Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:2611.15957 v1 · submitted 11 Nov 2026 · 56 references

The Curious Case of Anapole Dark Matter at LZ: Minimal, Elastic and Testable

Sourav Bera, Suvam Maharana, Poulami Mondal

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

The paper says

“Majorana fermions can carry neither charge nor dipole moments, leaving the anapole moment as their leading electromagnetic interaction. A stable Majorana fermion is therefore a minimal realization of electromagnetically interacting dark matter.”

more of the abstract

The momentum dependence of the anapole interaction produces a harder recoil spectrum than standard momentum-independent interactions. We show that this makes elastically scattering anapole dark matter a viable interpretation of the single high-energy nuclear-recoil event recorded by the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, in a region where almost no background is expected. Curiously, the same coupling that fits the LZ data also yields the observed dark matter abundance at a mass of about 300 GeV, and is consistent with collider searches and indirect detection. The scenario is testable, predicting further events at lower energies, which the full LZ run will probe and a next-generation detector such as XLZD will decisively test.

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. A clean, self-contained phenomenological study that applies anapole dark matter to the LZ high-energy recoil event. The analysis is sound and the paper is admirably honest about its assumptions, but the evidence rests on a single event and an EFT that sits near its boundary at the best-fit point. This line is wrong

1 major objection · 6 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 56 references say.

The paper says, at §IV, Eq. (10)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 1 · major

The signal shape in each S1c window is constructed by correcting LZ's own Ls10 template with the ratio of NEST-predicted anapole and Ls10 distributions. This assumes that the NEST-based ratio accurately captures the detector-model difference between the anapole operator and the Ls10 benchmark.

more of objection 1

While the authors check that their pipeline reproduces LZ's spectra for O_s10, they do not validate this ratio correction for the anapole case specifically. A systematic uncertainty associated with this procedure should be estimated; at a minimum, the sensitivity of the best-fit coupling and significance to the choice of reference template (e.g., using a different NEST version or an alternative calibration) should be discussed.

6 minor objections

The paper says, at Abstract

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 6

Typo: 'electromagnetically' should be 'electromagnetically'.

The paper says, at §I

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 6

The sentence 'rescently, the LZ collaborationxended its nuclear-recoil (NR) search window up to~270 keV' has a typo: 'xended' should be 'ended'.

show 4 more

The paper says, at §IV, second paragraph

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 6

The definition of δ uses (µ_NRand σ_NR) from NEST; it would be helpful to explicitly state the bin edges or the δ-range spanned by the 32 bins.

The paper says, at Table I

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 6

The caption for the background row could be more precise: it lists 'full δ [−2<δ<0]' but the meaning of 'full δ' versus the NR-band region is ambiguous. Clarify in the caption.

The paper says, at §VI.A, Eq. (16)

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 6

In the Boltzmann equation, the factor H(m_χ) should be defined explicitly; currently it appears without explanation.

The paper says, at §VII

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 6

The projected significances in Table I are Asimov estimates assuming fixed background scaling. The authors should note that at very low backgrounds the Poisson approximation may break down and a proper treatment of systematis uncertainties (e.g., background shape) is needed for robust projections.

What would settle it

Verify robustness of the best-fit coupling and significance by re-running the likelihood with an alternative background model (e.g., LZ pre-fit bkg or a profile likelihood that marginalizes over background normalization uncertainties). If the best-fit a_chi shifts >30% or local significance drops below 2σ, the claim weakens.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

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

  1. Reader holds up confidence high
  2. Skeptic agrees 24 s · 24,487 tokens read, 2,850 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 13 s · 25,223 tokens read, 1,333 written
  4. Referee minor revision: 1 major objection, 6 minor 21 s · 24,803 tokens read, 2,454 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 does what it says: it takes the well-known anapole Majorana dark matter model and asks whether it can explain the single ~250 keV nuclear recoil event LZ230616. The answer is yes, with a best-fit coupling around a_chi ~ 1e-6 GeV−2 and a mass ~300 GeV where the thermal-relic abundance coincidentally lines up. The analysis is competently done—public LZ data, dmscatter+WimPyDD for rates, NEST for detector response, a binned Poisson likelihood with toy Monte Carlo p-values, Feldman-Cousins intervals. All of that is solid. The paper also spends real effort on EFT validity and shows a toy UV completion (vector mediator), flagging where the EFT description becomes unreliable. That level of caution is refreshing.

The strongest thing here is not the 2.9–3.1 sigma local significance (the event itself is not a discovery claim) but the testability: the anapole spectrum is harder than standard contact interactions, so more events are predicted in the intermediate S1c window where background is tiny. The paper projects that 15 t·yr of LZ data will give median 2.6–3.2 sigma and XLZD will nail it at >9 sigma. That is a concrete, verifiable statement.

Soft spots? The whole exercise rests on LZ230616 being a genuine nuclear recoil, which the authors cannot validate. They are transparent about this—it is an assumption shared with every other interpretation. The EFT scale at best fit is Lambda ~ 1 TeV, so s-channel annihilation for a 300 GeV DM probes sqrt(s) ~ 600 GeV, i.e., Lambda ~ 2 m_chi. That is borderline, and the paper says so explicitly ("naive estimate" and "model-dependent problem"). The thermal coincidence is interesting but the authors themselves call it "subject to theoretical validity"—a hedge that is appropriate. The projection for XLZD assumes simple linear scaling of detector response, which is an idealization they flag.

I come away thinking this is a careful piece of phenomenology. It does not oversell, it gives reproducible steps, and it makes a clear prediction. The paper is written for direct-detection phenomenologists and DM model builders who want a concrete model to test against LZ data.

If I were the editor, I would send this to peer review. The flaws are the usual ones for an event-driven analysis, and the authors have handled them with unusual candor.

The strongest objection

The paper's central claim—that anapole dark matter is a viable interpretation of the LZ high-energy recoil event—depends critically on the assumption that the single event LZ230616 is a genuine nuclear recoil and that the LZ background model is accurate. The authors acknolwdge this by using the LZ post-fit model. They cannot independently validate the background, but this is a standard experimental dependence. No additional hidden flaws are found: the statistical analysis (binned Poisson likelihood with toy Monte Carlo p-values) is sound; the signal modeling via NEST with a correction relative to LZ's Ls10 template is careful and checked against a benchmark operator; the EFT validity and UV completion uncertainties are thoroughly discussed and caveated. The paper itself states that the thermal-relic coincidence 'is subject to the theoretical validity of the models themselves at the couplings and masses of interest' and that a robust UV interpretation 'requires a dedicated model-dependent analysis which is beyond the scope of this work.' Thus the argument is appropriately cautious and the central claim holds under the stated conditions.

The reader correctly identified the background model as the weakest assumption. My stress-test finds no load-bearing concern beyond that. The paper is well-structured, transparent about limitations (EFT validity, UV model dependence, idealized detector projections), and makes testable predictions. The significance is modest (~3σ) but appropriate for a single-event interpretation. The thermal-coincidence is presented with appropriate caveats. Thus the ACCEPT verdict stands unchanged.

The referee's report

If the anapole interpretation holds, it would provide a minimal, internally consistent dark matter model with a striking predicted signature. The paper is careful: it uses validated simulation tools (dmscatter, WimPyDD, NEST), acknowledges the dependence on the LZ background model, and explicitly discusses the limitations of the effective field theory description. The intersection of the best-fit curve with the thermal-relic constraint is an interesting coincidence that warrants follow-up. The work is timely given the recent LZ result and offers testable predictions for near-future experiments.

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

The authors consider a minimal dark matter candidate: a Majorana fermion whose only electromagnetic interaction is through its anapole moment. This interaction is momentum-dependent, producing a harder nuclear recoil spectrum than ordinary contact interactions. They apply this model to a single high-energy nuclear recoil event observed by the LUX-ZEPLIN experiment at a recoil energy of 248 keV, where the expected background is only about 0.01 events. Using a binned likelihood analysis on the public LZ data and the standard halo model, they find that a coupling of about 1.05 × 10^-6 GeV^-2 and a mass around 300 GeV provide the best fit, with a local significance of about 3 sigma. Remarkably, the same coupling also yields the correct thermal relic abundance measured by Planck. They also check constraints from collider mono-jet searches and dark matter capture in white dwarfs, finding the best-fit region still allowed. The scenario predicts additional lower-energy events that will be tested in the full LZ run and eventually at the proposed XLZD experiment, which could achieve significances above 9 sigma. The paper thus presents a concrete, testable hypothesis for the origin of the LZ event.

Core claim. We show that this makes elastically scattering anapole dark matter a viable interpretation of the single high-energy nuclear-recoil event recorded by the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, in a region where almost no background is expected. Curiously, the same coupling that fits the LZ data also yields the observed dark matter abundance at a mass of about 300 GeV, and is consistent with collider searches and indirect detection.

The premise it rests on. The analysis assumes that the single event LZ230616 is a genuine nuclear recoil from dark matter scattering, rather than a background fluctuation, and that the LZ background model used for the likelihood is accurate and complete. The entire fit and the derived significance rest on this assumption.

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

Majorana fermions can carry neither charge nor dipole moments, leaving the anapole moment as their leading electromagnetic interaction. A stable Majorana fermion is therefore a minimal realization of electromagnetically interacting dark matter. The momentum dependence of the anapole interaction produces a harder recoil spectrum than standard momentum-independent interactions. We show that this makes elastically scattering anapole dark matter a viable interpretation of the single high-energy nuclear-recoil event recorded by the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, in a region where almost no background is expected. Curiously, the same coupling that fits the LZ data also yields the observed dark matter abundance at a mass of about 300 GeV, and is consistent with collider searches and indirect detection. The scenario is testable, predicting further events at lower energies, which the full LZ run will probe and a next-generation detector such as XLZD will decisively test.

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 0.96

“We show that this makes elastically scattering anapole dark matter a viable interpretation of the single high-energy nuclear-recoil event recorded by the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, in a region where almost no background is expected.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 0.86

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.16 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.10 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.91 · compares with prior results 0.61 · 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
Majorana fermions can carry neither charge nor dipole moments, leaving the anapole moment as their leading electromagnetic interaction. background 1.00 0.04 0.03 asserted 1.00
A stable Majorana fermion is therefore a minimal realization of electromagnetically interacting dark matter. background 0.84 0.10 0.11 asserted 1.00
The momentum dependence of the anapole interaction produces a harder recoil spectrum than standard momentum-independent interactions. background 0.83 0.15 0.05 asserted 1.00
We show that this makes elastically scattering anapole dark matter a viable interpretation of the single high-energy nuclear-recoil event recorded by the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, in a region where almost no background is expected. interpretation 0.59 0.85 0.52 asserted 0.86
Curiously, the same coupling that fits the LZ data also yields the observed dark matter abundance at a mass of about 300 GeV, and is consistent with collider searches and indirect detection. result 0.91 0.82 0.19 asserted 0.76
The scenario is testable, predicting further events at lower energies, which the full LZ run will probe and a next-generation detector such as XLZD will decisively test. future work 0.82 0.62 0.33 asserted 0.97

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.89 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.91

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, 4,970 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 (3)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Differential nuclear recoil spectra for the anapole in
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of the LZ data and the post-fit values
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. FIG. 3. LZ best-fit curve with the 68% and 90% CL bands,

Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (56)
  1. [1] I. B. Zel’dovich, Electromagnetic Interaction with Parity Violation, Sov. Phys. JETP6, 1184 (1958) on Pith
  2. [2] M. Pospelov and T. ter Veldhuis, Direct and indirect lim- its on the electromagnetic form-factors of WIMPs, Phys. Lett. B480, 181 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0003010 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [3] K. Sigurdson, M. Doran, A. Kurylov, R. R. Caldwell, and M. Kamionkowski, Dark-matter electric and mag- netic dipole moments, Phys. Rev. D70, 083501 (2004), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 73, 089903 (2006)], arXiv:astro- ph/0406355 on Pith
  4. [4] E. Masso, S. Mohanty, and S. Rao, Dipolar Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D80, 036009 (2009), arXiv:0906.1979 [hep- ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [5] V. Barger, W.-Y. Keung, and D. Marfatia, Electro- magnetic properties of dark matter: Dipole moments and charge form factor, Phys. Lett. B696, 74 (2011), arXiv:1007.4345 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [6] C. M. Ho and R. J. Scherrer, Anapole Dark Matter, Phys. Lett. B722, 341 (2013), arXiv:1211.0503 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [7] B. J. Kavanagh, P. Panci, and R. Ziegler, Faint Light from Dark Matter: Classifying and Constraining Dark Matter-Photon Effective Operators, JHEP04, 089, arXiv:1810.00033 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [8] T. Hambye and X.-J. Xu, Dark matter electromag- netic dipoles: the WIMP expectation, JHEP11, 156, arXiv:2106.01403 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [9] A. Ibarra, M. Reichard, and R. Nagai, Anapole mo- ment of Majorana fermions and implications for direct detection of neutralino dark matter, JHEP01, 086, arXiv:2207.01014 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [10] E. Iles, S. Heeba, and K. Schutz, Dark Matter Di- rect Detection Experiments Are Sensitive to the Mil- licharged Background, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 121002 (2025), arXiv:2407.21096 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [11] J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, Super- nova 1987A Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Sectors, Mil- licharged Particles, the QCD Axion, and an Axion-like Particle, JHEP09, 051, arXiv:1803.00993 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [12] A. Caputo, L. Sberna, M. Frias, D. Blas, P. Pani, L. Shao, and W. Yan, on Pith
  13. [13] D. F. G. Fiorillo and E. Vitagliano, Self-Interacting Dark Sectors in Supernovae Can Behave as a Relativistic Fluid, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251004 (2024), arXiv:2404.07714 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [14] E. E. Radescu, On the Electromagnetic Properties of Ma- jorana Fermions, Phys. Rev. D32, 1266 (1985) on Pith
  15. [15] Y. Gao, C. M. Ho, and R. J. Scherrer, Anapole Dark Matter at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D89, 045006 (2014), arXiv:1311.5630 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [16] D. Bose, D. Chowdhury, P. Mondal, and T. S. Ray, Trou- bles mounting for multipolar dark matter, JHEP06, 014, arXiv:2312.05131 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [17] S. Y. Choi, J. Jeong, D. W. Kang, and S. Shin, Hunting for hypercharge anapole dark matter in all spin scenarios, Phys. Rev. D109, 096001 (2024), arXiv:2401.02855 [hep- ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [18] D. S. Akeribet al.(LZ), Search for dark matter particle interactions in an extended nuclear recoil energy window with the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment 10.17182/hep- data.182472.v1 (2026), arXiv:2609.02823 [hep-ex] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [19] S. Roy and J. Zupan, Exothermic Higgs portal: from LUX-ZEPLIN recoil to Gamma Rays, (2026), arXiv:2611.01158 [hep-ph]; D. Aristizabal Sierra, V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and I. M. Shoemaker, Heavy Sterile Fermions from the Atmosphere: LZ Lim- its on Neutrino Up-Scattering, ... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [20] J. Fan, M. Reece, and L.-T. Wang, Non-relativistic ef- fective theory of dark matter direct detection, JCAP11, 042, arXiv:1008.1591 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
show 36 more
  1. [21] A. L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers, and Y. Xu, The Effective Field Theory of Dark Matter Direct Detection, JCAP02, 004, arXiv:1203.3542 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [22] 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] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [23] O. C. Gorton, C. W. Johnson, C. Jiao, and J. Nikoleyczik, dmscatter: A fast program for wimp-nucleus scattering, Computer Physics Communications284, 108597 (2023) on Pith
  4. [24] J. Xia, A. Abdukerim, W. Chen, X. Chen, Y. Chen, X. Cui, D. Fang, C. Fu, K. Giboni, F. Giuliani, L. Gu, X. Guo, Z. Guo, K. Han, C. He, S. He, D. Huang, X. Huang, Z. Huang, P. Ji, X. Ji, Y. Ju, S. Li, H. Lin, H. Liu, J. Liu, Y. Ma, Y. Mao, K. Ni, J. Ning, X. Ren, F. Shi, A. Tan... on Pith
  5. [25] I. Jeong, S. Kang, S. Scopel, and G. Tomar, Wimpydd: An object–oriented python code for the calculation of wimp direct detection signals, Computer Physics Com- munications276, 108342 (2022) on Pith
  6. [26] D. Baxter, I. M. Bloch, E. Bodnia, X. Chen, J. Con- rad, P. Di Gangi, J. E. Y. Dobson, D. Durnford, S. J. Haselschwardt, A. Kaboth, R. F. Lang, Q. Lin, W. H. Lippincott, J. Liu, A. Manalaysay, C. McCabe, K. D. Mor ˚ a, D. Naim, R. Neilson, I. Olcina, M. C. Piro, M. Selvi, B. v... on Pithdoi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09655-y
  7. [27] M. Szydagiset al., A review of NEST models for liq- uid xenon and an exhaustive comparison with other ap- proaches, Front. Detect. Sci. Tech.2, 1480975 (2024), arXiv:2211.10726 [hep-ex] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [28] M. Szydagis, E. Brown, N. Carrara, A. C. Kamaha, E. S. Kozlova, D. N. McKinsey, K. McMichael, R. Mc- Monigle, M. Mooney, J. Mueller, M. Mulhearn, W. Mur- ray, K. Ni, G. R. C. Rischbieter, K. Trengove, C. D. Tun- nell, V. Velan, S. Westerdale, and M. Zhong, Noble El- ement Simu... on Pith
  9. [29] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymp- totic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [30] G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, A Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals, Phys. Rev. D57, 3873 (1998), arXiv:physics/9711021 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [31] G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Search for new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and missing transverse mo- mentum inppcollisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D103, 112006 (2021), arXiv:2102.10874 [hep-ex] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [32] A. Ibarra, M. Reichard, and G. Tomar, Celestial probes of dark matter electromagnetic interactions, (2026), arXiv:2608.27957 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [33] D. K. Adams, J. Barron, and M. H. McDuffie, Au- diting anapole dark matter: the limits of model inde- pendence in dark matter effective field theory, (2026), arXiv:2610.20751 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [34] A. L. Fitzpatrick and K. M. Zurek, Dark Moments and the DAMA-CoGeNT Puzzle, Phys. Rev. D82, 075004 (2010), arXiv:1007.5325 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [35] A. Berlin, N. Blinov, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Dark Matter, Millicharges, Axion and Scalar Particles, Gauge Bosons, and Other New Physics with LDMX, Phys. Rev. D99, 075001 (2019), arXiv:1807.01730 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [36] P. Arias, J. Gamboa, and N. Tapia, Anapole Dark Matter Interactions as Soft Hidden Photons, Phys. Lett. B791, 17 (2019), arXiv:1901.02946 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [37] A. Berlin, N. Blinov, S. Gori, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Cosmology and Accelerator Tests of Strongly Interact- ing Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D97, 055033 (2018), arXiv:1801.05805 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [38] J. Kopp, L. Michaels, and J. Smirnov, Loopy Con- straints on Leptophilic Dark Matter and Internal Bremsstrahlung, JCAP04, 022, arXiv:1401.6457 [hep- ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [39] Y. Bai and J. Berger, Lepton Portal Dark Matter, JHEP 08, 153, arXiv:1402.6696 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [40] P. Sandick, K. Sinha, and F. Teng, Simplified Dark Mat- ter Models with Charged Mediators: Prospects for Direct Detection, JHEP10, 018, arXiv:1608.00642 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  21. [41] A. Ibarra and M. Reichard, General one-loop expressions for the diagonal and transition electromagnetic moments of spin-1/2 fermions, (2026), arXiv:2610.09974 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  22. [42] E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner,The Early Universe, Vol. 69 (Taylor and Francis, 2019) on Pith
  23. [43] P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Cosmic abundances of sta- ble particles: Improved analysis, Nucl. Phys. B360, 145 (1991) on Pith
  24. [44] N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  25. [45] D. Bose, P. Chanda, S. Maharana, and P. Mondal, Multipolar dark matter freeze-out in an early matter- dominated universe, Phys. Rev. D114, 083055 (2026), arXiv:2607.07956 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  26. [46] M. L. Ahnenet al.(MAGIC, Fermi-LAT), Limits to Dark Matter Annihilation Cross-Section from a Com- bined Analysis of MAGIC and Fermi-LAT Observa- tions of Dwarf Satellite Galaxies, JCAP02, 039, arXiv:1601.06590 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  27. [47] H. Abdallaet al.(H.E.S.S.), Search for Dark Matter An- nihilation Signals in the H.E.S.S. Inner Galaxy Survey, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 111101 (2022), arXiv:2207.10471 on PitharXiv
  28. [48] C. Arina, A. Cheek, K. Mimasu, and L. Pagani, Light and Darkness: consistently coupling dark matter to photons via effective operators, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 223 (2021), arXiv:2005.12789 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  29. [49] J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP07,... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  30. [50] C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mat- telaer, and T. Reiter, UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output, Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 1201 (2012), arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  31. [51] A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2250 (2014), arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  32. [52] E. Aprileet al.(XENON), First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041003 (2023), arXiv:2303.14729 [hep- ex] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  33. [53] X. Ninget al.(PandaX), Limits on the luminance of dark matter from xenon recoil data, Nature618, 47 (2023) on Pith
  34. [54] A. Ibarra, M. Reichard, and G. Tomar, Probing dark matter electromagnetic properties in direct detection ex- periments, JCAP02, 072, arXiv:2408.15760 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  35. [55] D. S. Akeribet al.(LZ), Projected WIMP sensitivity of the LUX-ZEPLIN dark matter experiment, Phys. Rev. D101, 052002 (2020), arXiv:1802.06039 [astro-ph.IM]. 13 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  36. [56] J. Aalberset al.(XLZD), The XLZD Design Book: to- wards the next-generation liquid xenon observatory for dark matter and neutrino physics, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1192 (2025), arXiv:2410.17137 [hep-ex] on PitharXiv

Topics: Dark Matter, Dark Matter

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