Chu, Josef Pradler, and Lukas Semmelrock, “Light dark states with electromagnetic form factors,” Phys. Rev. D99no. 1, (2019) 015040, [arXiv:1811.04095 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [33]

    Resonant probing spin-0 and spin-2 dark matter mediators with fixed target experiments,

    I. V. Voronchikhin and D. V. Kirpichnikov, “Resonant probing spin-0 and spin-2 dark matter mediators with fixed target experiments,” Phys. Rev. D107no. 11, (2023) 115034, [arXiv:2304.14052[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [34]

    Sub-GeV dark matter search at ILC beam dumps,

    Kento Asai, Sho Iwamoto, Maxim Perelstein, Yasuhito Sakaki, and Daiki Ueda, “Sub-GeV dark matter search at ILC beam dumps,” JHEP02(2024) 129, [arXiv:2301.03816 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [35]

    Search for strongly interacting dark matter at Belle II,

    Jinhan Liang, Zuowei Liu, and Lan Yang, “Search for strongly interacting dark matter at Belle II,” Phys. Rev. D109no. 11, (2024) 115003, [arXiv:2312.08970[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [36]

    Invisible quarkonium decays as a sensitive probe of dark matter,

    Bob McElrath, “Invisible quarkonium decays as a sensitive probe of dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 103508, [arXiv:hep-ph/0506151]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  36. [37]

    Constraints on Light Dark Matter and U bosons, from psi, Upsilon, K+, pi0, eta and eta-prime decays,

    Pierre Fayet, “Constraints on Light Dark Matter and U bosons, from psi, Upsilon, K+, pi0, eta and eta-prime decays,” Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 054034, [arXiv:hep-ph/0607318]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  37. [38]

    U-boson production in e+ e- annihilations, psi and Upsilon decays, and Light Dark Matter,

    Pierre Fayet, “U-boson production in e+ e- annihilations, psi and Upsilon decays, and Light Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 115017, [arXiv:hep-ph/0702176]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  38. [39]

    Rare meson decays into very light neutralinos,

    H. K. Dreiner, S. Grab, Daniel Koschade, M. Kramer, Ben O’Leary, and Ulrich Langenfeld, “Rare meson decays into very light neutralinos,” Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 035018, [arXiv:0905.2051[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  39. [40]

    WIMPless Dark Matter and Meson Decays with Missing Energy,

    David McKeen, “WIMPless Dark Matter and Meson Decays with Missing Energy,” Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 114001, [arXiv:0903.4982[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  40. [41]

    Upsilon Decays into Light Scalar Dark Matter,

    Gagik K. Yeghiyan, “Upsilon Decays into Light Scalar Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 115019, [arXiv:0909.4919[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [42]

    Searching for light Dark Matter in heavy meson decays,

    Andriy Badin and Alexey A Petrov, “Searching for light Dark Matter in heavy meson decays,” Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 034005, [arXiv:1005.1277[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  42. [43]

    Complementary Constraints on Light Dark Matter from Heavy Quarkonium Decays,

    Nicolas Fernandez, Jason Kumar, Ilsoo Seong, and Patrick Stengel, “Complementary Constraints on Light Dark Matter from Heavy Quarkonium Decays,” Phys. Rev. D90 no. 1, (2014) 015029, [arXiv:1404.6599[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [44]

    Constraints on Light Dark Matter from Single-Photon Decays of Heavy Quarkonium,

    Nicolas Fernandez, Ilsoo Seong, and Patrick Stengel, “Constraints on Light Dark Matter from Single-Photon Decays of Heavy Quarkonium,” Phys. Rev. D93no. 5, (2016) 054023, [arXiv:1511.03728[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [45]

    Light Dark Sectors through the Fermion Portal,

    Luc Darm´ e, Sebastian A. R. Ellis, and Tevong You, “Light Dark Sectors through the Fermion Portal,” JHEP07(2020) 053, [arXiv:2001.01490[hep-ph]]. – 32 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [46]

    Probing light dark scalars with future experiments,

    Enrico Bertuzzo and Marco Taoso, “Probing light dark scalars with future experiments,” JHEP03(2021) 272, [arXiv:2011.04735[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [47]

    Probing invisible vector meson decays with the NA64 and LDMX experiments,

    Philip Schuster, Natalia Toro, and Kevin Zhou, “Probing invisible vector meson decays with the NA64 and LDMX experiments,” Phys. Rev. D105no. 3, (2022) 035036, [arXiv:2112.02104[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [48]

    Implication of J/ψ→(γ+)invisible for the effective field theories of neutrino and dark matter,

    Tong Li, Xiao-Dong Ma, Michael A. Schmidt, and Rui-Jia Zhang, “Implication of J/ψ→(γ+)invisible for the effective field theories of neutrino and dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D104no. 3, (2021) 035024, [arXiv:2104.01780[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [49]

    Probing invisible vector meson decay mode with the hadronic beam in the NA64 experiment at SPS CERN,

    Alexey S. Zhevlakov, Dmitry V. Kirpichnikov, Sergei N. Gninenko, Sergey Kuleshov, and Valery E. Lyubovitskij, “Probing invisible vector meson decay mode with the hadronic beam in the NA64 experiment at SPS CERN,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 11, (2023) 115005, [arXiv:2309.09347[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [50]

    Search forK S,L oscillations and invisible decays into the dark sector at NA64,

    S. N. Gninenko, N. V. Krasnikov, and V. A. Matveev, “Search forK S,L oscillations and invisible decays into the dark sector at NA64,” Natural Sci. Rev.1(2024) 5, [arXiv:2501.09772[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [51]

    Present and future bounds on nonstandard neutrino interactions,

    S. Davidson, C. Pena-Garay, N. Rius, and A. Santamaria, “Present and future bounds on nonstandard neutrino interactions,” JHEP03(2003) 011, [arXiv:hep-ph/0302093]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  51. [52]

    ’Secret’ neutrino interactions,

    Mikhail S. Bilenky and Arcadi Santamaria, “’Secret’ neutrino interactions,” in Neutrino Mixing: Meeting in Honor of Samoil Bilenky’s 70th Birthday, pp. 50–61. 8, 1999. [arXiv:hep-ph/9908272]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  52. [53]

    On the nu - nu interaction,

    D. Yu. Bardin, Samoil M. Bilenky, and B. Pontecorvo, “On the nu - nu interaction,” Phys. Lett. B32(1970) 121–124

    1970

  53. [54]

    Mononeutrino at DUNE: New Signals from Neutrinophilic Thermal Dark Matter,

    Kevin J. Kelly and Yue Zhang, “Mononeutrino at DUNE: New Signals from Neutrinophilic Thermal Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D99no. 5, (2019) 055034, [arXiv:1901.01259 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [55]

    Invisible width of the Z boson and ’secret’ neutrino-neutrino interactions,

    Mikhail S. Bilenky, Samoil M. Bilenky, and A. Santamaria, “Invisible width of the Z boson and ’secret’ neutrino-neutrino interactions,” Phys. Lett. B301(1993) 287–291

    1993

  55. [56]

    DAEδALUS and dark matter detection,

    Yonatan Kahn, Gordan Krnjaic, Jesse Thaler, and Matthew Toups, “DAEδALUS and dark matter detection,” Phys. Rev. D91no. 5, (2015) 055006, [arXiv:1411.1055[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [57]

    Strong Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Sectors from SLAC Beam Dump E137,

    Brian Batell, Rouven Essig, and Ze’ev Surujon, “Strong Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Sectors from SLAC Beam Dump E137,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113no. 17, (2014) 171802, [arXiv:1406.2698[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [58]

    Dark Matter, Millicharges, Axion and Scalar Particles, Gauge Bosons, and Other New Physics with LDMX,

    Asher Berlin, Nikita Blinov, Gordan Krnjaic, Philip Schuster, and Natalia Toro, “Dark Matter, Millicharges, Axion and Scalar Particles, Gauge Bosons, and Other New Physics with LDMX,” Phys. Rev. D99no. 7, (2019) 075001, [arXiv:1807.01730[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [59]

    Dark matter search in missing energy events with NA64,

    D. Banerjee et al., “Dark matter search in missing energy events with NA64,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123no. 12, (2019) 121801, [arXiv:1906.00176[hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [60]

    Dark matter signals from timing spectra at neutrino experiments,

    Bhaskar Dutta, Doojin Kim, Shu Liao, Jong-Chul Park, Seodong Shin, and Louis E. Strigari, “Dark matter signals from timing spectra at neutrino experiments,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124no. 12, (2020) 121802, [arXiv:1906.10745[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  60. [61]

    Sub-GeV dark matter production at fixed-target experiments,

    Asher Berlin, Patrick deNiverville, Adam Ritz, Philip Schuster, and Natalia Toro, “Sub-GeV dark matter production at fixed-target experiments,” Phys. Rev. D102no. 9, (2020) 095011, [arXiv:2003.03379[hep-ph]]. – 33 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [62]

    Characterizing Dark Matter Signals with Missing Momentum Experiments,

    Nikita Blinov, Gordan Krnjaic, and Douglas Tuckler, “Characterizing Dark Matter Signals with Missing Momentum Experiments,” Phys. Rev. D103no. 3, (2021) 035030, [arXiv:2010.03577[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [63]

    Model agnostic probes of dark sectors at neutrino experiments,

    Marco Costa, Rashmish K. Mishra, and Sonali Verma, “Model agnostic probes of dark sectors at neutrino experiments,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 3, (2023) 035041, [arXiv:2211.13253[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [64]

    Implication of the dark axion portal for the EDM of fermions and dark matter probing with NA64e, NA64µ, LDMX, M3, and BaBar,

    Alexey S. Zhevlakov, Dmitry V. Kirpichnikov, and Valery E. Lyubovitskij, “Implication of the dark axion portal for the EDM of fermions and dark matter probing with NA64e, NA64µ, LDMX, M3, and BaBar,” Phys. Rev. D106no. 3, (2022) 035018, [arXiv:2204.09978[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  64. [65]

    Semi-Visible Dark Photon Phenomenology at the GeV Scale,

    Asli M. Abdullahi, Matheus Hostert, Daniele Massaro, and Silvia Pascoli, “Semi-Visible Dark Photon Phenomenology at the GeV Scale,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 1, (2023) 015032, [arXiv:2302.05410[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [66]

    Test of the vector portal with dark fermions in the charge-exchange reactions in the NA64 experiment at CERN SPS,

    Sergei N. Gninenko, Dmitry V. Kirpichnikov, Sergey Kuleshov, Valery E. Lyubovitskij, and Alexey S. Zhevlakov, “Test of the vector portal with dark fermions in the charge-exchange reactions in the NA64 experiment at CERN SPS,” Phys. Rev. D109no. 7, (2024) 075021, [arXiv:2312.01703[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [67]

    Non-standard neutrino interactions in K+ —>pi+ nu anti-nu and D+ —>pi+ nu anti-nu decays,

    Chuan-Hung Chen, Chao-Qiang Geng, and Tzu-Chiang Yuan, “Non-standard neutrino interactions in K+ —>pi+ nu anti-nu and D+ —>pi+ nu anti-nu decays,” Phys. Rev. D 75(2007) 077301, [arXiv:hep-ph/0703196]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  67. [68]

    FCNC portals to the dark sector,

    Jernej F. Kamenik and Christopher Smith, “FCNC portals to the dark sector,” JHEP03 (2012) 090, [arXiv:1111.6402[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  68. [69]

    Search for Light Dark Matter in Rare Meson Decays,

    Ze-Kun Liu, Ying Li, Biao-Feng Hou, and Qin Chang, “Search for Light Dark Matter in Rare Meson Decays,” [arXiv:2512.21191[hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  69. [70]

    Dark Matter emission at Belle II and NA62 in Minimal Flavor Violation framework,

    Federico Mescia, Shohei Okawa, Joel Swallow, and Claudio Toni, “Dark Matter emission at Belle II and NA62 in Minimal Flavor Violation framework,” [arXiv:2601.08907[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  70. [71]

    Probing Light Dark Matter with a Hadrophilic Scalar Mediator,

    Brian Batell, Ayres Freitas, Ahmed Ismail, and David Mckeen, “Probing Light Dark Matter with a Hadrophilic Scalar Mediator,” Phys. Rev. D100no. 9, (2019) 095020, [arXiv:1812.05103[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  71. [72]

    Detecting Light Dark Matter via Inelastic Cosmic Ray Collisions,

    James Alvey, Miguel Campos, Malcolm Fairbairn, and Tevong You, “Detecting Light Dark Matter via Inelastic Cosmic Ray Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) 261802, [arXiv:1905.05776[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  72. [73]

    New strong bounds on sub-GeV dark matter from boosted and Migdal effects,

    Victor V. Flambaum, Liangliang Su, Lei Wu, and Bin Zhu, “New strong bounds on sub-GeV dark matter from boosted and Migdal effects,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66 no. 7, (2023) 271011, [arXiv:2012.09751[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  73. [74]

    Accelerated-light-dark-matter–Earth inelastic scattering in direct detection,

    Liangliang Su, Lei Wu, Ning Zhou, and Bin Zhu, “Accelerated-light-dark-matter–Earth inelastic scattering in direct detection,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 3, (2023) 035004, [arXiv:2212.02286[hep-ph]]. [75]PandaXCollaboration, Xuyang Ning et al., “Search for Light Dark Matter from the Atmosphere in PandaX-4T,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131no. 4, (2023) 041001, [arXiv:2301.03...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [77]

    Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter by Nuclear Targets,

    Jeff A. Dror, Gilly Elor, and Robert Mcgehee, “Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter by Nuclear Targets,” JHEP02(2020) 134, [arXiv:1908.10861[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  75. [78]

    Dark Matter-Neutrino Interconversion at COHERENT, Direct Detection, and the Early Universe,

    Nicholas Hurtado, Hana Mir, Ian M. Shoemaker, Eli Welch, and Jason Wyenberg, “Dark Matter-Neutrino Interconversion at COHERENT, Direct Detection, and the Early Universe,” Phys. Rev. D102no. 1, (2020) 015006, [arXiv:2005.13384[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  76. [79]

    A Comprehensive Effective Field Theory Framework for Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering,

    Gang Li, Chuan-Qiang Song, Feng-Jie Tang, and Jiang-Hao Yu, “A Comprehensive Effective Field Theory Framework for Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering,” [arXiv:2601.19883[hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  77. [80]

    COHERENT production of a dark fermion,

    Pablo M. Candela, Valentina De Romeri, and Dimitrios K. Papoulias, “COHERENT production of a dark fermion,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 5, (2023) 055001, [arXiv:2305.03341 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [81]

    Supernova cooling from neutrino-devouring dark matter,

    Yugen Lin, Chih-Ting Lu, and Ningqiang Song, “Supernova cooling from neutrino-devouring dark matter,” [arXiv:2507.22124[hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  79. [82]

    µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,

    Peter Minkowski, “µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,” Phys. Lett. B67 (1977) 421–428

    1977

  80. [83]

    Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,

    Rabindra N. Mohapatra and Goran Senjanovic, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 912

    1980

Showing first 80 references.