Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The paper maps the surviving parameter space of dark-photon inelastic dark matter and shows it is invisible to direct and indirect searches but reachable by long-lived-particle detectors at the LHC and by ~2000 K heating of neutron stars.

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 02:36 UTC pith:THB332K2

load-bearing objection Useful systematic scan of the A′iDM benchmark plane, but the summary region repeats a δ lower bound that contradicts the paper's own BBN cut; the FASER/NS numbers rest on maximal mixing and optimistic detector assumptions. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.18051 v2 pith:THB332K2 submitted 2026-02-20 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-ex

Dark Photon mediated Inelastic Dark Matter in Cosmology, Astrophysics and Colliders

Abhishek Roy , Prasenjit Sanyal , Stefano Scopel (CQUeST , Seoul , Sogang U.) This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-ex
keywords A-prime inelastic dark matterdark photonkinetic mixingco-annihilationlong-lived particle searchesFASERneutron star kinetic heatingrelic abundance
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 systematically maps the surviving parameter space of the A' inelastic dark matter model—two nearly degenerate Majorana fermions interacting with a dark photon that kinetically mixes with the Standard Model—with the dark coupling fixed equal to the electromagnetic coupling and the mixing set to its experimental upper bound. Scanning the remaining three parameters, it finds that the relic-abundance plus BBN-allowed region (χ1 mass between about 2 and 25 GeV, mass splitting between about 2 MeV and 12 GeV, dark photon between about 10 and 60 GeV) is completely invisible to direct and indirect dark matter searches, because the only unsuppressed interaction is an up-scattering to a heavier state that halo WIMPs are too slow to excite, and the annihilation to visible particles is p-wave suppressed. The same long-lived heavy state that makes direct detection kinematically forbidden, however, produces displaced decays in the LHC forward region that FASER can probe or exclude for χ1 masses below about 7 GeV and splittings between 100 and 300 MeV, and the proposed FASER 2 upgrade would cover nearly the whole mass range. Independently, gravitational boosting of halo WIMPs inside a neutron star makes capture saturate the geometric limit and heat a nearby old neutron star to about 2000 K when the splitting is below about 300 MeV, giving an astrophysical handle that partially overlaps with the collider reach. The central claim is that the scenario is fully testable, but only through these two complementary windows.

Core claim

Claim: with α_D = α_EM and the kinetic mixing at its experimental upper bound, the A' inelastic dark matter model is not disfavored; the relic-abundance-plus-BBN allowed region (χ1 ~ 2–25 GeV, δ ~ 2 MeV–12 GeV, M_A' ~ 10–60 GeV) is invisible to direct and indirect detection because halo WIMPs cannot reach the up-scattering threshold v_T* = sqrt(2δ/μ) and χ1χ1 annihilation is p-wave suppressed. Observable consequences appear instead in long-lived-particle searches: χ2 decays with cτ set by δ^5/M_A'^4 give FASER a probe/exclusion reach of χ1 ≲ 7 GeV, 100 MeV ≲ δ ≲ 300 MeV, M_A' ≲ 25 GeV, extended to χ1 ≲ 25 GeV by FASER 2. And because inelastic capture saturates the geometric limit, a nearby n

What carries the argument

The off-diagonal dark-photon interaction A'–χ1–χ2 is the mechanism that carries the whole argument: it is the only unsuppressed coupling (diagonal χiχi A' terms are suppressed by 1/Mχ). It sets the thermal relic density through co-annihilation χ1χ2 → A'/Z → f f̄ with effective cross section ⟨σv⟩ ~ 10^-2 α_D ε^2 M_χ1^2/M_A'^4 e^{-δ/T}; it sets the kinematic threshold v_T* = √(2δ/μ_χT) that blocks terrestrial direct detection; it makes χ2 long-lived with partial width Γ(χ2→χ1ℓℓ̄) ∝ ε^2 α_D α_EM δ^5/M_A'^4, determining the displaced-vertex decay length probed by FASER; and it gives the same transition the inelastic scattering cross section that drives neutron-star capture, which saturates the g

Load-bearing premise

Every headline result is computed with the kinetic mixing ε fixed to its experimental upper bound and α_D fixed to α_EM; if the true mixing or dark coupling is smaller, the relic-compatible region and the FASER reach shrink, and the paper does not quantify that dependence.

What would settle it

For the paper's own benchmark BP1 (M_χ1 = 3.35 GeV, δ = 0.21 GeV, M_A' = 11.60 GeV, α_D = α_EM, ε = ε_max), the model predicts cτ ≈ 0.94 m and 64 signal events in FASER's 1.5 m decay volume at 300 fb^-1; observing zero events in FASER Run 3 would falsify that parameter point. Separately, finding an old nearby neutron star with a surface temperature below ~2000 K while the DM splitting δ is within the 300 MeV kinematic window would falsify the geometric-capture heating claim for that configuration.

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

If this is right

  • If the model is right, no direct-detection experiment will see it: the allowed region's minimum up-scattering speed v_T* always exceeds the ~800 km/s maximal halo speed, so DD bounds place no constraint on the relic-compatible parameter space.
  • FASER's full Run-3 luminosity will decisively test the low-mass corner: with no signal, χ1 masses below about 7 GeV, splittings between 100 and 300 MeV, and dark photon masses below 25 GeV are excluded at 2σ; a signal would reveal displaced di-lepton vertices.
  • FASER 2 in the HL-LHC era would extend the exclusion/discovery reach to χ1 up to about 25 GeV and M_A' up to about 60 GeV, essentially covering the entire relic-compatible region for light χ1.
  • A cold, old neutron star within the solar neighborhood should be found at ~2000 K in the infrared if δ ≲ 300 MeV, providing a signal that depends only weakly on the model parameters once capture is geometric.
  • The two handles are complementary: the neutron-star window covers small δ (up to ~300 MeV), while FASER is sensitive to intermediate δ (100 MeV to 300 MeV) at low χ1; the overlap region is where a combined observation would be most convincing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper fixes ε at the experimental upper bound and α_D = α_EM, a straightforward scaling of Eqs. (3.2) and (A.2) implies the FASER reach shrinks roughly as ε^4 for both production and decay, so the quoted boundaries are optimistic; the paper leaves that dependence unquantified.
  • The 'direct blind, indirect blind, collider/neutron-star visible' structure is generic for compressed inelastic DM: any future positive direct-detection signal would force δ below ~200 keV, which is excluded by BBN in this model, and would therefore point to non-thermal cosmology or a different mediator.
  • Measuring the displaced-vertex distribution rather than only the event count at FASER would test the model's specific decay-width formula Γ ∝ δ^5/M_A'^4, since the cτ values for benchmark points differ by orders of magnitude (0.57 m to 11 m) while boost distributions are measurable.
  • The neutron-star heating estimate assumes optically thick capture; if the local density ρ_χ1 around the Sun is lower than 0.4 GeV/cm^3, the temperature falls only as the 1/4 power (T ∝ ρ^{1/4}), so heating survives as an observable down to about 100 K for ρ ~ 10^-3 GeV/cm^3, a testable extension.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic scan of the dark-photon-mediated inelastic dark matter (A'iDM) model with the U(1)_D coupling fixed to α_D = α_EM and the kinetic mixing fixed to its LEP upper bound ε_max(M_A'). The authors scan M_χ1 ∈ [1,30] GeV, δ ∈ [10^-4,20] GeV, and M_A' ∈ [10,60] GeV, imposing the relic abundance, BBN lifetime constraints, and collider bounds. They claim that the relic- and BBN-allowed region is 2 GeV ≲ M_χ1 ≲ 25 GeV, 2 MeV ≲ δ ≲ 12 GeV, 10 GeV ≲ M_A' ≲ 60 GeV; that direct and indirect searches are kinematically inaccessible in this region; that FASER/FASER 2 can probe M_χ1 ≲ 7 GeV, 100 MeV ≲ δ ≲ 300 MeV, M_A' ≲ 25 GeV (with FASER 2 extending this); and that χ1 capture heats a nearby neutron star to ≃2000 K for δ ≲ 300 MeV, partially overlapping with the LLP reach.

Significance. If correct, this is the most complete phenomenological map of the A'iDM model at the benchmark α_D = α_EM and maximal kinetic mixing, integrating relic density, BBN, direct/indirect searches, neutron-star capture, and FASER/FASER 2 projections. The use of established tools (micrOMEGAs, MadGraph, FeynRules) and the explicit Appendix formulas for decay widths and boosts are strengths. The central scan is not circular: relic abundance is used as a filter, not as an input to set the model parameters. However, the internal inconsistency in the quoted BBN lower bound on δ and the benchmark-dependence of the headline conclusions currently limit the reliability of the reported parameter regions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6 vs §3.2, Fig. 1] The quoted cosmologically allowed region in §6, 2 MeV ≲ δ ≲ 12 GeV, is inconsistent with the BBN cutoff stated in §3.2, where δ ≲ 10^-2 GeV is ruled out because τ_χ2 ≳ 1 s. Since τ_χ2 ∝ δ^-5 (Eq. A.2), δ = 5 MeV gives τ about 32 times larger than at δ = 10 MeV, and δ = 2 MeV gives τ about 3000 times larger. Thus the range 2 MeV ≲ δ ≲ 10 MeV in the summary includes points excluded by the paper's own BBN constraint. This affects the lower boundary of the central scan map and the statement that direct/indirect searches are inaccessible across the whole region. The FASER (δ ≳ 100 MeV) and neutron-star (δ ≲ 300 MeV) conclusions are not affected, but the reported parameter region must be corrected.
  2. [§2, Table 1; §3.1; §5.1] Every headline result—the relic-allowed region, the FASER reach, and the neutron-star heating overlap—is computed at ε = ε_max(M_A') with α_D = α_EM. Since the relic abundance scales as ε^2 (Eq. 3.2) and the collider production cross section also scales as ε^2 (§5.1), a smaller kinetic mixing would shrink the relic-compatible region and lower the FASER signal rates. The statement in the abstract that "α_D = α_EM is not disfavored" is therefore only a statement about the maximal-mixing benchmark, not about the model in general. The paper should either add a scan or analytic estimate of the ε dependence, or explicitly re-scope the abstract and conclusions to the benchmark considered.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (5.3)] The FASER/FASER 2 projections assume 100% reconstruction efficiency and zero background, with the 2σ exclusion contours defined by four signal events. These are idealized assumptions; a realistic efficiency or non-negligible background would reduce the quoted reach in M_χ1, δ, and M_A'. Since the abstract presents these boundaries as the model's FASER probe/rule-out region, the sensitivity of the reach to these assumptions should be quantified or the claim should be softened to "under idealized detector assumptions."
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3.3)] The Planck value is quoted as 0.12 ± 0.0012 and called the "2σ PLANCK interval." This is ambiguous: if the uncertainty is 1σ, the 2σ interval is 0.12 ± 0.0024. Please state the uncertainty convention explicitly.
  2. [Abstract; §4] Typos: "LLP seaches" should be "LLP searches"; "seizable background heating mechanisms" should be "sizeable"; "quite insensible to" should be "quite insensitive to."
  3. [Fig. 1 caption; §6] The caption says all points satisfy constraints except the cyan points, which are disallowed by BBN, while §6 says "all the points comply with Eq. (3.3)" when describing the same figure. Please clarify that the figure shows relic-compatible points, with a subset additionally passing BBN.
  4. [References] Several references are duplicated: [34] is the same as [2], and [75] is the same as [73]. Please consolidate.
  5. [§4, Eq. (4.9)] In the final expression for T_kin, the argument of F is written as v_rms/230 km s^-1, while the preceding line uses Erf[√(3/2) v_rms/v_d] with v_d = v_0. Please define v_0 and 230 km s^-1 consistently (the text uses both v_0 = 220 km s^-1 and 230 km s^-1).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the scan-based parameter map and FASER/neutron-star projections are computed from model inputs; the only self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The relic density is computed with micrOMEGAs from the model Lagrangian (Eqs. 3.1-3.3) and used as a filter on the scanned parameters, not as an input fitted to the observables it later 'predicts'. FASER event counts (Eqs. 5.2-5.3) and neutron-star heating (Eqs. 4.8-4.9) are forward calculations from the model parameters, with no parameter fitted to those signals. The fixed choices α_D=α_EM and ε=ε_max(M_A') are external benchmark inputs (Table 1, §3.1), not outputs of the analysis, so the resulting 'α_D=α_EM is not disfavored' statement is a consistency claim from the scan rather than a circular prediction. The only notable self-citation is Ref. [29] (coauthor Scopel) for the δ≲200 keV direct-detection kinematic bound; this bound is independently supported by external kinematics and by Refs. [34,35,77], and it is not load-bearing for the main conclusions. Non-circular caveats are flagged: (i) §3.1 defers a dedicated recast of CMS displaced-muon-jet searches ('Recasting such bounds in the general parameter space of A′iDM would require a dedicated full simulation'); (ii) §4 acknowledges neutron-star background heating may prevent the 2000 K signal ('seizable background heating mechanisms have been discussed in the literature that could prevent this to happen'); and (iii) there is an internal-consistency issue between the §3.2 BBN cutoff (δ≲10^-2 GeV excluded because τ_χ2≳1 s, with τ_χ2 growing as δ^-5 per Eq. A.2) and the §6 quoted lower bound δ≳2 MeV. That inconsistency is a correctness/consistency concern, not a circular one, and does not affect the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's model and constraint inputs are all drawn from prior literature: U(1)_D extension and pseudo-Dirac splitting (Refs [2,39]), dark-photon couplings (Refs [42,43]), LEP ε_max (Ref [4]), BBN lifetime bound (Ref [66]), and neutron-star capture treatment (Refs [31–33]). The only paper-specific choices are α_D=α_EM and ε=ε_max, which are fixed rather than fitted. No new entities are introduced beyond the standard A′iDM model.

free parameters (2)
  • α_D = α_EM ≈ 1/137 (fixed by hand, not fitted)
    The U(1)_D gauge coupling is fixed to the electromagnetic coupling. The central claim that α_D=α_EM is not disfavored depends directly on this choice; no independent fit is performed.
  • ε = ε_max(M_A′) from LEP, read from Fig. 1 of Ref. [4]
    Kinetic mixing is fixed to its experimental upper bound. This maximizes every signal and is the most aggressive choice for the 'not disfavored' and FASER/neutron-star reach conclusions.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption SM is extended by a U(1)_D gauge symmetry under which all SM particles are neutral, with kinetic mixing to hypercharge (Eq. 2.1).
    This is the model under study, taken from prior dark-photon literature (Refs [42,43]); the paper does not derive it.
  • domain assumption A Dirac fermion splits into two Majorana states χ1, χ2 with only the off-diagonal A′χ1χ2 coupling kept; diagonal couplings are suppressed by 1/Mχ (Eq. 2.5).
    This inelastic structure defines the phenomenology. The suppression is stated as an O(M²/Mχ²) truncation, not proven beyond leading order.
  • domain assumption χ1 is a thermal WIMP relic whose abundance is set by χ1χ2 co-annihilation (Section 3.2).
    Standard WIMP freeze-out assumption; the Boltzmann equation (3.1) is the usual one.
  • domain assumption BBN requires τχ2 ≲ 1 s (Section 3.2).
    External BBN bound from Ref. [66] used as a hard cut; it drives the lower boundary of allowed δ and hence the claim that direct detection is kinematically inaccessible.
  • domain assumption The applicable collider constraint is the LEP ε_max(M_A′) curve from Ref. [4] for M_A′ ≥ 10 GeV.
    Used to fix ε at every scanned M_A′; the curve is digitized from a figure and treated as exact.
  • domain assumption Neutron-star benchmark: M = 1.5 M⊙, R = 10 km, Maxwellian halo with ρχ1 = 0.4 GeV/cm³ and vrms = 270 km/s (Section 4).
    Representative values for the heating estimate; the 2000 K number is tied to these choices.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16924 in / 21938 out tokens · 231323 ms · 2026-08-03T02:36:40.910225+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We explore the phenomenology of Dark Photon iDM (A$^{\prime}$iDM) where the Standard Model (SM) is extended by a dark sector containing an additional $U(1)_D$ gauge symmetry under which all SM particles are neutral, and that couples to the SM hypercharge gauge boson through a kinetic mixing parameter $\epsilon$. The model contains two Majorana states $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ with $\delta=M_{\chi_2}-M_{\chi_1}>0$ and $\chi_1$ the dark matter candidate, and a dark photon $A^{\prime}$ with mass $M_{A^{\prime}}$. Our analysis represents an integration of existing ones, where only specific benchmarks of the A$^{\prime}$iDM scenario have been discussed. In particular, we fix the $U(1)_D$ coupling $\alpha_D$ equal to the electromagnetic one $\alpha_{EM}$ and $\epsilon$ to its experimental upper bound, and perform a complete scan of the remaining parameters $(M_{\chi_1},\delta, M_{A^{\prime}})$, discussing the $\chi_1$ relic abundance, its direct and indirect searches, as well as potential signals from astrophysics and accelerators. Our scan shows that $\alpha_D$ = $\alpha_{EM}$ is not disfavored, as some previous analyses, limited to specific benchmarks, may suggest. We also find that when the $\chi_1$ relic density matches observation direct and indirect searches are not kinematically accessible. On the other hand we find that the projected luminosity of FASER, a detector searching for Long Lived Particles (LLP) decay at the LHC, can probe or rule out the parameters space of the model for $M_{\chi_1}\lesssim$ 7 GeV, 100 MeV $\lesssim \delta\lesssim$ 300 MeV and $M_{A^{\prime}}\lesssim$ 25 GeV. This range of parameter could be significantly extended by the FASER 2 upgrade proposed for the High-Luminosity phase at the LHC. The parameter space probed by LLP seaches partially overlaps with that probed by $\chi_1$ capture in neutron stars.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Production of Magic States via $Z$ Bosons and Dark Photons

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Magic distributions are computed for EW processes (reproducing QED at low energy, new at high energy/Z resonance) and dark-sector scatterings, reaching maximal magic at mass ratios m_f/m_χ → 0 and → 1.83929.

  2. Probing Inelastic Dark Matter via Cosmic-Ray Upscattering in NGC 1068

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Constraints on sub-GeV inelastic dark matter are derived from cosmic-ray cooling in NGC 1068 by including elastic and deep inelastic scattering in a vector-portal model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 49 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [3]

    Izaguirre, G

    E. Izaguirre, G. Krnjaic and B. Shuve,Discovering Inelastic Thermal-Relic Dark Matter at Colliders,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 063523, [1508.03050]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [4]

    Berlin and F

    A. Berlin and F. Kling,Inelastic Dark Matter at the LHC Lifetime Frontier: ATLAS, CMS, LHCb, CODEX-b, FASER, and MATHUSLA,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 015021, [1810.01879]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [5]

    D. W. Kang, P. Ko and C.-T. Lu,Exploring properties of long-lived particles in inelastic dark matter models at Belle II,JHEP04(2021) 269, [2101.02503]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [6]

    C.-T. Lu, J. Tu and L. Wu,Probing inelastic dark matter at the LHC, FASER, and STCF, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 015018, [2309.00271]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [7]

    Jodłowski, F

    K. Jodłowski, F. Kling, L. Roszkowski and S. Trojanowski,Extending the reach of FASER, MATHUSLA, and SHiP towards smaller lifetimes using secondary particle production,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 095020, [1911.11346]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [8]

    Bertuzzo, A

    E. Bertuzzo, A. Scaffidi and M. Taoso,Searching for inelastic dark matter with future LHC experiments,JHEP08(2022) 100, [2201.12253]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [9]

    Liu and J

    W. Liu and J. Sun,Lepton collider imprints of an inelastic dark matter model,Phys. Rev. D 111(2025) 115022, [2503.21083]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [10]

    J. L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling and S. Trojanowski,ForwArd Search ExpeRiment at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 035001, [1708.09389]. [11]F ASERcollaboration, A. Ariga et al.,FASER’s physics reach for long-lived particles,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 095011, [1811.12522]. [12]F ASERcollaboration, A. Ariga et al.,Technical Proposal for FASER: ForwArd Search ExpeRimen...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [15]

    Curtin et al.,Long-Lived Particles at the Energy Frontier: The MATHUSLA Physics Case,Rept

    D. Curtin et al.,Long-Lived Particles at the Energy Frontier: The MATHUSLA Physics Case,Rept. Prog. Phys.82(2019) 116201, [1806.07396]. [16]MATHUSLAcollaboration, C. Alpigiani et al.,An Update to the Letter of Intent for MATHUSLA: Search for Long-Lived Particles at the HL-LHC,2009.01693. [17]MATHUSLAcollaboration, B. Aitken et al.,MATHUSLA: An External Lo...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [18]

    V. V. Gligorov, S. Knapen, M. Papucci and D. J. Robinson,Searching for Long-lived Particles: A Compact Detector for Exotics at LHCb,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 015023, [1708.09395]. [19]CODEX-bcollaboration, G. Aielli et al.,Expression of interest for the CODEX-b detector, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 1177, [1911.00481]. [20]CODEX-bcollaboration, G. Aielli et al.,COD...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [21]

    V. V. Gligorov, S. Knapen, B. Nachman, M. Papucci and D. J. Robinson,Leveraging the ALICE/L3 cavern for long-lived particle searches,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 015023, [1810.03636]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [22]

    J. L. Pinfold,The MoEDAL experiment: a new light on the high-energy frontier,Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A377(2019) 20190382. [23]ANUBIScollaboration, O. Brandt et al.,The ANUBIS detector and its sensitivity to neutral long-lived particles,2510.26932

    arXiv 2019

  13. [24]

    Cerci et al.,FACET: A new long-lived particle detector in the very forward region of the CMS experiment,JHEP06(2022) 110, [2201.00019]

    S. Cerci et al.,FACET: A new long-lived particle detector in the very forward region of the CMS experiment,JHEP06(2022) 110, [2201.00019]

    arXiv 2022

  14. [25]

    McCullough and M

    M. McCullough and M. Fairbairn,Capture of inelastic dark matter in white dwarves,Phys. Rev. D81(Apr, 2010) 083520

    2010

  15. [26]

    Krall and M

    R. Krall and M. Reece,Last electroweak WIMP standing: pseudo-dirac higgsino status and compact stars as future probes,Chinese Physics C42(apr, 2018) 043105

    2018

  16. [27]

    Hooper, D

    D. Hooper, D. Spolyar, A. Vallinotto and N. Y. Gnedin,Inelastic Dark Matter As An Efficient Fuel For Compact Stars,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 103531, [1002.0005]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [28]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, M. E. Ramirez-Quezada, S. Robles and M. Virgato,Improved treatment of dark matter capture in white dwarfs,JCAP10(2021) 083, [2104.14367]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [29]

    Biswas, A

    A. Biswas, A. Kar, H. Kim, S. Scopel and L. Velasco-Sevilla,Improved white dwarves constraints on inelastic dark matter and left-right symmetric models,Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 083012, [2206.06667]

    arXiv 2022

  19. [30]

    Fujiwara, K

    M. Fujiwara, K. Hamaguchi, N. Nagata and J. Zheng,Capture of Electroweak Multiplet Dark Matter in Neutron Stars,2204.02238

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [31]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, S. Robles and M. Virgato,Improved Treatment of Dark Matter Capture in Neutron Stars,JCAP09(2020) 028, [2004.14888]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [32]

    N. Raj, P. Tanedo and H.-B. Yu,Neutron stars at the dark matter direct detection frontier, Phys. Rev. D97(Feb, 2018) 043006

    2018

  22. [33]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni and S. Robles,Heating up Neutron Stars with Inelastic Dark Matter, JCAP09(2018) 018, [1807.02840]. – 17 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [34]

    Tucker-Smith and N

    D. Tucker-Smith and N. Weiner,Inelastic dark matter,Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 043502, [hep-ph/0101138]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  24. [35]

    Tucker-Smith and N

    D. Tucker-Smith and N. Weiner,The Status of inelastic dark matter,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 063509, [hep-ph/0402065]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  25. [36]

    Kearney, N

    J. Kearney, N. Orlofsky and A. Pierce,Zboson mediated dark matter beyond the effective theory,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 035020, [1611.05048]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [37]

    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

  27. [38]

    B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg,Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses,Phys. Rev. Lett.39(1977) 165–168

    1977

  28. [39]

    Y. Cui, D. E. Morrissey, D. Poland and L. Randall,Candidates for Inelastic Dark Matter, JHEP05(2009) 076, [0901.0557]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  29. [40]

    E. J. Chun, J.-C. Park and S. Scopel,Dark matter and a new gauge boson through kinetic mixing,JHEP02(2011) 100, [1011.3300]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  30. [41]

    Graham, C

    M. Graham, C. Hearty and M. Williams,Searches for Dark Photons at Accelerators,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71(2021) 37–58, [2104.10280]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [42]

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

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

    1986

  32. [43]

    del Aguila, G

    F. del Aguila, G. D. Coughlan and M. Quiros,Gauge Coupling Renormalization With Several U(1) Factors,Nucl. Phys. B307(1988) 633

    1988

  33. [44]

    Curtin, R

    D. Curtin, R. Essig, S. Gori and J. Shelton,Illuminating Dark Photons with High-Energy Colliders,JHEP02(2015) 157, [1412.0018]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  34. [45]

    Hoenig, G

    I. Hoenig, G. Samach and D. Tucker-Smith,Searching for dilepton resonances below the Z mass at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 075016, [1408.1075]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [46]

    A. Hook, E. Izaguirre and J. G. Wacker,Model Independent Bounds on Kinetic Mixing,Adv. High Energy Phys.2011(2011) 859762, [1006.0973]. [47]CMScollaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al.,Search for Inelastic Dark Matter in Events with Two Displaced Muons and Missing Transverse Momentum in Proton-Proton Collisions at s=13 TeV,Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 041802, [23...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  36. [48]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli and G. Lanfranchi,The Dark Photon,2005.01515. [49]BaBarcollaboration, J. P. Lees et al.,Search for Invisible Decays of a Dark Photon Produced ine+e− Collisions at BaBar,Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) 131804, [1702.03327]. [50]BaBarcollaboration, B. Aubert et al.,Search for Invisible Decays of a Light Scalar in Radiative Transitions...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  37. [51]

    deNiverville, M

    P. deNiverville, M. Pospelov and A. Ritz,Observing a light dark matter beam with neutrino experiments,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 075020, [1107.4580]. [52]LSNDcollaboration, L. B. Auerbach et al.,Measurement of electron - neutrino - electron elastic scattering,Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 112001, [hep-ex/0101039]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  38. [53]

    J. D. Bjorken, S. Ecklund, W. R. Nelson, A. Abashian, C. Church, B. Lu et al.,Search for Neutral Metastable Penetrating Particles Produced in the SLAC Beam Dump,Phys. Rev. D 38(1988) 3375. – 18 –

    1988

  39. [54]

    Batell, R

    B. Batell, R. Essig and Z. Surujon,Strong Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Sectors from SLAC Beam Dump E137,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 171802, [1406.2698]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  40. [55]

    Essig et al.,Working Group Report: New Light Weakly Coupled Particles, inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi, 10, 2013.1311.0029

    R. Essig et al.,Working Group Report: New Light Weakly Coupled Particles, inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi, 10, 2013.1311.0029

    arXiv 2013

  41. [56]

    Berlin, S

    A. Berlin, S. Gori, P. Schuster and N. Toro,Dark Sectors at the Fermilab SeaQuest Experiment,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 035011, [1804.00661]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [57]

    Izaguirre, Y

    E. Izaguirre, Y. Kahn, G. Krnjaic and M. Moschella,Testing Light Dark Matter Coannihilation With Fixed-Target Experiments,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 055007, [1703.06881]. [58]ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and missing transverse momentum inppcollisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,Phys. Rev. D1...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [59]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2250–2300, [1310.1921]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [60]

    Belyaev, N

    A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen and A. Pukhov,CalcHEP 3.4 for collider physics within and beyond the Standard Model,Comput. Phys. Commun.184(2013) 1729–1769, [1207.6082]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [61]

    Alguero, G

    G. Alguero, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, S. Chakraborti, A. Goudelis, S. Kraml et al., micrOMEGAs 6.0: N-component dark matter,Comput. Phys. Commun.299(2024) 109133, [2312.14894]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [62]

    Barducci, G

    D. Barducci, G. Belanger, J. Bernon, F. Boudjema, J. Da Silva, S. Kraml et al.,Collider limits on new physics within micrOMEGAs_4.3,Comput. Phys. Commun.222(2018) 327–338, [1606.03834]. [63]Particle Data Groupcollaboration, S. Navas et al.,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [64]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini,Cosmic abundances of stable particles: Improved analysis,Nucl. Phys. B360(1991) 145–179

    1991

  48. [65]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner,The Early Universe, vol. 69. Taylor and Francis, 5, 2019, 10.1201/9780429492860

    doi:10.1201/9780429492860 2019

  49. [66]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi and Y. Takaesu,Revisiting Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Long-Lived Decaying Particles,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 023502, [1709.01211]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [67]

    M. C. Smith et al.,The RAVE Survey: Constraining the Local Galactic Escape Speed,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.379(2007) 755–772, [astro-ph/0611671]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  51. [68]

    Piffl et al.,The RAVE survey: the Galactic escape speed and the mass of the Milky Way, Astron

    T. Piffl et al.,The RAVE survey: the Galactic escape speed and the mass of the Milky Way, Astron. Astrophys.562(2014) A91, [1309.4293]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  52. [69]

    A. M. Green,Astrophysical uncertainties on direct detection experiments,Mod. Phys. Lett. A 27(2012) 1230004, [1112.0524]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [70]

    S. J. Clark, B. Dutta and L. E. Strigari,Dark matter annihilation into four-body final states and implications for the ams antiproton excess,Phys. Rev. D97(Jan, 2018) 023003

    2018

  54. [71]

    Carrillo González and N

    M. Carrillo González and N. Toro,Cosmology and signals of light pseudo-Dirac dark matter, JHEP04(2022) 060, [2108.13422]. – 19 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [72]

    Gould,WIMP Distribution in and Evaporation From the Sun,Astrophys

    A. Gould,WIMP Distribution in and Evaporation From the Sun,Astrophys. J.321(1987) 560

    1987

  56. [74]

    J. Silk, K. A. Olive and M. Srednicki,The Photino, the Sun and High-Energy Neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett.55(1985) 257–259

    1985

  57. [75]

    Gould,Resonant Enhancements in WIMP Capture by the Earth,Astrophys

    A. Gould,Resonant Enhancements in WIMP Capture by the Earth,Astrophys. J.321(1987) 571

    1987

  58. [76]

    Goldman and S

    I. Goldman and S. Nussinov,Weakly Interacting Massive Particles and Neutron Stars,Phys. Rev. D40(1989) 3221–3230

    1989

  59. [77]

    Catena and F

    R. Catena and F. Hellström,New constraints on inelastic dark matter from IceCube,JCAP 10(2018) 039, [1808.08082]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [78]

    Baryakhtar, J

    M. Baryakhtar, J. Bramante, S. W. Li, T. Linden and N. Raj,Dark kinetic heating of neutron stars and an infrared window on wimps, simps, and pure higgsinos,Phys. Rev. Lett. 119(Sep, 2017) 131801

    2017

  61. [79]

    J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith,Review of mathematics, numerical factors, and corrections for dark matter experiments based on elastic nuclear recoil,Astropart. Phys.6(1996) 87–112

    1996

  62. [80]

    D. G. Yakovlev and C. J. Pethick,Neutron star cooling,Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.42 (2004) 169–210, [astro-ph/0402143]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  63. [81]

    N. Raj, P. Shivanna and G. N. Rachh,Exploring reheated sub-40000 kelvin neutron stars with jwst, elt, and tmt,Phys. Rev. D109(Jun, 2024) 123040

    2024

  64. [82]

    Fujiwara, K

    M. Fujiwara, K. Hamaguchi, N. Nagata and M. E. Ramirez-Quezada,Vortex creep heating vs. dark matter heating in neutron stars,Physics Letters B848(2024) 138341

    2024

  65. [83]

    J. L. Feng et al.,The Forward Physics Facility at the High-Luminosity LHC,J. Phys. G50 (2023) 030501, [2203.05090]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  66. [84]

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

    J. Adhikary et al.,Scientific program for the Forward Physics Facility,Eur. Phys. J. C85 (2025) 430, [2411.04175]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [85]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer,MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond,JHEP06(2011) 128, [1106.0522]. [86]NNPDFcollaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions from high-precision collider data,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 663, [1706.00428]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  68. [87]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer and T. Reiter,UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output,Comput. Phys. Commun.183(2012) 1201–1214, [1108.2040]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  69. [88]

    A. L. Foguel, P. Reimitz and R. Z. Funchal,Unlocking the inelastic Dark Matter window with vector mediators,JHEP05(2025) 001, [2410.00881]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [89]

    G. F. Giudice, D. Kim, J.-C. Park and S. Shin,Inelastic Boosted Dark Matter at Direct Detection Experiments,Phys. Lett. B780(2018) 543–552, [1712.07126]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [90]

    A. L. Foguel, P. Reimitz and R. Z. Funchal,A robust description of hadronic decays in light vector mediator models,JHEP04(2022) 119, [2201.01788]. – 20 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022