Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 56 references

In the minimal Higgs parity model that solves the strong CP problem, bi-triplet fermions are accidentally stable dark matter: dimension-six decay operators give lifetimes above 10^28 s, and freeze-out fixes the parity-breaking scale below a

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 09:49 UTC pith:C2CR2NCC

load-bearing objection Solid, careful model-building paper with a genuinely new accidental DM candidate; the stability claim is conditional on a stated UV assumption, but the paper is transparent about that and the relic/constraint analysis is thorough. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20600 v1 pith:C2CR2NCC submitted 2026-07-22 hep-ph

Accidentally Stable Dark Matter in a Parity Solution to the Strong CP Problem

Matthew J. Baldwin , Keisuke Harigaya , Isaac R. Wang This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords dark matterstrong CP problemleft-right symmetryparitybi-triplet fermionaccidental stabilitythermal relic abundanceSommerfeld enhancement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper shows that in a minimal left-right symmetric extension of the Standard Model in which parity solves the strong CP problem, dark matter can be stabilized without inventing a new symmetry. The candidate is a fermion transforming as a bi-triplet under the two SU(2) groups; gauge invariance allows it to decay only through dimension-six operators, so it lives longer than the age of the Universe for a Planck-scale cutoff and moderate parity-breaking scales. Computing thermal freeze-out with coannihilation and Sommerfeld enhancement, the model reproduces the observed dark-matter abundance along resonant-annihilation branches that require the SU(2)_R × U(1)_X breaking scale v_R to lie below about 150 TeV. Most of that parameter space is within reach of near-future gamma-ray and direct-detection experiments, so the scenario is testable rather than merely viable.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in the minimal Higgs parity model, an SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R bi-triplet Weyl or Dirac fermion—charge assignments (3,3,0) or (3,3,1)—is accidentally stable dark matter. Scanning all SU(2) multiplets up to dimension three, the authors find that every smaller representation decays through operators of dimension three, four, or five, while the bi-triplet's leading decay operators are dimension six; with a Planck-scale cutoff this gives lifetime τ_X ≳ 10^28 s, comfortably above cosmological bounds. The same gauge structure fixes the freeze-out dynamics: electroweak and new W_R/Z_R mediated annihilations, including coannihilation among multiplet members and the Sommerf

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bi-triplet fermion X under SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R, in the (3,3,0) or (3,3,1) embedding of the extended gauge group SU(3)_c × SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R × U(1)_X. The mechanism that stabilizes it is the dimension-6 operator barrier: the smallest gauge-invariant operators that mediate its decay—schematically X H_R H_R^* ℓ H_L^*—are dimension six, so the decay rate is suppressed by (v_R/Λ)^4 relative to naive expectations. The relic-abundance side is carried by a coannihilation Boltzmann calculation with Sommerfeld-corrected cross sections; resonant annihilations through the new charged gauge boson W_R and neutral gauge boson Z_R produce the correct abundance on distinct branch

Load-bearing premise

The bi-triplet survives only if no new particle generates its dimension-six decay operator at a scale well below the Planck mass; in particular, the paper must assume that charged-lepton masses are not produced through a Δ(1,2,2,0) scalar, because that operator would make dark matter decay in far less than 10^28 seconds.

What would settle it

The most direct check: for the Einasto dark-matter profile, next-generation gamma-ray telescopes should see a line at energy near m_X/2 and a continuum from W/Z annihilation on the resonance branches; absence of both signals across the predicted v_R ≤ 150 TeV region would rule out the thermal-abundance claim. A second, independent check: determine whether the charged-lepton Yukawa is generated through a Δ(1,2,2,0) scalar; if it is, the bi-triplet lifetime drops below 10^28 s and accidental stability is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • The strong CP problem and dark matter are explained by one parity symmetry; no ad hoc Z_2 or tuned small couplings are needed for DM stability.
  • The parity-breaking scale is bounded above by dark matter: v_R ≲ 150 TeV, so the new W_R and Z_R bosons sit in the LHC's future reach when v_R is near the currently allowed lower end.
  • The thermal relic candidate is a multi-TeV WIMP, with annihilation producing gamma-ray line and continuum signals; next-generation gamma-ray observatories should probe most of the mass–v_R plane.
  • For the (3,3,1) embedding, DM scatters off nuclei via Z and Z' exchange, so next-generation direct-detection experiments probe v_R up to about 30 TeV, complementing collider searches.
  • In the resonance region, heavier states in the multiplet decay before big-bang nucleosynthesis, avoiding BBN disruption; the non-resonance high-v_R region is instead constrained by long-lived charged-particle searches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the accidental-stability pattern is taken generally, it suggests that dark-matter stability in left-right models need not be imposed by hand; scanning higher representations of the gauge group may yield other accidentally stable candidates with different mass and chirality.
  • Beyond the paper: the v_R ≲ 150 TeV bound connects the dark matter abundance to the scale of parity restoration; if future collider searches exclude v_R below ~17 TeV while no gamma-ray signal appears, the resonance branch would be squeezed, sharpening the test.
  • Beyond the paper: the stability argument is UV-sensitive—the charged-lepton Yukawa must not be generated via a Δ(1,2,2,0) scalar. A natural next step is to classify which UV completions of the Yukawa sector preserve or break this assumption; if lepton masses force such a Δ, the bi-triplet candidate would be ruled out and a different multiplet or extra symmetry would be needed.
  • Beyond the paper: a concrete extension would compute the one-loop contribution of the bi-triplet to electroweak precision observables and Higgs coupling modifications; since the fermion carries electroweak charge, such corrections may offer another probe of the model complementary to gamma rays.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies fermionic SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R bi-triplet dark matter in the minimal Higgs parity solution to the strong CP problem. The authors argue that for the embeddings (1,3,3,0) and (1,3,3,1), gauge invariance forbids decay operators below dimension six, leading to cosmologically long-lived dark matter with lifetimes controlled by v_R^4 m_X / Λ^4. They compute the thermal freeze-out abundance including coannihilation and the Sommerfeld effect, with the DM mass m_X and the SU(2)_R × U(1)_X breaking scale v_R as the only free parameters, and find resonance branches through W_R and Z_R that yield the observed relic abundance for v_R ≲ 150 TeV. They then derive constraints from LHC searches, direct detection, BBN, and gamma-ray observations, concluding that CTA will probe most of the parameter space.

Significance. If the central UV assumption is accepted, the paper provides a concrete, falsifiable dark-matter candidate in a well-motivated solution to the strong CP problem, without imposing an ad hoc stabilizing symmetry. The calculation is unusually complete: all relevant annihilation cross sections and Sommerfeld potentials are presented in appendices, the relic abundance is parameter-free given (m_X, v_R), and the resulting predictions—resonance-branch masses, gamma-ray line/continuum signals, and the v_R ≲ 150 TeV bound—are testable. I found no internal inconsistency in the mass-splitting or Boltzmann-equation treatment. The main weakness is that the accidental stability is conditional on an unproven UV assumption, which limits the strength of the headline claim but does not invalidate the freeze-out calculation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (7)–(8)] The accidental-stability claim is load-bearing for the paper, but it is not a theorem of the gauge group. The authors explicitly show that if the charged-lepton Yukawa is generated by a Δ(1,2,2,0) scalar, integrating it out produces X ℓ H_L H_R H_R and makes DM decay too rapidly, and then they assume this scalar is absent. No symmetry is offered to enforce that absence. Since the title and abstract present the stability as 'accidental', this is an additional UV condition rather than a pure consequence of the gauge structure. Please either (a) provide a symmetry or dynamical mechanism that forbids Δ while generating the charged-lepton Yukawa, or (b) explicitly analyze the vector-like fermion completion in Eq. (2) and the neutrino-mass completions [20–25] for loop-level generation of X ℓ H_L H_R H_R (or analogous operators) and show that the resulting lifetime remains acceptable. Without t
  2. [Abstract; Sec. 5.2, Figs. 2–3; Sec. 7] The statement that the SU(2)_R × U(1)_X breaking scale is 'required to be below 150 TeV' is an overstatement as written. The non-coannihilation case with v_R = 2000 TeV (Fig. 2, right panel) also produces the observed relic abundance at m_χ0 ≃ 2 TeV, and Sec. 6.4 states that such low-mass electroweak-annihilation regions are viable for cored galactic-center profiles. The 150 TeV bound therefore applies only to the W_R/Z_R resonance branch under cuspy profiles. Please qualify the abstract, Section 7, and any summary statements so that this conditional nature is explicit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (6)] The lifetime formula is presented with a numerical estimate but the exact normalization of the dimension-6 operator (e.g., the coefficient in Table 2) is not given. Please specify the operator normalization used for the '≃10^31 sec' estimate.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (9)] The gauge interaction term for the (3,3,0) bi-triplet is written as g W_L X − g X W_R; the sign convention for the SU(2)_R covariant derivative and the U(1)_X charge assignments should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.
  3. [Figs. 2 and 4] The right-hand panels show the non-coannihilation case at v_R = 2000 TeV, but the transition between coannihilation and non-coannihilation regimes is not shown. A brief indication of where Eq. (26) is satisfied in the (m_X, v_R) plane would help the reader understand the coverage of the figures.
  4. [Sec. 6.4] The statement that CTA will probe 'most of the parameter space' depends strongly on the DM halo profile. The authors acknowledge this in the text, but the abstract and summary should carry the qualification, especially for the (3,3,0) case where a 1 kpc core leaves a significant fraction uncovered (Fig. 3, bottom right).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: DM stability and relic abundance are computed from gauge quantum numbers and freeze-out dynamics, not from fitted or self-referential inputs; the one UV caveat is explicit.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: (i) accidental stability from explicit enumeration of gauge-invariant decay operators (Sec. 3, Table 2), giving Eq. (6); (ii) radiative mass splitting (Sec. 4.3, Eqs. 18-20); (iii) freeze-out abundance via the Boltzmann equation (Eq. 21) with computed cross sections and Sommerfeld factors (Apps. C-F); and (iv) external collider, direct-detection, and indirect-detection constraints (Sec. 6). The two free parameters m_X and v_R are scanned and compared with the observed Ωh²; the relic curve is not produced by fitting a parameter to the predicted quantity. The strong-CP solution is reviewed with a tree-level argument in Sec. 2 and loop corrections are cited to [12,16]; those citations include an author but are not used as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternatives, and the DM result does not reduce to them. The paper itself flags the only genuine limitation: Sec. 3, Eqs. (7)-(8) state that if the charged-lepton Yukawa is generated by Δ(1,2,2,0), DM decays too rapidly, so the accidental stability assumes no such UV completion. That is an explicit, unverified model assumption—not a hidden circular step—since the paper does not claim to derive the absence of Δ from the gauge symmetry while also assuming it. Therefore no prediction reduces by construction to its input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The calculation has two scanned parameters (m_X, v_R) and one assumed cutoff Λ; the strong-CP framework is imported from prior work. The main structural assumption — no Δ-like UV completions — is explicitly flagged by the authors and is the least secure input.

free parameters (3)
  • DM mass m_X (m_χ0 or M_ψ0) = O(1)-10 TeV; 2.4 TeV for (3,3,0) EW branch, 1.4/1.2 TeV for (3,3,1)
    Free mass parameter scanned; the relic-density contours in Figs. 3/5 fix it by requiring Ω h^2=0.12.
  • SU(2)_R×U(1)_X breaking scale v_R = 13-150 TeV (allowed window)
    Free parameter; lower bound from LHC W_R, upper bound from resonance annihilation in the relic-abundance calculation.
  • Cutoff Λ of dimension-6 operators = ≳1.2×10^19 GeV assumed
    Chosen to be near the Planck scale so that Eq. (6) gives τ>10^28 s; lowering Λ invalidates accidental stability.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Parity symmetry exchanges SU(2)_L and SU(2)_R and forbids θ_s G G~; quantum corrections to θ are small.
    Sec. 2 and Refs. [12,16]; this is the foundation of the strong CP solution the DM model sits in.
  • domain assumption The minimal Higgs model: SU(2)_R×U(1)_X is broken by H_R(1,1,2,-1/2), the Parity partner of the SM Higgs.
    Sec. 2; this specific breaking pattern is what removes the unbroken U(1)_X subgroup and motivates accidental stability.
  • ad hoc to paper No new light fields generate the dimension-6 DM decay operator; in particular the charged-lepton Yukawa is not generated by Δ(1,2,2,0).
    Sec. 3, Eqs. (7)-(8). Explicitly stated by the authors: if Δ exists, DM decays too rapidly. This is the paper's load-bearing caveat.
  • domain assumption Standard cosmology: thermal freeze-out with radiation domination, standard relic-density equation, no non-thermal production.
    Sec. 5, Eq. (21). The entire mass/prediction analysis assumes this.
  • ad hoc to paper DM is fermionic to avoid scalar mass hierarchy.
    Sec. 3: 'In order to avoid the hierarchy problem associated with scalar masses, we assume that DM is fermionic.'
  • standard math The lowest-dimensional decay operators for each representation are exactly those listed in Table 2.
    Sec. 3, Table 2. Group-theoretic enumeration; central to the accidental stability claim.
  • domain assumption SU(2)_L and SU(2)_R gauge couplings are equal at the parity scale, with running included.
    Sec. 2/4; used in mass splittings and annihilation cross sections.
invented entities (1)
  • Bi-triplet fermion X in (1,3,3,0) or (1,3,3,1) independent evidence
    purpose: Accidentally stable dark matter; explains DM without ad hoc Z2 or small parameters.
    Predicts specific mass ~1.2-10 TeV, charged partners, v_R<150 TeV, and observable gamma-ray line/continuum at CTA; hence falsifiable.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 42015 in / 16380 out tokens · 131321 ms · 2026-08-01T09:49:57.395294+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Parity symmetry, with an extended gauge group $SU(3)_c \times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times U(1)_X$, can solve the strong CP problem. In particular, the model where $SU(2)_R\times U(1)_X$ is broken by the Parity partner of the Standard Model Higgs solves the strong CP problem without the necessity of introducing extra symmetry. We discuss the possibility of accidentally stable dark matter in this framework and show that $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$ bi-triplet fermions can be stable over cosmological timescales. We compute the relic abundance of the bi-triplet dark matter and derive constraints on the parameter space from collider, direct-detection, and indirect-detection experiments. The $SU(2)_R\times U(1)_X$ symmetry breaking scale is required to be below 150 TeV, and most of the parameter space can be probed by near-future indirect-detection experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20600 by Isaac R. Wang, Keisuke Harigaya, Matthew J. Baldwin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mass splitting between the heaviest and lightest states of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The DM relic abundance as a function of mχ0 with fixed vR. Left: coannihilation case with vR = 40 TeV. Right: non-coannihilation case with vR = 2000 TeV. The horizontal blue band is the observed DM relic abundance. • Non-coannihilation: WR-mediated interactions are ineffective at the time of freeze-out. Parti￾cles can coannihilate only with other particles within the same electroweak multiplet, populating … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The mχ0 , vR  parameter space for (3, 3, 0) DM. The blue contour corresponds to the observed DM relic abundance. WR and ZR resonance branches are observed, and an upper bound on the Parity breaking scale is obtained from the WR branch of around vR ≲ 150 TeV. Constraints from LHC WR searches and projected sensitivity of the HL-LHC are shown in solid and dashed orange lines, respectively. H.E.S.S. indirect-… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The DM relic abundance as a function of Mψ0 with fixed vR. Left: coannihilation case with vR = 40 TeV. Right: non-coannihilation case with vR = 2000 TeV. The horizontal blue band is the observed DM relic abundance. and the prediction on the DM mass gradually becomes smaller down to around 2 TeV. For higher DM masses, the WR and ZR resonance branches are observed.5 When vR is sufficiently small, the WR and … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Mψ0 , vR  parameter space for (3, 3, 1) DM. The blue contour corresponds to the observed DM relic abundance, with WR and ZR resonance branches. An upper bound on the Parity breaking scale is obtained from the ZR branch of around vR ≲ 150 TeV. Constraints from LHC WR searches and projected sensitivity of the HL-LHC are shown in solid and dashed orange lines, respectively. H.E.S.S. indirect-detection co… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: DM annihilation cross sections at the galactic center. The top and bottom panels show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.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

56 extracted references · 40 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A PCAC puzzle:π0 →γγin theσmodel,

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, “A PCAC puzzle:π0 →γγin theσmodel,”Nuovo Cim. A60(1969) 47–61

    1969

  2. [2]

    Axial vector vertex in spinor electrodynamics,

    S. L. Adler, “Axial vector vertex in spinor electrodynamics,”Phys. Rev.177(1969) 2426–2438

    1969

  3. [3]

    Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies,”Phys. Rev. Lett.37(1976) 8–11

    1976

  4. [4]

    Computation of the Quantum Effects Due to a Four-Dimensional Pseudoparticle,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Computation of the Quantum Effects Due to a Four-Dimensional Pseudoparticle,”Phys. Rev. D14(1976) 3432–3450. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 18, 2199 (1978)]. [5]nEDMCollaboration, C. Abelet al., “Measurement of the permanent electric dipole moment of the neutron,”Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) no. 8, 081803,arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1976

  5. [6]

    Strong P, T Noninvariances in a Superweak Theory,

    M. Beg and H.-S. Tsao, “Strong P, T Noninvariances in a Superweak Theory,”Phys. Rev. Lett.41 (1978) 278

    1978

  6. [7]

    Natural Suppression of Strong p and t Noninvariance,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Natural Suppression of Strong p and t Noninvariance,”Phys. Lett. B79(1978) 283–286

    1978

  7. [8]

    CP Violation in Seesaw Models of Quark Masses,

    K. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, “CP Violation in Seesaw Models of Quark Masses,”Phys. Rev. Lett.62 (1989) 1079

    1989

  8. [9]

    A Solution to the Strong CP Problem Without an Axion,

    K. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, “A Solution to the Strong CP Problem Without an Axion,”Phys. Rev. D41(1990) 1286

    1990

  9. [10]

    Solution to the strong CP problem: Supersymmetry with parity,

    R. Kuchimanchi, “Solution to the strong CP problem: Supersymmetry with parity,”Phys. Rev. Lett.76 (1996) 3486–3489,arXiv:hep-ph/9511376

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  10. [11]

    Simple supersymmetric solution to the strong CP problem,

    R. N. Mohapatra and A. Rasin, “Simple supersymmetric solution to the strong CP problem,”Phys. Rev. Lett.76(1996) 3490–3493,arXiv:hep-ph/9511391

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  11. [12]

    Implications of Higgs Discovery for the Strong CP Problem and Unification,

    L. J. Hall and K. Harigaya, “Implications of Higgs Discovery for the Strong CP Problem and Unification,”JHEP10(2018) 130,arXiv:1803.08119 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [13]

    Strong CP problem and parity,

    S. M. Barr, D. Chang, and G. Senjanovic, “Strong CP problem and parity,”Phys. Rev. Lett.67(1991) 2765–2768

    1991

  13. [14]

    Higgs Parity, Strong CP, and Dark Matter,

    D. Dunsky, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, “Higgs Parity, Strong CP, and Dark Matter,”JHEP07(2019) 016,arXiv:1902.07726 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [15]

    Predictive Dirac neutrino spectrum with strong CP solution in SU(5)L ×SU(5) R unification,

    K. S. Babu, R. N. Mohapatra, and A. Thapa, “Predictive Dirac neutrino spectrum with strong CP solution in SU(5)L ×SU(5) R unification,”JHEP04(2024) 049,arXiv:2312.14096 [hep-ph]. 47

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [16]

    Novel loop-diagrammatic approach to QCDθ parameter and application to the left-right model,

    J. Hisano, T. Kitahara, N. Osamura, and A. Yamada, “Novel loop-diagrammatic approach to QCDθ parameter and application to the left-right model,”JHEP03(2023) 150,arXiv:2301.13405 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  16. [17]

    P and CP solution of the strong CP puzzle,

    R. Kuchimanchi, “P and CP solution of the strong CP puzzle,”Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no. 9, 095023, arXiv:2306.03039 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [18]

    Solving the Wrong Hierarchy Problem,

    N. Blinov and A. Hook, “Solving the Wrong Hierarchy Problem,”JHEP06(2016) 176, arXiv:1605.03178 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [19]

    Upper Bound on Parity Breaking Scale for Doublet WIMP Dark Matter,

    M. J. Baldwin, K. Harigaya, and I. R. Wang, “Upper Bound on Parity Breaking Scale for Doublet WIMP Dark Matter,”arXiv:2507.22113 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [20]

    DIRAC NEUTRINO MASSES AS TWO LOOP RADIATIVE CORRECTIONS,

    K. S. Babu and X. G. He, “DIRAC NEUTRINO MASSES AS TWO LOOP RADIATIVE CORRECTIONS,”Mod. Phys. Lett. A4(1989) 61

    1989

  20. [21]

    Axiogenesis fromSU(2)R phase transition,

    K. Harigaya and I. R. Wang, “Axiogenesis fromSU(2)R phase transition,”JHEP10(2021) 022, arXiv:2107.09679 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 12, 193 (2021)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [22]

    Naturally light Dirac and pseudo-Dirac neutrinos from left-right symmetry,

    K. S. Babu, X.-G. He, M. Su, and A. Thapa, “Naturally light Dirac and pseudo-Dirac neutrinos from left-right symmetry,”JHEP08(2022) 140,arXiv:2205.09127 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [23]

    Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter in Left-Right Theories,

    J. A. Dror, D. Dunsky, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, “Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter in Left-Right Theories,”JHEP07(2020) 168,arXiv:2004.09511 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [24]

    Radiative Majorana neutrino masses in a parity solution to the strong CP problem,

    L. J. Hall, K. Harigaya, and Y. Shpilman, “Radiative Majorana neutrino masses in a parity solution to the strong CP problem,”JHEP03(2024) 047,arXiv:2311.10274 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [25]

    Lepton number violating signals of a parity symmetric model at µTRISTAN,

    K. Harigaya, R. Kitano, and R. Takai, “Lepton number violating signals of a parity symmetric model at µTRISTAN,”JHEP04(2026) 085,arXiv:2509.24680 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [26]

    Baryogenesis in a parity solution to the strong CP problem,

    K. Harigaya and I. R. Wang, “Baryogenesis in a parity solution to the strong CP problem,”JHEP11 (2023) 189,arXiv:2210.16207 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [27]

    A Left-Right Symmetric Model for Neutrino Masses, Baryon Asymmetry and Dark Matter,

    P.-H. Gu, “A Left-Right Symmetric Model for Neutrino Masses, Baryon Asymmetry and Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 095002,arXiv:1001.1341 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  27. [28]

    Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter and Leptogenesis in Left-Right Higgs Parity,

    D. Dunsky, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, “Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter and Leptogenesis in Left-Right Higgs Parity,”JHEP01(2021) 125,arXiv:2007.12711 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [29]

    Leptogenesis in parity solutions to the strong CP problem and Standard Model parameters,

    J. Carrasco-Martinez, D. I. Dunsky, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, “Leptogenesis in parity solutions to the strong CP problem and Standard Model parameters,”JHEP06(2024) 048,arXiv:2307.15731 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [30]

    Dirac leptogenesis in left-right symmetric models,

    K. S. Babu and A. Kaladharan, “Dirac leptogenesis in left-right symmetric models,”Phys. Rev. D112 (2025) no. 3, 035015,arXiv:2410.24125 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [31]

    Universal Seesaw leptogenesis,

    K. S. Babu, M. Berbig, S. Goswami, and D. Vatsyayan, “Universal Seesaw leptogenesis,”JHEP06 (2026) 020,arXiv:2512.19833 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [32]

    Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Dark Matter,

    J. Heeck and S. Patra, “Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) no. 12, 121804,arXiv:1507.01584 [hep-ph]. 48

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [33]

    Phenomenology of left-right symmetric dark matter,

    C. Garcia-Cely and J. Heeck, “Phenomenology of left-right symmetric dark matter,”JCAP03(2016) 021,arXiv:1512.03332 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [34]

    Electroweak-Charged Dark Matter and SO(10) Unification with Parity,

    M. J. Baldwin and K. Harigaya, “Electroweak-Charged Dark Matter and SO(10) Unification with Parity,”arXiv:2407.01696 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [35]

    WIMP dark matter in the parity solution to the strong CP problem,

    J. Kawamura, S. Okawa, Y. Omura, and Y. Tang, “WIMP dark matter in the parity solution to the strong CP problem,”JHEP04(2019) 162,arXiv:1812.07004 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [36]

    Minimal dark matter,

    M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo, and A. Strumia, “Minimal dark matter,”Nucl. Phys. B753(2006) 178–194, arXiv:hep-ph/0512090

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  36. [37]

    Large N Chiral Dynamics,

    E. Witten, “Large N Chiral Dynamics,”Annals Phys.128(1980) 363

    1980

  37. [38]

    Topology of the Gauge Condition and New Confinement Phases in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Topology of the Gauge Condition and New Confinement Phases in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,”Nucl. Phys. B190(1981) 455–478

    1981

  38. [39]

    Theta dependence in the large N limit of four-dimensional gauge theories,

    E. Witten, “Theta dependence in the large N limit of four-dimensional gauge theories,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 81(1998) 2862–2865,arXiv:hep-th/9807109

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  39. [40]

    Theta, Time Reversal, and Temperature,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, Z. Komargodski, and N. Seiberg, “Theta, Time Reversal, and Temperature,” JHEP05(2017) 091,arXiv:1703.00501 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [41]

    IsN= 2Large?,

    R. Kitano, N. Yamada, and M. Yamazaki, “IsN= 2Large?,”JHEP02(2021) 073,arXiv:2010.08810 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [42]

    Viable range of the mass scale of the standard model,

    V. Agrawal, S. M. Barr, J. F. Donoghue, and D. Seckel, “Viable range of the mass scale of the standard model,”Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 5480–5492,arXiv:hep-ph/9707380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  42. [43]

    The Weak Scale from BBN,

    L. J. Hall, D. Pinner, and J. T. Ruderman, “The Weak Scale from BBN,”JHEP12(2014) 134, arXiv:1409.0551 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [44]

    Direct anthropic bound on the weak scale from supernovæ explosions,

    G. D’Amico, A. Strumia, A. Urbano, and W. Xue, “Direct anthropic bound on the weak scale from supernovæ explosions,”Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no. 8, 083013,arXiv:1906.00986 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  44. [45]

    γ-ray Constraints on Decaying Dark Matter and Implications for IceCube,

    T. Cohen, K. Murase, N. L. Rodd, B. R. Safdi, and Y. Soreq, “γ-ray Constraints on Decaying Dark Matter and Implications for IceCube,”Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) no. 2, 021102,arXiv:1612.05638 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [46]

    Constraints on Decaying Dark Matter from the Isotropic Gamma-Ray Background,

    C. Blanco and D. Hooper, “Constraints on Decaying Dark Matter from the Isotropic Gamma-Ray Background,”JCAP03(2019) 019,arXiv:1811.05988 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [47]

    Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances,

    K. Griest and D. Seckel, “Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances,”Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 3191–3203

    1991

  47. [48]

    Über die Beugung und Bremsung der Elektronen,

    A. Sommerfeld, “Über die Beugung und Bremsung der Elektronen,”Annalen Phys.403(1931) no. 3, 257–330

    1931

  48. [49]

    Non-perturbative effect on dark matter annihilation and gamma ray signature from galactic center,

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri, and O. Saito, “Non-perturbative effect on dark matter annihilation and gamma ray signature from galactic center,”Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 063528, arXiv:hep-ph/0412403. 49

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  49. [50]

    Non-perturbative effect on thermal relic abundance of dark matter,

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. Nagai, O. Saito, and M. Senami, “Non-perturbative effect on thermal relic abundance of dark matter,”Phys. Lett. B646(2007) 34–38,arXiv:hep-ph/0610249

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  50. [51]

    Sommerfeld factor for arbitrary partial wave processes,

    S. Cassel, “Sommerfeld factor for arbitrary partial wave processes,”J. Phys. G37(2010) 105009, arXiv:0903.5307 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  51. [52]

    A Theory of Dark Matter,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, “A Theory of Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 015014,arXiv:0810.0713 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  52. [53]

    The Sommerfeld enhancement for dark matter with an excited state,

    T. R. Slatyer, “The Sommerfeld enhancement for dark matter with an excited state,”JCAP02(2010) 028,arXiv:0910.5713 [hep-ph]. [54]LZCollaboration, J. Aalberset al., “Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,”arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]. [55]DAR WINCollaboration, J. Aalberset al., “DARWIN: towards the ultim...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [61]

    CTA and SWGO can discover Higgsino dark matter annihilation,

    N. L. Rodd, B. R. Safdi, and W. L. Xu, “CTA and SWGO can discover Higgsino dark matter annihilation,”Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no. 4, 043003,arXiv:2405.13104 [hep-ph]. [62]CT ACollaboration, A. Acharyyaet al., “Sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array to a dark matter signal from the Galactic centre,”JCAP01(2021) 057,arXiv:2007.16129 [astro-ph.HE]. [63]CT...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [64]

    Wino and Real Minimal Dark Matter Excluded by Fermi Gamma-Ray Observations,

    B. R. Safdi and W. L. Xu, “Wino and Real Minimal Dark Matter Excluded by Fermi Gamma-Ray Observations,”arXiv:2507.15934 [hep-ph]. 50

    arXiv

  55. [65]

    The Milky Way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2,

    M. Cautun, A. Benitez-Llambay, A. J. Deason, C. S. Frenk, A. Fattahi, F. A. Gómez, R. J. J. Grand, K. A. Oman, J. F. Navarro, and C. M. Simpson, “The Milky Way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.494(2020) no. 3, 4291–4313,arXiv:1911.04557 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  56. [66]

    Modified variable phase method for the solution of coupled radial Schrodinger equations,

    S. N. Ershov, J. S. Vaagen, and M. V. Zhukov, “Modified variable phase method for the solution of coupled radial Schrodinger equations,”Phys. Rev. C84(2011) 064308. 51

    2011