Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:2611.15852 v1 · submitted 11 Nov 2026 · 300 references

The Dark Side of the Periodic Table: Theory and Signatures of Nuclear Atomic Dark Matter

Pouya Asadi, Zackaria Chacko, David Curtin, Micah Mellors, Ethan T. Neil

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“We study the theory and signatures of a Mirror Twin Higgs (MTH) scenario in which stable twin neutrons constitute most of the dark matter (DM), while a subdominant component of twin elements survives as nuclear atomic dark matter (naDM).”

more of the abstract

This framework offers a solution to the matter coincidence problem ($\Omega_{\rm DM}\simeq5\Omega_b$), as the twin ℤ2 symmetry can correlate the visible and DM mass scales and their number densities. We analyze twin nucleon freeze-out and the onset of twin Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) to estimate the total naDM abundance, and determine which elements in the dark periodic table could be populated. An appreciable but subdominant naDM component generally requires a fractional nucleon mass splitting near the percent level, with twin-BBN creating heavy elements up to twin carbon. Strong twin neutron-proton scattering allows nearly all of the dark matter, not only the atomic sub-component, to participate in dark acoustic oscillations (DAO) at early times, giving rise to a characteristic two-stage DAO signature that may be detected with future cosmological probes. Interactions between the twin and visible sectors, including the irreducible Higgs portal, make this scenario a well-motivated target for future directional direct-detection searches, and the naDM sub-component is expected to exhibit highly exotic astrophysics. We outline a supersymmetric twin Froggatt-Nielsen realization in which spontaneous ℤ2 breaking in the flavon sector can generate the required fermion spectrum and Higgs potential.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4-flash · 13 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up, with conditions. The first detailed treatment of twin nuclear atomic dark matter in the Mirror Twin Higgs framework, but the entire naDM scenario hinges on the twin deuteron being bound—a yes/no question on which current lattice evidence is divided. This line is wrong

2 major objections · 8 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 300 references say.

The paper says, at Sec. III.A, IV.A

The review did not quote this passage.

A classifier read this sentence of the paper as acknowledging the concern (probability 0.87):

“However, in this regime recombination may not be efficient and a more detailed analysis would be required to set precise bounds.”

Pith says: Objection 1 of 2 · major

The baseline DAO analysis assumes efficient recombination (Sec. IID, p. 23). However, as acknowledged in the text, for heavy twin electrons (m_e,B ~ GeV) recombination can be inefficient, and the residual ionized fraction can dramatically alter the two-stage DAO signature (e.g., the second stage may persist to larger scales or be absent).

more of objection 1

The paper should quantify the region of parameter space where recombination is efficient, and estimate how the DAO constraints change when it is not. Without this, the central DAO prediction is only valid under an unverified assumption.

The paper says, at Sec. II.C, III.B, VII

The review did not quote this passage.

A classifier read this sentence of the paper as acknowledging the concern (probability 0.69):

“If the twin deuteron is unbound at a given point in our parameter space, then we assume twin BBN does not proceed.”

Pith says: Objection 2 of 2 · major

The entire naDM phenomonology—abundance, composition, two-stage DAOs, direct detection of nuclei—hinges on the twin deuteron being bound. The paper acknowledges that lattice results are unsettled and that the deuteron might be unbound (p. 18, Fig. 6), but the abstract and conclusions do not treat this bifurcation symmetrically.

more of objection 2

The abstract states the naDM component survives; the conclusions should clearly separate the bound and unbound cases, perhaps with a summary table of observable consequences for each. This would make the conditional nature of the claims more transparent to readers who do not go through the detailed text.

8 minor objections

The paper says, at Abstract

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 8

Typo: 'non-toop yukawas' should be 'non-top yukawas'.

The paper says, at Table I

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 8

Parameter description: 'couplying' should be 'coupling'. Also, the range for ∆Neff is given as '0.01' to '0.15', but the text later refers to benchmark values 0.01 and 0.15; check consistency.

show 6 more

The paper says, at Fig. 1 caption

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 8

The caption says 'the benchmark point mN,B = 5GeV and mπ,B = 1.7GeV' but the figure text says 'mπ,B = 1.7GeV'—be consistent with the notation mπ,B.

The paper says, at Sec. II.D, Eq. (24)

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 8

The electron capture reaction is written as p+B + e- → n_B + ν_B. Should include the electron neutrino as ν_e,B.

The paper says, at Sec. IV.A, Eq. (59)

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 8

The Saha equation for Xe,B uses η = nb,A/nγ,A = 6×10^-10, but the twin baryon density is given by Eq. (32). The factor (Ω_DM/Ω_b) inside the exponential should be checked—the derivation in the text may have an algebraic slip. The authors should verify that the argument of the exponential is dimensionally consistent.

The paper says, at Sec. V.A, Fig. 14

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 8

The y-axis label reads '√fnaDM Qκ' but the quantity Q is not defined in the caption. From context, Q is the effective charge of the DM candidate (Q=1 for protons, 0 for neutrons, etc.). Please define clearly.

The paper says, at Sec. VI

Pith says: minor objection 7 of 8

The Froggatt–Nielsen UV completion is sketched, but the supersymmetric part is given only a few lines. Given that the paper claims a 'proof of principle', a more detailed discussion of how SUSY breaking communicates to the flavon sector and how the twin Higgs mechanism is maintained would be helpful.

The paper says, at General

Pith says: minor objection 8 of 8

Several places use 'twin secor' instead of 'twin sector' (e.g., in the axiom ledger in the stress-test note). Please proofread for such typos.

What would settle it

Perform a dedicated lattice QCD calculation with N_f=2 dynamical quarks at the benchmark parameters m_N,B=5 GeV, m_π,B=1.7 GeV (corresponding to m_π/m_N ≈ 0.34) to determine the twin deuteron binding energy or scattering length directly. If the result shows no bound state (scattering length negative and no pole), then the naDM scenario as modeled is invalid, and the paper's conclusions about naDM composition, two-stage DAO, mirror star formation, and multi-component direct detection would not apply.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4-flash · 13 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence high
  2. Skeptic agrees 15 s · 54,610 tokens read, 1,713 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 15 s · 55,663 tokens read, 1,617 written
  4. Referee minor revision: 2 major objections, 8 minor 25 s · 55,164 tokens read, 3,085 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

This paper gives the most thorough working-out I have seen of a Twin Higgs scenario with stable twin neutrons and a subdominant nuclear atomic component (naDM). The authors honestly lay out the IR parameter space, map it to UV inputs, and calculate the naDM relic abundance, composition, and a rich set of signatures: two-stage dark acoustic oscillations, multiple direct detection channels, mirror stars. The two-stage DAO mechanism—where strong neutron–proton interactions drag the entire DM population into acoustic motion at early times, leaving only the charged fraction oscillating later—is genuinely new and could be tested by future Lyman-α or UV luminosity function data. Credit where it is due: the paper is internally consistent, the authors flag their assumptions clearly, and they bracket the large nuclear uncertainties with two extreme fits rather than pretending to precision.

The soft spot is exactly what they flag: the twin deuteron binding energy. If the deuteron is unbound (a real possibility given recent lattice results at heavy pion masses), twin BBN cannot proceed, the naDM component vanishes, and the two-stage DAO signature collapses to a single TNDM-only stage. The paper's most distinctive phenomenological claims—multi-element dark atoms, exotic heavy nuclei, the full naDM phase diagram—are contingent on a yes/no condition that current lattice calculations do not settle. The authors acknowledge this openly (end of Sec. IIC) and treat both bound and unbound deuteron cases, but they do not resolve the tension. That is not a flaw in execution, but it means the paper's central predictions are not robust under plausible variation of one microscopic quantity.

That said, the paper is not empty without naDM. The TNDM-only scenario is a self-consistent solution to the matter coincidence problem, and the strong-interaction-driven DAO signature may survive in modified form. The analysis of the twin nucleon freeze-out, the Boltzmann equations, and the mapping between UV and IR parameters will be useful to anyone working in this class of models. The paper is clearly written by serious people who understand the limitations of their calculation.

Who should read this? Anyone interested in Twin Higgs dark matter, atomic dark matter, or self-interacting DM with a rich cosmology. It is not a finished proof; it is a detailed roadmap for a scenario that may or may not be realized in nature, depending on lattice QCD results we do not yet have. But the roadmap itself is worth taking seriously.

Recommendation: send to peer review. The paper deserves a referee. The referee should closely scrutinize the deuteron binding energy treatment and the claimed bifurcation structure. The authors should be asked to more sharply state which predictions are robust to lifting the deuteron uncertainty and which are not. A revision that strengthens the TNDM-only phenomenology as a fallback would make the paper stronger.

The strongest objection

The paper's central predictions for naDM abundance, composition, and the two-stage DAO signature hinge on the twin deuteron being bound with a binding energy approximated by Eq. (17). The deuteron is the bottleneck for twin BBN: if it is unbound, no heavier nuclei form and the naDM component vanishes, leaving only twin neutron dark matter. Sections II.C and III.A explicitly treat both possibilities but rely on a fit (Eq. 17) derived from an older set of lattice results. More recent lattice calculations (Refs. [102–108]) cast doubt on the existence of a bound di-nucleon state at heavier pion masses, which are typical in the naDM parameter space. The paper itself acknowledges this as unsettled (end of Sec. IIC). Yet the entire phenomenology of atomic dark matter, DAOs, mirror stars, and multi-component direct detection follows from the assumption of a bound deuteron. If the deuteron is unbound, the 'dark acoustic oscillation' signature is reduced to a single-stage TNDM-only oscillation, the naDM phase space of Figs. 2–5 collapses, and the matter coincidence problem solution remains viable but loses all the distinctive 'nuclear atomic' signatures that give the paper its novelty. This is a genuine bifurcation point in the argument; the paper does not prove the deuteron is bound, it only brackets the uncertainty using two extreme fits. The load-bearing assumption is therefore not merely a numerical uncertainty—it is a yes/no condition on the existence of the entire naDM framework.

The reader already identified the twin deuteron binding energy as the weakest assumption and assigned a CONDITIONAL verdict. My stress-test agrees: this is the single most load-bearing point because it is a binary (bound/unbound) that determines whether any naDM exists. The paper honestly discusses the lattice uncertainties, so no new objection is raised. I recommend the verdict remain CONDITIONAL: the model is compelling if the deuteron is bound, but this awaits independent lattice confirmation. Changing to REJECT would be too strong given the paper's own caveats; changing to ACCEPT would ignore the unsettled lattice results. UNCHANGED is thus appropriate.

The referee's report

If the scenario holds, it provides a well-motivated solution to the matter coincidence problem and predicts a rich spectrum of observational signatures: a characteristic two-scale DAO cut-off in the matter power spectrum, multicomponent direct detection signals, and exotic astrophysical objects (mirror stars, dark dust). The paper systematically connects UV parameters to IR phenomenology and identifies clear target parameter space for future experiments. The significance is high, but it rests on the assumption that the twin deuteron is bound; the paper is honest about this uncertainty.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

This paper argues that a Mirror Twin Higgs framework with spontaneous Z2 breaking in the non-top Yukawas, unbroken twin electromagnetism, and a colder twin sector can produce stable twin neutron dark matter of mass ~5 GeV, which naturally explains the observed ratio of dark to visible matter energy densities (Ω_DM ≈ 5 Ω_b). Alongside the dominant twin neutron component, a subdominant fraction of twin nuclear bound states (nuclear atomic dark matter, naDM) survives. The percent-level twin neutron–proton mass splitting and sufficiently light twin electrons required for naDM are generated by the same Z2 breaking that solves the little hierarchy problem. A key consequence is that strong twin neutron–proton scattering couples nearly all dark matter to dark acoustic oscillations (DAOs) at early times, producing a two-stage DAO signature: all dark matter oscillates on small scales, then only the charged naDM component on larger scales. This signal may be detectable in upcoming Lyman-α, UV luminosity function, and 21-cm measurements, and the rich twin nuclear phenomenology opens multiple direct-detection and astrophysical probes.

What carries the argument. The Mirror Twin Higgs framework with spontaneous Z2 breaking via Froggatt–Nielsen sector: the twin Z2 symmetry correlates the QCD confinement scales and allows co-generation of baryon asymmetries, solving the matter coincidence problem. The percent-level twin neutron–proton mass splitting (∆m_{np,B}/m_{N,B} ~ 1%) and light twin electrons are generated by the different flavon vevs in the two sectors, reversing the up-down quark mass ordering. The twin nuclear binding energies (especially the deuteron binding energy) control twin BBN and the naDM abundance, and are estimated from lattice QCD extrapolations. The strong twin neutron–proton scattering length, set by the near-threshold deuteron system, couples the entire twin baryon population to dark acoustic oscillations, producing the two-stage DAO signal.

Core claim. The central claim is that in the Mirror Twin Higgs framework with Z2 breaking in the non-top Yukawas, unbroken twin electromagnetism, and a temperature asymmetry between sectors, the dark matter is composed primarily of stable twin neutrons of mass ~5 GeV with a subdominant (few percent to ~20%) nuclear atomic dark matter (naDM) component consisting of twin deuterium, helium, and potentially heavier elements up to twin carbon. This is a complete solution to the matter coincidence problem because the twin Z2 symmetry correlates both the masses (via correlated QCD confinement scales) and the number densities (via co-generated baryon asymmetries) of the two sectors. The percent-level twin neutron–proton mass splitting required for naDM arises naturally from the UV Froggatt–Nielsen realization. The strong twin neutron–proton interaction ensures that even the neutral twin neutrons are dragged with the charged naDM during early acoustic oscillations, leading to a two-stage DAO signature: first the entire dark sector oscillates (suppressing small-scale structure), then only the naDM component oscillates after twin strong interactions decouple. This two-stage signal is a unique observable that could be probed by future cosmological surveys, and the naDM subcomponent offers terrestrial detection opportunities via Higgs and kinetic-mixing portals.

The premise it rests on. The twin deuteron is bound with a binding energy within the range of Eq. (17); if the deuteron is unbound (as suggested by some lattice results), twin BBN does not proceed and the naDM component vanishes, completely changing the phenomenology.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

The matter coincidence problem is resolved in a motivated ultraviolet completion that also addresses the little hierarchy problem; the Z2 symmetry naturally predicts Ω_DM ≈ 5 Ω_b to within O(1).

The two-stage DAO signature provides a specific observational target for future Lyman-α, UV luminosity function, and 21-cm surveys, with the first stage (all-DM) suppressing structure at k ~50 h/Mpc and the second stage (naDM-only) at larger scales.

Direct detection experiments (e.g., LZ, Oscura) can probe the naDM subcomponent via Higgs portal nuclear recoil and kinetic-mixing electron recoil, potentially seeing multiple components with masses in multiples of 5 GeV.

The rich twin nuclear physics predicts that mirror stars, composed of naDM, may form and produce distinct optical and gravitational-wave signatures, providing additional discovery channels.

The paper's strongest claim—that the naDM phase structure and abundance are driven by the deuteron binding energy—means that resolving the current lattice QCD debate on di-nucleon binding at heavy pion masses is critical; if the twin deuteron is unbound over the entire parameter space, the entire naDM phenomenology becomes pure TNDM with no two-stage DAO signal.

The two-stage DAO prediction could already be constrained by existing Lyman-α and UVLF data if the naDM fraction exceeds ~10% in the regime where the deuteron is bound; dedicated reanalysis with the two-stage matter transfer function could place stronger bounds or confirm tensions.

If the naDM component undergoes efficient cooling in galaxies, it may collapse into a dark disk, suppressing its direct detection signal (since the disk moves more slowly relative to Earth) but enhancing gravitational-wave signals from mirror stellar mergers—a complementary test.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

We study the theory and signatures of a Mirror Twin Higgs (MTH) scenario in which stable twin neutrons constitute most of the dark matter (DM), while a subdominant component of twin elements survives as nuclear atomic dark matter (naDM). This framework offers a solution to the matter coincidence problem ($\Omega_{\rm DM}\simeq5\Omega_b$), as the twin ℤ2 symmetry can correlate the visible and DM mass scales and their number densities. We analyze twin nucleon freeze-out and the onset of twin Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) to estimate the total naDM abundance, and determine which elements in the dark periodic table could be populated. An appreciable but subdominant naDM component generally requires a fractional nucleon mass splitting near the percent level, with twin-BBN creating heavy elements up to twin carbon. Strong twin neutron-proton scattering allows nearly all of the dark matter, not only the atomic sub-component, to participate in dark acoustic oscillations (DAO) at early times, giving rise to a characteristic two-stage DAO signature that may be detected with future cosmological probes. Interactions between the twin and visible sectors, including the irreducible Higgs portal, make this scenario a well-motivated target for future directional direct-detection searches, and the naDM sub-component is expected to exhibit highly exotic astrophysics. We outline a supersymmetric twin Froggatt-Nielsen realization in which spontaneous ℤ2 breaking in the flavon sector can generate the required fermion spectrum and Higgs potential.

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. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-11-13

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.37

“Strong twin neutron-proton scattering allows nearly all of the dark matter, not only the atomic sub-component, to participate in $dark~acoustic~oscillations$ (DAO) at early times, giving rise to a characteristic two-stage DAO signature that may be detected with future cosmological probes.”

How the main claim is stated: hedged possibility 0.72

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.20 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.79 · compares with prior results 0.09 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v1). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
We study the theory and signatures of a Mirror Twin Higgs (MTH) scenario in which stable twin neutrons constitute most of the dark matter (DM), while a subdominant component of twin elements survives as nuclear atomic dark matter (naDM). contribution 1.00 0.81 0.26 asserted 0.96
This framework offers a solution to the $matter~coincidence~problem$ ($\Omega_{\rm DM}\simeq5\Omega_b$), as the twin $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry can correlate the visible and DM mass scales and their number densities. interpretation 0.72 0.22 0.13 asserted 0.76
We analyze twin nucleon freeze-out and the onset of twin Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) to estimate the total naDM abundance, and determine which elements in the dark periodic table could be populated. method 0.52 0.91 0.07 asserted 0.90
An appreciable but subdominant naDM component generally requires a fractional nucleon mass splitting near the percent level, with twin-BBN creating heavy elements up to twin carbon. result 1.00 0.77 0.14 asserted 0.56
Strong twin neutron-proton scattering allows nearly all of the dark matter, not only the atomic sub-component, to participate in $dark~acoustic~oscillations$ (DAO) at early times, giving rise to a characteristic two-stage DAO signature that may be detected with future cosmological probes. result 0.86 0.72 0.21 hedged possibility 0.72
Interactions between the twin and visible sectors, including the irreducible Higgs portal, make this scenario a well-motivated target for future directional direct-detection searches, and the naDM sub-component is expected to exhibit highly exotic astrophysics. interpretation 0.88 0.19 0.10 hedged possibility 0.60
We outline a supersymmetric twin Froggatt-Nielsen realization in which spontaneous $\mathbb{Z}_2$ breaking in the flavon sector can generate the required fermion spectrum and Higgs potential. contribution 0.71 0.69 0.04 asserted 0.70

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.61

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

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-11-13: 1 request, 6,028 input tokens.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (19)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The baryon mass splitting as a function of the quark mass splitting for the two different
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Different phases of the naDM model (coloured regions) as a function of the IR parameters
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Different phases of naDM as defined by the IR parameters of Table
Figure 4 of the paper
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Different phases of naDM as defined by the IR parameters of Table
Figure 5 of the paper
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Different phases of naDM as defined by the IR parameters of Table
Figure 6 of the paper
Figure 6. FIG. 6. Different phases of our model if we instead use the lattice results of Refs. [
Figure 7 of the paper
Figure 7. FIG. 7. Contours show the twin nucleon DM fraction
Figure 8 of the paper
Figure 8. FIG. 8. Total naDM fraction as a function of
Figure 9 of the paper
Figure 9. FIG. 9. Total naDM fraction as a function of
Figure 10 of the paper
Figure 10. FIG. 10. Total naDM fraction as a function of
Figure 11 of the paper
Figure 11. FIG. 11. Total naDM fraction as a function of
Figure 12 of the paper
Figure 12. FIG. 12. Total naDM fraction as a function of
Figure 13 of the paper
Figure 13. FIG. 13. Possible relic twin proton ion fraction as a function of
Figure 14 of the paper
Figure 14. FIG. 14. LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) limits [
Figure 15 of the paper
Figure 15. FIG. 15. Electron-recoil direct-detection limits on the kinetic-mixing parameter
Figure 16 of the paper
Figure 16. FIG. 16. Constraints on the kinetic mixing suppressed twin neutron EDM (
Figure 17 of the paper
Figure 17. FIG. 17. Predicted cross sections for Higgs mediated direct detection of twin neutrons, deuterons,
Figure 18 of the paper
Figure 18. shows the different quark masses in the B-sector as a function of ϵB/ϵA assuming one of the top quark flavour charge assignments from Ref. [251]. At the SM point (ϵB/ϵA = 1), the masses are evaluated for a particular set of O (1) cij coefficients that reproduces the SM quark mass matrix in the visible A-sector at the scale µ = 1 TeV. We then varied ϵB/ϵA, holding cij fixed, and used the boundary condition αs,B(mmax) = αs,A(mmax) to run the masses and strong coupling to low energies using the one-loop renormalization group. Here mmax is the heaviest field in either sector…

Showing 18 of the paper's 19 figures. Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (300)
  1. [1] M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, Dark Matter, SciPost Phys. Rev.1, 10.21468/SciPost- PhysRev.1 (2026), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph] . 3 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [2] N. Bozorgnia, J. Bramante, J. M. Cline, D. Curtin, D. McKeen, D. E. Morrissey, A. Ritz, S. Viel, A. C. Vincent, and Y. Zhang, Dark matter candidates and searches, Can. J. Phys. 103, 671 (2025), arXiv:2410.23454 [hep-ph] . 3 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [3] H. M. Hodges, Mirror baryons as the dark matter, Phys. Rev. D47, 456 (1993). 3, 4 on Pith
  4. [4] R. N. Mohapatra and V. L. Teplitz, Mirror dark matter, in7th International Symposium on Particles, Strings and Cosmology(2000) pp. 211–221, arXiv:astro-ph/0004046 . 3, 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [5] Z. Berezhiani, D. Comelli, and F. L. Villante, The Early mirror universe: Inflation, baryogen- esis, nucleosynthesis and dark matter, Phys. Lett. B503, 362 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0008105 . 3, 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [6] R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, Was ordinary matter synthesized from mirror matter? An Attempt to explain why Omega(Baryon) approximately equal to 0.2 Omega(Dark), Phys. Rev. D68, 021304 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0304261 . 3, 4, 83 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [7] Z. Berezhiani, Mirror world and its cosmological consequences, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19, 3775 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312335 . 3, 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [8] R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, Explaining Omega(Baryon) approximately 0.2 Omega(Dark) through the synthesis of ordinary matter from mirror matter: A More general analysis, Phys. Rev. D69, 123510 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402267 . 3, 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [9] Y. Bai and P. Schwaller, Scale of dark QCD, Phys. Rev. D89, 063522 (2014), arXiv:1306.4676 [hep-ph] . 3 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [10] J. L. Newstead and R. H. TerBeek, Reach of threshold-corrected dark QCD, Phys. Rev. D 90, 074008 (2014), arXiv:1405.7427 [hep-ph] . 3 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [11] M. Farina, Asymmetric Twin Dark Matter, JCAP11, 017, arXiv:1506.03520 [hep-ph] . 3, 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [12] M. Ibe, A. Kamada, S. Kobayashi, T. Kuwahara, and W. Nakano, Baryon-Dark Matter Coincidence in Mirrored Unification, Phys. Rev. D100, 075022 (2019), arXiv:1907.03404 [hep-ph] . 3 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [13] H. Beauchesne, Mirror neutrons as dark matter in the Mirror Twin Two Higgs Doublet Model, JHEP09, 048, arXiv:2007.00052 [hep-ph] . 3, 4, 5, 83 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [14] C. Murgui and K. M. Zurek, Dark unification: A UV-complete theory of asymmetric dark matter, Phys. Rev. D105, 095002 (2022), arXiv:2112.08374 [hep-ph] . 3 99 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [15] A. C. Ritter and R. R. Volkas, Exploring the cosmological dark matter coincidence using infrared fixed points, Phys. Rev. D107, 015029 (2023), arXiv:2210.11011 [hep-ph] . 3 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [16] J. G. Rosa and D. M. C. Silva, Comparable dark matter and baryon abundances with a heavy dark sector, Phys. Lett. B846, 138178 (2023), arXiv:2211.10359 [hep-ph] . 3 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [17] D. Brzeminski and A. Hook, A Dynamical Explanation of the Dark Matter-Baryon Coinci- dence, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 201001 (2024), arXiv:2310.07777 [hep-ph] . 3 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [18] A. Banerjee, D. Brzeminski, and A. Hook, Predicting the dark matter-baryon abundance ratio, Phys. Rev. D113, 115017 (2026), arXiv:2410.22412 [hep-ph] . 3 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [19] Y. Chung, Comparable dark matter and baryon energy densities from dark grand unification, JHEP03, 135, arXiv:2411.16860 [hep-ph] . 3 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [20] P. Cox, R. E. Pérez, and R. R. Volkas, New idea for relating the asymmetric dark matter mass scale to the proton mass, Phys. Rev. D114, 015024 (2026), arXiv:2512.14119 [hep-ph] . 3 on PitharXiv
show 80 more
  1. [21] S. Girmohanta, Y. Nakai, Y. Shigekami, and Z. Zhang, Neutron portal and dark matter- baryon coincidence: from UV completion to phenomenology, JHEP09, 035, arXiv:2604.21168 [hep-ph] . 3 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [22] Y. Bai and T.-K. Chen, Baryoid dark matter fromZN domain walls: the (N-1):1 origin of the dark matter-baryon coincidence, JCAP10, 026, arXiv:2605.13958 [hep-ph] . 3 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [23] P. Asadi, D. Cyncynates, and S. Gori, Technically Natural Baryogenesis with the QCD Axion (2026), arXiv:2610.20706 [hep-ph] . 3 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [24] H. An, S.-L. Chen, R. N. Mohapatra, and Y. Zhang, Leptogenesis as a Common Origin for Matter and Dark Matter, JHEP03, 124, arXiv:0911.4463 [hep-ph] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [25] T. Higaki, K. S. Jeong, and F. Takahashi, A Parallel World in the Dark, JCAP08, 031, arXiv:1302.2516 [hep-ph] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [26] A. Addazi, Z. Berezhiani, R. Bernabei, P. Belli, F. Cappella, R. Cerulli, and A. Incicchitti, DAMA annual modulation effect and asymmetric mirror matter, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 400 (2015), arXiv:1507.04317 [hep-ex] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [27] S. J. Lonsdale and R. R. Volkas, Comprehensive asymmetric dark matter model, Phys. Rev. D97, 103510 (2018), arXiv:1801.05561 [hep-ph] . 4, 5, 83 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [28] A. C. Ritter and R. R. Volkas, Implementing asymmetric dark matter and dark elec- troweak baryogenesis in a mirror two-Higgs-doublet model, Phys. Rev. D104, 035032 (2021), arXiv:2101.07421 [hep-ph] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [29] A. Bodas, M. A. Buen-Abad, A. Hook, and R. Sundrum, A closer look in the mirror: reflec- tions on the matter/dark matter coincidence, JHEP06, 052, arXiv:2401.12286 [hep-ph] . 4, 5, 83 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [30] R. N. Mohapatra and N. Okada, Matter-dark matter coincidence and the mirror world, Phys. Rev. D111, 123510 (2025), arXiv:2502.14981 [hep-ph] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [31] Z. Berezhiani, Through the looking-glass: Alice’s adventures in mirror world, inFrom Fields to Strings: Circumnavigating Theoretical Physics: A Conference in Tribute to Ian Kogan (2005) pp. 2147–2195, arXiv:hep-ph/0508233 . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [32] P. Ciarcelluti, Cosmology with mirror dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D19, 2151 (2010), arXiv:1102.5530 [astro-ph.CO] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [33] R. Foot, Mirror dark matter: Cosmology, galaxy structure and direct detection, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29, 1430013 (2014), arXiv:1401.3965 [astro-ph.CO] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [34] Z. G. Berezhiani, A. D. Dolgov, and R. N. Mohapatra, Asymmetric inflationary reheating 100 and the nature of mirror universe, Phys. Lett. B375, 26 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9511221 . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [35] Z. G. Berezhiani and R. N. Mohapatra, Reconciling present neutrino puzzles: Sterile neutrinos as mirror neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D52, 6607 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9505385 . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [36] Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, The Twin Higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 231802 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0506256 . 4, 9, 79 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [37] R. Barbieri, T. Gregoire, and L. J. Hall, Mirror world at the large hadron collider, (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0509242 . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [38] Z. Chacko, Y. Nomura, M. Papucci, and G. Perez, Natural little hierarchy from a partially goldstone twin Higgs, JHEP01, 126, arXiv:hep-ph/0510273 . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [39] G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Search for a scalar partner of the top quark in the all-hadronict¯t plus missing transverse momentum final state at√s= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 737 (2020), arXiv:2004.14060 [hep-ex] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [40] F. G. Gravili (ATLAS), Search for pair production of top squarks and for dark matter in final states with two leptons using data collected by the ATLAS experiment during the LHC Run 2, Nuovo Cim. C44, 48 (2021). 4 on Pith
  21. [41] G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Search for new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and missing transverse momentum inppcollisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D103, 112006 (2021), arXiv:2102.10874 [hep-ex] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  22. [42] A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Combined searches for the production of supersymmetric top quark partners in proton–proton collisions at√s= 13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 970 (2021), arXiv:2107.10892 [hep-ex] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  23. [43] A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Search for supersymmetry in final states with disappear- ing tracks in proton-proton collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys. Rev. D109, 072007 (2024), arXiv:2309.16823 [hep-ex] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  24. [44] A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), Search for top squark production in fully-hadronic final states in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV, Phys. Rev. D104, 052001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01290 [hep-ex] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  25. [45] B. Batell, M. Low, E. T. Neil, and C. B. Verhaaren, Review of neutral naturalness, Phys. Rept.1165, 1 (2026), arXiv:2203.05531 [hep-ph] . 4, 10, 70 on PitharXiv
  26. [46] P. Asadi, A. Batz, and G. D. Kribs, Rich Phenomenology from Simple Ingredients: A Review of Confining Dark Sectors, (2026), arXiv:2606.30760 [hep-ph] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  27. [47] M. Farina, A. Monteux, and C. S. Shin, Twin mechanism for baryon and dark matter asym- metries, Phys. Rev. D94, 035017 (2016), arXiv:1604.08211 [hep-ph] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  28. [48] W.-Z. Feng and J.-H. Yu, Twin cogenesis, Commun. Theor. Phys.75, 045201 (2023), arXiv:2005.06471 [hep-ph] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  29. [49] C. Kilic, C. B. Verhaaren, and T. Youn, Twin quark dark matter from cogenesis, Phys. Rev. D104, 116018 (2021), arXiv:2109.03248 [hep-ph] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  30. [50] P. Bittar, D. B. Costa, and G. Burdman, Neutrino masses in the mirror twin Higgs with spontaneousZ 2 breaking, JHEP09, 106, arXiv:2404.11651 [hep-ph] . 4, 10 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  31. [51] G. Alonso-Álvarez, D. Curtin, A. Rasovic, and Z. Yuan, Baryogenesis through Asymmetric Reheating in the Mirror Twin Higgs, JHEP05, 069, arXiv:2311.06341 [hep-ph] . 4, 9, 10, 86 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  32. [52] R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, Effective Theory of Flavor for Minimal Mirror Twin Higgs, JHEP10, 015, arXiv:1706.05548 [hep-ph] . 4, 5, 13, 72 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  33. [53] I. Garcia Garcia, R. Lasenby, and J. March-Russell, Twin Higgs WIMP Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D92, 055034 (2015), arXiv:1505.07109 [hep-ph] . 4 101 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  34. [54] I. Garcia Garcia, R. Lasenby, and J. March-Russell, Twin Higgs Asymmetric Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 121801 (2015), arXiv:1505.07410 [hep-ph] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  35. [55] Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, and H. Murayama, Twin Higgs model with strongly interacting massive particle dark matter, Phys. Rev. D99, 015005 (2019), arXiv:1805.09345 [hep-ph] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  36. [56] J. Terning, C. B. Verhaaren, and K. Zora, Composite Twin Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D99, 095020 (2019), arXiv:1902.08211 [hep-ph] . 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  37. [57] Z. Chacko, N. Craig, P. J. Fox, and R. Harnik, Cosmology in Mirror Twin Higgs and Neutrino Masses, JHEP07, 023, arXiv:1611.07975 [hep-ph] . 4, 9, 10, 70, 86 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  38. [58] N. Craig, S. Koren, and T. Trott, Cosmological Signals of a Mirror Twin Higgs, JHEP05, 038, arXiv:1611.07977 [hep-ph] . 4, 9, 10, 70, 86 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  39. [59] S. Goldstein and J. C. Hill, A 2% determination ofN eff from primordial element abun- dance, cosmic microwave background, and baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, (2026), arXiv:2603.13226 [astro-ph.CO] . 4, 10 on PitharXiv
  40. [60] G. Burdman, Z. Chacko, R. Harnik, L. de Lima, and C. B. Verhaaren, Colorless Top Part- ners, a 125 GeV Higgs, and the Limits on Naturalness, Phys. Rev. D91, 055007 (2015), arXiv:1411.3310 [hep-ph] . 5, 70 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  41. [61] S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024). 5, 13, 31, 67, 94 on Pith
  42. [62] C. Froggatt and H. Nielsen, Hierarchy of quark masses, cabibbo angles and CP violation, Nucl. Phys. B147, 277 (1979). 5, 71 on Pith
  43. [63] M. Leurer, Y. Nir, and N. Seiberg, Mass Matrix Models, Nucl. Phys. B398, 319 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9212278 . 5, 71, 76 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  44. [64] M. Leurer, Y. Nir, and N. Seiberg, Mass Matrix Models: The Sequel, Nucl. Phys. B420, 468 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9310320 . 5, 71, 76 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  45. [65] P. Asadi, Z. Chacko, D. Curtin, M. Mellors, and E. T. Neil, Nuclear Atomic Dark Matter (2026), arXiv:2611.07195 [hep-ph] . 5, 81 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  46. [66] S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure, Phys. Rept. 730, 1 (2018), arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph] . 5, 55 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  47. [67] J. M. Cline and C. Perron, Self-interacting dark baryons, Phys. Rev. D106, 083514 (2022), arXiv:2204.00033 [hep-ph] . 5, 52 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  48. [68] D. E. Kaplan, G. Z. Krnjaic, K. R. Rehermann, and C. M. Wells, Atomic Dark Matter, JCAP 05, 021, arXiv:0909.0753 [hep-ph] . 5, 8, 23, 54 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  49. [69] G. Krnjaic and K. Sigurdson, Big Bang Darkleosynthesis, Phys. Lett. B751, 464 (2015), arXiv:1406.1171 [hep-ph] . 6, 34, 35, 37 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  50. [70] E. Hardy, R. Lasenby, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, Big Bang Synthesis of Nuclear Dark Matter, JHEP06, 011, arXiv:1411.3739 [hep-ph] . 6, 34, 35, 37 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  51. [71] B. Batell and C. B. Verhaaren, Breaking Mirror Twin Hypercharge, JHEP12, 010, arXiv:1904.10468 [hep-ph] . 8, 77 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  52. [72] P. Adshead, Y. Cui, and J. Shelton, Chilly Dark Sectors and Asymmetric Reheating, JHEP 06, 016, arXiv:1604.02458 [hep-ph] . 9, 10, 86 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  53. [73] N. Craig, A. Katz, M. Strassler, and R. Sundrum, Naturalness in the Dark at the LHC, JHEP 07, 105, arXiv:1501.05310 [hep-ph] . 9, 10, 67, 70, 79 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  54. [74] S. Chang, L. J. Hall, and N. Weiner, A Supersymmetric twin Higgs, Phys. Rev. D75, 035009 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0604076 . 9, 76 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  55. [75] P. Batra and Z. Chacko, A Composite Twin Higgs Model, Phys. Rev. D79, 095012 (2009), 102 arXiv:0811.0394 [hep-ph] . 9 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  56. [76] N. Craig and K. Howe, Doubling down on naturalness with a supersymmetric twin Higgs, JHEP03, 140, arXiv:1312.1341 [hep-ph] . 9, 76 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  57. [77] M. Geller and O. Telem, Holographic Twin Higgs Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 191801 (2015), arXiv:1411.2974 [hep-ph] . 9 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  58. [78] R. Barbieri, D. Greco, R. Rattazzi, and A. Wulzer, The Composite Twin Higgs scenario, JHEP08, 161, arXiv:1501.07803 [hep-ph] . 9 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  59. [79] R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Upper Bounds on Supersymmetric Particle Masses, Nucl. Phys. B306, 63 (1988). 10 on Pith
  60. [80] D. Curtin and S. Gryba, Twin Higgs portal dark matter, JHEP08, 009, arXiv:2101.11019 [hep-ph] . 10, 67, 86 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  61. [81] E. Calabreseet al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 constraints on extended cosmological models, JCAP11, 063, arXiv:2503.14454 [astro- ph.CO] . 10, 13 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  62. [82] T.-H. Yeh, K. A. Olive, B. D. Fields, E. Aver, R. W. Pogge, N. S. J. Rogers, E. D. Skillman, and M. K. Weller, The LBT Yp Project. V. Cosmological Implications of a New Determination of Primordial 4He, Astrophys. J.1008, 241 (2026), arXiv:2601.22239 [astro-ph.CO] . 10 on PitharXiv
  63. [83] T. DeGrand and E. T. Neil, Repurposing lattice QCD results for composite phenomenology, Phys. Rev. D101, 034504 (2020), arXiv:1910.08561 [hep-ph] . 12, 14, 18, 67, 84, 85 on PitharXiv
  64. [84] C. Trendafilovaet al.(CMB-S4), Sensitivity of Next-Generation CMB Surveys to Neutrinos and Other Light Relics, (2026), arXiv:2608.07453 [astro-ph.CO] . 13 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  65. [85] C. C. Changet al., A per-cent-level determination of the nucleon axial coupling from quantum chromodynamics, Nature558, 91 (2018), arXiv:1805.12130 [hep-lat] . 13 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  66. [86] G. Karl and J. E. Paton, Naive Quark Model for an Arbitrary Number of Colors, Phys. Rev. D30, 238 (1984). 13 on Pith
  67. [87] M. Gell-Mann, R. J. Oakes, and B. Renner, Behavior of current divergences under SU(3) x SU(3), Phys. Rev.175, 2195 (1968). 14 on Pith
  68. [88] J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Chiral Perturbation Theory to One Loop, Annals Phys.158, 142 (1984). 14 on Pith
  69. [89] A. De Rujula, H. Georgi, and S. L. Glashow, Hadron Masses in a Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. D12, 147 (1975). 15 on Pith
  70. [90] A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Chiral Quarks and the Nonrelativistic Quark Model, Nucl. Phys. B234, 189 (1984). 15 on Pith
  71. [91] A. Mitridate, M. Redi, J. Smirnov, and A. Strumia, Dark Matter as a weakly coupled Dark Baryon, JHEP10, 210, arXiv:1707.05380 [hep-ph] . 15 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  72. [92] P. Asadi, G. D. Kribs, and C. J. H. Mantel, Direct detection of dark baryons naturally suppressed by H-parity, Phys. Rev. D111, 095030 (2025), arXiv:2410.23631 [hep-ph] . 15 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  73. [93] P.Asadi, A.Batz,andG.D.Kribs,Nobledarkmatter: Surprisingelusivenessofdarkbaryons, Phys. Rev. D111, 095025 (2025), arXiv:2412.14240 [hep-ph] . 15 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  74. [94] J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Quark Masses, Phys. Rept.87, 77 (1982). 16 on Pith
  75. [95] S. Borsanyiet al.(BMW), Ab initio calculation of the neutron-proton mass difference, Science 347, 1452 (2015), arXiv:1406.4088 [hep-lat] . 16 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  76. [96] S. R. Beane, E. Chang, S. D. Cohen, W. Detmold, H. W. Lin, T. C. Luu, K. Orginos, A. Parreno, M. J. Savage, and A. Walker-Loud (NPLQCD), Light Nuclei and Hypernuclei from Quantum Chromodynamics in the Limit of SU(3) Flavor Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D87, 103 034506 (2013), arXiv:120... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  77. [97] T. Yamazaki, K.-i. Ishikawa, Y. Kuramashi, and A. Ukawa, Helium nuclei, deuteron and dineutron in 2+1 flavor lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D86, 074514 (2012), arXiv:1207.4277 [hep- lat] . 18 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  78. [98] S. R. Beaneet al.(NPLQCD), Nucleon-Nucleon Scattering Parameters in the Limit of SU(3) Flavor Symmetry, Phys. Rev. C88, 024003 (2013), arXiv:1301.5790 [hep-lat] . 18 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  79. [99] T. Yamazaki, K.-i. Ishikawa, Y. Kuramashi, and A. Ukawa, Study of quark mass dependence of binding energy for light nuclei in 2+1 flavor lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D92, 014501 (2015), arXiv:1502.04182 [hep-lat] . 18 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  80. [100] E. Berkowitz, T. Kurth, A. Nicholson, B. Joo, E. Rinaldi, M. Strother, P. M. Vranas, and A. Walker-Loud, Two-Nucleon Higher Partial-Wave Scattering from Lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B765, 285 (2017), arXiv:1508.00886 [hep-lat] . 18 on PithPith's reviewarXiv

The first 100 of 300 references are listed here. All of them are in this paper's citation record.

Topics: Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry, Dark Matter, Dark Matter, Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment