Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 71 references

Direct-detection blind spots do not rescue stable light higgsino dark matter in natural SUSY under thermal abundance.

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

2026-07-11 04:21 UTC pith:W7A4BC2F

load-bearing objection Clean negative result: under thermal ξ and positive gaugino masses, blind spots do not save natural light higgsinos from LZ + soft-dilepton + m_h.

arxiv 2607.05648 v1 pith:W7A4BC2F submitted 2026-07-06 hep-ph

Can blind spots save neutralino dark matter in natural supersymmetry models?

Howard Baer , Vernon Barger , Dibyashree Sengupta This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.60.Jv95.35.+d14.80.Ly
keywords natural supersymmetryhiggsino dark matterdirect detection blind spotsNUHM2NUHM3LZ experimentelectroweak naturalnessaxion-WIMP mixed dark matter
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.

Natural supersymmetry can still satisfy LHC mass limits, but the latest LZ direct-detection bounds nearly rule out light higgsino WIMPs even when those WIMPs make up only their thermally produced fraction of the dark matter (with axions filling the rest). The authors test whether cancellations in the WIMP-nucleon couplings—so-called blind spots—can suppress the rates enough to evade LZ while remaining electroweak-natural. Scanning both signs of the higgsino mass parameter µ in gravity-mediated models with positive gaugino masses, they find that every surviving blind-spot region sits deep in the unnatural regime where |µ| is far larger than the weak-scale gaugino masses. The handful of natural candidates that remain are already excluded by LHC soft-dilepton searches and by the measured Higgs mass. Within this framework, therefore, stable light higgsinos are disfavored; models in which the higgsinos are unstable become the more natural alternative.

Core claim

Within NUHM2/NUHM3-type gravity-mediated models that have positive gaugino masses and that assume a thermally produced neutralino fractional abundance ξ, direct-detection blind spots do not rescue stable light higgsino dark matter inside the electroweak-natural region defined by Δ_EW ≲ 30. All blind spots that survive LZ, LHC soft-dilepton, and Higgs-mass constraints lie in the unnatural part of parameter space.

What carries the argument

The SI blind-spot condition of Cheung et al., (m_χ + µ sin 2β) times a gaugino-mass factor = 0, which for positive M1,2 forces either large |µ| or tan β near 1; the latter drives the light Higgs mass below the measured value once naturalness is imposed.

Load-bearing premise

The local density of WIMPs is taken to be exactly their thermally produced fraction, with no late-time entropy dilution that would further suppress the direct-detection rate.

What would settle it

A concrete natural SUSY spectrum (Δ_EW < 30, mh ≈ 125 GeV, soft-dilepton mass gap allowed by LHC) that yields ξ σ_SI below the LZ limit while remaining consistent with positive gaugino masses would falsify the claim.

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

If this is right

  • Stable light higgsino dark matter is disfavored inside the electroweak-natural region of NUHM2/NUHM3 models under the thermal-abundance assumption.
  • Models with unstable light higgsinos (via suppressed R-parity violation or light axinos) become the preferred alternative for natural SUSY.
  • Any remaining natural window would require large post-freeze-out entropy dilution of all relics, which itself faces BBN and late-decay constraints.
  • Future soft-dilepton and Higgs-mass precision measurements will further close the already tiny natural blind-spot corners.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The result sharpens the tension between electroweak naturalness and R-parity-conserving WIMP dark matter, pushing model-building toward discrete R-symmetries that simultaneously solve the µ problem and generate delayed RPV.
  • If entropy dilution is the only remaining escape, then the associated light moduli or saxions become prime targets for cosmological and collider probes.
  • The same blind-spot logic applied to non-universal gaugino masses or to intermediate-mass CP-odd Higgses could open new windows that the present positive-gaugino, heavy-mA scan does not cover.

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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether SI direct-detection blind spots can rescue thermally under-abundant, light higgsino-like neutralino dark matter in electroweak-natural SUSY (Δ_EW ≲ 30) once the 2025 LZ limits are imposed. Working in NUHM2/NUHM3 gravity mediation with positive gaugino masses, the authors map the µ–m_{1/2} planes (Figs. 1–2) and perform a seven-parameter natural scan (Sec. 4) that includes both signs of µ. They show that the Cheung et al. blind-spot loci either lie far outside the natural region or, when they appear inside it, are already excluded by LHC soft-dilepton searches and by the measured Higgs mass. Consequently, under the stated assumptions (thermal fractional abundance ξ and positive gaugino masses), stable light higgsinos are disfavored; the authors point instead to models with unstable higgsinos (RPV or light axino) as the more viable alternative.

Significance. The result is a clean, experimentally grounded closure of one of the last remaining loopholes for stable natural higgsino dark matter. By confronting the analytic blind-spot conditions with concrete NUHM2/3 spectra, LZ 2025, ATLAS/CMS soft-dilepton limits and m_h, the paper converts a qualitative hope into a quantitative exclusion inside a well-defined framework. The successive cuts (Figs. 3–4) are transparent and falsifiable; the explicit flagging of entropy dilution as a residual escape hatch keeps the claim properly scoped. The work therefore strengthens the case for all-axion or mixed axion/axino dark matter in natural SUSY and supplies a useful benchmark for future LZ and LHC analyses.

minor comments (4)
  1. In Sec. 3.1 the dark line labeled “BLINDSPOT” is stated to lie at µ ∼ −2.25 m_{1/2}; a short parenthetical derivation from the Cheung factorization (Eq. 7) would make the numerical factor immediately transparent.
  2. Fig. 2 caption and surrounding text refer to m_0(1,2)=30 TeV while the body text sometimes writes “20 TeV”; a single consistent value should be used throughout.
  3. The soft-dilepton exclusion contour in Fig. 4 is taken from ATLAS; a brief note that the CMS limit is comparable (or a citation to the more recent of the two) would avoid any ambiguity about which experimental bound is being applied.
  4. A few typographical slips remain (e.g., “form ˜ h ∼1.1 TeV”, “ξσ_SI(p˜χ)” ordering, missing spaces around “µ <0”). A light copy-edit pass would remove them.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central exclusion of natural blind spots is an external scan result, not a definitional or fitted tautology.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 1.0.1, Eqs. (1)–(2)]
    "A more conservative, model-independent measure of finetuning Δ_EW was proposed in Ref. [15,16]. Minimization of the MSSM scalar potential allows one to relate the measured value of m_Z to the weak scale MSSM Lagrangian parameters: m^{2}_Z/2 = … Δ_EW ≡ max_i |ith term on RHS of Eq.1|/(m^{2}_Z/2)."

    The naturalness boundary Δ_EW ≲ 30 that defines the region under study is taken from the authors' own prior papers. This is ordinary definitional scaffolding rather than a circular derivation of the DD result; the SI blind-spot condition and the experimental exclusions remain independent of that definition.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is that Cheung et al. SI blind-spot loci (Eq. 7) either lie outside the electroweak-natural region Δ_EW ≲ 30 or are already excluded by independent experimental inputs (LZ 2025, ATLAS/CMS soft-dilepton searches, measured m_h). Δ_EW itself is defined by the authors' earlier work (Eqs. 1–2) and is used as a selection cut, but the cut is not circular with respect to the DD rate: the SI coupling X^h_ij and the blind-spot condition are taken from the external literature, the spectra are generated by Isajet, and the rates are computed by IsaReS. The thermal-fraction assumption ξ = min(1, Ω_TP h^{2}/0.12) is stated explicitly and is not fitted to the LZ bound. No prediction reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors to forbid alternatives. The single self-citation of the authors' prior naturalness measure is definitional scaffolding, not a load-bearing circular step; the result is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard MSSM soft-term assumptions, the authors’ previously published naturalness measure ∆_EW, the thermal-abundance fraction ξ, and the Cheung et al. blind-spot factorization. No new particles or forces are invented; free parameters are the usual NUHM soft terms scanned over stated ranges.

free parameters (6)
  • m0 (1,2,3)
    Scanned 0–10 TeV (or fixed at 5 TeV / 30 TeV); controls scalar masses and enters the naturalness and spectrum calculation.
  • m1/2
    Scanned 0.5–3 TeV; sets gaugino masses and the location of blind spots relative to µ.
  • A0
    Scanned –20 to +20 TeV (or fixed –1.6 m0); needed for m_h ≃ 125 GeV and for Σ_u^u cancellations.
  • tan β
    Scanned 4–58 (or fixed 10); enters the blind-spot condition via sin 2β and the Higgs mass.
  • µ (both signs)
    Scanned |µ| = 100–500 GeV for naturalness; sign(µ) controls which blind spots are accessible.
  • mA
    Scanned 0.25–10 TeV (or fixed 2 TeV); heavy enough to evade LHC H/A → ττ bounds and to suppress intermediate-mA blind spots.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Electroweak naturalness is quantified by ∆_EW ≲ 30, requiring |µ| ≲ 350 GeV and comparable soft-term contributions.
    Adopted from the authors’ earlier papers (Baer et al. 2012–2013) and used to define the natural region throughout Secs. 1, 3 and 4.
  • domain assumption Gaugino masses are positive and unified at the GUT scale (or arise from a linear gauge kinetic function).
    Stated in Sec. 3.1; restricts the sign combinations that can produce blind spots.
  • domain assumption The local WIMP density is the thermally produced fraction ξ = min(1, Ω_TP h² / 0.12).
    Explicitly assumed in the abstract and used for all ξσ_SI comparisons with LZ.
  • domain assumption SI scattering proceeds dominantly via light-Higgs exchange for decoupled first/second-generation scalars.
    Used to reduce the blind-spot condition to the Cheung et al. factorization (Eq. 7).
  • standard math One-loop corrected spectrum from Isajet 7.92 (Pierce et al. prescription) is accurate to ~1 % for electroweakinos.
    Computational premise of Sec. 2; standard in the literature but not re-validated here.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 19731 in / 3036 out tokens · 20531 ms · 2026-07-11T04:21:47.566973+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Natural supersymmetry (SUSY) models remain viable even in the face of LHC Run 2 sparticle search limits. However, the LZ experiment has placed strong limits on light higgsino dark matter even when the higgsinos carry only their thermally-produced abundance, with the bulk of the dark matter composed of axions. One way out is the possibility of WIMP direct detection blind spots where cancellations in direct detection (DD) couplings lead to tiny DD rates. We examine natural SUSY models with mu <0 and \mu >0 but find that the surviving blind spots all lie in the unnatural region where the superpotential |mu | parameter is much greater than the weak scale gaugino masses; the few natural candidates are excluded by LHC soft-dilepton searches and by the measured Higgs mass. Within NUHM2/NUHM3-type gravity-mediated models with positive gaugino masses and assuming a thermally produced neutralino fractional abundance, direct-detection blind spots do not rescue stable light higgsino dark matter in the electroweak-natural region. Thus, within this framework, stable light higgsino dark matter is disfavored, although special circumstances like large entropy dilution of all relics is still possible. This points to SUSY models with {\it unstable} light higgsinos as perhaps the preferred alternative.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05648 by Dibyashree Sengupta, Howard Baer, Vernon Barger.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The µ vs. m1/2 parameter space of the NUHM2 model for m0 = 5 TeV, A0 = −1.6m0, tan β = 10 and mA = 2 TeV. We show contours of mg˜, mt˜1 , ∆EW , ΩT P χ˜ h 2 and ξσSI (pχ˜). Under RPC-SUSY with relic neutralino dark matter, the green points would be excluded by the new LZ DD limits while the salmon (LZ-allowed) points would be allowed. There is a band of allowed points at small negative µ which barely touche… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The µ vs. m1/2 parameter space of the NUHM3 model for m0 = 5 TeV, m0(1, 2) = 30 TeV, A0 = −m0(3), tan β = 10 and mA = 2 TeV. We show contours of mg˜, mt˜1 , ∆EW , ΩT P χ˜ h 2 and ξσSI (pχ˜). µ < 0 points as well. m0 : 0 − 10 TeV, m1/2 : 0.5 − 3 TeV, A0 : −20 → +20 TeV, (9) tan β : 4 − 58, (10) |µ| : 100 − 500 GeV, (both signs) mA : 0.25 − 10 TeV. (11) with ξ = min 1, Ω T P χ˜ h 2/0.12 . We restrict the sca… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Plot of a) general scan points in the ξσSI (˜χp) vs. mχ˜ plane, showing the LZ limit along with natural and unnatural SUSY scan points. In frame b), we show the same points but imposing the Higgs mass constraint 123 < mh < 127 GeV. For µ < 0, there is a long band of blind spot points which are not excluded by LZ but which are unnatural. In addition, a few blue points escape the LZ TP-WIMP bounds while main… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of general scan points in the mχ˜ 0 2 −mχ˜ 0 1 vs. mχ˜ 0 2 parameter space showing points with and without naturalness constraint (∆EW < 30), the Higgs mass constraint 123 < mh < 127 GeV and the LZ constraint. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.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

71 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · 25 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Witten, Dynamical Breaking of Supersymmetry, Nucl

    E. Witten, Dynamical Breaking of Supersymmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 188 (1981) 513.doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(81)90006-7

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90006-7 1981

  2. [2]

    R. K. Kaul, Gauge Hierarchy in a Supersymmetric Model, Phys. Lett. B 109 (1982) 19–24. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90453-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90453-1 1982

  3. [3]

    Dimopoulos, H

    S. Dimopoulos, H. Georgi, Softly Broken Supersymmetry and SU(5), Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 150–162.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90522-8

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90522-8 1981

  4. [4]

    H. Baer, X. Tata, Weak scale supersymmetry: From superfields to scattering events, Cam- bridge University Press, 2006

    2006

  5. [5]

    Candelas, G

    P. Candelas, G. T. Horowitz, A. Strominger, E. Witten, Vacuum configurations for super- strings, Nucl. Phys. B 258 (1985) 46–74.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90602-9

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90602-9 1985

  6. [6]

    B. S. Acharya, Supersymmetry, Ricci Flat Manifolds and the String Landscape, JHEP 08 (2020) 128.arXiv:1906.06886,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2020)128

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep08(2020)128 2020

  7. [7]

    J. L. Feng, Naturalness and the Status of Supersymmetry, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 (2013) 351–382.arXiv:1302.6587,doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102010-130447

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102010-130447 2013

  8. [8]

    J. R. Ellis, K. Enqvist, D. V. Nanopoulos, F. Zwirner, Observables in Low-Energy Super- string Models, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 1 (1986) 57.doi:10.1142/S0217732386000105

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732386000105 1986

  9. [9]

    Barbieri, G

    R. Barbieri, G. F. Giudice, Upper Bounds on Supersymmetric Particle Masses, Nucl. Phys. B 306 (1988) 63–76.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90171-X

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90171-x 1988

  10. [10]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, D. Mickelson, How conventional measures overestimate electroweak fine-tuning in supersymmetric theory, Phys. Rev. D 88 (9) (2013) 095013.arXiv:1309. 2984,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.095013

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.095013 2013

  11. [11]

    Supersymmetry, Naturalness, and Light Higgsinos

    A. Mustafayev, X. Tata, Supersymmetry, Naturalness, and Light Higgsinos, Indian J. Phys. 88 (2014) 991–1004.arXiv:1404.1386,doi:10.1007/s12648-014-0504-8

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s12648-014-0504-8 2014

  12. [12]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, D. Martinez, S. Salam, Practical naturalness and its implications for weak scale supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 108 (3) (2023) 035050.arXiv:2305.16125, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.035050

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.035050 2023

  13. [13]

    L. E. Ibanez, G. G. Ross, SU(2)-L x U(1) Symmetry Breaking as a Radiative Effect of Supersymmetry Breaking in Guts, Phys. Lett. B 110 (1982) 215–220.doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(82)91239-4

    1982

  14. [14]

    Alvarez-Gaume, J

    L. Alvarez-Gaume, J. Polchinski, M. B. Wise, Minimal Low-Energy Supergravity, Nucl. Phys. B 221 (1983) 495.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90591-6. 12

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90591-6 1983

  15. [15]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, P. Huang, A. Mustafayev, X. Tata, Radiative natural SUSY with a 125 GeV Higgs boson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 161802.arXiv:1207.3343,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.161802

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.161802 2012

  16. [16]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, P. Huang, D. Mickelson, A. Mustafayev, X. Tata, Radiative natural supersymmetry: Reconciling electroweak fine-tuning and the Higgs boson mass, Phys. Rev. D 87 (11) (2013) 115028.arXiv:1212.2655,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.115028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.115028 2013

  17. [17]

    K. J. Bae, H. Baer, V. Barger, D. Sengupta, Revisiting the SUSYµproblem and its solutions in the LHC era, Phys. Rev. D 99 (11) (2019) 115027.arXiv:1902.10748,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.115027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.115027 2019

  18. [18]

    Agrawal, S

    V. Agrawal, S. M. Barr, J. F. Donoghue, D. Seckel, Viable range of the mass scale of the standard model, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 5480–5492.arXiv:hep-ph/9707380,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.5480

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.57.5480 1998

  19. [19]

    S. K. Soni, H. A. Weldon, Analysis of the Supersymmetry Breaking Induced by N=1 Supergravity Theories, Phys. Lett. B 126 (1983) 215–219.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83) 90593-2

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83 1983

  20. [20]

    V. S. Kaplunovsky, J. Louis, Model independent analysis of soft terms in effective super- gravity and in string theory, Phys. Lett. B 306 (1993) 269–275.arXiv:hep-th/9303040, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)90078-V

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)90078-v 1993

  21. [21]

    Towards a Theory of Soft Terms for the Supersymmetric Standard Model

    A. Brignole, L. E. Ibanez, C. Munoz, Towards a theory of soft terms for the supersymmetric Standard Model, Nucl. Phys. B 422 (1994) 125–171, [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 436, 747–748 (1995)].arXiv:hep-ph/9308271,doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)00068-9

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)00068-9 1994

  22. [22]

    Carena, H

    M. Carena, H. E. Haber, Higgs Boson Theory and Phenomenology, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 50 (2003) 63–152.arXiv:hep-ph/0208209,doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(02)00177-1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0146-6410(02)00177-1 2003

  23. [23]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, M. Savoy, Upper bounds on sparticle masses from naturalness or how to disprove weak scale supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 93 (3) (2016) 035016.arXiv: 1509.02929,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.035016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.035016 2016

  24. [24]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, J. S. Gainer, D. Sengupta, H. Serce, X. Tata, LHC luminosity and energy upgrades confront natural supersymmetry models, Phys. Rev. D 98 (7) (2018) 075010.arXiv:1808.04844,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.075010

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.075010 2018

  25. [25]

    M. Dine, R. G. Leigh, A. Kagan, Flavor symmetries and the problem of squark degeneracy, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 4269–4274.arXiv:hep-ph/9304299,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48. 4269

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.48 1993

  26. [26]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, A. E. Nelson, The More minimal supersymmetric stan- dard model, Phys. Lett. B 388 (1996) 588–598.arXiv:hep-ph/9607394,doi:10.1016/ S0370-2693(96)01183-5. 13

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  27. [27]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, D. Sengupta, Landscape solution to the SUSY flavor and CP problems, Phys. Rev. Res. 1 (3) (2019) 033179.arXiv:1910.00090,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.1.033179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    H. Baer, A. Lessa, S. Rajagopalan, W. Sreethawong, Mixed axion/neutralino cold dark matter in supersymmetric models, JCAP 06 (2011) 031.arXiv:1103.5413,doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2011/06/031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, D. Sengupta, X. Tata, Is natural higgsino-only dark matter ex- cluded?, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (10) (2018) 838.arXiv:1803.11210,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-018-6306-y

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/ 2018

  30. [30]

    Aalbers, et al., Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys

    J. Aalbers, et al., Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (1) (2025) 011802.arXiv:2410. 17036,doi:10.1103/4dyc-z8zf

    doi:10.1103/4dyc-z8zf 2025

  31. [31]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, H. Serce, SUSY under siege from direct and indirect WIMP detection experiments, Phys. Rev. D 94 (11) (2016) 115019.arXiv:1609.06735,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.94.115019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, D. Sengupta, K. Zhang, All axion dark matter from supersymmet- ric models, Phys. Rev. D 111 (11) (2025) L111702.arXiv:2502.06955,doi:10.1103/ 1n3m-g69m

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, J. Bolich, D. Sengupta, K. Zhang, Aspects of the WIMP quality problem and R-parity violation in natural supersymmetry with all axion dark matter, JCAP 10 (2025) 072.arXiv:2505.09785,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/072

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/072 2025

  34. [34]

    J. E. Kim, H. P. Nilles, The mu Problem and the Strong CP Problem, Phys. Lett. B 138 (1984) 150–154.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91890-2

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91890-2 1984

  35. [35]

    E. J. Chun, Axino phenomenology, Eur. Phys. J. ST 229 (21) (2020) 3221–3228.doi: 10.1140/epjst/e2020-000044-8

    work page doi:10.1140/epjst/e2020-000044-8 2020

  36. [36]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, K. Zhang, Natural SUSY with mixed axion/axino dark matter, Phys. Lett. B 879 (2026) 140655.arXiv:2604.04687,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140655

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140655 2026

  37. [37]

    H. Baer, M. Brhlik, Neutralino dark matter in minimal supergravity: Direct detection versus collider searches, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 567–577.arXiv:hep-ph/9706509,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.567

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.57.567 1998

  38. [38]

    J. R. Ellis, A. Ferstl, K. A. Olive, Reevaluation of the elastic scattering of supersymmetric dark matter, Phys. Lett. B 481 (2000) 304–314.arXiv:hep-ph/0001005,doi:10.1016/ S0370-2693(00)00459-7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  39. [39]

    H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, J. O’Farrill, Direct detection of dark matter in supersym- metric models, JCAP 09 (2003) 007.arXiv:hep-ph/0305191,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2003/09/007. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2003

  40. [40]

    H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, E.-K. Park, X. Tata, Target dark matter detection rates in models with a well-tempered neutralino, JCAP 01 (2007) 017.arXiv:hep-ph/0611387,doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2007/01/017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2007/01/017 2007

  41. [41]

    H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, E.-K. Park, X. Tata, Collider signals and neutralino dark matter detection in relic-density-consistent models without universality, JHEP 05 (2008) 058. arXiv:0802.3384,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/05/058

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/05/058 2008

  42. [42]

    Prospects and Blind Spots for Neutralino Dark Matter

    C. Cheung, L. J. Hall, D. Pinner, J. T. Ruderman, Prospects and Blind Spots for Neutralino Dark Matter, JHEP 05 (2013) 100.arXiv:1211.4873,doi:10.1007/ JHEP05(2013)100

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  43. [43]

    Blind Spots for neutralino Dark Matter in the MSSM with an intermediate m_A

    P. Huang, C. E. M. Wagner, Blind Spots for neutralino Dark Matter in the MSSM with an intermediatem A, Phys. Rev. D 90 (1) (2014) 015018.arXiv:1404.0392,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.90.015018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    T. Han, F. Kling, S. Su, Y. Wu, Unblinding the dark matter blind spots, JHEP 02 (2017) 057.arXiv:1612.02387,doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2017)057

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep02(2017)057 2017

  45. [45]

    K. J. Bae, Reconsidering the Blind Spots of Neutralino Dark Matter: a Perturbative Approach, New Phys. Sae Mulli 72 (8) (2022) 573–581.doi:10.3938/NPSM.72.573

    work page doi:10.3938/npsm.72.573 2022

  46. [46]

    Arcadi, S

    G. Arcadi, S. Profumo, WIMPs below the radar: blind spots and benchmarks beyond the neutrino floor, JHEP 10 (2025) 123.arXiv:2506.19062,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2025)123

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep10(2025)123 2025

  47. [47]

    Arkani-Hamed, A

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Delgado, G. F. Giudice, The Well-tempered neutralino, Nucl. Phys. B 741 (2006) 108–130.arXiv:hep-ph/0601041,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.02.010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.02.010 2006

  48. [48]

    The Muon Anomalous Magnetic Dipole Moment in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model

    T. Moroi, The Muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment in the minimal supersymmet- ric standard model, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6565–6575, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 56, 4424 (1997)].arXiv:hep-ph/9512396,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.6565

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.53.6565 1996

  49. [49]

    H. Baer, C. Balazs, J. Ferrandis, X. Tata, Impact of muon anomalous magnetic moment on supersymmetric models, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 035004.arXiv:hep-ph/0103280, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.035004

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.64.035004 2001

  50. [50]

    Aliberti, et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update, Phys

    R. Aliberti, et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update, Phys. Rept. 1143 (2025) 1–158.arXiv:2505.21476,doi:10.1016/j.physrep. 2025.08.002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep 2025

  51. [51]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, X. Tata, K. Zhang, Prospects for Heavy Neutral SUSY HIGGS Scalars in the hMSSM and Natural SUSY at LHC Upgrades, Symmetry 14 (10) (2022) 2061. arXiv:2209.00063,doi:10.3390/sym14102061

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3390/sym14102061 2022

  52. [52]

    F. E. Paige, S. D. Protopopescu, H. Baer, X. Tata, ISAJET 7.69: A Monte Carlo event generator for pp, anti-p p, and e+e- reactions (12 2003).arXiv:hep-ph/0312045. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  53. [53]

    Baer, C.-H

    H. Baer, C.-H. Chen, R. B. Munroe, F. E. Paige, X. Tata, Multichannel search for minimal supergravity atp¯pande +e− colliders, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 1046–1050.arXiv:hep-ph/ 9408265,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.1046

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.51.1046 1995

  54. [54]

    D. M. Pierce, J. A. Bagger, K. T. Matchev, R.-j. Zhang, Precision corrections in the minimal supersymmetric standard model, Nucl. Phys. B 491 (1997) 3–67.arXiv:hep-ph/ 9606211,doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00683-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(96)00683-9 1997

  55. [55]

    H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, Neutralino relic density in minimal supergravity with coannihilations, JHEP 03 (2002) 042.arXiv:hep-ph/0202076,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/ 2002/03/042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/ 2002

  56. [56]

    Pukhov, CalcHEP 2.3: MSSM, structure functions, event generation, batchs, and gen- eration of matrix elements for other packages (12 2004).arXiv:hep-ph/0412191

    A. Pukhov, CalcHEP 2.3: MSSM, structure functions, event generation, batchs, and gen- eration of matrix elements for other packages (12 2004).arXiv:hep-ph/0412191

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  57. [57]

    J. R. Ellis, T. Falk, K. A. Olive, Y. Santoso, Exploration of the MSSM with nonuniversal Higgs masses, Nucl. Phys. B 652 (2003) 259–347.arXiv:hep-ph/0210205,doi:10.1016/ S0550-3213(02)01144-6

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  58. [58]

    H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, S. Profumo, A. Belyaev, X. Tata, Direct, indirect and collider detection of neutralino dark matter in SUSY models with non-universal Higgs masses, JHEP 07 (2005) 065.arXiv:hep-ph/0504001,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/07/065

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/07/065 2005

  59. [59]

    Aad, et al., Searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles with com- pressed mass spectra in √s= 13 TeVppcollisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys

    G. Aad, et al., Searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles with com- pressed mass spectra in √s= 13 TeVppcollisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D 101 (5) (2020) 052005.arXiv:1911.12606,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.052005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.052005 2020

  60. [60]

    A. Tumasyan, et al., Search for supersymmetry in final states with two or three soft leptons and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, JHEP 04 (2022) 091.arXiv:2111.06296,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2022)091

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep04(2022)091 2022

  61. [61]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, K. Zhang, Living dangerously with decoupled first and second gen- eration scalars: SUSY prospects at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 111 (3) (2025) 035033. arXiv:2411.13541,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.035033

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.035033 2025

  62. [62]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, J. Dutta, D. Sengupta, K. Zhang, Top squarks from the landscape at high luminosity LHC, Phys. Rev. D 108 (7) (2023) 075027.arXiv:2307.08067,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.075027

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.075027 2023

  63. [63]

    K. J. Bae, H. Baer, H. Serce, Prospects for axion detection in natural SUSY with mixed axion-higgsino dark matter: back to invisible?, JCAP 06 (2017) 024.arXiv:1705.01134, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/06/024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/06/024 2017

  64. [64]

    Gelmini, P

    G. Gelmini, P. Gondolo, A. Soldatenko, C. E. Yaguna, The Effect of a late decaying scalar on the neutralino relic density, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 083514.arXiv:hep-ph/0605016, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.083514. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.083514 2006

  65. [65]

    K. J. Bae, H. Baer, A. Lessa, Dark Radiation Constraints on Mixed Axion/Neutralino Dark Matter, JCAP 04 (2013) 041.arXiv:1301.7428,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/04/041

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/04/041 2013

  66. [66]

    K. J. Bae, H. Baer, E. J. Chun, Mixed axion/neutralino dark matter in the SUSY DFSZ axion model, JCAP 12 (2013) 028.arXiv:1309.5365,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/ 12/028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/ 2013

  67. [67]

    K. J. Bae, H. Baer, A. Lessa, H. Serce, Coupled Boltzmann computation of mixed axion neutralino dark matter in the SUSY DFSZ axion model, JCAP 10 (2014) 082.arXiv: 1406.4138,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/10/082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/10/082 2014

  68. [68]

    K. J. Bae, H. Baer, V. Barger, R. W. Deal, The cosmological moduli problem and natu- ralness, JHEP 02 (2022) 138.arXiv:2201.06633,doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2022)138

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep02(2022)138 2022

  69. [69]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, R. Wiley Deal, Dark matter and dark radiation from the early universe with a modulus coupled to the PQMSSM, JHEP 06 (2023) 083.arXiv:2301.12546, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2023)083

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep06(2023)083 2023

  70. [70]

    E. J. Chun, A. Lukas, Axino mass in supergravity models, Phys. Lett. B 357 (1995) 43–50. arXiv:hep-ph/9503233,doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00881-K

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00881-k 1995

  71. [71]

    J. E. Kim, M.-S. Seo, Mixing of axino and goldstino, and axino mass, Nucl. Phys. B 864 (2012) 296–316.arXiv:1204.5495,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.06.018. 17

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.06.018 2012