Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Adding a real scalar singlet to the general two-Higgs-doublet model yields a stable dark-matter candidate that talks to the Standard Model mainly through the top quark, and a flavor-violating top tag for otherwise invisible dark-matter sign

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 07:53 UTC pith:4O6WN6XM

load-bearing objection Solid, tool-driven G2HDM+S phenomenology that cleanly maps viable top-window DM and flags a distinctive ρ_tc mono-top channel; the ad-hoc Z2 is standard and the deferred ATLAS reinterp is already flagged by the authors. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02659 v1 pith:4O6WN6XM submitted 2026-07-02 hep-ph hep-ex

Dark Matter in the General 2HDM with Extra Top Yukawa Couplings

Leon M.G. de la Vega , Mohamed Krab This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords G2HDMscalar dark mattertop-window DMextra Yukawa couplingssinglet portalflavor-violating Higgsmono-top signaturerelic density
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 builds a concrete ultraviolet completion of top-window dark matter by grafting a real scalar singlet S onto the general two-Higgs-doublet model (G2HDM). An ad-hoc dark Z2 keeps S stable. The authors map the joint constraints from Higgs signal strengths, direct LHC searches for extra scalars, the observed relic density, spin-independent direct detection, and indirect-detection limits. Inside the surviving region they find a rich collider phenomenology controlled by the singlet portal coupling, the extra top Yukawa couplings, and the mass ordering of the heavy scalars. Six benchmarks are offered that span singlet-portal, bosonic-cascade, fermiophilic and flavor-violating regimes. In the last of these, a non-diagonal top-charm coupling opens the production mode cg to tH; the top then tags the otherwise invisible H to SS decay, giving a distinctive mono-top plus missing-energy signature that is absent in flavor-conserving 2HDM-plus-singlet models.

Core claim

Within the parameter space allowed by Higgs signal-strength measurements, direct LHC searches, relic density, LZ direct detection and AMS-02/Fermi-LAT indirect detection, the G2HDM+S realizes viable top-window dark matter and a distinct flavor-violating production channel cg to tH followed by H to SS, so that a top quark tags an otherwise invisible dark-matter final state.

What carries the argument

The real scalar singlet S stabilized by a dark Z2, coupled to the two Higgs doublets through the portal lambda12 S squared (H1 dagger H2 + h.c.); together with the extra top Yukawa matrix rho (especially rho_tt and rho_tc) this portal controls both the thermal freeze-out of S and the collider production and decay patterns of the heavy CP-even Higgs H.

Load-bearing premise

Dark-matter stability is imposed by hand through an ad-hoc dark Z2 that acts only on the singlet S; if that discrete symmetry is broken or absent, S is no longer stable and the whole dark-sector phenomenology collapses.

What would settle it

A dedicated reinterpretation or new search for the mono-top plus missing-energy signature arising from cg to tH to tSS (using existing ATLAS top-plus-MET selections or HL-LHC data) that either excludes the BP1-prime benchmark region or fails to find any excess consistent with the predicted cross section.

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

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 extends the general two-Higgs-doublet model by a real scalar singlet S stabilized by an ad-hoc dark Z2, yielding the G2HDM+S framework as a UV completion of top-window dark matter. After imposing theoretical constraints (perturbativity, unitarity) and experimental bounds on the visible sector (HiggsSignals/HiggsBounds, oblique parameters) and on the dark sector (relic density via micrOMEGAs, LZ spin-independent direct detection, AMS-02/Fermi-LAT indirect detection), the authors map the surviving (mS, λ12) space for two representative values of the CP-even mixing cγ. They then present six benchmark points (BP1–BP5 and the flavor-violating BP1′) that illustrate singlet-portal, bosonic-cascade, fermiophilic and ρtc-driven regimes, and they highlight the mono-top channel cg o tH o tSS as a distinctive collider signature of the non-NFC Yukawa structure.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies a concrete, tool-validated embedding of top-window DM inside a model already motivated by electroweak baryogenesis. The explicit benchmarks and the two-dimensional maps of B(H o SS) and related cascade cross sections (Fig. 5) give experimental groups ready-to-use targets. The flavor-violating mono-top mode is a genuine novelty relative to NFC 2HDM+S constructions and is correctly identified as such. Strengths include the consistent use of public codes (SARAH/SPheno, HiggsTools, micrOMEGAs) against published limits and the transparent separation of visible-sector and dark-sector scans.

major comments (2)
  1. Section V and the discussion surrounding BP1′ and Fig. 5 assert that cg o tH o tSS is a distinctive, experimentally accessible signature, yet no signal-to-background estimate, acceptance, or reinterpretation of the existing ATLAS mono-top search [49] is provided. The authors themselves defer this analysis. Without at least a parton-level estimate of the expected yield or a statement of the luminosity at which the channel becomes competitive with the gg o H o SS rate, the claim that the mode “allows the top quark to serve as a trigger” remains qualitative and weakens the central phenomenological selling point of the paper.
  2. The numerical scans of Sec. IV D and the benchmarks of Table II are performed almost exclusively at |ρtt|=0.1 and with λ11=λ22=0. While the restriction is motivated, the abstract and introduction present G2HDM+S as a general UV completion of top-window DM. A short additional scan (or a clear statement of the domain of validity) showing how the relic-density and direct-detection contours deform when |ρtt| is varied within the HiggsSignals-allowed window of Fig. 1 would strengthen the claim that the viable region is robust rather than tuned to a single coupling value.
minor comments (5)
  1. Abstract and first paragraph of the Introduction: “This setup provide a viable UV completion” → “provides”.
  2. Fig. 1 caption and surrounding text: the HL-LHC projection is described as “naive”; a one-sentence clarification of the scaling assumption (luminosity only, or also systematic improvements) would help the reader.
  3. Table II: the column header “BP1′” is easy to miss; a short note in the caption that BP1′ differs from BP1 only by ρtc=0.1 and a reduced λ12 would improve readability.
  4. Appendix B: the statement that a complex phase of ρtt changes the annihilation cross section by less than 5 % is useful; quoting the numerical range of φ that was scanned would make the check fully reproducible.
  5. References [37] and [42] are listed as arXiv preprints without journal information; updating them if published versions exist would be desirable.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: viable DM and collider signatures are obtained from external experimental constraints and public tools, not by construction from the paper's own inputs.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§I (Introduction) and §II (G2HDM+S setup)]
    "Motivated by these studies, we extend the G2HDM by a scalar DM candidate S... This can be, for example, achieved through either a flavor-diagonal top coupling or a flavor-nondiagonal top-charm coupling. This model for EWBG can accommodate sub-TeV exotic scalars... [5–11]."

    The motivation for large complex ρtt and sub-TeV scalars is drawn from the authors’ (and collaborators’) prior G2HDM/EWBG papers. Those citations set the stage for the parameter choices but do not enter the micrOMEGAs or HiggsTools calculations that produce the relic-density, DD or collider results; the circularity is therefore only motivational and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper extends G2HDM by a real singlet S stabilized by an explicit ad-hoc dark Z2 (Table I, §II), then scans the remaining free parameters (mS, λ12 and fixed visible-sector benchmarks) against external data: HiggsSignals/HiggsBounds (HiggsTools), LZ SI limits, AMS-02/Fermi-LAT indirect limits, and the observed relic density via micrOMEGAs. Benchmarks BP1–BP5 and BP1′ are selected after the scan to illustrate distinct decay topologies; they do not define the allowed region. Self-citations to prior G2HDM/EWBG work supply motivation and the allowed range of ρtt, but the DM annihilation, direct-detection and production cross sections are computed independently and are not forced by those citations. The distinctive cg→tH→tSS mono-top mode follows directly from turning on ρtc=0.1 in BP1′ and is not a fitted or self-defined quantity. The only minor self-reference is the use of earlier G2HDM papers for context; it is not load-bearing for the DM or collider claims. Score 1 reflects that single non-load-bearing self-citation chain; the central results remain externally constrained and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard G2HDM scalar potential plus one new Z2-odd real singlet, a portal coupling λ12, and a suite of free masses and mixings scanned against external data. The dark Z2 and the restriction λ11=λ22=0 are modeling choices without independent evidence; the rest is ordinary BSM parameter space.

free parameters (7)
  • λ12 (singlet-doublet portal)
    Scanned over (10^{-3},10); sets both relic density and direct-detection rate. Chosen to satisfy Ωh² within 5% for each benchmark.
  • mS (dark-matter mass)
    Scanned 50–700 GeV; free continuous parameter fixed by hand for each benchmark to lie on the relic-density contour.
  • cγ (CP-even mixing)
    Fixed to 0.001 or 0.1 for the two scan slices; controls alignment and direct-detection strength.
  • ρ_tt (extra top Yukawa)
    Fixed |ρ_tt|=0.1 (real) for DM scans; motivated by EWBG but treated as a free input for collider and DM rates.
  • ρ_tc (flavor-violating top-charm Yukawa)
    Set to 0 for BP1–BP5 and to 0.1 for BP1′; controls the mono-top production and H→tc branching.
  • mH, mA, mH+ (heavy scalar masses)
    Hand-chosen hierarchies (450–800 GeV) that define the six qualitative regimes; not derived.
  • η2, η7, μ22
    Fixed to small values (0.01) or (600 GeV)^2 to satisfy unitarity/perturbativity and simplify the scan.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper An exact dark Z2 under which only S is odd, guaranteeing absolute DM stability.
    Introduced in §II and Table I with no dynamical origin; standard but non-derived modeling choice.
  • domain assumption CP-invariant scalar potential (all ηi, λij real).
    Stated in §II; simplifies the mass matrices and forbids SSA coupling.
  • domain assumption Thermal freeze-out with standard cosmology computes the relic density via micrOMEGAs.
    Used throughout §IV; assumes no late entropy injection or non-thermal production.
  • domain assumption Tree-level unitarity and |ηi|<4π suffice for theoretical consistency.
    §III.A; checked with SPheno but higher-order effects not included.
  • ad hoc to paper λ11=λ22=0, so the only portal is λ12.
    Explicit modeling choice in §II to avoid SM-Higgs-portal and pure λ22 regimes; restricts the claim.
invented entities (2)
  • Real scalar singlet S (Z2-odd dark-matter candidate) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide a stable scalar DM particle that communicates with the SM via the G2HDM scalar portal.
    New field added to the G2HDM spectrum; mass and couplings free. Independent evidence is only the usual cosmological DM abundance, not a unique prediction of this paper.
  • G2HDM+S model (G2HDM + real singlet + dark Z2) no independent evidence
    purpose: UV-complete top-window DM while retaining extra top Yukawas for EWBG and collider signals.
    The combined framework is the paper’s central construction; its distinctiveness rests on the non-NFC Yukawas plus the singlet.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 20015 in / 3597 out tokens · 36648 ms · 2026-07-12T07:53:49.442663+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We extend the general two Higgs doublet model (G2HDM), which introduces extra Yukawa couplings, by an additional real scalar singlet (G2HDM+S), providing a viable scalar dark matter (DM) candidate. This setup provide a viable UV completion of top-window dark matter scenarios, in which DM communicates with the standard model predominantly through the top quark. We analyze the constraints on the visible scalar sector from Higgs signal strength measurements and direct searches for additional Higgs bosons at the LHC, and those on the dark sector from cosmological observables, including the observed DM relic density and spin-independent direct-detection as well as indirect detection. Within the surviving parameter space, we identify a rich and diverse LHC phenomenology governed by the interplay between the singlet portal, the extended Yukawa sector, and the heavy scalar mass hierarchy. To facilitate experimental investigation, we propose six benchmark scenarios spanning the singlet-portal, bosonic-cascade, fermiophilic, and flavor-violating regimes. In the latter, the nondiagonal top-charm coupling $\rho_{tc}$ induces the production channel $cg \to tH$, allowing the top quark to serve as a trigger for an otherwise invisible $H\to SS$ signal. This flavor-violating DM production is a distinct feature of the G2HDM+S.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02659 by Leon M.G. de la Vega, Mohamed Krab.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Excluded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Leading contributions to dark matter freeze-out annihilation cross section. Here the possible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Leading contributions to the elastic dark matter-nucleon scattering cross section. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Excluded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The branching ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 44 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    V. C. Rubin, N. Thonnard, and W. K. Ford, Jr., Astrophys. J.238, 471 (1980)

    1980

  2. [2]

    Clowe, M

    D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky, Astrophys. J. Lett.648, L109 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608407

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  3. [3]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5, 32 (1967)

    1967

  5. [5]

    Fuyuto, W.-S

    K. Fuyuto, W.-S. Hou, and E. Senaha, Phys. Lett. B776, 402 (2018), arXiv:1705.05034 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Kohda, T

    M. Kohda, T. Modak, and W.-S. Hou, Phys. Lett. B776, 379 (2018), arXiv:1710.07260 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    D. K. Ghosh, W.-S. Hou, and T. Modak, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 221801 (2020), arXiv:1912.10613 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Hou and M

    W.-S. Hou and M. Krab, Phys. Rev. D110, L011702 (2024), arXiv:2405.19190 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Fuyuto, W.-S

    K. Fuyuto, W.-S. Hou, and E. Senaha, Phys. Rev. D101, 011901 (2020), arXiv:1910.12404 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    W.-S. Hou, G. Kumar, and S. Teunissen, JHEP01, 092 (2022), arXiv:2109.08936 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    W.-S. Hou, G. Kumar, and S. Teunissen, Phys. Rev. D109, L011703 (2024), arXiv:2308.04841 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, and I. W. Sanderson, JCAP01, 015 (2018), arXiv:1710.10764 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    M. E. Cabrera, J. A. Casas, A. Delgado, and S. Robles, JHEP01, 123 (2021), arXiv:2011.09101 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Arcadi, G

    G. Arcadi, G. Busoni, T. Hugle, and V. T. Tenorth, JHEP06, 098 (2020), arXiv:2001.10540 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Arcadi, D

    G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, J. P. Neto, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 152 (2025), arXiv:2403.15860 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Athronet al.(GAMBIT), Eur

    P. Athronet al.(GAMBIT), Eur. Phys. J. C77, 568 (2017), arXiv:1705.07931 [hep-ph] . 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Escudero Abenza and T

    M. Escudero Abenza and T. Hambye, Phys. Lett. B868, 139696 (2025), arXiv:2505.02408 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Crivellin, A

    A. Crivellin, A. Kokulu, and C. Greub, Phys. Rev. D87, 094031 (2013), arXiv:1303.5877 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  19. [19]

    Cheung, K

    K. Cheung, K. Mawatari, E. Senaha, P.-Y. Tseng, and T.-C. Yuan, JHEP10, 081 (2010), arXiv:1009.0618 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  20. [20]

    Demetriou, G

    G. Demetriou, G. Isidori, G. Piazza, and E. Pinsard, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 865 (2025), arXiv:2505.04708 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Davidson and H

    S. Davidson and H. E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D72, 035004 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 72, 099902 (2005)], arXiv:hep-ph/0504050

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  22. [22]

    Staub, Comput

    F. Staub, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 1773 (2014), arXiv:1309.7223 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Porod, Comput

    W. Porod, Comput. Phys. Commun.153, 275 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0301101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  24. [24]

    Porod and F

    W. Porod and F. Staub, Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 2458 (2012), arXiv:1104.1573 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  25. [25]

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 964 (1990)

    1990

  26. [26]

    Grimus, L

    W. Grimus, L. Lavoura, O. M. Ogreid, and P. Osland, J. Phys. G35, 075001 (2008), arXiv:0711.4022 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    Grimus, L

    W. Grimus, L. Lavoura, O. M. Ogreid, and P. Osland, Nucl. Phys. B801, 81 (2008), arXiv:0802.4353 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. St˚ al, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2711 (2014), arXiv:1305.1933 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 145 (2021), arXiv:2012.09197 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    H. Bahl, T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Li, S. Paasch, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, Comput. Phys. Commun.291, 108803 (2023), arXiv:2210.09332 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 138 (2010), arXiv:0811.4169 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [33]

    H. Bahl, V. M. Lozano, T. Stefaniak, and J. Wittbrodt, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 584 (2022), arXiv:2109.10366 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 231801 (2024), arXiv:2311.15956 [hep-ex] . 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP07, 040 (2023), arXiv:2209.10910 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP07, 040 (2023), arXiv:2209.10910 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rept.1115, 368 (2025), arXiv:2403.16926 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Search for heavy pseudoscalar and scalar bosons decaying to a top quark pair in proton–proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), “Search for heavy pseudoscalar and scalar bosons decaying to a top quark pair in proton–proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” (2025), arXiv:2507.05119 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP06, 016 (2023), arXiv:2207.00230 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP06, 016 (2023), arXiv:2207.00230 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP06, 145 (2021), arXiv:2102.10076 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP06, 145 (2021), arXiv:2102.10076 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP12, 081 (2023), arXiv:2307.14759 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP12, 081 (2023), arXiv:2307.14759 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B850, 138478 (2024), arXiv:2311.03261 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), (2025), arXiv:2512.24471 [hep-ex]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), (2025), arXiv:2512.24471 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Alguero, G

    G. Alguero, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, S. Chakraborti, A. Goudelis, S. Kraml, A. Mjallal, and A. Pukhov, Comput. Phys. Commun.299, 109133 (2024), arXiv:2312.14894 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Bishara, J

    F. Bishara, J. Brod, B. Grinstein, and J. Zupan, JCAP02, 009 (2017), arXiv:1611.00368 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Cuoco, J

    A. Cuoco, J. Heisig, M. Korsmeier, and M. Kr¨ amer, JCAP04, 004 (2018), arXiv:1711.05274 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Phys

    M. Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 231301 (2015), arXiv:1503.02641 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  48. [48]

    J. F. Kamenik and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D84, 111502 (2011), arXiv:1107.0623 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  49. [49]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP05, 263 (2024), arXiv:2402.16561 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP05, 263 (2024), arXiv:2402.16561 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Hou and M

    W.-S. Hou and M. Krab, (2025), arXiv:2511.02420 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    W.-S. Hou, M. Kohda, and T. Modak, Phys. Rev. D98, 075007 (2018), arXiv:1806.06018 [hep-ph] . 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018