Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

For the smallest mixed Majorana-Dirac multiplets, Higgs-coupled minimal dark matter predicts spin-independent direct-detection cross sections below the neutrino floor, so direct detection alone cannot fully test these models.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 22:08 UTC pith:42JLALRA

load-bearing objection First systematic treatment of higher-multiplet Higgs-coupled minimal dark matter, with real limit checks, but the below-neutrino-floor headline depends on an unquantified loop correction to the blind spot. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.17764 v2 pith:42JLALRA submitted 2026-02-19 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Minimal Dark Matter: Generalized Framework and Direct-Detection Sensitivity

Spencer Griffith , Juri Smirnov , Laura Lopez-Honorez , John F. Beacom This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.CO
keywords minimal dark matterHiggs-coupled multipletsSommerfeld enhancementbound-state formationrelic abundancedirect detectionneutrino floorMajorana-Dirac mixing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper develops a general method for computing how much dark matter survives in Higgs-coupled minimal dark matter models, where dark matter is a mixture of a Majorana and a Dirac electroweak multiplet coupled through the Higgs. It includes the nonperturbative effects that dominate freezeout, namely Sommerfeld enhancement and the formation of unstable bound states, which earlier work had only estimated for this class. The central result is that for the smallest mixed-multiplet combinations, 3M2D, 5M4D, and 7M6D, the dark matter mass reproducing the observed abundance leads to spin-independent direct-detection cross sections that can sit below the neutrino floor. If correct, these models cannot be fully tested by next-generation direct-detection experiments, contrary to the expectation that minimal dark matter lies entirely within their reach. The full text names all three combinations, while the listed abstract names only the first two, a discrepancy worth noting.

Core claim

Working with a Majorana multiplet of zero hypercharge and a Dirac multiplet of hypercharge one-half, with sizes differing by one and coupled by the Higgs with equal-magnitude couplings y1=-y2 and equal masses, the paper computes the relic abundance of the mixed state. It derives the long-range t-channel potentials, forms the coupled Schrodinger system for MM and DD two-particle states, diagonalizes the potential matrix, and computes Sommerfeld-enhanced annihilation and bound-state formation through W, B, and H emission, including thermal break-up and branching ratios. Matching the relic abundance fixes the dark matter mass for each multiplet pair. Because the chosen couplings and masses canc

What carries the argument

The central object is the 2x2 potential matrix for two-particle states, with gauge-boson and Higgs-exchange terms; the off-diagonal Higgs term mixes MM and DD states. Diagonalizing this matrix gives two potential eigenstates that carry the Sommerfeld factors and bound-state formation rates, and projecting back yields annihilation cross sections. The companion mechanism is the blind-spot condition, equal-magnitude opposite-sign Higgs couplings with equal Majorana and Dirac masses, which zeroes the tree-level Higgs-nucleon coupling and lets the direct-detection cross section be inherited from the pure Majorana case. A notable methodological choice is keeping only t-channel diagrams for the lon

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the tree-level blind spot, equal-magnitude opposite-sign Higgs couplings with equal Majorana and Dirac masses, keeps the spin-independent direct-detection cross section at the pure-Majorana loop level, because the paper does not compute the Higgs-exchange loop corrections that could lift the signal above the neutrino floor.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop Higgs-mediated spin-independent nucleon cross section for the 3M2D and 5M4D models at their relic-density masses with y1=-y2 and y=1; if that loop contribution exceeds the neutrino-floor cross section at those masses, the claim that these models can escape direct detection fails. A second check would be to include n>1 and higher-angular-momentum bound states and see whether the relic mass drops enough to shift the direct-detection curves above the floor.

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

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the usual statement that minimal dark matter is fully testable by next-generation direct detection does not extend to Higgs-coupled mixed multiplets; the low combinations can hide below the neutrino floor.
  • The relic-mass predictions differ from pure Majorana multiplets, especially for small Higgs coupling, where mixed-model masses are lower; this shifts the masses against which current direct-detection limits should be interpreted.
  • The framework supplies complete Sommerfeld and bound-state formation formulas for any size-differing Majorana-Dirac pair, so other coupling and mass choices can be evaluated without re-deriving the machinery.
  • Larger multiplet combinations, 9M8D and above, remain within the reach of next-generation direct-detection experiments, so a null search would single out the larger representations while leaving the low combinations untested.
  • Because direct detection cannot fully probe the low multiplet combinations, indirect detection of annihilation products and directional detectors become the necessary complementary probes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The full-text abstract and Section VII.E list 3M2D, 5M4D, and 7M6D as extending below the neutrino floor, while the metadata abstract lists only 3M2D and marginally 5M4D; if the narrower scope is intended, the conclusion about direct detection losing full coverage still holds, but the set of affected models shrinks.
  • The below-neutrino-floor claim relies on a tree-level blind spot protected only by an approximate custodial symmetry broken by hypercharge; the paper does not compute the Higgs-exchange loop corrections, so the claim should be read as conditional on those corrections staying small.
  • The paper's conservative truncation of bound states and its use of the SU(2)-symmetric limit tend to underpredict the dark matter mass, which pushes the direct-detection bands further below the neutrino floor; a full treatment would likely strengthen, not weaken, the main conclusion.
  • A practical test of the framework is to apply it to the pure Majorana limit and compare against published computations; the paper does this and finds agreement except for the largest multiplet, where its truncation under-predicts the mass by about thirty percent.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a generalized nonperturbative freezeout framework for Higgs-coupled minimal dark matter (HC-MDM), i.e., models with one mass-degenerate Majorana multiplet M and one Dirac multiplet D of adjacent dimensionality, coupled through Higgs-portal Yukawa interactions. It computes Sommerfeld-enhanced annihilation and bound-state formation cross sections in the SU(2)L-symmetric limit, then derives the DM mass required to match the observed relic abundance for the 3M2D through 13M12D combinations at three representative Yukawa couplings (y = 10^-9, 0.005, 1). For direct detection, the paper adopts the pure-Majorana spin-independent cross sections of Ref. [30] on the grounds that the blind-spot condition y1 = -y2 and mD = mM exactly cancels tree-level Higgs-mediated scattering. The central claim is that for 3M2D, 5M4D, and 7M6D (or, in the metadata abstract, only 3M2D and marginally 5M4D) the predicted direct-detection bands extend below the neutrino floor, so next-generation direct-detection experiments cannot fully test minimal DM; larger multiplets remain within reach.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is significant: it provides a systematic framework for HC-MDM that corrects earlier treatments of long-range potentials and bound states, and it sharpens the phenomenological distinction between minimal and Higgs-coupled minimal dark matter by identifying parameter space that evades conventional direct-detection probes. The derivation is forward (no parameter is fitted to the target relic abundance), and the framework is validated against the pure-Majorana results of Ref. [30] for small multiplets, with only a ~30% deficit for the 13-plet due to explicit bound-state truncation. The paper also usefully compiles extensive technical appendices and clearly identifies the approximations made, including the blind-spot cancellation and the neglect of loop-induced Higgs exchange.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VIII (also Sec. II and Sec. VII.E)] Loop corrections to the blind spot are acknowledged but not quantified; an estimate or explicit loop calculation is needed before the direct-detection conclusion can be considered robust.
  2. [Abstract vs Sec. VII.E] The central claim is stated inconsistently between the metadata abstract and the full text; this needs to be fixed.
  3. [Sec. VII.A and Sec. VII.E] The claim that more complete bound-state/truncation corrections would extend the below-floor region needs quantitative support, since sigma_SI and the neutrino floor both depend on mass.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. I] Typo: 'calculation of the the DM annihilation cross section' should read 'calculation of the DM annihilation cross section'.
  2. [Fig. 12 caption] Typo: 'PandaX-4T exlusion region' should be 'PandaX-4T exclusion region'.
  3. [Sec. IV.C] Typo: 'For M, D in the in the non-relativistic limit' should be 'For M and D in the non-relativistic limit'.
  4. [Eq. (11)] The displayed formula for Y_DM(infinity) appears to have a misplaced parenthesis; the inverse of the bracket should be explicit. Please check the typesetting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: relic-mass derivation is self-contained; the direct-detection claim uses an explicit tree-level blind spot and external lattice-QCD cross sections, with an acknowledged (non-circular) loop-level gap.

full rationale

The central derivation is forward and not fitted to the target result. For each multiplet combination and chosen y, the DM mass is solved by matching the relic abundance through Eqs. (4)-(12), with Sommerfeld and bound-state effects computed from the potentials in Eq. (24) and the cross sections derived in Secs. V-VI. No parameter is fitted to the direct-detection cross section or to the below-neutrino-floor conclusion. The spin-independent cross sections are imported from Ref. [30] (Bottaro et al., lattice-QCD based) and applied to HC-MDM only at the explicitly stated tree-level blind-spot point y1=-y2, mD=mM, where the Higgs-mediated nucleon coupling cancels (Sec. II and Sec. VII.E). This cancellation is not an unverified black box: it is a stated tree-level result, also supported by external blind-spot literature (Refs. [46-48]), so the self-citation to Ref. [35] is not load-bearing in a circular sense. The bound-state formalism draws on Refs. [29,39] (two with overlapping authorship), but those are prior technical results being extended to new representations, not uniqueness claims or fitted substitutes for the present calculation. The main genuine limitation, flagged by the paper in Sec. VIII, is that loop-induced H-exchange corrections to the blind spot are not computed and U(1)_Y breaks the approximate custodial symmetry; the paper only asserts that conclusions are 'qualitatively unchanged.' That is a robustness/correctness gap rather than a circular reduction, because the tree-level input does not contain the loop-level answer by construction. The internal discrepancy between the full-text abstract (3M2D, 5M4D, 7M6D below floor) and the metadata abstract (3M2D, marginally 5M4D) is also not circularity. Overall, the core claims are not equivalent to their inputs; score 1 reflects the presence of some self-citations in load-bearing formalism, not a circular derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a forward calculation from a stated Lagrangian. The model's free parameters are the Yukawa coupling y (scanned) and the calculational cutoffs; no parameter is fitted to the neutrino floor. The main assumptions are the blind-spot parameter choice, the SU(2)_L-symmetric freezeout approximation, and partial-wave/bound-state truncations, all disclosed in the text. No new fundamental particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the M and D multiplets and the Higgs portal are from Refs. [13,35].

free parameters (3)
  • Yukawa coupling y (|y1|=|y2|) = scanned values: 10^-9 (small), 0.005 (mid), 1 (large)
    Free model coupling (Eq. 3); chosen by hand to cover negligible-to-perturbative Higgs portals. The relic-mass predictions depend strongly on y (Fig. 7).
  • Bound-state energy truncation factor = 1/4 (E_BS > E_BS,max/4)
    Chosen 'somewhat arbitrarily' in Sec. VII.A to limit computational cost; affects which bound states are included and hence the predicted masses.
  • Freezeout integration cutoff z_max = z_Δm = m/0.58 GeV
    Chosen as the upper integration limit in Eq. (11) to approximate the end of SU(2)_L-symmetric annihilation (Sec. VII.A); other choices shift the mass prediction.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Non-relativistic two-body quantum mechanics with a Yukawa/Coulomb potential correctly captures Sommerfeld enhancement and bound-state formation for electroweak-scale DM.
    Invoked throughout Secs. V-VI; standard in the MDM literature (Refs. [21-29]).
  • domain assumption SU(2)_L symmetry is unbroken during the freezeout-relevant epoch, and remains approximately valid up to T ≈ Δm ≈ α_em M_W.
    Sec. II ('We also work in unbroken SU(2)_L symmetry') and Sec. VII.A (integration to z_Δm). If incorrect, relic-density masses shift.
  • domain assumption Only s-wave (ℓ=0) annihilation and ℓ=0 bound states with n=1 are relevant; ℓ>0 and n>1 contributions are subdominant.
    Secs. IV.C and VI; stated as conservative, under-predicting the annihilation cross section and hence the mass.
  • ad hoc to paper The blind-spot condition y1=-y2, m_D=m_M exactly cancels tree-level Higgs-mediated direct detection, and loop corrections do not lift σ_SI above the neutrino floor.
    Sec. II imposes this to define the direct-detection blind spot; Sec. VIII notes the custodial symmetry is broken by U(1)_Y and loop H-exchange corrections are not computed.
  • domain assumption Bound states with representation size >5 decay to smaller representations rather than annihilating directly, and this is subdominant.
    Sec. VII.A; used to restrict bound-state channels.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30029 in / 22252 out tokens · 191266 ms · 2026-08-02T22:08:10.196716+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Minimal electroweak dark matter models are compelling due to their simplicity, though calculations of their freezeout abundance are complicated by nonperturbative effects due to Sommerfeld enhancement and bound-state formation. It has been shown that all individual multiplet scenarios beyond the doublet lead to direct-detection signals above the neutrino floor and thus within the reach of next-generation experiments. If no signals are found, would minimal dark matter be excluded? Yes for the simplest models, but it has been unknown for the important extension of two multiplets coupled by Higgs interactions (Higgs-coupled minimal dark matter). We present a generalized framework for calculating nonperturbative effects for such models that also covers the case of individual multiplets. In this framework, we calculate nonperturbative effects on freezeout as well as the prospects for direct detection, correcting shortcomings and omissions in the literature. Importantly, for the mixed Majorana (odd) and Dirac (even) multiplet combination 3M2D (and marginally the 5M4D), we find that the predicted direct-detection signals can extend below the neutrino floor. Fully testing minimal dark matter will thus require more than direct-detection experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.17764 by John F. Beacom, Juri Smirnov, Laura Lopez-Honorez, Spencer Griffith.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic diagram illustrating the salient differences [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Diagrams for the interactions generating long-range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Diagrams for bound-state formation through vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of the overlap integral squared norms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison of DM masses obtained from the tree [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. bound-state formation cross sections through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Allowed parameter space of masses and spin-independent cross sections on nucleons for different multiplet combina [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Comparison of our results (blue) to Ref. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: shows the diagrams for the MD → W H/H∗ case. Writing the SU(2)L indices explicitly, the diagram on the left has the structure iM ∝ vi( ˆϵM)ij (t a M)jkδ I 3 D(l) I 3M(k)±1/2 ul , (C16) where we have omitted the momenta arguments. Defin￾ing ± 1GMD;WH = ⟨IIS , MIS |IM, I3 M(i); ID, I3 M(j)±1/2⟩(ˆϵMt a M)ij , (C17) and using the non-relativistic approximations iM = −ig2y1ϵ ∗ n (k1)Tr(σ n ξξ′† ) ± 1GMD;WH. (C… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Bound-state formation with Higgs emission and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Self-consistent computation of pair production from non-relativistic effective field theories in the Keldysh-Schwinger formalism

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Self-consistent four-point functions in NR EFT with Keldysh-Schwinger formalism render Sommerfeld unitarization temperature-dependent and keep bound states on-shell in out-of-equilibrium decay even with finite-width B...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 45 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    limits, the amplitudes are MDD;M M= 4m2 |⃗ p−⃗k|2 y1y2 MDD = 4m2 |⃗ p−⃗k|2 (g 2 1Y 2 D −g 2 2t a Dt a D) MDD =− 4m2 |⃗ p−⃗k|2 (g 2 1Y 2 D +g 2 2t a Dt a D) MM D=− 4m2 |⃗ p−⃗k|2 (g 2 2t a Dt a M −y 1y2) MM D =− 4m2 |⃗ p−⃗k|2 (g 2 2t a Dt a M −y 2 ) MM M=− 4m2 |⃗ p−⃗k|2 g 2 2t a M t a M , (14) where we have omitted theu-channel diagrams where they appear (s...

  2. [2]

    BecauseWhas spin one and the individual particle spins are conserved in the process, we must have|∆ℓ|= 1 from the initial to bound state

    W emission Figure 3 shows the processesX 1X2 →BS(X 1X2)+W. BecauseWhas spin one and the individual particle spins are conserved in the process, we must have|∆ℓ|= 1 from the initial to bound state. In the center of momentum frame, we have σvrel = |⃗ q| 128π2m3 Z dΩ ϵ a∗ µ (q)M µ 2 ,(46) whereqis theW a 4-momentum, while⃗ qdenotes its 3- momentum,ϵ a µ(q) i...

  3. [3]

    B emission ForB-emission, we only have the first two diagrams from Fig. 3. We can read off the cross section from the W-emission case. In Eq. (50) we replace (t a X1 )i′ k(ˆϵX1 )ki(ˆϵX2 )j′ j →Y X1 (ˆϵX1 )i′ i(ˆϵX2 )j′ j (t a X2 )j′ k(ˆϵX2 )kj(ˆϵX1 )i′ i →Y X2 (ˆϵX1 )i′ i(ˆϵX2 )j′ j i(t b X1 )i′ i(t c X2 )j′ jf abc ⃗T ij,i′ j′ →0. (58) We define B JC IS,B...

  4. [4]

    MM bound states.M Mbound-state formation with Higgs emission occurs through the two diagrams in Fig

    H emission Figures 4 and 5 show two examples in detail from which we can extract all of theH-emission bound-state forma- tion cross sections. MM bound states.M Mbound-state formation with Higgs emission occurs through the two diagrams in Fig. 4. These diagrams do not interfere so we can compute the cross sections separately and add them together. Mj(p2) D...

  5. [5]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Reviews of Modern Physics 90(2018), 10.1103/revmodphys.90.045002

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.045002 2018

  6. [6]

    B. Carr, M. Raidal, T. Tenkanen, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D96, 023514 (2017), arXiv:1705.05567 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    S. Ge, K. Lawson, and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D99, 116017 (2019), arXiv:1903.05090 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Cirelli, Y

    M. Cirelli, Y. Gouttenoire, K. Petraki, and F. Sala, JCAP02, 014 (2019), arXiv:1811.03608 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Berges, A

    J. Berges, A. Chatrchyan, and J. Jaeckel, JCAP08, 020 (2019), arXiv:1903.03116 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Blennow, E

    M. Blennow, E. Fernandez-Martinez, A. Olivares- Del Campo, S. Pascoli, S. Rosauro-Alcaraz, and A. V. Titov, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 555 (2019), arXiv:1903.00006 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Arcadi, A

    G. Arcadi, A. Djouadi, and M. Raidal, Phys. Rept.842, 1 (2020), arXiv:1903.03616 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    S. W. Allen, A. E. Evrard, and A. B. Mantz, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.49, 409 (2011), arXiv:1103.4829 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    Salucci, Astron

    P. Salucci, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.27, 2 (2019), arXiv:1811.08843 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    J. D. Simon, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.57, 375 (2019), arXiv:1901.05465 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Cirelli, N

    M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo, and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 753, 178 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0512090

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  18. [18]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and M. Tamburini, Nucl. Phys. B787, 152 (2007), arXiv:0706.4071 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  19. [19]

    Steigman and M

    G. Steigman and M. S. Turner, Nucl. Phys. B253, 375 (1985)

    1985

  20. [20]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  21. [21]

    Steigman, B

    G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D86, 023506 (2012), arXiv:1204.3622 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Arcadi, M

    G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mam- brini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 203 (2018), arXiv:1703.07364 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Roszkowski, E

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 066201 (2018), arXiv:1707.06277 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Smirnov, SciPost Phys

    J. Smirnov, SciPost Phys. Proc.12, 003 (2023), arXiv:2212.14361 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Hisano, S

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, and M. M. Nojiri, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 031303 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0307216

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  26. [26]

    Hisano, S

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri, and O. Saito, Phys. Rev. D71, 063528 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412403

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  27. [27]

    Hisano, S

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. Nagai, O. Saito, and M. Senami, Phys. Lett. B646, 34 (2007), arXiv:hep- ph/0610249

    arXiv 2007

  28. [28]

    Arkani-Hamed, D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  29. [29]

    Cassel, J

    S. Cassel, J. Phys. G37, 105009 (2010), arXiv:0903.5307 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

    J. D. March-Russell and S. M. West, Phys. Lett. B676, 133 (2009), arXiv:0812.0559 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  31. [31]

    von Harling and K

    B. von Harling and K. Petraki, JCAP12, 033 (2014), arXiv:1407.7874 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    H. An, M. B. Wise, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D93, 115020 (2016), arXiv:1604.01776 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Mitridate, M

    A. Mitridate, M. Redi, J. Smirnov, and A. Strumia, JCAP05, 006 (2017), arXiv:1702.01141 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Bottaro, D

    S. Bottaro, D. Buttazzo, M. Costa, R. Franceschini, P. Panci, D. Redigolo, and L. Vittorio, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 31 (2022), arXiv:2107.09688 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    I. M. Bloch, S. Bottaro, D. Redigolo, and L. Vittorio, JHEP08, 216 (2025), arXiv:2410.02723 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Aalberset al.(XLZD), (2024), arXiv:2410.17137 [hep- ex]

    J. Aalberset al.(XLZD), (2024), arXiv:2410.17137 [hep- ex]

    arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D31, 3059 (1985)

    1985

  38. [38]

    D. S. Akeribet al.(CDMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 011302 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0509259

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  39. [39]

    Lopez Honorez, M

    L. Lopez Honorez, M. H. G. Tytgat, P. Tziveloglou, and B. Zaldivar, JHEP04, 011 (2018), arXiv:1711.08619 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    Oncala and K

    R. Oncala and K. Petraki, JHEP06, 124 (2021), arXiv:2101.08666 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Oncala and K

    R. Oncala and K. Petraki, JHEP08, 069 (2021), arXiv:2101.08667 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Asadi, M

    P. Asadi, M. Baumgart, P. J. Fitzpatrick, E. Krupczak, and T. R. Slatyer, JCAP02, 005 (2017), arXiv:1610.07617 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

    Smirnov and J

    J. Smirnov and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D100, 043029 (2019), arXiv:1904.11503 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    Hambye, F

    T. Hambye, F. S. Ling, L. Lopez Honorez, and J. Rocher, JHEP07, 090 (2009), [Erratum: JHEP 05, 066 (2010)], arXiv:0903.4010 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [45]

    Billard, L

    J. Billard, L. Strigari, and E. Figueroa-Feliciano, Phys. Rev. D89, 023524 (2014), arXiv:1307.5458 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  46. [46]

    B. R. Safdi and W. L. Xu, (2025), arXiv:2507.15934 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Aghaie, A

    M. Aghaie, A. Dondarini, G. Marino, and P. Panci, (2025), arXiv:2507.17607 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Baumgart, S

    M. Baumgart, S. Bottaro, D. Redigolo, N. L. Rodd, and T. R. Slatyer, (2025), arXiv:2507.15937 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Hisano, K

    J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata, and N. Nagata, JHEP06, 097 (2015), arXiv:1504.00915 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    Cohen, J

    T. Cohen, J. Kearney, A. Pierce, and D. Tucker-Smith, Phys. Rev. D85, 075003 (2012), arXiv:1109.2604 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  51. [51]

    Cheung and D

    C. Cheung and D. Sanford, JCAP02, 011 (2014), arXiv:1311.5896 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  52. [52]

    Calibbi, A

    L. Calibbi, A. Mariotti, and P. Tziveloglou, JHEP10, 116 (2015), arXiv:1505.03867 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    Mitridate, M

    A. Mitridate, M. Redi, J. Smirnov, and A. Strumia, JHEP10, 210 (2017), arXiv:1707.05380 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    N. A. Dondi, F. Sannino, and J. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103010 (2020), arXiv:1905.08810 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    Garny and J

    M. Garny and J. Heisig, Phys. Rev. D105, 055004 (2022), arXiv:2112.01499 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to quantum field theory(Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995)

    1995

  58. [58]

    Schiff,Quantum Mechanics: 3rd Edition(McGraw 24 Hill, 1968)

    L. Schiff,Quantum Mechanics: 3rd Edition(McGraw 24 Hill, 1968)

    1968

  59. [59]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, B

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Lalo¨ e,Quantum Mechanics, Volume 2: Angular Momentum, Spin, and Approximation Methods(Wiley, 2019)

    2019

  60. [60]

    H. A. Bethe and E. E. Salpeter,Quantum Mechanics of One and Two-Electron Atoms(Springer Berlin, Heidel- berg, 1957)

    1957

  61. [61]

    Griest and D

    K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D43, 3191 (1991)

    1991

  62. [62]

    Billard, F

    J. Billard, F. Mayet, and D. Santos, Phys. Rev. D85, 035006 (2012), arXiv:1110.6079 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012