Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

The paper establishes that, for a Higgsino-like lightest neutralino in the MSSM, the complete next-to-leading-order amplitude can drive the spin-independent nucleon cross section below the neutrino floor near the quark–squark threshold, so

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

2026-08-01 10:32 UTC pith:OWFHNVKB

load-bearing objection Threshold-cancellation result is plausible and worth refereeing, but it is demonstrated on one strongly decoupled slice and lacks robustness checks. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20588 v1 pith:OWFHNVKB submitted 2026-07-22 hep-ph

Unveiling the Vanishing Higgsino-Nucleon Scattering in the MSSM at Next-to-Leading Order

Subhadip Bisal , Arindam Chatterjee , Debottam Das , Syed Adil Pasha , Rahul Puri This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d12.60.Jv
keywords Higgsino dark matterMSSMspin-independent direct detectionnext-to-leading order correctionsblind-spot cancellationneutrino floorsquark thresholdneutralino-nucleon scattering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This letter targets the Higgsino-like neutralino of the MSSM, a dark-matter candidate motivated by natural supersymmetry. The authors assemble the full NLO spin-independent amplitude — tree-level Higgs/Z exchange, one-loop vertex corrections, one-loop twist-2 quark-box diagrams, and two-loop gluon contributions — and show that the pieces do not all add up. The twist-2 box terms carry the opposite sign of the rest; close to the kinematic threshold where a virtual stop–top (or sbottom–bottom) pair can go on shell, the cancellation is strong enough to push the cross section below the neutrino floor. As a result, regions of parameter space that would be excluded by projected next-generation xenon limits at leading order become invisible once NLO corrections are included. The intended consequence is that interpretations of null direct-detection searches must handle these corrections or they will mis-map the accessible MSSM parameter space.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an NLO blind spot for Higgsino dark matter. In a natural-SUSY spectrum with the lightest stop and sbottom well below the other squarks, the total SI amplitude A_LO + A_1L_vertex + A_2L_g interferes destructively with A_1L_tw2 (the one-loop twist-2 quark-box amplitude). The negative interference becomes especially sharp when the LSP mass approaches the stop–top or sbottom–bottom threshold, because the threshold enhances the loop functions in the vertex and gluon terms. The computed NLO cross sections can drop below 10^-14 pb, far under the neutrino floor, even for thermal-relic-compatible points with relic density in the 0.11–0.13 range. The

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cancellation balance among four contributions to the effective neutralino–nucleon interaction: A_LO (tree-level Higgs and Z exchange plus one-loop gluon operator), A_1L_vertex (one-loop corrected neutralino–Higgs/Z vertices), A_1L_tw2 (one-loop twist-2 quark operators from W/Z box diagrams), and A_2L_g (two-loop gluon scalar contributions, with quark loops combined with chargino–W loops). The twist-2 operators — traceless parts of the quark energy-momentum tensor — are the channel through which the box diagrams enter with a sign opposite to the coherent Higgs-exchange terms. The calculation is made UV-finite with the CCN[3] on-shell renormalization scheme, whic

Load-bearing premise

The demonstration assumes a strongly decoupled MSSM spectrum: every sparticle except a light stop (and in some scans a light sbottom) is heavier than about 8–10 TeV, with M_A = M_3 = 4 TeV and T_t = -4 TeV; if additional sparticles are lighter, new diagrams can enter and alter or lift the cancellation.

What would settle it

Take an MSSM point in the claimed blind-spot region (e.g., |mu| in the 1–2 TeV range and the light stop just above the LSP mass minus the top mass) and compute the NLO spin-independent cross section with one non-decoupled sparticle — a 2–3 TeV gluino, wino, or first/second-generation squark — left in the spectrum. If the cross section rises above the neutrino floor, the vanishing is an artifact of the decoupled limit; if it stays below, the effect is robust. Alternatively, a future xenon detector observing events in a region the authors identify as below 10^-14 pb would directly contradict the

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

If this is right

  • For natural-SUSY spectra in which everything except the light stop/sbottom is decoupled above about 8 TeV, LO exclusion projections for upcoming liquid-xenon searches overstate the sensitivity by orders of magnitude in the threshold region.
  • NLO cross sections below 10^-14 pb place a large part of the scanned parameter space inside the neutrino fog, so a future null result from such detectors cannot exclude these Higgsino benchmark regions.
  • The suppression persists for points with the observed thermal relic density (0.11–0.13), so the 'vanishing' is not confined to cosmologically irrelevant regions.
  • The spin-dependent cross sections remain below the current experimental bounds for a roughly 1 TeV LSP, so the scenario remains consistent with existing null direct-detection searches.
  • The dependence of the cancellation on the stop/sbottom threshold predicts a correlation between the LSP mass and the light-squark mass in the blind-spot region.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the cancellation is as strong as claimed, the next decisive tests for natural-SUSY Higgsino dark matter may shift from xenon direct detection to collider searches for light stops and to indirect or astrophysical probes; direct detection is no longer the sure discriminator in the threshold region.
  • The effect's dependence on the decoupled-spectrum assumption is a testable extension: repeating the calculation with a lighter wino, gluino, or first/second-generation squark would show whether the blind spot survives or is an artifact of the >8 TeV decoupling limit.
  • Because the threshold enhancement depends on loop functions growing near the LSP mass equaling m_squark + m_quark, the shape of the cross-section dip could be used to infer the stop mass from a future measurement — a kind of particle-physics spectroscopy from a null result.
  • The same cancellation logic may apply to Wino-like LSPs or other electroweakly interacting dark-matter candidates with heavy scalar partners, though that extension lies beyond the paper's explicit claims.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that in the MSSM, for a Higgsino-like lightest neutralino, the next-to-leading-order spin-independent direct-detection amplitude can undergo a strong destructive cancellation among the tree-level and one-loop vertex contributions, the one-loop twist-2 quark box contributions, and two-loop gluon contributions. The cancellation is most pronounced near quark–squark two-particle thresholds, especially for a light stop. The authors present scans over (µ, tanβ, M1, m_tR, T_t) with all other sparticles decoupled, and show that parameter points that would be excluded by projected XLZD sensitivity at leading order can fall below the neutrino floor at NLO, rendering them effectively undetectable in upcoming direct-detection experiments. The calculation uses the on-shell CCN[3] renormalization scheme, FeynArts/FormCalc/LoopTools for the one-loop vertices, and published analytic expressions for the box and two-loop gluon contributions implemented in micrOMEGAs.

Significance. If the claimed cancellation is robust, the result is significant: it would imply that LO-based exclusion projections for Higgsino dark matter are not valid in the threshold regions, and that a substantial MSSM parameter region is beyond the reach of next-generation xenon detectors despite being naively testable. The paper's strengths are that it uses standard, publicly available automated tools, reports UV finiteness of the one-loop vertex corrections, and builds on previously published analytic results for the box and two-loop contributions. It also computes relic density and applies HiggsBounds/SModelS constraints, which strengthens the phenomenological relevance. However, the central claim is demonstrated only for a strongly decoupled MSSM slice, and the paper does not provide quantitative robustness checks or uncertainty estimates; those omissions leave the genericity of the 'vanishing cross section' conclusion open.

major comments (3)
  1. [Scan paragraph before Fig. 6] The central demonstration of the cancellation is performed on a single decoupled slice: all soft masses except m_tR are set above 8–10 TeV, with M_A = M_3 = 4 TeV and T_t = −4 TeV. The cancellation A_LO + A_1L_vertex vs. A_1L_tw2 + A_2L_g is a numerical balance, and its sensitivity to the supposedly decoupled sector is never tested. Lowering M_A or M_3 within phenomenologically viable ranges, or relaxing first/second-generation squark masses, can introduce new loop contributions that shift or spoil the balance. A quantitative scan varying M_A, M_3, and the decoupled soft masses (at least in representative ranges) is needed to support the statement that the effect is a generic threshold phenomenon rather than a fine-tuned pocket of the MSSM. This is load-bearing for the paper's main claim.
  2. [Eq. (4) and CCN[3] scheme discussion] The paper uses the on-shell CCN[3] renormalization scheme but provides no estimate of renormalization-scheme or scale dependence. The physical result is a near-cancellation of amplitudes that individually vary at the level of ~10^-10 in Figs. 3–4; without showing at least one alternative scheme or a residual scale variation, it is not possible to judge whether the 'below neutrino floor' result is a robust prediction or an artifact of the chosen renormalization prescription. The authors should provide a representative cross-check (e.g., a different on-shell scheme such as CCN[1] or a variation of the renormalization scale μ0 around m_p) for at least a few benchmark points.
  3. [Fig. 6] Figure 6 shows only points that are excluded at LO by the projected XLZD sensitivity and fall below the neutrino floor at NLO. This conditional selection makes it difficult to assess the size and significance of the effect without knowing the total number of scanned points and the fraction satisfying each condition. The text refers to a 'substantial region' but gives no scan statistics or completeness statement. The authors should report the total scanned parameter volume and the fraction/definition of the region where the NLO cross section drops below the neutrino floor, and clarify whether all LO-excluded points in the scan are displayed or only a subset.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 3 and 4 captions] The captions do not specify which line style corresponds to which value of m_tR (Fig. 3) or m_q3 (Fig. 4). The legend entries '1600' and '2000' are ambiguous without a matching line-style key in the caption. Please identify the curves explicitly.
  2. [Scan paragraph before Fig. 6] The text says the other particles are decoupled with soft masses '≳10 TeV', while the Fig. 5 caption says 'above 8 TeV'. These statements should be reconciled, and the exact decoupling prescription (which masses, what values) should be stated once and used consistently.
  3. [References] Several references lack years (e.g., Refs. [6,7,13,16,20,21]) and some have incomplete publication data (e.g., Ref. [31] has no year). Please complete the bibliographic entries.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract states that NLO corrections 'may bring it within the sensitivity of upcoming experiments', and then says 'on the contrary, a more important consequence...' is a decrease below the neutrino floor. The logical flow would be clearer if the two effects are presented as complementary rather than contrary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the NLO cancellation is a computed outcome of the MSSM amplitudes; self-citations are supplementary, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that NLO corrections can push the Higgsino-nucleon SI cross section below the neutrino floor near quark-squark thresholds—is obtained by computing the amplitudes from the MSSM Lagrangian, not by fitting the target cross section. The tree-level amplitude, one-loop vertex corrections, one-loop twist-2 box diagrams, and two-loop gluon contributions are generated with FeynArts/FormCalc and evaluated numerically with LoopTools using SPheno spectra. The relevant quote, 'We begin by generating all one-loop and counterterm Feynman diagrams for the chi01 chi01 hi(Z) vertices ... After verifying the cancellation of UV divergences, we obtain a finite result for the chi01 chi01 hi(Z) vertex at NLO', shows that the vertex corrections are re-derived in this paper rather than imported as black boxes. The one-loop box and two-loop gluon expressions are taken from independent references [14,16,21], not from the authors' own prior work. The self-citations [18,19,23,24] concern renormalization schemes and are used for context; they are not the load-bearing input of the cancellation result. The plotted scan points are selected after computing sigma_NLO and imposing the condition that they are LO-excluded but NLO-below-neutrino-floor; this is a post-hoc selection from a parameter scan, not a parameter fitted to produce the claimed cross section. The decoupled-spectrum choice (soft masses >~10 TeV, M_A=M_3=4 TeV, T_t=-4 TeV) is a model-coverage limitation rather than a circular step: it restricts the generality of the demonstrated regions but does not make the output equivalent to the input by construction. No equation is defined in terms of the claimed result, and no predicted quantity is a renamed fit parameter. Therefore the derivation is self-contained against the stated assumptions, and no significant circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The central result rests on MSSM input parameters, previously published loop amplitudes, and the usual effective-theory description of dark-matter-nucleon scattering; no fitted target observable is used.

free parameters (5)
  • mu = scanned 400-2000 GeV
    Higgsino mass parameter; controls the LSP mass, the threshold condition, and the sign/magnitude of the LO and vertex amplitudes.
  • tan(beta) = scanned 5-50; benchmark 10
    Affects Higgs couplings to neutralinos and quarks; enters the SI amplitude through the Higgs-exchange channels.
  • m_tR = scanned 1200-2200 GeV
    Right-handed stop soft mass; determines the stop-top threshold that drives the cancellation and the vanishing regions.
  • M_1 = scanned 4-12 TeV
    Bino mass parameter; sets the gaugino admixture of the LSP, which enters all couplings and loop amplitudes.
  • T_t = scanned -4 to -2 TeV
    Stop trilinear coupling; affects stop mixing and the effective stop-top threshold/couplings.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption MSSM with R-parity conservation and the lightest neutralino as all of the dark matter
    The entire direct-detection interpretation relies on the LSP being a stable thermal or non-thermal dark-matter candidate; stated in the Introduction.
  • domain assumption The effective Lagrangian (Eq. 1) truncated at twist-2 operators gives a complete description of SI/SD scattering at mu_0 ~ m_p
    The calculation of the cross section assumes no missing higher-dimensional operators beyond the listed ones; invoked when writing Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption The one-loop box and two-loop gluon expressions imported from Refs. [14,16,21] are correct and complete for the MSSM Higgsino case
    The paper states it 'implement[s] the analytical expressions for the one-loop box and the two-loop scalar gluon contributions from Refs. [14,16,21]'; if these omit diagrams or contain errors, the cancellation shifts.
  • domain assumption The CCN[3] on-shell renormalization scheme gives a stable and process-independent counterterm set for this parameter region
    The scheme choice is stated after Eq. (4) and is used for numerical stability; scheme dependence is not quantified.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10895 in / 11073 out tokens · 122788 ms · 2026-08-01T10:32:01.776770+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Higgsino dark matter (DM) is considered one of the most well-motivated and minimal DM scenarios arising from supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model. Motivated by the requirement of electroweak naturalness, Higgsinos are expected to be relatively light, with masses close to the weak scale. While a pure Higgsino state typically evades current direct detection limits, next-to-leading (NLO) order radiative corrections may bring it within the sensitivity of upcoming experiments. On the contrary, a more important consequence, observed specifically near the kinematic threshold for the production of two particles, is that the NLO corrections lower the DM-nucleon cross section below the neutrino floor. We explicitly examine the cancellation mechanism responsible for suppressed Higgsino-nucleon scattering and identify regions of MSSM parameter space where spin-independent cross-sections may vanish.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20588 by Arindam Chatterjee, Debottam Das, Rahul Puri, Subhadip Bisal, Syed Adil Pasha.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Representative diagrams for ˜χ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. One-loop diagrams for ˜χ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Top Panel: All the points in the scan range which are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. NLO cross-section upon varying ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_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

59 extracted references · 48 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Being several orders of magnitude smaller than cur- rent direct detection limits, these values are congruent with the absence of a signal

    Consequently, the SI cross- section may fall well belowO(10 −14) pb, deep into the neutrino fog. Being several orders of magnitude smaller than cur- rent direct detection limits, these values are congruent with the absence of a signal. Furthermore, we identify a substantial region of parameter space that is compatible with existing experimental bounds and...

  2. [2]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Search for squarks and gluinos with the ATLAS detector in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum using√s= 8 TeV proton– proton collision data, JHEP09, 176, arXiv:1405.7875 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Searches for Super- symmetry using the M T2 Variable in Hadronic Events Produced in pp Collisions at 8 TeV, JHEP05, 078, arXiv:1502.04358 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    SUSY July 2024 Summary Plot Update, Tech. Rep. (CERN, Geneva, 2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Planck 2015 results. XI. CMB power spectra, likelihoods, and robustness of parameters, Astron. Astrophys.594, A11 (2016), arXiv:1507.02704 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Hinshaw et al

    G. Hinshaw et al. (WMAP), Nine-Year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cos- mological Parameter Results, Astrophys. J. Suppl.208, 19 (2013), arXiv:1212.5226 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Cohen, M

    T. Cohen, M. Lisanti, A. Pierce, and T. R. Slatyer, Wino Dark Matter Under Siege, JCAP10, 061, arXiv:1307.4082 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Fan and M

    J. Fan and M. Reece, In Wino Veritas? Indirect Searches Shed Light on Neutralino Dark Matter, JHEP10, 124, arXiv:1307.4400 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Abe et al

    H. Abe et al. (MAGIC), Search for Gamma-Ray Spectral Lines from Dark Matter Annihilation up to 100 TeV to- ward the Galactic Center with MAGIC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 061002 (2023), arXiv:2212.10527 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Tata, Natural supersymmetry: status and prospects, Eur

    X. Tata, Natural supersymmetry: status and prospects, Eur. Phys. J. ST229, 3061 (2020), arXiv:2002.04429 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, The More minimal supersymmetric standard model, Phys. Lett. B 388, 588 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9607394

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  12. [12]

    Drees and M

    M. Drees and M. M. Nojiri, New contributions to co- herent neutralino - nucleus scattering, Phys. Rev. D47, 4226 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9210272

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  13. [13]

    Drees and M

    M. Drees and M. Nojiri, Neutralino - nucleon scatter- ing revisited, Phys. Rev. D48, 3483 (1993), arXiv:hep- ph/9307208

    arXiv 1993

  14. [14]

    Drees, M

    M. Drees, M. M. Nojiri, D. P. Roy, and Y. Yamada, Light Higgsino dark matter, Phys. Rev. D56, 276 (1997), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 64, 039901 (2001)], arXiv:hep- ph/9701219

    arXiv 1997

  15. [15]

    Hisano, S

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri, and O. Saito, Direct detection of the Wino and Higgsino-like neutralino dark matters at one-loop level, Phys. Rev. D71, 015007 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0407168

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  16. [16]

    Hisano, K

    J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata, and N. Nagata, Gluon contribu- tion to the dark matter direct detection, Phys. Rev. D 82, 115007 (2010), arXiv:1007.2601 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    Hisano, K

    J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata, N. Nagata, and T. Takesako, Di- rect Detection of Electroweak-Interacting Dark Matter, JHEP07, 005, arXiv:1104.0228 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (XLZD), The XLZD Design Book: to- wards the next-generation liquid xenon observatory for dark matter and neutrino physics, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1192 (2025), arXiv:2410.17137 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Bisal, A

    S. Bisal, A. Chatterjee, D. Das, and S. A. Pasha, Radiative corrections to aid the direct detection of the Higgsino-like neutralino dark matter: Spin- independent interactions, Phys. Rev. D110, 023043 (2024), arXiv:2311.09937 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Bisal, A

    S. Bisal, A. Chatterjee, D. Das, and S. A. Pasha, Radiative corrections to the direct detection of the Higgsino- and wino-like neutralino dark matter: Spin- dependent interactions, Phys. Rev. D111, 083003 (2025), arXiv:2410.18205 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Hisano, K

    J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata, and N. Nagata, A complete cal- culation for direct detection of Wino dark matter, Phys. Lett. B690, 311 (2010), arXiv:1004.4090 [hep-ph]. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    Hisano, K

    J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata, and N. Nagata, Direct Search of Dark Matter in High-Scale Supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D87, 035020 (2013), arXiv:1210.5985 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

    Hisano, K

    J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata, and N. Nagata, QCD Effects on Direct Detection of Wino Dark Matter, JHEP06, 097, arXiv:1504.00915 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Bisal, A

    S. Bisal, A. Chatterjee, D. Das, and S. A. Pasha, Con- fronting electroweak MSSM through one-loop renormal- ized neutralino-Higgs interactions for dark matter direct detection and the muon g-2, Phys. Rev. D110, 015021 (2024), arXiv:2311.09938 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Bisal, A

    S. Bisal, A. Chatterjee, D. Das, and S. A. Pasha, Elec- troweak renormalization of neutralino-Higgs interactions at one loop and its impacts on spin-independent direct detection of Wino-like dark matter, Phys. Rev. D111, 055021 (2025), arXiv:2410.18206 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    X.-G. He, T. Li, X.-Q. Li, J. Tandean, and H.-C. Tsai, Constraints on Scalar Dark Matter from Direct Ex- perimental Searches, Phys. Rev. D79, 023521 (2009), arXiv:0811.0658 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  27. [27]

    X.-G. He, B. Ren, and J. Tandean, Hints of Stan- dard Model Higgs Boson at the LHC and Light Dark Matter Searches, Phys. Rev. D85, 093019 (2012), arXiv:1112.6364 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Cheung, L

    C. Cheung, L. J. Hall, D. Pinner, and J. T. Ruderman, Prospects and Blind Spots for Neutralino Dark Matter, JHEP05, 100, arXiv:1211.4873 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Chang, X.-G

    C.-F. Chang, X.-G. He, and J. Tandean, Two-Higgs- Doublet-Portal Dark-Matter Models in Light of Direct Search and LHC Data, JHEP04, 107, arXiv:1702.02924 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Huang and C

    P. Huang and C. E. M. Wagner, Blind Spots for neu- tralino Dark Matter in the MSSM with an intermediate mA, Phys. Rev. D90, 015018 (2014), arXiv:1404.0392 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    T. Han, F. Kling, S. Su, and Y. Wu, Unblinding the dark matter blind spots, JHEP02, 057, arXiv:1612.02387 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    D. Das, B. De, and S. Mitra, Cancellation in Dark Matter-Nucleon Interactions: the Role of Non-Standard- Model-like Yukawa Couplings, Phys. Lett. B815, 136159 (2021), arXiv:2011.13225 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Super- symmetric dark matter, Phys. Rept.267, 195 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  34. [34]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  35. [35]

    Eberl, M

    H. Eberl, M. Kincel, W. Majerotto, and Y. Yamada, One loop corrections to the chargino and neutralino mass ma- trices in the on-shell scheme, Phys. Rev. D64, 115013 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0104109

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  36. [36]

    T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, F. von der Pahlen, H. Rzehak, and C. Schappacher, Renormalization of the Complex MSSM in FeynArts/FormCalc, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 267-269, 158 (2015)

    2015

  37. [37]

    Chatterjee, M

    A. Chatterjee, M. Drees, and S. Kulkarni, Radiative Cor- rections to the Neutralino Dark Matter Relic Density - an Effective Coupling Approach, Phys. Rev. D86, 105025 (2012), arXiv:1209.2328 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  38. [38]

    Heinemeyer, F

    S. Heinemeyer, F. von der Pahlen, and C. Schap- pacher, Chargino Decays in the Complex MSSM: A Full One-Loop Analysis, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1892 (2012), arXiv:1112.0760 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  39. [39]

    Drees, W

    M. Drees, W. Hollik, and Q. Xu, One-loop calculations of the decay of the next-to-lightest neutralino in the MSSM, JHEP02, 032, arXiv:hep-ph/0610267

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    Oller, H

    W. Oller, H. Eberl, W. Majerotto, and C. Weber, Anal- ysis of the chargino and neutralino mass parameters at one loop level, Eur. Phys. J. C29, 563 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0304006

    arXiv 2003

  41. [41]

    Fritzsche, T

    T. Fritzsche, T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, F. von der Pahlen, H. Rzehak, and C. Schappacher, The Implementation of the Renormalized Complex MSSM in FeynArts and FormCalc, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 1529 (2014), arXiv:1309.1692 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  42. [42]

    Fritzsche and W

    T. Fritzsche and W. Hollik, Complete one loop correc- tions to the mass spectrum of charginos and neutralinos in the MSSM, Eur. Phys. J. C24, 619 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0203159

    arXiv 2002

  43. [43]

    Baro and F

    N. Baro and F. Boudjema, Automatised full one-loop renormalisation of the MSSM II: The chargino-neutralino sector, the sfermion sector and some applications, Phys. Rev. D80, 076010 (2009), arXiv:0906.1665 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  44. [44]

    Chatterjee, M

    A. Chatterjee, M. Drees, S. Kulkarni, and Q. Xu, On the On-Shell Renormalization of the Chargino and Neu- tralino Masses in the MSSM, Phys. Rev. D85, 075013 (2012), arXiv:1107.5218 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  45. [45]

    Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3, Comput

    T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3, Comput. Phys. Commun.140, 418 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0012260

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  46. [46]

    K¨ ublbeck, M

    J. K¨ ublbeck, M. B¨ ohm, and A. Denner, Feyn arts — computer-algebraic generation of feynman graphs and amplitudes, Computer Physics Communications60, 165 (1990)

    1990

  47. [47]

    Hahn and C

    T. Hahn and C. Schappacher, The Implementation of the minimal supersymmetric standard model in FeynArts and FormCalc, Comput. Phys. Commun.143, 54 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0105349

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  48. [48]

    Hahn and M

    T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria, Automatized one loop calculations in four-dimensions and D-dimensions, Comput. Phys. Commun.118, 153 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9807565

    arXiv 1999

  49. [49]

    Staub and W

    F. Staub and W. Porod, Improved predictions for inter- mediate and heavy Supersymmetry in the MSSM and be- yond, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 338 (2017), arXiv:1703.03267 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    Staub, SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders, Comput

    F. Staub, SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 1773 (2014), arXiv:1309.7223 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  51. [51]

    Staub, Exploring new models in all detail with SARAH, Adv

    F. Staub, Exploring new models in all detail with SARAH, Adv. High Energy Phys.2015, 840780 (2015), arXiv:1503.04200 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  52. [52]

    Porod, SPheno, a program for calculating supersym- metric spectra, SUSY particle decays and SUSY particle production at e+ e- colliders, Comput

    W. Porod, SPheno, a program for calculating supersym- metric spectra, SUSY particle decays and SUSY particle production at e+ e- colliders, Comput. Phys. Commun. 153, 275 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0301101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  53. [53]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, MicrOMEGAs: A Program for calculating the relic den- sity in the MSSM, Comput. Phys. Commun.149, 103 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0112278

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  54. [54]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, MicrOMEGAs 2.0: A Program to calculate the relic den- sity of dark matter in a generic model, Comput. Phys. Commun.176, 367 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0607059

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  55. [55]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, Dark matter direct detection rate in a generic model with micrOMEGAs 2.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.180, 747 7 (2009), arXiv:0803.2360 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  56. [56]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, micrOMEGAs 3: A program for calculating dark matter observables, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 960 (2014), arXiv:1305.0237 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [57]

    Kraml, S

    S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, U. Laa, A. Lessa, W. Magerl, D. Proschofsky-Spindler, and W. Waltenberger, SMod- elS: a tool for interpreting simplified-model results from the LHC and its application to supersymmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2868 (2014), arXiv:1312.4175 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  58. [58]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, HiggsBounds: Confronting Arbitrary Higgs Sectors with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron, Comput. Phys. Commun.181, 138 (2010), arXiv:0811.4169 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  59. [59]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025