Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Dark Matter in Multi-Singlet Extensions of the Standard Model

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a second singlet with its own Z2 symmetry opens a light dark-matter window that the one-singlet model closes.

desk verdict A solid two-singlet DM scan with a genuinely new light-heavy window; the three-singlet stability claim is softer than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07753 v2 pith:4AE3PP26 submitted 2025-05-12 hep-ph

Maria Gonçalves , Margarete Mühlleitner , Rui Santos , Tomás Trindade This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d
keywords darkmatterrealscalarsingletextensionZ2symmetryHiggsportalrelicdensitydirectdetectionmulti-componentLHCmono-Xsearches
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether the simplest extensions of the Standard Model that produce dark matter—real scalar singlets coupled to the Higgs—can still be viable and observable. It establishes that with one singlet, only a very heavy state (above about 3.5 TeV) or a resonant state near half the Higgs mass survives relic-density and direct-detection constraints. Adding a second real singlet with an independent Z2 symmetry changes that: a light state in the window $m_{S_1}\in[124.8,230.0]$ GeV can survive, provided it carries only a tiny relic fraction $\Omega_{S_1}h^2\sim10^{-7}$, while a heavy partner between about 4.3 and 10 TeV supplies the measured dark matter abundance. This matters because the light state has a large portal coupling and can be produced at the LHC, so the model becomes testable in mono-Higgs and mono-jet searches at the HL-LHC.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carrying the argument is the relic-fraction-weighted direct-detection cross section, $\sigma_{\rm SI}(S_r N\to S_r N)\,\Omega_{S_r}/\Omega_{\rm DM}$, together with the unbroken $\mathbb{Z}_2^{(1)}\times\mathbb{Z}_2^{(2)}$ symmetries that make both singlets stable dark matter candidates. Because a state with a tiny relic share is allowed a much larger Higgs portal coupling, the light state can live at $m_{S_1}\in[124.8,230.0]$ GeV while the heavy state supplies most of the relic density; the small inter-dark coupling $\lambda_{12}$ controls heavy-to-light annihilation and sets that share. In the single-$\mathbb{Z}_2$ variant, rotation to mass eigenstates redefines the couplings so that only one effective coupling enters direct detection while all three portal couplings contribute to the relic density.

What would settle it

A full uniform scan of the three-singlet parameter space that finds an allowed region outside the two scanned hierarchies, or a next direct-detection limit that drops below $\sigma_{\rm SI}(S_1N\to S_1N)\,\Omega_{S_1}/\Omega_{\rm DM}\sim10^{-47}\,{\rm cm}^2$ for $m_{S_1}$ between 125 and 230 GeV, would falsify the paper's central picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that increasing the number of real singlet fields, each protected by its own unbroken $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry, opens parameter space that the single-singlet model closes. In the two-singlet model the allowed region contains a new one-light-one-heavy configuration: $m_{S_1}\in[124.8,230.0]$ GeV with $\Omega_{S_1}h^2\sim10^{-7}$ and $m_{S_2}\in[4321.0,9977.0]$ GeV with $\Omega_{S_2}h^2\simeq\Omega_{\rm DM}h^2$. Direct detection is evaded because the bound applies to $\sigma_{\rm SI}(S_1N\to S_1N)\,\Omega_{S_1}/\Omega_{\rm DM}$, and the tiny relic fraction compensates for the large portal coupling $\kappa_{H1}\in[4.066,9.986]$. In the three-singlet model the same logic allows two heavy states to share the relic density, weakening the usual mass and coupling bounds, and the paper argues that further singlets will only loosen these constraints. When two singlets are odd under one shared $\mathbb{Z}_2$, mixing among dark scalars leaves only one coupling controlling direct detection, so the lightest state can populate the entire range from half the Higgs mass to the TeV scale.

Load-bearing premise

The broad conclusion that adding more singlets will not change this picture dramatically rests on the assumption that no new depletion channels open in unscanned regions of the three-singlet parameter space, because the scans cover only two-light-one-heavy and one-light-two-heavy hierarchies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The light state in the two-singlet window, with $m_{S_1}\approx125\text{--}230$ GeV and $\kappa_{H1}\gtrsim5$, has LHC production cross sections that mono-Higgs searches already approach within about one order of magnitude; the HL-LHC should be able to probe or exclude it.
  • The heavy state $S_2$, carrying almost all the relic density, sits at masses 4.3--10 TeV where its spin-independent cross section falls within the LZ 2024 uncertainty band; the next direct-detection exposure will likely test the whole new window.
  • In the three-singlet one-light-two-heavy case, two heavy states each carry part of the relic density, so the direct-detection bound on each is weakened by its fraction; this produces allowed points with heavier masses and larger portal couplings than the two-singlet model permits.
  • Adding further singlets with independent $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetries should continue the trend: the lightest state can stay near the Higgs mass with a negligible relic fraction, while the remaining states share the observed abundance.
  • In the one-$\mathbb{Z}_2$ variant, the mass eigenstates mix and only one effective portal coupling enters direct detection, so a DM candidate at any mass from $m_h/2$ to the TeV scale is allowed in principle and accessible to mono-$X$ searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The relic-fraction suppression used here is not specific to singlet scalars; any multi-component dark matter model with a light state that annihilates efficiently could open sub-TeV windows, so the mechanism provides a general template for evading direct-detection limits.
  • If LZ or its successor excludes the predicted $\sigma\times$fraction band, the two-singlet window would be closed unless the light state is even lighter or even more depleted; that outcome would push these models toward the resonant $m_h/2$ region.
  • The three-singlet conclusion about stability across $N$ is only as strong as the scanned hierarchies; a uniform scan, or a dedicated all-light search, would be a direct test of whether the picture really stabilizes.
  • For the single-$\mathbb{Z}_2$ two-singlet model, the combination of invisible Higgs width and mono-Higgs measurements could constrain the mixing angle $\alpha$, providing a complementary handle beyond direct detection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies real scalar singlet extensions of the Standard Model with unbroken Z2 symmetries, using micrOMEGAs for relic-density and direct-detection constraints and MadGraph for LHC mono-X cross sections. It first revisits the one-singlet model, then analyzes two real singlets with independent Z2 symmetries, two real singlets with a single common Z2, and three real singlets with three independent Z2 symmetries. The main claimed results are: (i) in the one-singlet model, DM is excluded below about 3.5 TeV except near the Higgs resonance; (ii) adding a second independently-odd singlet opens a new allowed window with a light state mS1 in [124.8, 230.0] GeV carrying a tiny relic fraction Omega_S1 h^2 ~ 10^-7 and a heavy state mS2 in [4321, 9977] GeV carrying essentially all of the relic density; (iii) a three-singlet configuration with one light and two heavy states further relaxes direct-detection constraints because the two heavy states share the relic density; and (iv) the same-Z2 two-singlet model allows the DM mass to span a much wider range because the DD coupling and the relic-density-controlling couplings are independent after mass-diagonalization. The paper also evaluates LHC mono-jet, mono-Higgs, mono-Z, and di-jet b-bbar signatures for benchmark points.

Significance. If the central two-singlet result holds, it identifies a genuinely interesting phenomenology: a two-component scalar DM model with a light LHC-accessible state that evades direct detection through its small relic-density fraction. The treatment of the direct-detection bound for subdominant components, sigma_SI x Omega_Sr/Omega_DM, is the correct standard scaling, and the paper uses current constraints including LZ 2024. The use of public tools (micrOMEGAs 6.0/6.1, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO) and the explicit benchmarking against ATLAS mono-X analyses are strengths. The significance is tempered, however, by the fact that the paper's most general claims, in particular the abstract's statement that adding more independent-Z2 singlets will not change the picture dramatically, rest on a restricted three-singlet scan and on an under-documented scan of the same-Z2 model. The robust, well-supported part is the two-singlet new mass window; the N-singlet extrapolation needs either additional scans or a softened claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 and abstract; Sec. 5 conclusion] The statement that adding more independent-Z2 singlets 'will not change this picture dramatically' is not supported by the scans presented. Section 3.1 restricts the three-singlet scan to two hierarchies, mS3<mS1<mS2 and mS1<mS2<mS3, with the justification that no new (co-)annihilation channels open. That justification is insufficient: the newly found one-light-two-heavy allowed region is itself produced without any new depletion channel. It arises, as the text around Eq. (3.7) states, because the direct-detection exclusion for each heavy state is scaled by the relic-density fraction Omega_Sr/Omega_DM. The same fraction-weighting mechanism implies that an unscanned all-heavy hierarchy, with three states above roughly 1 TeV each carrying Omega ~ 1/3, could further relax the DD tension and shift the allowed masses downward relative to the one-singlet lower bound; an all-light hierarchy with multiple small relic fractions is likewise not excluded by the stated argument. The manuscript itself concedes after Eq. (3.7) that 'there are no obvious physical reasons to expect the new allowed regions would arise,' which is a self-acknowledged limitation, not a proof of stability. To support the abstract's N-singlet claim, the authors should scan the all-heavy and all-light hierarchies, and ideally a four-singlet one-light-three-heavy case, or alternatively restrict the claim to the two scanned hierarchies. The final sentence of Sec. 5, 'Adding more singlets would make the bounds on masses and portal couplings increasingly loose,' is in tension with the abstract's 'not dramatically' phrasing and should be reconciled.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (2.9)-(2.20), Figs. 9-10] The abstract's claim that adding singlets all odd under the same Z2 allows the DM mass to span the entire range from half the Higgs mass to the TeV scale is not verifiable from the material presented. The text argues that one can make the DD-relevant coupling kappa_H1 small while kappa_H2 and kappa_H12 are large enough to set the relic density, but the effectiveness of kappa_H2 and kappa_H12 depends crucially on the mass splitting between chi2 and chi1: coannihilation requires the states to be close in mass, while a large splitting suppresses the heavier state's abundance and its contribution to depletion. The mass spectrum, the values or ranges of m_chi2, and the scan ranges for the couplings in Eqs. (2.13)-(2.20) are not stated. Without this information, the 'entire mass range' conclusion and the representative plots in Figs. 9-10 cannot be independently assessed.
  3. [Sec. 2.1.2, 'exhaustive' scan claim] The text states that the two-singlet parameter space was scanned 'exhaustively and uniformly,' but no scan ranges, step sizes, number of points, or acceptance criteria are given. Since the new mass window mS1 in [124.8, 230.0] GeV and the allowed ranges for kappa_H1, kappa_H2, and lambda_12 are central quantitative results, the absence of a documented scan procedure makes the claim that the entire allowed parameter space was identified difficult to verify. Please provide the scan setup or clarify the sampling method.
  4. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 5, consistency of conclusions] There is an internal tension between the abstract's claim that adding more singlets 'will not change this picture dramatically' and the Sec. 5 statement that 'adding more singlets would make the bounds on masses and portal couplings increasingly loose.' If the bounds become increasingly loose with N, then the picture does change quantitatively with N. The authors should either quantify the expected scaling or explicitly distinguish qualitative stability from quantitative loosening.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 3] The 'NE' column for sqrt(s)=14 TeV appears to use L=450 fb^-1 rather than L=3000 fb^-1: for mS1=124.8 GeV, 3.270 fb x 3000 fb^-1 = 9810, not 1471. The same pattern is repeated for the other rows. Please correct the entries and re-check any statements that depend on them.
  2. [Sec. 2.2 and Figs. 9-10] The barred couplings kappa_H1, kappa_H2, and kappa_H12 used in Figs. 9 and 10 are never explicitly defined in relation to the unbarred couplings in Eqs. (2.18)-(2.20). Please define the notation.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The abstract states that one-singlet DM masses below about 3.5 TeV are excluded, while Sec. 1 says masses above about 4 TeV are allowed with large coupling. These numbers are not contradictory in principle, but the text should state the exact boundary and the coupling dependence to avoid confusion.
  4. [Figs. 15-17 captions] The captions of Figs. 15-17 contain thesis-style headings and repeated text (e.g., '4.5. Searches for the Lighter DM Particle at the LHC') that do not belong in journal figure captions. The captions should be cleaned and the 'ggh' versus 'gggh' terminology checked.
  5. [Acknowledgments] There is a typo: 'RS, MG and TT are are partially supported' should read 'are partially supported.'
  6. [Eq. (2.3) and related kinetic terms] The kinetic terms are written as (1/2)(partial_mu S1) partial^mu S1; the notation should be (1/2)(partial_mu S1)(partial^mu S1) for clarity. This appears in several Lagrangian displays.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's predictions are parameter-scan results checked against external constraints, not quantities derived from their own fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain in this paper is self-contained with respect to the central claims. The new two-singlet mass window (mS1 in [124.8, 230.0] GeV with Omega_S1 h^2 ~ 10^-7, mS2 in [4321.0, 9977.0] GeV) is obtained by scanning the Lagrangian parameters with micrOMEGAs and confronting the computed relic densities and DD cross sections with external experimental bounds from Planck and LUX-ZEPLIN. No parameter is fitted to the quantity that is later presented as a prediction: the small Omega_S1 fraction is computed from the freeze-out dynamics, and the DD suppression for S1 is the standard rate scaling sigma_SI x Omega_S1/Omega_DM, not a reverse-engineered input. The three-singlet scan is restricted to two mass hierarchies, and the paper explicitly acknowledges this: 'although our scans were performed for particular regions of the parameter space there are no obvious physical reasons to expect the new allowed regions would arise.' That is an honest limitation of coverage, not circular reasoning. The claim that adding more singlets will not change the picture dramatically is an extrapolation from the scanned regions and could be vulnerable to unscanned hierarchies, but that is a correctness or robustness concern, not a circularity. Self-citations appear only in non-load-bearing contexts (e.g., Refs. [13] and [15] for related singlet phenomenology), and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work to force the conclusions. The benchmark LHC cross sections are likewise computed from model parameters and compared with model-independent ATLAS limits. Overall, the paper derives its results from external constraints and standard Boltzmann/DD calculations rather than from definitions or fitted parameters that already contain the answer.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new fundamental constants; all model parameters are scanned. The main external inputs are the Standard Model Higgs sector, freeze-out cosmology, and experimental bounds from Planck, LZ, XENON, PandaX, and ATLAS. The only explicitly ad hoc assumption is the restricted scan strategy for the three-singlet model, acknowledged in Sec. 3.1.

free parameters (6)
  • mS1 (light DM mass in two-singlet model) = 124.8-230.0 GeV in the new allowed region
    Scanned parameter; the new light-heavy region places S1 just above the Higgs-pair threshold.
  • mS2 (heavy DM mass in two-singlet model) = 4321.0-9977.0 GeV
    Scanned parameter; set by the relic density and direct detection tension.
  • kappa_H1 (portal coupling of S1) = 4.066-9.986
    Scanned parameter; must be large to suppress the S1 relic density via S1S1 to hh annihilation.
  • kappa_H2 (portal coupling of S2) = 1.321-3.074
    Scanned parameter; controls the S2 relic density and direct detection rate.
  • lambda_12 (inter-dark coupling) = 2.940e-6 to 0.7093
    Scanned parameter; bounded above by direct detection through its effect on the S1 abundance fraction.
  • Three-singlet residual parameters (mS3, kappa_H3, lambda_23, lambda_31) = not fully specified in the paper
    Additional scanned parameters in the three-singlet model; the scan is restricted to two hierarchy regions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dark matter candidates are produced by thermal freeze-out in a standard cosmology.
    Sets the WIMP framework; stated in the Introduction.
  • domain assumption The Z2 symmetries remain unbroken, so the singlets are stable and do not mix with the Higgs.
    Vacuum choice in Eqs. (2.4) and (3.5) ensures zero VEV for all singlets.
  • domain assumption The direct detection cross section for each DM component scales with its relic density fraction Omega_Sr/Omega_DM.
    Standard treatment for multi-component dark matter, used in Figs. 8, 13 and 14.
  • ad hoc to paper For the three-singlet model, scanning only the two-light-one-heavy and one-light-two-heavy regions suffices.
    Stated in Sec. 3.1; not proven exhaustive and acknowledged by the authors as a restriction.
  • domain assumption Quartic couplings are bounded by 4 pi and by tree-level perturbative unitarity from Ref. [14].
    Theoretical constraints imposed in Sec. 2.1.1.
invented entities (1)
  • Real scalar singlet dark matter fields S1, S2, S3
    purpose: Provide stable WIMP dark matter candidates in multi-singlet extensions of the SM.
    The paper scans broad mass and coupling ranges and derives collider cross sections for benchmark points, but it makes no sharp, unique mass or coupling prediction that could be falsified independent of the scan. The singlets are model-building ingredients rather than new physics required by a specific anomaly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Matter in Multi-Singlet Extensions of the Standard Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4AE3PP26

@misc{pith2026250507753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Matter in Multi-Singlet Extensions of the Standard Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4AE3PP26}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07753}
}
abstract

We study the simplest extensions of the Standard Model (SM) that provide Dark Matter (DM) candidates, built with the addition of real singlets and new $\mathcal{Z}_2$ symmetries. In this type of models the interactions between SM particles are not altered except for the new interactions stemming from the portal couplings that link the SM Higgs with the DM candidates. In the extension with just one singlet, DM masses below about 3.5 TeV are already excluded by the combination of relic density and direct detection (DD) constraints, except in the resonant case where the DM mass is close to half the Higgs mass, making them undetectable at the LHC. Adding just one more real singlet with an independent $\mathcal{Z}_2$ symmetry opens up a new mass window for one of the DM candidates and decreases the lower bound on the mass of the other. Adding more singlets with independent $\mathcal{Z}_2$ symmetries will not change this picture dramatically. If instead we add new singlets all odd under the same $\mathcal{Z}_2$ symmetry, the allowed mass region for the DM candidate (i.e., the lightest dark sector scalar) will span the entire mass range from half the Higgs mass to the TeV scale. In principle, such light particles could be probed at the LHC in mono-$X$ searches. Although they are still out of reach with the current LHC DM searches, there are good chances to probe the models in some final states at the High-Luminosity (HL-LHC) stage of the LHC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07753 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Feynman rules for the interaction vertices involving the S1 and S2 dark matter particle candidates. The decays S1,2 ! SM SM and S1,2 ! S2,1S2,1 are forbidden by “dark parity” (or Z(r) 2 charge, r =1, 2) conservation, as a consequence of the Z(1) 2 ⇥ Z(2) 2 discrete symmetry. 3 Conclusions In this work, we have studied ... Acknowledgments ... and TT is supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental constraints on the real singlet extension of the SM obtained using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Allowed points for the two real singlets extension of the SM, obtained using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: One-light-one-heavy mS1 < mS2 scenario. Allowed parameter space for the two singlets extension of the SM obtained using micrOMEGAs 6.0 for several projections, with the lightest DM particle mass on the x-axis. The other four relevant parameters are shown on the y-axis …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analysis of the mS1 < mS2 case with all parameters (but one) fixed. Each row scans one parameter – mS1 , mS2 , κH1, κH2, and λ12, in this order – with all the remaining parameters fixed. Left: relic density ΩS1 h 2 of S1; right: total relic density ΩDMh 2 = (ΩS1 + ΩS2 …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relic density of S1 as a function of its mass. The colour bar shows how the coupling κH1 varies. All points have the correct DM abundance. The red points are allowed by DD experiments. The plot on the right is a zoom on the region of interest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spin-independent scattering cross section of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spin-independent cross section of DM-nucleon elastic scattering multiplied by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: ¯κH1, ¯κH2 and ¯κH12 as a function of the DM mass with three other variables in the colour bar. The points have passed all relevant bounds with sα ≡ sin α, cα ≡ cos α. Since χ1 is the lightest particle from the dark sector it will be the DM candidate. What is new in th…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: DD cross sections as a function of the DM mass with ¯κ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Experimental constraints on the SM+3RSS model ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Experimental constraints on the SM+3RSS model ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Two-light-one-heavy mS3 < mS1 < mS2 scenario. Spin-independent cross section of DM-nucleon elastic scattering SrN → SrN (N = p, n) multiplied by the corresponding fraction of DM relic density ΩSr /ΩDM (r = 1, 2, 3), for both proton (p) and neutron (n) elastic scatteri…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: One-light-two-heavy mS1 < mS2 < mS3 scenario. Spin-independent cross section of DM-nucleon elastic scattering SrN → SrN (N = p, n) multiplied by the corresponding fraction of the DM relic density ΩSr /ΩDM (r = 1, 2, 3) for both proton (p) and neutron (n) elastic scatt…
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.8. Figure 4.8: Feynman diagrams contributing to mono-jet production processes pp ! S1S1j at tree-level, where j = q, q, b, ¯ ¯b, g are jets and q = u, d, c, s are light quarks. Unlike multi-jets, the final state mono-jet cannot be a (anti-)bottom b (¯b). We now must compare theoret…
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.9. Figure 4.9: Feynman diagrams contributing to the mono-Higgs production process pp ! S1S1h at tree-level, where q = u, d, c, s are light quarks. The third and last diagrams each represent two distinct contributions, due to the interchange of the external legs with coloured four-m…
Figure 4.10
Figure 4.10. Figure 4.10: Feynman diagrams contributing to the mono-Z production process pp ! S1S1Z at tree-level, where q = u, d, c, s are light quarks. state’s energy-momentum that is “missing” for energy-momentum conservation signals the presence of undetected final state particles (i.e.,…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Cross section of jet production processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Cross section of mono-Higgs production processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Cross section for pp → S1S1Z for √ s = 13 TeV. The red (solid) line is the ATLAS (2018) experimental upper limit on the cross section (σ) of pp → Z + DM. Left panel: cross section with no cuts. Right panel: benchmark points for several missing transverse momentum (p m…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Perturbative unitarity for models with singlet and doublet scalars

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Arbitrary scalar extensions with doublets, neutral singlets, and charged singlets now have complete analytic perturbative-unitarity bounds, automated by the BounDS Mathematica notebook.

  2. Gamma-Rays and Gravitational Waves from Inelastic Higgs Portal Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An inelastic complex-scalar Higgs portal dark matter model can evade direct detection, explain the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess, and produce a first-order electroweak phase transition with a gravitational wave sig...

  3. Fate of the scalar quartic couplings in the inert models

    hep-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In the inert singlet and triplet models, the Higgs quartic coupling can hit a Landau pole at one loop and a fixed point at two loops, while in the inert doublet model the lambda4 and lambda5 couplings suppress that fi...

  4. BSM: Extended Scalar Sectors

    hep-ph 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    An updated review chapter on extended scalar sectors, their constraints, dark matter and CP violation links, and future collider searches.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    F. Zwicky. Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln. Helv. Phys. Acta, 6:110–127,

    work page

  2. [2]

    Higgs-field portal into hidden sectors

    Brian Patt and Frank Wilczek. Higgs-field portal into hidden sectors. hep-ph/0605188. 25

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Ya. b. Zeldovich. Survey of Modern Cosmology. Adv. Astron. Astrophys., 3:241–379, 1965. doi: 10.1016/b978-1-4831-9921-4.50011-9

    doi:10.1016/b978-1-4831-9921-4.50011-9 1965

  4. [4]

    Particle dark matter: Evidence, candi- dates and constraints

    Gianfranco Bertone, Dan Hooper, and Joseph Silk. Particle dark matter: Evidence, candi- dates and constraints. Phys. Rept., 405:279–390, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 2005

  5. [5]

    Jonathan L. Feng. Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. , 48:495–545, 2010. doi: 10.1146/ annurev-astro-082708-101659

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Dark Matter

    Marco Cirelli, Alessandro Strumia, and Jure Zupan. Dark Matter. hep-ph 2406.01705 , 6 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Vanda Silveira and A. Zee. SCALAR PHANTOMS. Phys. Lett., 161B:136–140, 1985. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(85)90624-0

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)90624-0 1985

  8. [8]

    C. P. Burgess, Maxim Pospelov, and Tonnis ter Veldhuis. The Minimal model of nonbaryonic dark matter: A Singlet scalar. Nucl. Phys. B , 619:709–728, 2001. doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00513-2

    doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(01)00513-2 2001

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Ramsey-Musolf, and Gabe Shaughnessy

    Vernon Barger, Paul Langacker, Mathew McCaskey, Michael J. Ramsey-Musolf, and Gabe Shaughnessy. LHC Phenomenology of an Extended Standard Model with a Real Scalar Singlet. Phys. Rev. D , 77:035005, 2008. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.035005

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    The Real singlet scalar dark matter model

    Wan-Lei Guo and Yue-Liang Wu. The Real singlet scalar dark matter model. JHEP, 10: 083, 2010. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2010)083

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6, 2020. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Complex Singlet Extension of the Standard Model

    Vernon Barger, Paul Langacker, Mathew McCaskey, Michael Ramsey-Musolf, and Gabe Shaughnessy. Complex Singlet Extension of the Standard Model. Phys. Rev. D, 79:015018,

  5. [13]

    Raul Costa, Margarete M¨ uhlleitner, Marco O. P. Sampaio, and Rui Santos. Singlet Ex- tensions of the Standard Model at LHC Run 2: Benchmarks and Comparison with the NMSSM. JHEP, 06:034, 2016. doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2016)034

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Two-real-scalar-singlet extension of the SM: LHC phenomenology and benchmark scenarios

    Tania Robens, Tim Stefaniak, and Jonas Wittbrodt. Two-real-scalar-singlet extension of the SM: LHC phenomenology and benchmark scenarios. Eur. Phys. J. C , 80(2):151, 2020. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7655-x

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Freeze-in as a complementary process to freeze-out

    Rodrigo Capucha, Karim Elyaouti, Margarete M¨ uhlleitner, Johann Plotnikov, and Rui Santos. Freeze-in as a complementary process to freeze-out. JHEP, 09:113, 2024. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2024)113

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Combination of searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson using 139 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at s=13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment

    Georges Aad et al. Combination of searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson using 139 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at s=13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment. Phys. Lett. B , 842:137963, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137963

    2023

  9. [17]

    Peskin and Tatsu Takeuchi

    Michael E. Peskin and Tatsu Takeuchi. Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections.Phys. Rev. D, 46:381–409, 1992. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.46.381. 26

    1992 doi

  10. [18]

    Vacuum Stability Conditions From Copositivity Criteria

    Kristjan Kannike. Vacuum Stability Conditions From Copositivity Criteria. Eur. Phys. J. C, 72:2093, 2012. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2093-z

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Vacuum Stability of a General Scalar Potential of a Few Fields

    Kristjan Kannike. Vacuum Stability of a General Scalar Potential of a Few Fields. Eur. Phys. J. C, 76(6):324, 2016. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4160-3. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 78, 355 (2018)]

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Alguero, G

    G. Alguero, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, S. Chakraborti, A. Goudelis, S. Kraml, A. Mjallal, and A. Pukhov. micrOMEGAs 6.0: N-component dark matter. Comput. Phys. Commun. , 299:109133, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109133

    2024

  13. [21]

    Combination of searches for invisible Higgs boson decays with the ATLAS experiment

    Morad Aaboud et al. Combination of searches for invisible Higgs boson decays with the ATLAS experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 122(23):231801, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 122.231801

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Search for invisible decays of a Higgs boson produced through vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV

    Albert M Sirunyan et al. Search for invisible decays of a Higgs boson produced through vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV. Phys. Lett. B, 793:520–551,

  15. [23]

    Model-independent constraints on dark matter annihilation in dwarf spheroidal galaxies

    Kimberly Boddy, Jason Kumar, Danny Marfatia, and Pearl Sandick. Model-independent constraints on dark matter annihilation in dwarf spheroidal galaxies. Phys. Rev. D , 97(9): 095031, 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.095031

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Boddy, Stephen Hill, Jason Kumar, Pearl Sandick, and Barmak Shams Es Haghi

    Kimberly K. Boddy, Stephen Hill, Jason Kumar, Pearl Sandick, and Barmak Shams Es Haghi. MADHAT: Model-Agnostic Dark Halo Analysis Tool. Comput. Phys. Com- mun., 261:107815, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2020.107815

    2021

  17. [25]

    Boddy, Jason Kumar, Andrew B

    Kimberly K. Boddy, Jason Kumar, Andrew B. Pace, Jack Runburg, and Louis E. Stri- gari. Effective J-factors for Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies with velocity-dependent annihilation. Phys. Rev. D , 102(2):023029, 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023029

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(11):111302, 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.111302

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. Low-Mass Dark Matter Search with the DarkSide-50 Experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(8):081307, 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.081307

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Amole et al

    C. Amole et al. Dark Matter Search Results from the Complete Exposure of the PICO-60 C3F8 Bubble Chamber. Phys. Rev. D , 100(2):022001, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100. 022001

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    A. H. Abdelhameed et al. First results from the CRESST-III low-mass dark matter program. Phys. Rev. D , 100(10):102002, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.102002

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Dark Matter Search Results from the PandaX-4T Commissioning Run

    Yue Meng et al. Dark Matter Search Results from the PandaX-4T Commissioning Run. Phys. Rev. Lett., 127(26):261802, 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.261802

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett., 131(4):041002, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Supersymmetric dark matter

    Gerard Jungman, Marc Kamionkowski, and Kim Griest. Supersymmetric dark matter. Phys. Rept., 267:195–373, 1996. doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(95)00058-5. 27

    1996 doi

  25. [33]

    Effective Theories for Dark Matter Nucleon Scattering

    Junji Hisano, Ryo Nagai, and Natsumi Nagata. Effective Theories for Dark Matter Nucleon Scattering. JHEP, 05:037, 2015. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2015)037

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    The Theory of Direct Dark Matter Detection: A Guide to Computa- tions

    Eugenio Del Nobile. The Theory of Direct Dark Matter Detection: A Guide to Computa- tions. 4 2021. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-95228-0

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    New Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Ex- periment

    Scott Haselschwardt. New Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Ex- periment. TeV Particle Astrophysics (TeVPA) 2024, Chicago, 8 2024. Presented on behalf of the LZ Collaboration on August 26, 2024. url: https://indico.uchicago.edu/event/ 427/contributions/1325/

    2024

  28. [36]

    Mad- Graph 5 : Going Beyond

    Johan Alwall, Michel Herquet, Fabio Maltoni, Olivier Mattelaer, and Tim Stelzer. Mad- Graph 5 : Going Beyond. JHEP, 06:128, 2011. doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2011)128

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    Alwall, R

    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. JHEP, ...

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Status and prospects of the HL-LHC project

    Markus Zerlauth and Oliver Br¨ uning. Status and prospects of the HL-LHC project. PoS, EPS-HEP2023:615, 2024. doi: 10.22323/1.449.0615

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Search for new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at √s =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    Georges Aad et al. Search for new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at √s =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D, 103(11):112006, 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.112006

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Search for dark matter produced in association with a Standard Model Higgs boson decaying into b-quarks using the full Run 2 dataset from the ATLAS detector

    Georges Aad et al. Search for dark matter produced in association with a Standard Model Higgs boson decaying into b-quarks using the full Run 2 dataset from the ATLAS detector. JHEP, 11:209, 2021. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2021)209

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. Search for dark matter in events with a hadronically decaying vector boson and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. JHEP, 10:180, 2018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2018)180

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Search for new particles in events with energetic jets and large missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    Armen Tumasyan et al. Search for new particles in events with energetic jets and large missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV. JHEP, 11:153,

  35. [43]

    Search for dark matter particles produced in association with a Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    Albert M Sirunyan et al. Search for dark matter particles produced in association with a Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV. JHEP, 03:025, 2020. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2020)025

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Search for dark matter produced in association with a leptonically decaying Z boson in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    Albert M Sirunyan et al. Search for dark matter produced in association with a leptonically decaying Z boson in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C , 81(1):13,

  37. [49]

    [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 81, 333 (2021)]

    doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08739-5. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 81, 333 (2021)]. 28

    2021 doi

  38. [1933]

    doi: 10.1007/s10714-008-0707-4

    doi

  39. [2009]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.015018

    doi

  40. [2019]

    doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.04.025

    2019 doi

  41. [2021]

    doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2021)153

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.