Higgsino dark matter compatible with the LUX-ZEPLIN high-energy nuclear-recoil event and IceCube constraints

Dionysios P. Theodosopoulos; Katherine Freese

REVIEW

Higgsino dark matter compatible with the LUX-ZEPLIN high-energy nuclear-recoil event and IceCube constraints

Katherine Freese, Dionysios P. Theodosopoulos

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 2 Oct 2026 · 54 references

Pith's verdict: A transparent multi-TeV Higgsino compatibility scan for the LZ 248 keV event; the broad conclusion survives scrutiny, but the headline 2 TeV endpoint rides on an uncalibrated LMC velocity tail that the authors themselves flag.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on October 5, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2610.03692 (version 1)

Pith IDDZHULOOO, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationDionysios P. Theodosopoulos, Katherine Freese. "Higgsino dark matter compatible with the LUX-ZEPLIN high-energy nuclear-recoil event and IceCube constraints." arXiv:2610.03692 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZHULOOO

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

The useful thing here is not the headline region, it's that the paper is honest about which approximations carry which parts of the result. That candor makes it worth reading even though I'm skeptical of the low-mass endpoint.

What's new: earlier work stayed at the 1.1 TeV thermal benchmark. This paper scans (m_chi, delta) up to 200 TeV and does the IceCube side without imposing capture-annihilation equilibrium from the start. It checks whether equilibrium is actually reached, includes the m^-2 mass dependence of elastic SD cooling, and includes Sommerfeld resonances. Ref. [15] imposed equilibrium and pushed to 100+ TeV at 68% CL; dropping that assumption opens regions down to ~2 TeV with the SHM+LMC halo, or ~10-30 TeV with SHM alone. That combined result is not in the cited papers.

What's done well: the machinery is cross-checked against published benchmarks. The 1.1 TeV SHM interval reproduces LZ's published one; the 566 keV equilibrium bound matches Ref. [12]; the 10^16 s cooling time matches Ref. [13]; the Sommerfeld resonances land at 6.5, 25, 55 TeV as expected. That consistency buys more confidence than the headline does. And the authors flag their own uncertainties throughout: the LMC mass-ratio issue, the unpublished sideband acceptance, the stationary-nucleus and uniform-density approximations, the fixed-at-10-TeV IceCube extrapolation. Nothing is hidden.

The soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test is right about the 2 TeV endpoint: that region exists only with the SHM+LMC tail from "halo-13," whose LMC-to-MW mass ratio (0.27) is above current observational estimates (~0.1-0.2). The authors say this themselves in Sec. IV. If the real tail is weaker, the 2 TeV region disappears and you're left with the SHM regions above ~10-30 TeV. That still leaves substantial compatible regions, so the central claim holds; it's specifically the low-mass headline that is load-bearing on an uncalibrated input. Two other spots matter even though they're acknowledged: holding the IceCube limit fixed at its 10 TeV value makes the hundreds-of-TeV side a benchmark rather than a calculation, and the stationary-nucleus cooling approximation is least trustworthy exactly in the slow-WIMP regime where it matters. No code is shipped and the likelihood uses digitized figures, so independent reproduction is real work. The reader's CONDITIONAL verdict fits; I'd not push it to ACCEPT.

This deserves a serious referee. It's a careful, testable treatment of a topical hint, useful for anyone interpreting the LZ event or planning direct-detection and neutrino-telescope searches. Treat the low-mass region as a motivated projection, not a region to bet on.

Referee report

Significance

If the compatibility regions are correct, the paper offers a well-motivated SUSY realization of the LZ event that survives the otherwise crushing IceCube solar-neutrino bounds, and it does so by relaxing the unrealistic capture-annihilation-equilibrium assumption used in earlier analyses. The paper has real strengths: the approximate likelihood reproduces the LZ collaboration's published 90% interval at 1 TeV in the SHM case (Sec. III, Fig. 1), the solar treatment recovers the reference 566 keV bound for a thermal Higgsino under equilibrium (Sec. VI.D), and the annihilation code recovers the benchmark <sigma v> ~ 1.3e-26 cm^3/s and the known Sommerfeld resonance pattern (Sec. VI.C). The four cooling variants and the with/without-sideband split are presented transparently, and the Discussion is unusually candid about the halo-tail, solar-physics, and IceCube-extrapolation uncertainties. The significance is moderated by the fact that the headline low-mass endpoint (~2 TeV) and the high-mass extent (hundreds of TeV) each depend on inputs the paper itself flags as unvalidated: the halo-13 LMC tail on the low side and a held-fixed IceCube limit above 10 TeV on the high side.

Major objections (3)

[Sec. IV; Fig. 2 lower panel] The advertised 'as low as ~2 TeV' endpoint (delta ~ 520 keV, overlap of the ROI-only LZ contour with the purple IceCube curve) exists only because the SHM+LMC high-speed tail supplies particles near and above v_min ~ 950 km/s. The paper itself notes that halo-13 has an LMC infall mass ratio of 0.27, above current observational estimates of roughly 0.1-0.2, and that the tail enhancement may then be overestimated (Sec. IV). What remains unresolved is that no sensitivity test is provided: the paper never shows how the 90% LZ contour or its overlap with the purple curve shifts when the tail normalization is reduced (e.g., scaled to a physically plausible LMC mass ratio) or when the adopted cutoff eta(v_min)=0 above 950 km/s is relaxed. Because the abstract's headline is specifically 'masses ~2 TeV and above,' this endpoint needs either a quantitative robustness study or an explicit re-framing of the 2 TeV minimum as conditional on halo-13.
[Sec. VI.B-VI.D; Eqs. (8)-(13)] The permissive IceCube bounds that open the 2 TeV region (purple curves: inelastic plus elastic SD cooling only) are precisely the bounds most sensitive to the stationary-nucleus approximation, since low-speed elastic SD collisions with solar-core protons are where thermal motion most changes the collision rate. The paper acknowledges that the direction of the total error from the stationary-nucleus, uniform-sphere, and imposed thermal-radius-floor approximations is not established (Sec. VI.B), and it validates its cooling machinery only at the 1.1 TeV benchmark (t_cooling ~ 1e16 s) and in the equilibrium regime. The 2 TeV overlap, however, sits in the t_cooling ~ t_sun regime where captures at different ages are treated as fully relaxed (Sec. VI.B). A concrete check, well within the scope of the manuscript, would be an order-of-magnitude estimate of the effect of proton thermal motion on the SD cooling rate and on the resulting purple bound; without it, the survival of the ~2 TeV region is not established. The authors acknowledge this: “The direction of the total error is not established, however, because the assumed uniform DM distribution and omitted nuclear thermal motion intro- duce additional uncertainties.”
[Sec. VI.D; Sec. VIII] The claim that compatible regions extend to 'hundreds of TeV or higher' rests on holding the IceCube W+W- annihilation-rate limit fixed at its 10 TeV value above 10 TeV and using the W+W- channel as a proxy for the Higgsino neutrino spectrum. The paper does state that this is a benchmark extrapolation and that a dedicated neutrino-signal analysis is needed. Since the upper extent of the regions is advertised in the abstract, the abstract and the concluding summary should carry the same caveat as prominently as the solar-physics one, or the upper end should be stated as an extrapolation rather than a derived result. The authors acknowledge this: “We first consider the (unrealistic for masses above 10 TeV) limiting assumption of capture–annihilation equilibrium for all Higgsino masses, shown in the gold- dashed curve, which gives the strongest IceCube bounds for a given capture rate.”

Minor objections (5)

[Sec. I; footnote 2; Sec. VI.B; Sec. VII] Several typos should be fixed: 'signifcantly' (Sec. I), 'callibration' (footnote 2), 'Therfore' (Sec. VI.B), 'mechansims' (Sec. VII), and 'consistent with this the event' (Sec. I).
[Fig. 2 caption vs. Sec. VI.D text] The text refers to the 'green dot-dashed curve' while the Fig. 2 caption describes 'green with circles'; the terminology should be made consistent between text and caption.
[Sec. IV] The description of setting eta(v_min)=0 above ~950 km/s as 'conservative' is only partially accurate: it removes signal from any unknown tail above 950 km/s, but it also silently assumes the normalization of the tail below 950 km/s is trustworthy, which is the actual load-bearing assumption. This could be stated explicitly in one sentence.
[Fig. 1 upper panel] The red dashed LZ curves are shown only up to delta = 350 keV while the black approximate curves extend beyond; the caption should clarify that the comparison with the LZ collaboration's published interval is meaningful only up to 350 keV.
[Eq. (7) and surrounding text] The composition treatment (radial profiles for six species, constant mass fractions for the remaining 45) is stated, but one sentence noting which of the 51 species actually dominate the capture integral at the splittings of interest would help the reader judge the sensitivity to the heavy-element assumption.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The paper argues that a multi-TeV Higgsino dark-matter particle — split into two nearby Majorana states — can explain LUX-ZEPLIN's single 248 keV nuclear-recoil event while still producing too few neutrinos from the Sun for IceCube to…

The reading

The paper argues that a multi-TeV Higgsino dark-matter particle, split into two nearby Majorana states, can explain the single 248 keV nuclear-recoil event reported by LUX-ZEPLIN while still producing too few neutrinos from the Sun for IceCube to have seen. The viable window sits at Higgsino masses from roughly 2 TeV up to hundreds of TeV, with mass splittings of 350–525 keV — well above the 1.1 TeV thermal relic mass that earlier work focused on. In fact, the thermal 1.1 TeV Higgsino survives only in a narrow, arguably unrealistic corner: an enhanced high-speed dark-matter tail from the Large Magellanic Cloud, no elastic cooling in the Sun, and no constraint from the empty LZ high-energy sideband. If the argument holds, Higgsino dark matter need not be abandoned over the LZ event; it must simply be heavier than freeze-out would naturally produce, requiring an exotic early-universe abundance history.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pseudo-Dirac Higgsino pair: two Majorana neutral states ($\tilde\chi_1$ lighter, $\tilde\chi_2$ heavier) split by $\delta \approx 350\text{–}525$ keV, with a tree-level off-diagonal coupling to the $Z$ boson producing spin-independent inelastic scattering — coherent, neutron-dominated — at a cross section $\sigma_{\tilde\chi n} \simeq 7.43\times10^{-39}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$. Because the excitation threshold suppresses scattering, detection is set by the high-speed tail of the local dark-matter velocity distribution, modeled either as the bare Standard Halo Model or as a distribution enhanced by the Large Magellanic Cloud. On the IceCube side, the machinery is solar capture through the same inelastic interaction (relying on heavy solar nuclei such as iron, nickel, and uranium to overcome the threshold), followed by cooling — inelastic SI plus loop-induced elastic SD (scaling as $m_\chi^{-2}$) and elastic SI scattering — and Sommerfeld-enhanced annihilation, compared against IceCube's $W^+W^-$ annihilation-rate limits. The four IceCube bound variants differ in which cooling channels are switched on, and the paper checks whether capture–annihilation equilibrium is actually reached rather than assuming it.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that inelastic scattering of Higgsino dark matter on xenon can produce the LZ 248 keV recoil, while the same particle's capture and annihilation in the Sun stays compatible with IceCube's null solar-neutrino searches, over a substantial region of the $(m_\chi,\delta)$ plane. Nearly pure Higgsinos form a pseudo-Dirac pair split by $\delta \simeq m_Z^2\,(\sin^2\theta_W/M_1 + \cos^2\theta_W/M_2)$, linked by an off-diagonal $Z$ coupling that up-scatters the light state to the heavy one; because $\delta$ is a few hundred keV, only the fastest dark-matter particles can drive the inelastic event in a xenon detector. That high-speed-tail dependence is what makes the Large Magellanic Cloud's gravitational perturbation of the halo decisive. For the Standard Halo Model alone, the surviving window sits at $m_\chi \gtrsim 10\text{–}30$ TeV with $\delta \approx 350\text{–}400$ keV; adding the LMC tail pushes compatible splittings to about 460–525 keV and lets masses sink to roughly 2 TeV. The 1.1 TeV thermal Higgsino — the mass where freeze-out yields the right abundance — is ruled out except under the most favorable assumptions, and the paper presents four IceCube bounds reflecting different assumptions about how captured Higgsinos cool in the Sun.

Load-bearing premise

The entire low-mass end of the allowed region — masses down to about 2 TeV, and the marginal survival of the 1.1 TeV thermal Higgsino — rests on the halo-13 simulation's claim that the Large Magellanic Cloud substantially enhances the local dark-matter high-speed tail; the paper itself concedes that if this halo's LMC-to-Milky-Way mass ratio (0.27 at pericenter) is overestimated, the tail enhancement — and with it this low-mass window — is also overestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The previously favored 1.1 TeV thermal Higgsino is effectively excluded as the source of the LZ event: it passes only with the LMC-enhanced tail, no elastic cooling in the Sun, and no sideband constraint all applied at once.
Surviving Higgsino masses of roughly 2 TeV and above overproduce dark matter through standard freeze-out, so a viable abundance requires dilution or non-thermal production in the early universe.
Imposing the empty LZ high-energy sideband (350–650 keV) closes part of the intermediate-mass window, pushing the surviving region to higher masses regardless of halo model.
The elastic spin-dependent cross section falling as $m_\chi^{-2}$ weakens solar cooling and hence IceCube bounds at large mass, so heavier inelastic WIMPs in general evade solar-neutrino constraints more easily.
Sommerfeld resonances near 6.5, 25, and 55 TeV locally strengthen IceCube limits but never exceed the capture–annihilation-equilibrium bound.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The decisive empirical lever is the real shape of the local dark-matter velocity tail above roughly 500 km/s; improved Milky Way–LMC interaction simulations or direct astrophysical probes would cleanly settle whether the 2–10 TeV window exists.
The mechanism that weakens IceCube bounds at high mass — the $m_\chi^{-2}$ suppression of elastic SD cooling — is generic and should apply to any inelastic or excited-state dark-matter candidate, so solar-neutrino limits may be systematically weakest for the heaviest WIMPs.
If LZ's continued exposure confirms a second high-energy recoil near 248 keV, the case strengthens; if the event does not repeat with more data, the whole scenario — and the paper's compatibility regions — dissolves with it.
A published LZ calibration of the 350–650 keV sideband acceptance would convert the paper's conditional, sideband-excluded results into a hard constraint and likely shrink the allowed window.

Original abstract

We examine Higgsino dark matter (DM) as a potential explanation of the $248~\mathrm{keV}$ nuclear-recoil event of interest reported by the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, taking into account IceCube constraints on DM annihilation in the Sun. In the nearly pure Higgsino limit, two neutral Majorana states separated by a small mass splitting $\delta$ are connected by an off-diagonal coupling to the $Z$ boson, providing a natural realization of inelastic DM. Using a likelihood analysis, we identify 90\% confidence regions compatible with the LZ event and consistent with the null results of IceCube searches, both with and without including a constraint from the absence of events in the LZ high-energy sideband. In our LZ analysis, we consider the DM distribution in the Standard Halo Model alone as well as possible enhancements of the high-speed tail induced by the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). We present four variants of bounds from IceCube on Higgsino dark matter, depending on various assumptions on cooling channels in the Sun, motivated by severe theoretical uncertainties about Higgsino-nucleon elastic scattering (unimportant for direct detection but crucial for IceCube bounds). Whereas the thermal Higgsino with a mass of $1.1~\mathrm{TeV}$ remains only marginally compatible with both the LZ event and the IceCube limits when the LMC-induced high-speed tail is included and both elastic cooling in the Sun and the LZ high-energy sideband constraint are neglected, higher mass Higgsinos are excellent candidates for the LZ event in light of IceCube constraints. Depending on the halo distribution, cooling interactions, and whether the LZ high-energy sideband is included, the compatible regions in the Higgsino parameter space $(m_\chi,\delta)$ extend from masses of $\sim2~\mathrm{TeV}$ to hundreds of TeV or higher, with mass splittings ranging approximately from $350$ to $525~\mathrm{keV}$.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-10-05: 1 request, 6,238 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.75 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.16 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.47 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We examine Higgsino dark matter (DM) as a potential explanation of the $248~\mathrm{keV}$ nuclear-recoil event of interest reported by the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, taking into account IceCube constraints on DM annihilation in the Sun. In the nearly pure Higgsino limit, two neutral Majorana states separated by a small mass splitting $\delta$ are connected by an off-diagonal coupling to the $Z$ boson, providing a natural realization of inelastic DM. Using a likelihood analysis, we identify 90\% confidence regions compatible with the LZ event and consistent with the null results of IceCube searches, both with and without including a constraint from the absence of events in the LZ high-energy sideband. In our LZ analysis, we consider the DM distribution in the Standard Halo Model alone as well as possible enhancements of the high-speed tail induced by the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). We present four variants of bounds from IceCube on Higgsino dark matter, depending on various assumptions on cooling channels in the Sun, motivated by severe theoretical uncertainties about Higgsino-nucleon elastic scattering (unimportant for direct detection but crucial for IceCube bounds). Whereas the thermal Higgsino with a mass of $1.1~\mathrm{TeV}$ remains only marginally compatible with both the LZ event and the IceCube limits when the LMC-induced high-speed tail is included and both elastic cooling in the Sun and the LZ high-energy sideband constraint are neglected, higher mass Higgsinos are excellent candidates for the LZ event in light of IceCube constraints. Depending on the halo distribution, cooling interactions, and whether the LZ high-energy sideband is included, the compatible regions in the Higgsino parameter space $(m_\chi,\delta)$ extend from masses of $\sim2~\mathrm{TeV}$ to hundreds of TeV or higher, with mass splittings ranging approximately from $350$ to $525~\mathrm{keV}$.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We examine Higgsino dark matter (DM) as a potential explanation of the $248~\mathrm{keV}$ nuclear-recoil event of interest reported by the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, taking into account IceCube constraints on DM annihilation in the Sun.	contribution 0.97	0.76	0.06	hedged possibility 0.86
s1	In the nearly pure Higgsino limit, two neutral Majorana states separated by a small mass splitting $\delta$ are connected by an off-diagonal coupling to the $Z$ boson, providing a natural realization of inelastic DM.	background 0.96	0.10	0.03	asserted 0.98
s2	Using a likelihood analysis, we identify 90\% confidence regions compatible with the LZ event and consistent with the null results of IceCube searches, both with and without including a constraint from the absence of events in the LZ high-energy sideband.	result 0.66	0.95	0.12	asserted 0.99
s3	In our LZ analysis, we consider the DM distribution in the Standard Halo Model alone as well as possible enhancements of the high-speed tail induced by the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC).	method 0.97	0.85	0.02	asserted 0.91
s4	We present four variants of bounds from IceCube on Higgsino dark matter, depending on various assumptions on cooling channels in the Sun, motivated by severe theoretical uncertainties about Higgsino-nucleon elastic scattering (unimportant for direct detection but crucial for IceCube bounds).	contribution 0.52	0.81	0.03	asserted 0.97
s5	Whereas the thermal Higgsino with a mass of $1.1~\mathrm{TeV}$ remains only marginally compatible with both the LZ event and the IceCube limits when the LMC-induced high-speed tail is included and both elastic cooling in the Sun and the LZ high-energy sideband constraint are neglected, higher mass Higgsinos are excellent candidates for the LZ event in light of IceCube constraints.	result 0.92	0.86	0.58	asserted 0.86
s6	Depending on the halo distribution, cooling interactions, and whether the LZ high-energy sideband is included, the compatible regions in the Higgsino parameter space $(m_\chi,\delta)$ extend from masses of $\sim2~\mathrm{TeV}$ to hundreds of TeV or higher, with mass splittings ranging approximately from $350$ to $525~\mathrm{keV}$.	result 1.00	0.91	0.45	asserted 0.94

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.85 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.97.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Illustration of the effect of the Large Magellenic

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. LZ confidence regions and estimated IceCube lim

Figures reproduced from arXiv:2610.03692 by the authors.

References

Works cited (54)

[15]

K. Langhoff, Heavy Higgsino Interpretation of the LZ Event (2026), arXiv:2609.09385 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[12]

M. Pospelov and H. Ramani, Strong Constraints on Higgsino Dark Matter from Solar Capture (2026), arXiv:2609.02775 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[13]

T. T. Q. Nguyen, T. Linden, and D. Hooper, Solar Neu- trino Constraints on Inelastic Dark Matter Scattering in Light of Recent LUX-ZEPLIN Observations (2026), arXiv:2609.11833 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[33]

A. Smith-Orliket al., The impact of the Large Magellanic Cloud on dark matter direct detection signals, JCAP10, 070, arXiv:2302.04281 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[1]

M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates, Phys. Rev. D31, 3059 (1985)

View on Pith 1985
[2]

A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, and D. N. Spergel, Detecting Cold Dark Matter Candidates, Phys. Rev. D33, 3495 (1986)

View on Pith 1986
[3]

R. Bernabeiet al., Final model independent result of DAMA/LIBRA-phase1, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2648 (2013), arXiv:1308.5109 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[4]

N. Carlinet al.(ANAIS-112, COSINE-100), Combined Annual Modulation Dark Matter Search with COSINE- 100 and ANAIS-112, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 121002 (2025), arXiv:2503.19559 [astro-ph.IM]

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[5]

D. S. Akeribet al.(LZ), Search for dark matter par- ticle interactions in an extended nuclear recoil energy window with the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment (2026), arXiv:2609.02823 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[6]

K. Freese and D. P. Theodosopoulos, Higgsino Dark Mat- ter Interpretation of the LUX-ZEPLIN 248 keV Nuclear- Recoil Event (2026), arXiv:2609.01583 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[7]

J. Aalberset al.(LZ), First constraints on WIMP- nucleon effective field theory couplings in an extended energy region from LUX-ZEPLIN, Phys. Rev. D109, 092003 (2024), arXiv:2312.02030 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[8]

P. W. Graham, H. Ramani, and S. S. Y. Wong, Enhanc- ing direct detection of Higgsino dark matter, Phys. Rev. D111, 055030 (2025), arXiv:2409.07768 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[9]

J. Fan and M. Reece, Higgsino Above the Sea of Fog (2026), arXiv:2609.01504 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[10]

L. Wu, Y. Zhang, and B. Zhu, TeV Higgsino Dark Mat- ter from LZ Nuclear Recoil to Fermi-LAT Gamma Rays (2026), arXiv:2609.01590 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[11]

W. Yin, A PQ-Symmetric High-Scale SUSY In- terpretation of the LZ High-Energy Recoil (2026), arXiv:2609.01892 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[14]

N. L. Rodd, B. R. Safdi, T. R. Slatyer, and W. L. Xu, Confronting the Higgsino Interpretation of the LZ Event with the High-Energy Sideband (2026), arXiv:2609.04175 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[16]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[17]

R. Krall and M. Reece, Last Electroweak WIMP Stand- ing: Pseudo-Dirac Higgsino Status and Compact Stars as Future Probes, Chin. Phys. C42, 043105 (2018), arXiv:1705.04843 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[18]

R. T. Co, B. Sheff, and J. D. Wells, Race to find split Higgsino dark matter, Phys. Rev. D105, 035012 (2022), arXiv:2105.12142 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[19]

P. N. Bhattiprolu, S. P. Martin, and J. D. Wells, Chasing Higgsino dark matter at colliders in the neutrino fog era, Phys. Rev. D113, 095029 (2026), arXiv:2512.12457 [hep- ph]

View on Pith arXiv 2026
[20]

K. Kowalska and E. M. Sessolo, The discreet charm of higgsino dark matter - a pocket review, Adv. High Energy Phys.2018, 6828560 (2018), arXiv:1802.04097 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[21]

N. Nagata and S. Shirai, Higgsino Dark Matter in High- Scale Supersymmetry, JHEP01, 029, arXiv:1410.4549 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[22]

N. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos, Supersymmet- ric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures for fine-tuning at the LHC, JHEP06, 073, arXiv:hep-th/0405159

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[23]

G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino, Split supersymmetry, Nucl. Phys. B699, 65 (2004), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 706, 487–487 (2005)], arXiv:hep-ph/0406088

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[24]

J. L. Gonski, P. W. Graham, S. Rajendran, H. Ra- mani, and S. S. Y. Wong, Melting LHC detectors: a novel search for stopped long-lived particles (2025), arXiv:2512.12023 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[25]

H. Baer, V. Barger, and M. Savoy, Upper bounds on spar- ticle masses from naturalness or how to disprove weak scale supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D93, 035016 (2016), arXiv:1509.02929 [hep-ph]. 15

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[26]

J. R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive, and M. Srednicki, Supersymmetric Relics from the Big Bang, Nucl. Phys. B238, 453 (1984)

View on Pith 1984
[27]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[28]

R. Essig, Direct Detection of Non-Chiral Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D78, 015004 (2008), arXiv:0710.1668 [hep- ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[29]

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]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[30]

Q. Chen and R. J. Hill, Direct detection rate of heavy Higgsino-like and Wino-like dark matter, Phys. Lett. B 804, 135364 (2020), arXiv:1912.07795 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[31]

I. Jeong, S. Kang, S. Scopel, and G. Tomar, WimPyDD: An object–oriented Python code for the calculation of WIMP direct detection signals, Comput. Phys. Commun. 276, 108342 (2022), arXiv:2106.06207 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[32]

D. Baxteret al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 907 (2021), arXiv:2105.00599 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[34]

N. Anand, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. C. Haxton, Weakly interacting massive particle-nucleus elastic scattering re- sponse, Phys. Rev. C89, 065501 (2014), arXiv:1308.6288 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[35]

G. Besla, A. Peter, and N. Garavito-Camargo, The highest-speed local dark matter particles come from the Large Magellanic Cloud, JCAP11, 013, arXiv:1909.04140 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1909
[36]

K. Bechtol, A. Drlica-Wagner, E. Balbinot, A. Pieres, J. D. Simon, B. Yanny, B. Santiago, R. H. Wechsler, J. Frieman, A. Walker,et al., Eight new milky way com- panions discovered in first-year dark energy survey data, The Astrophysical Journal807, 50 (2015)

View on Pith 2015
[37]

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

View on Pith 1985
[38]

K. Freese, Can Scalar Neutrinos Or Massive Dirac Neu- trinos Be the Missing Mass?, Phys. Lett. B167, 295 (1986)

View on Pith 1986
[39]

L. M. Krauss, M. Srednicki, and F. Wilczek, Solar System Constraints and Signatures for Dark Matter Candidates, Phys. Rev. D33, 2079 (1986)

View on Pith 1986
[40]

R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Search for High-Energy Neu- trinos From the Sun Using Ten Years of IceCube Data (2025), arXiv:2507.08457 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[41]

W. H. Press and D. N. Spergel, Capture by the sun of a galactic population of weakly interacting massive parti- cles, Astrophys. J.296, 679 (1985)

View on Pith 1985
[42]

J. N. Bahcall, A. M. Serenelli, and S. Basu, New so- lar opacities, abundances, helioseismology, and neutrino fluxes, Astrophys. J. Lett.621, L85 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0412440

View on Pith 2005
[43]

M. Asplund, A. M. Amarsi, and N. Grevesse, The chem- ical make-up of the sun: A 2020 vision, Astronomy & Astrophysics653, A141 (2021)

View on Pith 2021
[44]

L. Rinchiuso, O. Macias, E. Moulin, N. L. Rodd, and T. R. Slatyer, Prospects for detecting heavy WIMP dark matter with the Cherenkov Telescope Array: The Wino and Higgsino, Phys. Rev. D103, 023011 (2021), arXiv:2008.00692 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[45]

M. Beneke, C. Hellmann, and P. Ruiz-Femenia, Heavy neutralino relic abundance with Sommerfeld enhance- ments - a study of pMSSM scenarios, JHEP03, 162, arXiv:1411.6930 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[46]

C. Dessert, J. W. Foster, Y. Park, B. R. Safdi, and W. L. Xu, Higgsino Dark Matter Confronts 14 Years of Fermiγ-Ray Data, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 201001 (2023), arXiv:2207.10090 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[47]

R. Mahbubani and K. Mimouni, Boosting the dark mat- ter signal with Coulomb resonances, JCAP09, 056, arXiv:1903.00013 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1903
[48]

K. Blum, R. Sato, and T. R. Slatyer, Self-consistent Cal- culation of the Sommerfeld Enhancement, JCAP06, 021, arXiv:1603.01383 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[49]

D. Boseet al., Not so goodνs for Higgsino dark matter as LZ excess: stringent limits from Super-Kamiokande and IceCube (2026), arXiv:2609.07807 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[50]

D. P. Theodosopoulos, K. Freese, C. Kelso, and P. Sten- gel, Projected sensitivity of paleodetectors to dark mat- ter effective interactions with nuclei, Phys. Rev. D113, 123044 (2026), arXiv:2603.13629 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith arXiv 2026
[51]

D. P. Theodosopoulos, K. Freese, C. Kelso, and P. Sten- gel, Reconstructing Dark Matter Mass and Discriminat- ing Standard and Non-Standard WIMP-Nucleus Inter- actions with Paleo-Detectors (2026), arXiv:2608.10105 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[52]

D. P. Theodosopoulos, Paleo-Detectors as a Novel Probe of Dark Matter–Nucleus Effective Interactions, PoSCORFU2025, 073 (2026), arXiv:2608.26289 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[53]

A. Elykovet al., Mineral Detection of Neutrinos and Dark Matter 2026 Proceedings, inMineral De- tection of Neutrinos and Dark Matter 2026(2026) arXiv:2609.20552 [physics.ins-det]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[54]

P. W. Graham, H. Ramani, and S. S. Y. Wong, Heavy- element paleodetectors for Higgsino dark matter (2026), arXiv:2606.05299 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

The Electron-Recoil Response Tail and the LZ High-Energy Event Background
hep-ex 2026-10 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The published LZ electron-recoil response characterization does not determine the tail probability needed for the background estimate; tiny quantile shifts (0.14%) can change the ER contribution by a factor of 13.
Heavy Pseudo-Dirac Doublet Dark Matter and Non-Thermal Leptogenesis in Light of the LZ Event
hep-ph 2026-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Heavy pseudo-Dirac doublet dark matter and non-thermal leptogenesis can be reconciled in a low-reheating inflaton-domination cosmology only with kinematically forbidden dark matter pair emission and fine-tuned seesaw ...
Simulation-Informed High-Velocity Dark Matter in the Effective Theory of Direct Detection
hep-ph 2026-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A Milky Way dark matter velocity distribution combining Gaia stellar kinematics and a FIRE-2 Large Magellanic Cloud analog limits local dark matter speeds to under 900 km/s, shifting the inferred inelastic mass splitt...
Exothermic Dark Matter with a Dark Higgs: The LZ 248 keV Event and the Galactic Center Excess
hep-ph 2026-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Exothermic dark matter in a dark U(1) model with a dark Higgs can simultaneously explain the LZ 248 keV event and the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess.
Modular $S_4$ Inverse Seesaw at the LZ High-Recoil Frontier
hep-ph 2026-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A modular S4 inverse-seesaw model links lepton flavor parameters to the mass and splitting of inelastic dark matter, finding common-modulus solutions compatible with the LZ 248-keV nuclear-recoil candidate.

Show 1 more citing papers

The LZ inelastic splitting as a probe of anomaly mediation
hep-ph 2026-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

An MRSSM with R-symmetric Dirac bino, wino coannihilation, N = 2 high-scale coupling relations, and warped anomaly mediation can realize the LZ 248 keV inelastic dark matter candidate with spectra from 300 to 850 GeV.

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [15]

K. Langhoff, Heavy Higgsino Interpretation of the LZ Event (2026), arXiv:2609.09385 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[2] [12]

M. Pospelov and H. Ramani, Strong Constraints on Higgsino Dark Matter from Solar Capture (2026), arXiv:2609.02775 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[3] [13]

T. T. Q. Nguyen, T. Linden, and D. Hooper, Solar Neu- trino Constraints on Inelastic Dark Matter Scattering in Light of Recent LUX-ZEPLIN Observations (2026), arXiv:2609.11833 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[4] [33]

A. Smith-Orliket al., The impact of the Large Magellanic Cloud on dark matter direct detection signals, JCAP10, 070, arXiv:2302.04281 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[5] [1]

M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates, Phys. Rev. D31, 3059 (1985)

View on Pith 1985

[6] [2]

A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, and D. N. Spergel, Detecting Cold Dark Matter Candidates, Phys. Rev. D33, 3495 (1986)

View on Pith 1986

[7] [3]

R. Bernabeiet al., Final model independent result of DAMA/LIBRA-phase1, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2648 (2013), arXiv:1308.5109 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[8] [4]

N. Carlinet al.(ANAIS-112, COSINE-100), Combined Annual Modulation Dark Matter Search with COSINE- 100 and ANAIS-112, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 121002 (2025), arXiv:2503.19559 [astro-ph.IM]

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[9] [5]

D. S. Akeribet al.(LZ), Search for dark matter par- ticle interactions in an extended nuclear recoil energy window with the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment (2026), arXiv:2609.02823 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[10] [6]

K. Freese and D. P. Theodosopoulos, Higgsino Dark Mat- ter Interpretation of the LUX-ZEPLIN 248 keV Nuclear- Recoil Event (2026), arXiv:2609.01583 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[11] [7]

J. Aalberset al.(LZ), First constraints on WIMP- nucleon effective field theory couplings in an extended energy region from LUX-ZEPLIN, Phys. Rev. D109, 092003 (2024), arXiv:2312.02030 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[12] [8]

P. W. Graham, H. Ramani, and S. S. Y. Wong, Enhanc- ing direct detection of Higgsino dark matter, Phys. Rev. D111, 055030 (2025), arXiv:2409.07768 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[13] [9]

J. Fan and M. Reece, Higgsino Above the Sea of Fog (2026), arXiv:2609.01504 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[14] [10]

L. Wu, Y. Zhang, and B. Zhu, TeV Higgsino Dark Mat- ter from LZ Nuclear Recoil to Fermi-LAT Gamma Rays (2026), arXiv:2609.01590 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[15] [11]

W. Yin, A PQ-Symmetric High-Scale SUSY In- terpretation of the LZ High-Energy Recoil (2026), arXiv:2609.01892 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[16] [14]

N. L. Rodd, B. R. Safdi, T. R. Slatyer, and W. L. Xu, Confronting the Higgsino Interpretation of the LZ Event with the High-Energy Sideband (2026), arXiv:2609.04175 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[17] [16]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[18] [17]

R. Krall and M. Reece, Last Electroweak WIMP Stand- ing: Pseudo-Dirac Higgsino Status and Compact Stars as Future Probes, Chin. Phys. C42, 043105 (2018), arXiv:1705.04843 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[19] [18]

R. T. Co, B. Sheff, and J. D. Wells, Race to find split Higgsino dark matter, Phys. Rev. D105, 035012 (2022), arXiv:2105.12142 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[20] [19]

P. N. Bhattiprolu, S. P. Martin, and J. D. Wells, Chasing Higgsino dark matter at colliders in the neutrino fog era, Phys. Rev. D113, 095029 (2026), arXiv:2512.12457 [hep- ph]

View on Pith arXiv 2026

[21] [20]

K. Kowalska and E. M. Sessolo, The discreet charm of higgsino dark matter - a pocket review, Adv. High Energy Phys.2018, 6828560 (2018), arXiv:1802.04097 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[22] [21]

N. Nagata and S. Shirai, Higgsino Dark Matter in High- Scale Supersymmetry, JHEP01, 029, arXiv:1410.4549 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[23] [22]

N. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos, Supersymmet- ric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures for fine-tuning at the LHC, JHEP06, 073, arXiv:hep-th/0405159

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[24] [23]

G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino, Split supersymmetry, Nucl. Phys. B699, 65 (2004), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 706, 487–487 (2005)], arXiv:hep-ph/0406088

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[25] [24]

J. L. Gonski, P. W. Graham, S. Rajendran, H. Ra- mani, and S. S. Y. Wong, Melting LHC detectors: a novel search for stopped long-lived particles (2025), arXiv:2512.12023 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[26] [25]

H. Baer, V. Barger, and M. Savoy, Upper bounds on spar- ticle masses from naturalness or how to disprove weak scale supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D93, 035016 (2016), arXiv:1509.02929 [hep-ph]. 15

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[27] [26]

J. R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive, and M. Srednicki, Supersymmetric Relics from the Big Bang, Nucl. Phys. B238, 453 (1984)

View on Pith 1984

[28] [27]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[29] [28]

R. Essig, Direct Detection of Non-Chiral Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D78, 015004 (2008), arXiv:0710.1668 [hep- ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[30] [29]

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]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[31] [30]

Q. Chen and R. J. Hill, Direct detection rate of heavy Higgsino-like and Wino-like dark matter, Phys. Lett. B 804, 135364 (2020), arXiv:1912.07795 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[32] [31]

I. Jeong, S. Kang, S. Scopel, and G. Tomar, WimPyDD: An object–oriented Python code for the calculation of WIMP direct detection signals, Comput. Phys. Commun. 276, 108342 (2022), arXiv:2106.06207 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[33] [32]

D. Baxteret al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 907 (2021), arXiv:2105.00599 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[34] [34]

N. Anand, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. C. Haxton, Weakly interacting massive particle-nucleus elastic scattering re- sponse, Phys. Rev. C89, 065501 (2014), arXiv:1308.6288 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[35] [35]

G. Besla, A. Peter, and N. Garavito-Camargo, The highest-speed local dark matter particles come from the Large Magellanic Cloud, JCAP11, 013, arXiv:1909.04140 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1909

[36] [36]

K. Bechtol, A. Drlica-Wagner, E. Balbinot, A. Pieres, J. D. Simon, B. Yanny, B. Santiago, R. H. Wechsler, J. Frieman, A. Walker,et al., Eight new milky way com- panions discovered in first-year dark energy survey data, The Astrophysical Journal807, 50 (2015)

View on Pith 2015

[37] [37]

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

View on Pith 1985

[38] [38]

K. Freese, Can Scalar Neutrinos Or Massive Dirac Neu- trinos Be the Missing Mass?, Phys. Lett. B167, 295 (1986)

View on Pith 1986

[39] [39]

L. M. Krauss, M. Srednicki, and F. Wilczek, Solar System Constraints and Signatures for Dark Matter Candidates, Phys. Rev. D33, 2079 (1986)

View on Pith 1986

[40] [40]

R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Search for High-Energy Neu- trinos From the Sun Using Ten Years of IceCube Data (2025), arXiv:2507.08457 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[41] [41]

W. H. Press and D. N. Spergel, Capture by the sun of a galactic population of weakly interacting massive parti- cles, Astrophys. J.296, 679 (1985)

View on Pith 1985

[42] [42]

J. N. Bahcall, A. M. Serenelli, and S. Basu, New so- lar opacities, abundances, helioseismology, and neutrino fluxes, Astrophys. J. Lett.621, L85 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0412440

View on Pith 2005

[43] [43]

M. Asplund, A. M. Amarsi, and N. Grevesse, The chem- ical make-up of the sun: A 2020 vision, Astronomy & Astrophysics653, A141 (2021)

View on Pith 2021

[44] [44]

L. Rinchiuso, O. Macias, E. Moulin, N. L. Rodd, and T. R. Slatyer, Prospects for detecting heavy WIMP dark matter with the Cherenkov Telescope Array: The Wino and Higgsino, Phys. Rev. D103, 023011 (2021), arXiv:2008.00692 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[45] [45]

M. Beneke, C. Hellmann, and P. Ruiz-Femenia, Heavy neutralino relic abundance with Sommerfeld enhance- ments - a study of pMSSM scenarios, JHEP03, 162, arXiv:1411.6930 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[46] [46]

C. Dessert, J. W. Foster, Y. Park, B. R. Safdi, and W. L. Xu, Higgsino Dark Matter Confronts 14 Years of Fermiγ-Ray Data, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 201001 (2023), arXiv:2207.10090 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[47] [47]

R. Mahbubani and K. Mimouni, Boosting the dark mat- ter signal with Coulomb resonances, JCAP09, 056, arXiv:1903.00013 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1903

[48] [48]

K. Blum, R. Sato, and T. R. Slatyer, Self-consistent Cal- culation of the Sommerfeld Enhancement, JCAP06, 021, arXiv:1603.01383 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[49] [49]

D. Boseet al., Not so goodνs for Higgsino dark matter as LZ excess: stringent limits from Super-Kamiokande and IceCube (2026), arXiv:2609.07807 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[50] [50]

D. P. Theodosopoulos, K. Freese, C. Kelso, and P. Sten- gel, Projected sensitivity of paleodetectors to dark mat- ter effective interactions with nuclei, Phys. Rev. D113, 123044 (2026), arXiv:2603.13629 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith arXiv 2026

[51] [51]

D. P. Theodosopoulos, K. Freese, C. Kelso, and P. Sten- gel, Reconstructing Dark Matter Mass and Discriminat- ing Standard and Non-Standard WIMP-Nucleus Inter- actions with Paleo-Detectors (2026), arXiv:2608.10105 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[52] [52]

D. P. Theodosopoulos, Paleo-Detectors as a Novel Probe of Dark Matter–Nucleus Effective Interactions, PoSCORFU2025, 073 (2026), arXiv:2608.26289 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[53] [53]

A. Elykovet al., Mineral Detection of Neutrinos and Dark Matter 2026 Proceedings, inMineral De- tection of Neutrinos and Dark Matter 2026(2026) arXiv:2609.20552 [physics.ins-det]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[54] [54]

P. W. Graham, H. Ramani, and S. S. Y. Wong, Heavy- element paleodetectors for Higgsino dark matter (2026), arXiv:2606.05299 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026