Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 105 references

Dark Neutrons as Dark Matter: Collisions in Halos and Direct Detection from Dark CP Violation

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read One dark angle controls both halo collisions and detector signals

desk verdict Clean idea linking dark-sector θ to both SIDM and direct detection; quantitative claims hinge on an untested chiral regime read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07406 v1 pith:6MPLFQ6H submitted 2026-07-08 hep-ph

Pablo Figueroa , Camilo García-Cely , Giacomo Landini This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords self-interactingdarkmattercompositeCPviolationphotondirectdetectionpiontopologicalangleelectricdipolemoment
topics 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

This paper argues that a single parameter — the topological angle θ in a confining dark sector — can simultaneously generate the velocity-dependent self-interactions needed to address small-scale structure problems and the electric dipole moments that enhance direct detection rates. In a QCD-like dark sector with dark neutrons as dark matter, a nonzero θ induces CP-violating couplings between dark pions and dark baryons. These couplings produce an attractive Yukawa potential mediated by the naturally light dark pions, yielding self-scattering cross sections in the range relevant for self-interacting dark matter (0.1–100 cm²/g at dwarf-galaxy velocities, dropping below cluster bounds). The same θ also generates a calculable dark neutron electric dipole moment that, through a dark photon portal, dominates direct detection recoil rates and can be distinguished from CP-conserving magnetic dipole interactions by its distinct annual modulation pattern. The paper presents a benchmark point (dark neutron mass ~96 GeV, dark pion mass ~558 MeV, dark photon mass ~150 MeV) where both phenomena are simultaneously realized and consistent with cosmological, astrophysical, and laboratory constraints.

What carries the argument

The topological angle θ; the CP-violating scalar pion-baryon coupling ḡ_πNN ∝ θ; the Yukawa potential V(r) ∝ -ḡ²_πNN e^{-m_π r}/(4πr); the dark neutron electric dipole moment d_n ≃ (e_d/2m_n)(g_πNN ḡ_πNN/2π²) log(m_n/m_π±); the dark photon portal with kinetic mixing ε connecting dark and visible sectors

What would settle it

If lattice QCD calculations for the CP-violating pion-baryon coupling in the relevant parameter regime show that the perturbative Yukawa potential analysis substantially overestimates or mischaracterizes the self-scattering cross section, or if the dark neutron electric dipole moment induced by θ differs significantly from the one-loop estimate, the quantitative link between halo self-interactions and direct detection rates would break down. Additionally, if future direct detection experiments exclude the benchmark parameter space (dark neutron mass ~100 GeV, kinetic mixing ε ~ 10⁻⁵) without a

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central mechanism is that the topological angle θ in a confining dark sector induces a scalar pion-baryon coupling ḡ_πNN proportional to θ (Eq. 2.4), which is qualitatively different from the ordinary pseudoscalar coupling g_πNN. The scalar coupling generates an attractive long-range Yukawa potential V(r) = -ḡ²_πNN/(4π) · e^{-m_π r}/r (Eq. 3.2) that is not velocity-suppressed, unlike the CP-conserving interaction which gives cross sections suppressed by v⁴. This same θ simultaneously induces a dark neutron electric dipole moment d_n ∝ θ (Eq. 4.4) through loop diagrams involving the CP-violating pion coupling. The paper shows that both the self-interaction cross sections relevant for halo

Load-bearing premise

The perturbative assumption that the pion-nucleon couplings g_πNN and ḡ_πNN are sufficiently small (roughly below √(4π)) to justify computing self-scattering cross sections using perturbation theory. The benchmark uses ḡ_πNN = 0.35, but the paper acknowledges that Standard Model QCD does not satisfy this condition (g_πNN is much larger than 1), so the quantitative predictions for both self-interaction cross sections and direct detection rates could be different if the non-pet

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If θ is the common origin for both halo self-interactions and direct detection signals, a future detection of a dark neutron EDM-like recoil spectrum would imply a specific prediction for the dark matter self-interaction cross section in halos, and vice versa, making the two observables correlated rather than independent.
  • The annual modulation phase reversal between the EDM operator O_11 and the magnetic dipole operator O_5 provides a potential experimental discriminant for the CP-violating origin of a direct detection signal, though the paper notes this would require roughly 100× more events than detecting the time-averaged rate.
  • The framework naturally accommodates gravothermal collapse regimes (σ/m ~ 100 cm²/g at low velocities), connecting to recent observations of unusually compact dark matter halos.
  • The CP-violating dynamics from θ could itself play a role in generating the primordial dark matter asymmetry, potentially linking the relic abundance mechanism to the same parameter governing halo physics and direct detection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If lattice calculations of the CP-violating pion-baryon coupling in the non-perturbative regime (where g_πNN ≳ 1, as in Standard Model QCD) confirm that the Yukawa potential structure persists with enhanced strength, the viable parameter space for simultaneously achieving SIDM phenomenology and detectable direct detection signals could be significantly broader than the perturbative benchmark sugge
  • The correlation between self-interaction cross sections and direct detection rates through the single parameter θ implies that null results from direct detection experiments can be translated into upper bounds on dark matter self-interactions in this framework, and conversely, astrophysical measurements of halo core densities can constrain the direct detection signal strength.
  • If future dark photon searches (beam-dump, fixed-target) probe the kinetic mixing parameter space below the current bounds used in the benchmark, the direct detection signal could be tested independently of dark matter recoil experiments, providing a complementary probe of the same dark sector parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper studies the phenomenology of composite dark matter in a QCD-like confining dark sector with a non-vanishing topological angle $θ$. The central observation is that $θ$ induces CP-violating scalar pion–baryon couplings ($̄g_{πNN} ∝ θ$), which generate an attractive Yukawa potential between dark neutrons mediated by light dark pions. This simultaneously yields velocity-dependent self-interactions relevant for small-scale structure and, via a dark photon portal, induces a dark neutron electric dipole moment that enhances direct detection rates. The self-scattering cross section is computed non-perturbatively via the variable-phase method (Schrödinger equation), and the direct detection signal is matched onto the NREFT framework, with limits derived from LZ (2025) data. A benchmark point (Table 1) illustrates the simultaneous realization of SIDM phenomenology and observable direct detection. The chiral Lagrangian derivation of the CP-violating couplings is presented in Appendix A for $N_f = 2$ and generalized to arbitrary $N_f$ in Appendix B.

Significance. The paper presents a well-motivated and internally coherent framework in which a single parameter ($θ$) controls both dark matter self-interactions and direct detection rates, providing a concrete realization of the SIDM paradigm within a composite dark sector. The non-perturbative treatment of self-scattering via the variable-phase method (Eqs. 3.5–3.6) is a strength, as is the systematic NREFT matching for direct detection (Table 2) and the honest assessment of annual modulation prospects (Sec. 4.4). The EDM loop calculation (Eq. 4.4) correctly reproduces the SM neutron analogue. The generalization to arbitrary $N_f$ in Appendix B adds value. The framework is falsifiable through both astrophysical and laboratory observables. The main limitation is the reliance on leading-order chiral Lagrangian relations for the pion–nucleon couplings in a regime where the axial coupling $g_A$ is very small, which has not been independently verified.

major comments (2)
  1. Appendix A, Eq. (A.3): The Goldberger-Treiman relation gives $g_{πNN} = g_A m_n / f_π$. With the benchmark values $g_{πNN} = 0.11$, $m_n = 96.14$ GeV, and $f_π ∼ √{N_c} m_n/(4π)$ for $N_c = 3$, one infers $g_A ≈ 0.015$, which is two orders of magnitude below the SM value of 1.27. The paper does not discuss whether such a small axial coupling is natural or achievable in a concrete $SU(3)$ gauge theory with $N_f = 2$. While the chiral expansion parameter $m_π/Λ$ is well-controlled, the reliability of the leading-order Goldberger-Treiman relation when $g_A$ is this small has not been verified. If NLO chiral corrections to this relation are large for small $g_A$, the derived value of $̄g_{πNN}$ — and hence both the self-interaction cross section and the EDM — could be shifted. The authors should add a discussion of this point, including whether NLO corrections to the Goldberger-Treiman ratio
  2. Sec. 2.2 and Appendix A: The perturbativity condition $g_{πNN}, ̄g_{πNN} ≲ √{4π}$ is stated, and the benchmark satisfies it ($g_{πNN} = 0.11$, $̄g_{πNN} = 0.35$). However, the paper acknowledges that the SM does not satisfy this condition ($g_{πNN} ≫ 1$). The concern is not about the self-scattering calculation (which is solved non-perturbatively via the Schrödinger equation), but about the validity of the leading-order chiral Lagrangian derivation of the couplings themselves. The paper should clarify more explicitly that the perturbativity assumption concerns the chiral Lagrangian derivation of Eqs. (2.4) and (A.3), not the scattering calculation, and discuss whether the benchmark point lies in a regime where this leading-order derivation is trustworthy.
minor comments (7)
  1. Table 1: The parameter $c$ (appearing in Eq. 2.4) is not listed. Given that $c = 0.7$ in the SM (footnote 1), it would be useful to state the value used for the benchmark explicitly.
  2. Sec. 2.4, Eq. (2.8): The pion lifetime formula depends on $N_c$ and $e_d$. For the benchmark, $e_d = 1.0$ is used but not stated in Table 1; adding it would help reproducibility.
  3. Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.1): The tree-level cross section is expanded to $O(v^4)$, but the non-perturbative result in Eq. (3.6) is used for all subsequent results. A brief statement of the range of validity of Eq. (3.1) versus the full Schrödinger treatment would be useful.
  4. Figure 1: The color scheme distinguishing the SIDM-favored regions (light blue, dark blue) and the cluster-excluded region could be clarified; the legend is small and difficult to read.
  5. Sec. 4.4, Fig. 7: The y-axis labels show very small numerical values with limited significant figures (e.g., '6.2 × 10⁻³'). Consider using scientific notation more consistently or adjusting the axis scale.
  6. Sec. 5: The statement that the benchmark is 'located close to the peak in Fig. 1, where the overlap between the two requirements is favorable' could be quantified — how sensitive are the conclusions to the exact choice of benchmark point within the overlap region?
  7. Reference [88] (LZ 2025): The citation appears to be to a 2025 result; please confirm this is publicly available or appropriately cited at the production stage.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for identifying two important points regarding the reliability of the leading-order chiral Lagrangian relations. We address each comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Appendix A, Eq. (A.3): The Goldberger-Treiman relation gives g_{πNN} = g_A m_n / f_π. With the benchmark values g_{πNN} = 0.11, m_n = 96.14 GeV, and f_π ~ √{N_c} m_n/(4π) for N_c = 3, one infers g_A ≈ 0.015, which is two orders of magnitude below the SM value of 1.27. The paper does not discuss whether such a small axial coupling is natural or achievable in a concrete SU(3) gauge theory with N_f = 2. While the chiral expansion parameter m_π/Λ is well-controlled, the reliability of the leading-order Goldberger-Treiman relation when g_A is this small has not been verified. If NLO chiral corrections to this relation are large for small g_A, the derived value of ḡ_{πNN} — and hence both the self-interaction cross section and the EDM — could be shifted. The authors should add a discussion of this point, including whether NLO corrections to the Goldberger-Treiman ratio...

    Authors: We thank the referee for raising this important point, which we had not adequately addressed in the original manuscript. The referee's numerical inference is correct: the benchmark point implies g_A ≈ 0.015, which is indeed much smaller than the SM value of 1.27. We have thought carefully about whether this is problematic and conclude that it is a genuine caveat that must be stated explicitly, though it does not invalidate our framework. We address the two sub-questions separately. (1) Is a small g_A natural or achievable? The axial coupling g_A is a low-energy constant of the chiral Lagrangian that is not fixed by any symmetry of the SU(N_c) gauge theory with N_f = 2 vector-like fermions. In the SM, g_A ≈ 1.27 is an O(1) number, but there is no known symmetry argument or theorem requiring g_A to be O(1) in a generic confining gauge theory. Its value depends on non-perturbative strong dynamics and would need to be determined, e.g., by lattice calculations in the specific dark gauge theory. We are not aware of any mechanism that would make g_A parametrically small (in the way that, say, small quark masses make m_π parametrically small), so we cannot claim that g_A ≈ 0.015 is 'natural' in the technical sense. It is, however, not forbidden by any consistency condition. (2) Are NLO corrections to the Goldberger-Treiman relation enhanced for small g_A? This is the more substantive concern. At NLO in chiral perturbation theory, the Goldberger-Treiman discrepancy is Δ_GT = 1 − g_{πNN} f_π/(g_A m_N) = −2 m_π^2 d_18 / g_A, where d_18 is an NLO low-energy constant. The key observation is that Δ_GT is inversely proportional to g_A, so for g_A ≈ 0.015, even a modest value of d_18 could produce an O(1) correction to the LO Goldberger-Treiman relation. This would in turn shift the CP revision: partial

  2. Referee: Sec. 2.2 and Appendix A: The perturbativity condition g_{πNN}, ḡ_{πNN} ≲ √{4π} is stated, and the benchmark satisfies it (g_{πNN} = 0.11, ḡ_{πNN} = 0.35). However, the paper acknowledges that the SM does not satisfy this condition (g_{πNN} ≫ 1). The concern is not about the self-scattering calculation (which is solved non-perturbatively via the Schrödinger equation), but about the validity of the leading-order chiral Lagrangian derivation of the couplings themselves. The paper should clarify more explicitly that the perturbativity assumption concerns the chiral Lagrangian derivation of Eqs. (2.4) and (A.3), not the scattering calculation, and discuss whether the benchmark point lies in a regime where this leading-order derivation is trustworthy.

    Authors: We agree that this distinction should be made more explicit in the manuscript. The perturbativity condition g_{πNN}, ḡ_{πNN} ≲ √(4π) ensures that the tree-level extraction of the pion–baryon couplings from the leading-order chiral Lagrangian (Eqs. (2.4) and (A.3)) is reliable — i.e., that higher-order terms in the chiral expansion of the Lagrangian do not generate comparable or larger corrections to these couplings. It is a separate condition from the non-perturbative treatment of the scattering problem, which is solved exactly via the Schrödinger equation using the variable-phase method. We will revise Sec. 2.2 and Appendix A to state this distinction clearly. Regarding the benchmark: with g_{πNN} = 0.11 and ḡ_{πNN} = 0.35, both couplings are well below √(4π) ≈ 3.5, so the LO chiral derivation of the couplings is internally consistent at the level of the perturbative expansion in the couplings. The chiral expansion parameter m_π^2/Λ^2 ~ (m_π/(4π f_π))^2 ~ 10^{-4} for the benchmark is also well-controlled. However, as discussed in our response to the first comment, the small implied value of g_A introduces a separate concern about NLO corrections to the Goldberger-Treiman relation that is not captured by the perturbativity condition on the couplings alone. We will add a sentence cross-referencing this caveat when the perturbativity condition is introduced. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • The naturalness of the small axial coupling g_A ≈ 0.015 implied by the benchmark point cannot be definitively assessed without non-perturbative input (e.g., lattice calculations) in the specific dark gauge theory. While no symmetry forbids a small g_A, we are not aware of a mechanism that would make it parametrically small, and the NLO Goldberger-Treiman discrepancy Δ_GT ∝ 1/g_A could be enhanced. This is an inherent limitation of the leading-order chiral analysis that we cannot fully resolve at present.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation is self-contained against external QCD analogues and chiral perturbation theory

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the topological angle θ in a confining dark sector induces CP-violating pion-baryon couplings (Eq. 2.4: ḡ_πNN ∝ θ), which simultaneously generate velocity-dependent self-interactions (Yukawa potential Eq. 3.2) and enhance direct detection rates (dark EDM Eq. 4.4). Walking the derivation chain: (1) The CP-violating coupling ḡ_πNN is derived from the chiral Lagrangian (App. A, Eq. A.3) via the θ-dependent mass matrix χ⁽²⁾ (Eq. A.2), following the well-known Crewther-Di Vecchia-Veneziano-Witten result [28]. This is an external, standard result, not a self-citation. (2) The Yukawa potential V(r) ∝ −ḡ²_πNN e^{−m_π r}/(4πr) (Eq. 3.2) follows directly from the scalar coupling in Eq. 2.3 — a standard non-relativistic reduction, not circular. (3) The dark EDM d_n ∝ e_d g_πNN ḡ_πNN log(m_n/m_π±)/(2m_n) (Eq. 4.4) is computed from loop diagrams (Fig. 2) and is stated to agree with the SM neutron result [28, 82]. The inputs (g_πNN, ḡ_πNN, m_π, m_n) are independent parameters of the dark sector, not fitted to the target phenomenology. (4) The benchmark point (Table 1) is explicitly labeled as illustrative: 'The benchmark has been chosen to illustrate the simultaneous realization of the desired SIDM and direct-detection phenomenology.' The parameters are chosen, not fitted. (5) The non-perturbative scattering calculation (Eqs. 3.5–3.6) uses the variable-phase method to solve the Schrödinger equation with the Yukawa potential — a genuine computation, not a renaming. (6) The non-calculable form factors (b_n, μ_n) are estimated on dimensional grounds (b_n ∼ e_d/m²_n, μ_n ∼ e_d/(2m_n)) and are not fitted to data. The only minor concern is that two of the three authors co-authored Ref. [34] (cited for the θ-dependent mass matrix structure), but this citation is not load-bearing for the central claim — the same result follows from the standard chiral Lagrangian treatment of Refs. [28, 30, 82]. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction. The paper is self-contained against external QCD analogues and chiral perturbation theory benchmarks. Score 2 reflects the minor self-citation to Ref. [34] for the θ-dependent mass matrix, which is not load-bearing since the result is independently established by standard references.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The model has ~9 free parameters chosen to realize the phenomenology. The key parameter θ is not predicted but its effects are derived. The perturbative coupling assumption is the most structurally fragile axiom, as the paper itself acknowledges.

free parameters (9)
  • θ (topological angle) = O(1) implied; ḡ_πNN=0.35 in benchmark
    The CP-violating angle is a free parameter of the dark sector; its value is not predicted but chosen to yield phenomenologically interesting couplings.
  • m_n (dark neutron mass) = 96.14 GeV (benchmark)
    Set by the confinement scale; chosen in the benchmark to be in the asymmetric DM range.
  • m_π0 (dark pion mass) = 557.9 MeV (benchmark)
    Determined by quark masses and confinement scale; chosen to realize SIDM phenomenology.
  • m_V (dark photon mass) = 150 MeV (benchmark)
    Origin unspecified; chosen to satisfy m_π ≳ m_V and beam-dump constraints.
  • ε (kinetic mixing) = 2×10⁻⁵ (benchmark)
    Free parameter of the dark photon portal; chosen near current upper bounds to maximize direct detection signal.
  • e_d (dark gauge coupling) = 1.0 (benchmark)
    Free parameter of the dark U(1); sets charge assignments and mass splittings.
  • g_πNN (CP-conserving coupling) = 0.11 (benchmark)
    Determined by Goldberger-Treiman relation from g_A, f_π, m_n; g_A is a low-energy constant.
  • b_1 (chiral coupling) = Not specified numerically
    Unknown low-energy constant controlling ḡ_πNN; related to θ via Eq. A.3.
  • c (dimensionless constant) = 0.7 in SM
    Enters ḡ_πNN in Eq. 2.4; taken from SM analogy, value in dark sector unknown.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The dark sector confines with SU(N_c) and N_f light flavors, producing pseudo-Goldstone bosons and baryons analogous to QCD.
    Sec. 2.1: The entire framework relies on the low-energy dynamics being QCD-like.
  • ad hoc to paper Perturbation theory is valid for g_πNN, ḡ_πNN ≪ 1.
    Sec. 2.2 and App. A: The self-scattering cross-section calculations use perturbative couplings; the paper notes this is not realized in the SM and definitive conclusions beyond this regime are difficult.
  • domain assumption The DM relic abundance is set by a primordial asymmetry (asymmetric DM).
    Sec. 2.4: The cosmological history assumes asymmetric DM; the mechanism generating the asymmetry is unspecified.
  • domain assumption The dark photon mass origin is unspecified but treated as a given input.
    Sec. 2.3: 'We leave the origin of the dark photon mass unspecified.'
  • ad hoc to paper Non-calculable form factors (b_n, μ_n) are estimated dimensionally as ~e_d/Λ² and ~e_d/(2m_n).
    Sec. 4.1: Charge radius and magnetic moment are not computed but estimated on dimensional grounds, introducing O(1) uncertainties.
invented entities (4)
  • Dark neutron independent evidence
    purpose: Composite baryonic DM candidate
    Falsifiable via direct detection recoil spectra and self-interaction constraints; predicted EDM coupling is calculable.
  • Dark pion (π0, π±) independent evidence
    purpose: Light mediator of DM self-interactions
    Pseudo-Goldstone boson whose existence follows from the assumed chiral symmetry breaking; mass and couplings are constrained by the framework.
  • Dark photon (V) independent evidence
    purpose: Portal between dark and visible sectors
    Well-studied in the literature; constrained by beam-dump experiments and direct detection.
  • Dark topological angle θ independent evidence
    purpose: Source of CP violation controlling both self-interactions and EDM
    Parameter of the dark sector; its phenomenological effects are predicted and testable, though its value is not independently determined.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Neutrons as Dark Matter: Collisions in Halos and Direct Detection from Dark CP Violation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6MPLFQ6H

@misc{pith2026260707406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Neutrons as Dark Matter: Collisions in Halos and Direct Detection from Dark CP Violation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6MPLFQ6H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07406}
}
abstract

We consider confining gauge theories with a non-vanishing topological angle $\theta$, which induces CP-violating interactions among dark pions and dark baryons, with dark matter consisting of dark neutrons. The $\theta$ term generates scalar pion--baryon couplings analogous to the CP-violating pion--nucleon interactions of QCD. These interactions give rise to an attractive long-range Yukawa potential mediated by the dark pions, whose strength is proportional to $\theta$. Since the dark pions are naturally light pseudo-Goldstone bosons, the resulting force can lead to sizable dark matter self-interactions, providing a simple and theoretically motivated realization of the self-interacting dark matter paradigm. We also investigate the implications for direct detection in scenarios where the dark sector communicates with the Standard Model through a dark photon portal. The $\theta$ term induces dark electric dipole moments proportional to $\theta$, which couple directly to the electric fields of nuclei and can substantially enhance direct detection rates. We show how the underlying interactions shape the recoil spectra and discuss the possibility of identifying the CP-violating origin of the signal through its time dependence. Finally, we analyze the interplay between dark matter self-interactions and direct detection signals, showing that both are controlled by the same CP-violating parameter. Our results demonstrate that the topological angle $\theta$ can play a central role in determining the phenomenology of composite dark matter.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 105 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dark Matter

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and J. Zupan, Dark Matter,2406.01705

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [2]

    Rich Phenomenology from Simple Ingredients: A Review of Confining Dark Sectors

    P. Asadi, A. Batz and G.D. Kribs, Rich Phenomenology from Simple Ingredients: A Review of Confining Dark Sectors,2606.30760

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    SIMP Spectroscopy

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik and H. Murayama, SIMP Spectroscopy, JHEP05(2016) 090 [1512.07917]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Elastically Decoupling Dark Matter

    E. Kuflik, M. Perelstein, N.R.-L. Lorier and Y.-D. Tsai, Elastically Decoupling Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 221302 [1512.04545]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    WIMP and SIMP Dark Matter from the Spontaneous Breaking of a Global Group

    N. Bernal, C. Garcia-Cely and R. Rosenfeld, WIMP and SIMP Dark Matter from the Spontaneous Breaking of a Global Group, JCAP04(2015) 012 [1501.01973]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    $Z_2$ SIMP Dark Matter

    N. Bernal and X. Chu,Z 2 SIMP Dark Matter, JCAP01(2016) 006 [1510.08527]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Production Regimes for Self-Interacting Dark Matter

    N. Bernal, X. Chu, C. Garcia-Cely, T. Hambye and B. Zaldivar, Production Regimes for Self-Interacting Dark Matter, JCAP03(2016) 018 [1510.08063]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    SIMP dark matter with gauged $Z_3$ symmetry

    S.-M. Choi and H.M. Lee, SIMP dark matter with gauged Z 3 symmetry, JHEP09(2015) 063 [1505.00960]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    Choi and H.M

    S.-M. Choi and H.M. Lee, Resonant SIMP dark matter, Phys. Lett. B758(2016) 47 [1601.03566]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Soni and Y

    A. Soni and Y. Zhang, Hidden SU(N) Glueball Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 115025 [1602.00714]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kamada, M

    A. Kamada, M. Yamada, T.T. Yanagida and K. Yonekura, SIMP from a strong U(1) gauge theory with a monopole condensation, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 055035 [1606.01628]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Bernal, X

    N. Bernal, X. Chu and J. Pradler, Simply split strongly interacting massive particles, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 115023 [1702.04906]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cline, H

    J.M. Cline, H. Liu, T. Slatyer and W. Xue, Enabling Forbidden Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 96(2017) 083521 [1702.07716]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Choi, H.M

    S.-M. Choi, H.M. Lee and M.-S. Seo, Cosmic abundances of SIMP dark matter, JHEP04 (2017) 154 [1702.07860]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kuflik, M

    E. Kuflik, M. Perelstein, N.R.-L. Lorier and Y.-D. Tsai, Phenomenology of ELDER Dark Matter, JHEP08(2017) 078 [1706.05381]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Heikinheimo, K

    M. Heikinheimo, K. Tuominen and K. Langæble, Hidden strongly interacting massive particles, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 095040 [1803.07518]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Choi, H.M

    S.-M. Choi, H.M. Lee, P. Ko and A. Natale, Resolving phenomenological problems with strongly-interacting-massive-particle models with dark vector resonances, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 015034 [1801.07726]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, R. Mcgehee, H. Murayama and K. Schutz, Strongly interacting massive particles through the axion portal, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 115031 [1806.10139]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bernal, X

    N. Bernal, X. Chu, S. Kulkarni and J. Pradler, Self-interacting dark matter without prejudice, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 055044 [1912.06681]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Choi, H.M

    S.-M. Choi, H.M. Lee, Y. Mambrini and M. Pierre, Vector SIMP dark matter with approximate custodial symmetry, JHEP07(2019) 049 [1904.04109]. – 31 –

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. Katz, E. Salvioni and B. Shakya, Split SIMPs with Decays, JHEP10(2020) 049 [2006.15148]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Smirnov and J.F

    J. Smirnov and J.F. Beacom, New Freezeout Mechanism for Strongly Interacting Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 131301 [2002.04038]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Xing and S.-H

    C.-Y. Xing and S.-H. Zhu, Dark Matter Freeze-Out via Catalyzed Annihilation, Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 061101 [2102.02447]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Braat and M

    P. Braat and M. Postma, SIMPly add a dark photon, JHEP03(2023) 216 [2301.04513]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bernreuther, N

    E. Bernreuther, N. Hemme, F. Kahlhoefer and S. Kulkarni, Dark matter relic density in strongly interacting dark sectors with light vector mesons,2311.17157

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Garani, M

    R. Garani, M. Redi and A. Tesi, Dark QCD matters, JHEP12(2021) 139 [2105.03429]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Fiorentino, J.-H

    V. Fiorentino, J.-H. Guo, G. Landini and F. Mescia, Axionlike electrophilic portal for pion dark matter, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 095015 [2602.02678]

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Crewther, P

    R.J. Crewther, P. Di Vecchia, G. Veneziano and E. Witten, Chiral Estimate of the Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron in Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Lett. B88(1979) 123

    1979

  21. [29]

    Baluni, CP Violating Effects in QCD, Phys

    V. Baluni, CP Violating Effects in QCD, Phys. Rev. D19(1979) 2227

    1979

  22. [30]

    Pich, Chiral perturbation theory, Rept

    A. Pich, Chiral perturbation theory, Rept. Prog. Phys.58(1995) 563 [hep-ph/9502366]

    1995 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Shifman, A.I

    M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov, Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions?, Nucl. Phys. B166(1980) 493

    1980

  24. [32]

    Kamada, H

    A. Kamada, H. Kim and T. Sekiguchi, Axionlike particle assisted strongly interacting massive particle, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 016007 [1704.04505]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Garcia-Cely, G

    C. Garcia-Cely, G. Landini and ´O. Zapata, Dark matter in QCD-like theories with a theta vacuum: Cosmological and astrophysical implications, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 063044 [2405.10367]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Garcia-Cely, G

    C. Garcia-Cely, G. Landini, L. Marsili and O. Zapata, Pion dark matter in aθvacuum: a thermal relic with sharp velocity-dependent self-interactions,2508.21121

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kahlhoefer, K

    F. Kahlhoefer, K. Schmidt-Hoberg and S. Wild, Dark matter self-interactions from a general spin-0 mediator, JCAP08(2017) 003 [1704.02149]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Agrawal, A

    P. Agrawal, A. Parikh and M. Reece, Systematizing the Effective Theory of Self-Interacting Dark Matter, JHEP10(2020) 191 [2003.00021]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Spergel and P.J

    D.N. Spergel and P.J. Steinhardt, Observational evidence for selfinteracting cold dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.84(2000) 3760 [astro-ph/9909386]

    2000 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Tulin and H.-B

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure, Phys. Rept.730(2018) 1 [1705.02358]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Adhikari et al., Astrophysical tests of dark matter self-interactions, Rev

    S. Adhikari et al., Astrophysical tests of dark matter self-interactions, Rev. Mod. Phys.97 (2025) 045004 [2207.10638]

    2025

  32. [40]

    Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys

    B. Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys. Lett. B166(1986) 196

    1986

  33. [41]

    Antipin, M

    O. Antipin, M. Redi, A. Strumia and E. Vigiani, Accidental Composite Dark Matter, JHEP 07(2015) 039 [1503.08749]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Contino, The Higgs as a Composite Nambu-Goldstone Boson, in Theoretical Advanced – 32 – Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small, pp

    R. Contino, The Higgs as a Composite Nambu-Goldstone Boson, in Theoretical Advanced – 32 – Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small, pp. 235–306, 2011, DOI [1005.4269]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Balkin, M

    R. Balkin, M. Ruhdorfer, E. Salvioni and A. Weiler, Dark matter shifts away from direct detection, JCAP11(2018) 050 [1809.09106]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Marocco and S

    G. Marocco and S. Sarkar, Blast from the past: Constraints on the dark sector from the BEBC WA66 beam dump experiment, SciPost Phys.10(2021) 043 [2011.08153]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Barouki, G

    R. Barouki, G. Marocco and S. Sarkar, Blast from the past II: Constraints on heavy neutral leptons from the BEBC WA66 beam dump experiment, SciPost Phys.13(2022) 118 [2208.00416]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Boiarska, A

    I. Boiarska, A. Boyarsky, O. Mikulenko and M. Ovchynnikov, Constraints from the CHARM experiment on heavy neutral leptons with tau mixing, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 095019 [2107.14685]. [47]NA62collaboration, Search for dark photon decays toµ +µ− at NA62, JHEP09(2023) 035 [2303.08...

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Blumlein et al., Limits on neutral light scalar and pseudoscalar particles in a proton beam dump experiment, Z

    J. Blumlein et al., Limits on neutral light scalar and pseudoscalar particles in a proton beam dump experiment, Z. Phys. C51(1991) 341

    1991

  40. [48]

    Yang and H.-B

    D. Yang and H.-B. Yu, Gravothermal evolution of dark matter halos with differential elastic scattering, JCAP09(2022) 077 [2205.03392]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Petraki and R.R

    K. Petraki and R.R. Volkas, Review of asymmetric dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28 (2013) 1330028 [1305.4939]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Petraki, M

    K. Petraki, M. Postma and J. de Vries, Radiative bound-state-formation cross-sections for dark matter interacting via a Yukawa potential, JHEP04(2017) 077 [1611.01394]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Mott, The Collision between Two Electrons, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A126(1930) 259

    N.F. Mott, The Collision between Two Electrons, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A126(1930) 259

    1930

  44. [52]

    Landau and E.M

    L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshits, Quantum Mechanics, vol. v.3 of Course of Theoretical Physics, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (1991)

    1991

  45. [53]

    X. Chu, C. Garcia-Cely and H. Murayama, A Practical and Consistent Parametrization of Dark Matter Self-Interactions, JCAP06(2020) 043 [1908.06067]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Tulin, H.-B

    S. Tulin, H.-B. Yu and K.M. Zurek, Beyond Collisionless Dark Matter: Particle Physics Dynamics for Dark Matter Halo Structure, Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 115007 [1302.3898]

    2013 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Colquhoun, S

    B. Colquhoun, S. Heeba, F. Kahlhoefer, L. Sagunski and S. Tulin, Semiclassical regime for dark matter self-interactions, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 035006 [2011.04679]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Navarro, C.S

    J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White, The Structure of cold dark matter halos, Astrophys. J.462(1996) 563 [astro-ph/9508025]

    1996 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Navarro, C.S

    J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White, A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering, Astrophys. J.490(1997) 493 [astro-ph/9611107]

    1997 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Harvey, R

    D. Harvey, R. Massey, T. Kitching, A. Taylor and E. Tittley, The non-gravitational interactions of dark matter in colliding galaxy clusters, Science347(2015) 1462 [1503.07675]. – 33 –

    2015 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bondarenko, A

    K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, T. Bringmann and A. Sokolenko, Constraining self-interacting dark matter with scaling laws of observed halo surface densities, JCAP04(2018) 049 [1712.06602]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Harvey, A

    D. Harvey, A. Robertson, R. Massey and I.G. McCarthy, Observable tests of self-interacting dark matter in galaxy clusters: BCG wobbles in a constant density core, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.488(2019) 1572 [1812.06981]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Sagunski, S

    L. Sagunski, S. Gad-Nasr, B. Colquhoun, A. Robertson and S. Tulin, Velocity-dependent Self-interacting Dark Matter from Groups and Clusters of Galaxies, JCAP01(2021) 024 [2006.12515]. [64]DEScollaboration, Examining the self-interaction of dark matter through central cluster g...

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Yu, Core-Collapsed SIDM Halos as the Common Origin of Dense Perturbers in Lenses, Streams, and Satellites, Phys

    H.-B. Yu, Core-Collapsed SIDM Halos as the Common Origin of Dense Perturbers in Lenses, Streams, and Satellites, Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) 141001 [2510.11006]

    2026

  55. [63]

    Vegetti, S.D.M

    S. Vegetti, S.D.M. White, J.P. McKean, D.M. Powell, C. Spingola, D. Massari et al., A possible challenge for cold and warm dark matter, Nature Astron.10(2026) 440 [2601.02466]

    2026

  56. [64]

    Little Dark Dot

    S. Li et al., The “Little Dark Dot”: Evidence for Self-interacting Dark Matter in the Strong Lens SDSS J0946+1006?, Astrophys. J.994(2025) 201 [2504.11800]

    2025

  57. [65]

    Bethe, Theory of the Effective Range in Nuclear Scattering, Phys

    H.A. Bethe, Theory of the Effective Range in Nuclear Scattering, Phys. Rev.76(1949) 38

    1949

  58. [66]

    Cline and C

    J.M. Cline and C. Perron, Self-interacting dark baryons, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 083514 [2204.00033]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Sigurdson, M

    K. Sigurdson, M. Doran, A. Kurylov, R.R. Caldwell and M. Kamionkowski, Dark-matter electric and magnetic dipole moments, Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 083501 [astro-ph/0406355]

    2004 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Okawa, M

    S. Okawa, M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Electric Dipole Moments From Dark Sectors, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 075017 [1905.05219]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Barger, W.-Y

    V. Barger, W.-Y. Keung and D. Marfatia, Electromagnetic properties of dark matter: Dipole moments and charge form factor, Phys. Lett. B696(2011) 74 [1007.4345]

    2011 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Banks, J.-F

    T. Banks, J.-F. Fortin and S. Thomas, Direct Detection of Dark Matter Electromagnetic Dipole Moments,1007.5515

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Del Nobile, G.B

    E. Del Nobile, G.B. Gelmini, P. Gondolo and J.-H. Huh, Direct detection of Light Anapole and Magnetic Dipole DM, JCAP06(2014) 002 [1401.4508]

    2014 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Hambye and X.-J

    T. Hambye and X.-J. Xu, Dark matter electromagnetic dipoles: the WIMP expectation, JHEP11(2021) 156 [2106.01403]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Kuwahara, J.-C

    T. Kuwahara, J.-C. Wang and S.-R. Yuan, Direct Detection and Cosmological Constraints of Dark Matter with Dark Dipoles,2602.06861

  66. [74]

    Weinberg, The Quantum theory of fields

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum theory of fields. Vol. 1: Foundations, Cambridge University Press (6, 2005), 10.1017/CBO9781139644167

    2005 doi

  67. [75]

    Kubis and U.-G

    B. Kubis and U.-G. Meissner, Low-energy analysis of the nucleon electromagnetic form-factors, Nucl. Phys. A679(2001) 698 [hep-ph/0007056]

    2001 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Scherer and M.R

    S. Scherer and M.R. Schindler, A Chiral perturbation theory primer,hep-ph/0505265. – 34 –

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    Jenkins, M.E

    E.E. Jenkins, M.E. Luke, A.V. Manohar and M.J. Savage, Chiral perturbation theory analysis of the baryon magnetic moments, Phys. Lett. B302(1993) 482 [hep-ph/9212226]

    1993 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Durand and P

    L. Durand and P. Ha, Chiral perturbation theory analysis of the baryon magnetic moments revisited, Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 013010 [hep-ph/9712492]

    1998 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Pich and E

    A. Pich and E. de Rafael, Strong CP violation in an effective chiral Lagrangian approach, Nucl. Phys. B367(1991) 313

    1991

  72. [80]

    Maekawa and U

    C.M. Maekawa and U. van Kolck, The Anapole form-factor of the nucleon, Phys. Lett. B 478(2000) 73 [hep-ph/0006161]

    2000 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Fitzpatrick, W

    A.L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers and Y. Xu, The Effective Field Theory of Dark Matter Direct Detection, JCAP02(2013) 004 [1203.3542]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Anand, A.L

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

    2014 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Ibarra, M

    A. Ibarra, M. Reichard and G. Tomar, Probing dark matter electromagnetic properties in direct detection experiments, JCAP02(2025) 072 [2408.15760]

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Jeong, S

    I. Jeong, S. Kang, S. Scopel and G. Tomar, WimPyDD: An object–oriented Python code for the calculation of WIMP direct detection signals, Comput. Phys. Commun.276(2022) 108342 [2106.06207]. [88]LZcollaboration, Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the ...

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Del Nobile, Direct detection signals of dark matter with magnetic dipole moment, PoS EPS-HEP2017(2017) 626 [1709.08700]

    E. Del Nobile, Direct detection signals of dark matter with magnetic dipole moment, PoS EPS-HEP2017(2017) 626 [1709.08700]

    2017 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Kyselov and M

    Y. Kyselov and M. Ovchynnikov, Searches for long-lived dark photons at proton accelerator experiments, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 015030 [2409.11096]

    2025 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Caputo and R

    A. Caputo and R. Essig, The Dark Photon: a 2026 Perspective,2603.08430

    2026 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Del Nobile, G.B

    E. Del Nobile, G.B. Gelmini and S.J. Witte, Target dependence of the annual modulation in direct dark matter searches, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 121302 [1504.06772]

    2015 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Del Nobile, G.B

    E. Del Nobile, G.B. Gelmini and S.J. Witte, Prospects for detection of target-dependent annual modulation in direct dark matter searches, JCAP02(2016) 009 [1512.03961]

    2016 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Witte, V

    S.J. Witte, V. Gluscevic and S.D. McDermott, Prospects for Distinguishing Dark Matter Models Using Annual Modulation, JCAP02(2017) 044 [1612.07808]

    2017 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Freese, M

    K. Freese, M. Lisanti and C. Savage, Colloquium: Annual modulation of dark matter, Rev. Mod. Phys.85(2013) 1561 [1209.3339]

    2013 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Froborg and A.R

    F. Froborg and A.R. Duffy, Annual modulation in direct dark matter searches,2003.04545

    2003 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Kahlhoefer, Annual modulation of dark matter signals: Experimental status, SciPost Phys

    F. Kahlhoefer, Annual modulation of dark matter signals: Experimental status, SciPost Phys. Proc.12(2023) 004

    2023

  86. [94]

    Lewis and K

    M.J. Lewis and K. Freese, The Phase of the annual modulation: Constraining the WIMP mass, Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 043501 [astro-ph/0307190]

    2004 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Baudis, DARWIN/XLZD: A future xenon observatory for dark matter and other rare interactions, Nucl

    L. Baudis, DARWIN/XLZD: A future xenon observatory for dark matter and other rare interactions, Nucl. Phys. B1003(2024) 116473 [2404.19524]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    O’Hare, New Definition of the Neutrino Floor for Direct Dark Matter Searches, Phys

    C.A.J. O’Hare, New Definition of the Neutrino Floor for Direct Dark Matter Searches, Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 251802 [2109.03116]. – 35 –

    2021 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Zhuang, L.E

    Y. Zhuang, L.E. Strigari, L. Jin and S. Sinha, Prospects for measuring the time variation of astrophysical neutrino sources at dark matter detectors, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 043037 [2402.18454]. [102]PandaXcollaboration, First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos through Coherent El...

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Scherer, Introduction to chiral perturbation theory, Adv

    S. Scherer, Introduction to chiral perturbation theory, Adv. Nucl. Phys.27(2003) 277 [hep-ph/0210398]

    2003 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Kamada, S

    A. Kamada, S. Kobayashi and T. Kuwahara, Perturbative unitarity of strongly interacting massive particle models, JHEP02(2023) 217 [2210.01393]

    2023 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Wess and B

    J. Wess and B. Zumino, Consequences of anomalous Ward identities, Phys. Lett. B37 (1971) 95

    1971

  93. [101]

    Witten, Global Aspects of Current Algebra, Nucl

    E. Witten, Global Aspects of Current Algebra, Nucl. Phys. B223(1983) 422

    1983

  94. [102]

    Vafa and E

    C. Vafa and E. Witten, Restrictions on Symmetry Breaking in Vector-Like Gauge Theories, Nucl. Phys. B234(1984) 173

    1984

  95. [103]

    Morrison, S

    L. Morrison, S. Profumo and D.J. Robinson, LargeN-ightmare Dark Matter, JCAP05 (2021) 058 [2010.03586]

    2021 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Berbig, J

    M. Berbig, J. Herrero-Garcia and G. Landini, Dynamical origin of neutrino masses and dark matter from a new confining sector, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 035011 [2403.17488]

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Hambye and L

    T. Hambye and L. Vanderheyden, Minimal self-interacting dark matter models with light mediator, JCAP05(2020) 001 [1912.11708]. – 36 –

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.