Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

In-flight positron annihilation as a probe of feebly interacting particles

T0 review · 1 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In-flight annihilation of supernova positrons gives the strongest astrophysical bounds on the electron couplings of heavy axion-like particles, sterile neutrinos, and dark photons, improving previous limits by one to two orders of…

desk verdict Extends the in-flight annihilation probe to ALPs, dark photons, and sterile neutrinos with full supernova production spectra, but the IA normalization anchored to the model's own 511 keV prediction leaves the headline limits hostage to that anchor. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07725 v2 pith:B7PA3ITJ submitted 2025-01-13 hep-ph astro-ph.HEhep-th

Shyam Balaji , Pierluca Carenza , Pedro De la Torre Luque , Alessandro Lella , Leonardo Mastrototaro This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEhep-th
keywords in-flightpositronannihilationfeeblyinteractingparticlesaxion-likesterileneutrinosdarkphotonssupernovapositrons511keVlinegamma-raybounds
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

Core-collapse supernovae can emit feebly interacting particles (FIPs) heavy enough to decay into electron-positron pairs, and this paper argues that the sharpest trace of those positrons is the gamma-ray continuum they produce while annihilating in flight, not the classic 511 keV line. The paper computes this in-flight annihilation (IA) signal for axion-like particles, sterile neutrinos, and dark photons, propagates the injected positrons through the Galaxy, and compares the predicted gamma rays with COMPTEL and EGRET measurements of the Galactic plane. Its central claim is that the IA signal sets the most restrictive astrophysical limits on the electron couplings of these particles, excluding couplings one to two orders of magnitude beyond previous bounds depending on the model. A sympathetic reader would care because those couplings are otherwise very hard to probe: the IA gamma-ray bump sits at tens of MeV, where the astrophysical background is low and the annihilation cross section is large.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the in-flight annihilation spectrum of relativistic positrons on interstellar electrons. Its energy dependence is set by the injected positron spectrum from FIP decay, the energy losses during Galactic propagation, and the Dirac annihilation cross section; its normalization is anchored by the model's own 511 keV line emission in the same sky region, following a strategy in which the continuum is obtained from the measured para-positronium to IA ratio at 511 keV. This anchoring means the IA signal is not an independent flux: it inherits whatever errors affect the propagated positron number, the thermalization fraction, and the positronium fraction, and it scales linearly with those quantities.

What would settle it

Measure the diffuse gamma-ray spectrum in the $|l|<60^\circ$, $|b|<10^\circ$ region with sensitivity in the few-MeV to 100 MeV band: a detected bump matching the IA shape at the level predicted for couplings just above the quoted limits would falsify the exclusions, while an independent determination of the 511 keV disk flux a factor of two below the adopted anchor would rescale every limit upward by the same factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim, stated on its own terms, is that in-flight positron annihilation from FIP decays in Galactic supernovae is the dominant secondary gamma-ray signal and the best available astrophysical probe of FIP-electron couplings. Normalizing the continuum to the 511 keV line in the same region of interest, the authors derive 2-$\sigma$ exclusion limits: for nucleon-coupled ALPs with $g_{ap}=2\times10^{-11}$, electron couplings $g_{ae}\gtrsim 10^{-17}$ are excluded for $10\,\mathrm{MeV}\lesssim m_a\lesssim100\,\mathrm{MeV}$ (with resonant structure around 135 and 147 MeV); for sterile neutrinos mixed with muon or tau neutrinos, $|U_{\mu 4}|^2\gtrsim4\times10^{-14}$ and $|U_{\tau 4}|^2\gtrsim6\times10^{-14}$ are excluded for masses between 10 and 150 MeV; and for dark photons, $\epsilon\gtrsim7\times10^{-14}$ is excluded with a fixed background model, or $\epsilon\gtrsim6\times10^{-13}$ without any background, for masses between 5 and 50 MeV. These bounds are claimed to strengthen existing limits by one to two orders of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The IA signal's absolute size is fixed by the model's own 511 keV line emission in the same sky region, so any error in the propagated positron number, the thermalization fraction, or the positronium fraction shifts the IA spectrum and all derived limits by the same factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the IA gamma-ray continuum replaces the 511 keV line as the most constraining astrophysical observable for electron couplings of MeV-scale FIPs produced in supernovae.
  • Nucleon-coupled ALPs in the 10-100 MeV mass range with $g_{ae}$ above about $10^{-17}$ would be excluded (for $g_{ap}=2\times10^{-11}$), with the limits relaxing near the 135 MeV photon-decay resonance and tightening near 147 MeV.
  • Sterile neutrinos mixed with muon or tau neutrinos would be excluded for $|U_{\alpha 4}|^2$ above roughly $4\times10^{-14}$ (muon) or $6\times10^{-14}$ (tau) across 10-150 MeV.
  • Dark photons in the 5-50 MeV range would be excluded for kinetic mixing $\epsilon$ above about $7\times10^{-14}$ with a fixed background, complementing cosmological and SN 1987A constraints.
  • In every background model considered, the COMPTEL data require no IA signal on top of the background, so the bounds are purely exclusion limits rather than evidence for new physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A future MeV gamma-ray telescope with better angular resolution and lower backgrounds should sharpen these limits substantially, and could convert the current null into a detection if the true coupling lies just below the COMPTEL bound.
  • Because the IA normalization is inherited from the 511 keV line, improving the modeling of the Galactic disk's 511 keV emission would directly strengthen all three sets of limits without any new gamma-ray data.
  • The same IA method applies to any steady Galactic source of energetic positrons, including dark-matter decay or neutron-star merger remnants, so the framework is broader than supernova-produced FIPs.
  • The spectral shape difference (dark-photon IA peaking near 20-30 MeV, axion IA near 60 MeV) gives a potential diagnostic for identifying which particle produces a future signal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The paper's claim, stated on its own terms, is that in-flight positron annihilation from FIP decays in Galactic supernovae is the dominant secondary gamma-ray signal and the best available astrophysical probe of FIP-electron couplings. Normalizing the continuum to the 511 keV line in the same region of interest, the authors derive 2-$\sigma$ exclusion limits: for nucleon-coupled ALPs with $g_{ap}=

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

1 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper computes the diffuse gamma-ray signal from in-flight annihilation (IA) of positrons produced by decays of feebly interacting particles (FIPs) emitted by Galactic core-collapse supernovae, and uses it to constrain ALPs coupled to electrons (and separately to nucleons plus electrons), sterile neutrinos mixed with muon or tau neutrinos, and dark photons kinetically mixed with the photon. FIP production spectra are computed for the Garching SFHo-s18.8 SN model; the injected e± are propagated with a customized DRAGON2 setup; and the IA continuum is normalized, following the Beacom-Yuksel approach, to the model's own integrated 511 keV line emission in the region |l| < 60°, |b| < 10°. Two-sigma coupling limits are derived from COMPTEL data under four background treatments (none, power-law, reference model fixed, reference model with free normalization), with propagation uncertainties bracketed by extreme halo-height and Alfven-velocity scenarios. The headline exclusions are gae ≲ 10^-17 for 10-100 MeV nucleon-plus-electron-coupled ALPs at gap = 2×10^-11, |U_μ4|^2 ≲ 4×10^-14 and |U_τ4|^2 ≲ 6×10^-14 for sterile neutrinos, and ε ≳ 7×10^-14 for dark photons (fixed background), claimed to improve previous astrophysical bounds by one to two orders of magnitude.

Significance. If the absolute IA normalization holds, the paper demonstrates a genuinely more powerful astrophysical probe of FIP-electron couplings than the 511 keV line or the previously used IC and bremsstrahlung channels: the IA continuum peaks at tens of MeV where the diffuse gamma-ray background is low, and the three FIP models are computed from explicit production spectra rather than a generic parametrization. Strengths include the use of a modern SN model, the full DRAGON2 propagation treatment, a transparent menu of background and propagation scenarios, conservative choices (coldest SN profile, no-background limits), and falsifiable MeV-range predictions that next-generation telescopes can test. The main correctness risk is that the IA normalization is anchored to the same pipeline that predicts the 511 keV line, so the absolute exclusions inherit unquantified systematics; the relative claim that IA is the strongest positron channel is robust to this risk, while the absolute numbers are not. The authors also deserve credit for displaying the full spread between the most and least conservative analyses.

major comments (1)
  1. [III (gamma-ray signals section)] The absolute normalization of the IA signal is fixed by the model's own integrated 511 keV line emission in the same region of interest, since the text states that 'the normalization is fixed by the 511 keV emission in that region of interest' and that 511 keV emission is itself a prediction of the same pipeline (same FIP injection spectra, same DRAGON2 propagation, same thermalization and positronium assumptions). A systematic error in the propagated positron yield, thermalization fraction, or positronium fraction therefore enters the IA spectrum and the 511 keV anchor coherently, and comparing the IA signal to COMPTEL data does not cancel this common mode. The paper does not present a direct IA calculation from the steady-state positron distribution that would validate the anchored normalization, nor does it propagate anchor systematics into the limits of Fig. 9; the IA method is only described by reference to Eq. (2) of the companion work [24]. Since the headline couplings scale with a fractional power of the IA flux (flux ∝ gae^2 and ∝ |U_alpha4|^4 in the cases shown in Fig. 9), an unquantified factor-2-3 anchor error shifts the quoted exclusions by factors of order 1.2-1.7. I request either (a) a direct first-principles computation of the IA flux from the propagated positron spectra that reproduces the anchored normalization, or (b) a systematic band associated with the anchor (positronium fraction, thermalization time, free-electron density) added to the limits.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] The statement that bounds are derived 'using data from COMPTEL and EGRET' is inaccurate because Section III explains that EGRET data are used only for illustrative purposes and that all constraints are derived from COMPTEL; please rephrase and fix the typo 'strenghten' in the same paragraph.
  2. [II (after Eq. (6))] The sentence following Eq. (6) reads 'where where E−,+ and f−,+ are the electron and positron energies and distribution functions'; the duplicated 'where' should be removed, and the positron distribution function f+ should be defined explicitly since it is not introduced before this equation.
  3. [II (sterile neutrinos)] The decay channels producing the e± pairs (presumably ν4 → νℓ e+e−) and the positron injection spectra used in Eq. (21) are not described; since the sterile neutrino limits are headline results, the decay mode, branching ratios, and how the three-body final state is mapped onto the Ea = xi Epos prescription of Eq. (21) should be stated in the text rather than referenced only to Refs. [15, 24].
  4. [Abstract and Section IV] The headline numbers (e.g., ε ≳ 7×10^-14 for DPs, gae ≲ 10^-17 for ALPs) correspond to the analysis with the reference fixed background, while the no-background analysis gives limits up to an order of magnitude weaker; the abstract should state this dependence explicitly so that the claimed 'one to two orders of magnitude' improvement is not read as background-independent.
  5. [III (Eq. (24) discussion)] The text says the propagation accounts for 'diffusion-reacceleration-advection-loss effects,' but Eq. (24) displays no advection term; please clarify whether advection is neglected for sub-GeV positrons and explain the justification.
  6. [III (propagation setup)] The e± injection tables are stated to be available 'upon request'; depositing them in a permanent public repository would improve reproducibility, particularly because the IA normalization is otherwise recoverable only from the companion work [24].
  7. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'This underscores the important of IA at "higher" masses' should read 'the importance of IA'.
  8. [II (Eq. (21) discussion)] The FIP emission-time interval written as 'i.e. 1 − 10 s' should be '1–10 s' (en dash), since '1 − 10 s' is ambiguous.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

IA normalization anchored to the model's own 511 keV flux; no fully circular reduction, but headline limits inherit 511 keV systematics.

  1. self definitional [Section III, 'γ-ray signals' (IA calculation paragraph)]
    "This strategy consists of first evaluating the integrated 511 keV line emission in a region of interest and then computing the continuum IA flux via the measured ratio of the para-positronium emission to IA emission at 511 keV. ... while the normalization is fixed by the 511 keV emission in that region of interest."

    The IA continuum's absolute normalization is not independently predicted; it is set by the model's own integrated 511 keV line emission in the same ROI. That 511 keV emission is itself computed from the same propagated positron population and the same thermalization/positronium assumptions (as described in the preceding paragraph of Section III). Therefore the IA flux is, by construction, a rescaling of the same positron model rather than an independent observable: any systematic error in the injected positron number, energy-loss rate, or positronium fraction enters both the 511 keV anchor and the IA spectrum identically.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the strong sense: FIP production spectra (Eqs. 4, 6, 14), positron injection (Eq. 21), and DRAGON2 propagation (Eq. 24) are computed from standard physics inputs, and the IA spectrum is then compared with external COMPTEL data to obtain 2-sigma coupling limits, with no fitted constant renamed as a prediction. The one structural dependency is the IA normalization, which is fixed by the integrated 511 keV line emission of the same FIP positrons in the same ROI (Section III, 'γ-ray signals'). This creates a shared-systematics limitation: IA and 511 keV share the propagated positron number, thermalization time, and positronium fraction, so a bias in the 511 keV anchor propagates directly into the headline limits. It is not a circular reduction of the central claim, because the 511 keV anchor is a model output rather than a fit parameter, and the final constraints are obtained against COMPTEL data, not against the 511 keV line. The IA spectral shape is independently derived from Dirac cross sections and the positron energy-loss rate. Self-citations to Refs. [24, 26, 44, 94, 111, 112, 118, 119] are frequent; the IA method is imported from the same-author companion paper [24], but it originates from the external Beacom-Yuksel strategy [115], and the benchmark nucleon coupling gap = 2e-11 is taken from the published constraint in Ref. [44]. These citations are methodological continuity rather than load-bearing circularity. Overall, the paper is externally benchmarked against COMPTEL data, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constraints depend on the choice of SN model, the propagation setup, the IA-to-511 keV normalization, and the background model. The physical couplings are the fitted parameters; the IA normalization is not fitted to the target data but anchored to the same model's 511 keV emission.

free parameters (7)
  • ALP-electron coupling gae = upper limit ≈ 1e-17 for ma 10-100 MeV with gap=2e-11 and fixed background
    Parameter of interest in the fit to COMPTEL data; the headline ALP limit is quoted as gae ≲ 1e-17.
  • ALP-nucleon coupling gap = fixed to 2×10^-11
    Chosen as the maximum value allowed by astrophysical constraints from Ref. [44]; production spectrum and IA signal depend on it.
  • Dark photon kinetic mixing epsilon = excluded above ≈7×10^-14 with fixed background, ≈6×10^-13 without background for 5-50 MeV
    Parameter of interest fitted to COMPTEL data for dark photon IA signals.
  • Sterile neutrino mixing |Ualpha4|^2 = excluded above ≈4×10^-14 (mu) and ≈6×10^-14 (tau) for 10-150 MeV
    Parameter of interest fitted to data; quoted as the strongest sterile neutrino constraints in this mass range.
  • Propagation halo height H and Alfven velocity VA = benchmark H=8 kpc, VA=13.4 km/s; conservative H=3 kpc, VA=0; aggressive H=16 kpc, VA=40 km/s
    Extreme propagation scenarios chosen by hand to bracket systematic uncertainty; they change the limits by a factor of a few.
  • Background normalization and spectral index in power-law fit = Nγ ≈ 1.06e4 (scaled units), α ≈ 1.80 in the 30 MeV sterile neutrino example
    Nuisance parameters fitted jointly with the FIP coupling in the MCMC analysis; freeing the background normalization weakens the limits.
  • Generic FIP spectral parameters E0 and beta = used only for illustrative generic FIP curve in Fig 6
    Eq. (1) parameters for a model-independent parameterization; not used for the final model-specific limits.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption The SFHo-s18.8 1D supernova model with 18.8 solar masses and a 1.35 solar mass neutron star provides a conservative FIP emission environment.
    Used for all FIP production spectra; the authors note it is the coldest PNS profile in the Garching archive, but FIP fluxes depend on core temperature and density profiles.
  • domain assumption FIPs are produced in the free-streaming regime with negligible back-reaction on the SN profile.
    Assumed couplings are small enough that FIP emission does not alter the SN model; standard in this literature but load-bearing for using a fixed SN profile.
  • domain assumption The e± propagation is described by the DRAGON2 diffusion-reacceleration equation with parameters adjusted to CR data.
    Eq. (24) and the chosen spatial and energy diffusion setup determine the steady-state positron population, and hence both the 511 keV anchor and the IA flux.
  • domain assumption The IA flux normalization is fixed by the model's integrated 511 keV line emission in the ROI, using the Beacom-Yuksel ratio of para-positronium to IA emission.
    Section III; the paper adopts this from Ref. [115] and its own Ref. [24]. This is the main normative assumption for the absolute IA signal strength.
  • domain assumption The COMPTEL data in the ROI |l|<60 degrees, |b|<10 degrees are a valid tracer of the diffuse Galactic gamma-ray background, and EGRET data are unreliable for constraints due to unresolved sources.
    Section III; the choice of ROI is inherited from Ref. [24] and directly determines the limits.
  • domain assumption The electron model of Refs. [118,119] reproduces the gamma-ray background down to 100 keV and is used as the reference background.
    The 'fixed bkg' limits, which are the strongest, assume this background model is correct; the paper also provides no-background and free-normalization variants.
  • domain assumption For ALPs, the QCD-induced photon coupling with cg=1, cd=0 and the branching ratios in Eq. (11) govern the decay competition.
    The ALP-photon coupling enters the total decay length and rescales the positron spectra; benchmark constants are chosen, not derived.
  • domain assumption Sterile neutrinos in the 10-150 MeV range mix dominantly with muon or tau neutrinos and are produced via neutral and charged current scattering.
    Section II; this avoids resonant production and follows the analysis of Ref. [15].
  • domain assumption Dark photon production is dominated by proton bremsstrahlung with resonant in-medium mixing.
    Eqs. (14)-(20); standard in the dark photon literature, but the predicted emission spectra depend on these rates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In-flight positron annihilation as a probe of feebly interacting particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B7PA3ITJ

@misc{pith2026250107725,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In-flight positron annihilation as a probe of feebly interacting particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B7PA3ITJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07725}
}
read the original abstract

Core-collapse supernovae (SNe) provide a unique environment to study Feebly Interacting Particles (FIPs) such as Axion-Like Particles (ALPs), sterile neutrinos, and Dark Photons (DPs). This paper focuses on heavy FIPs produced in SNe, whose decay produces electrons and positrons, generating observable secondary signals during their propagation and annihilation. We focus on the In-flight Annihilation (IA) of positrons, which emerge as the most significant contribution to the resulting gamma-ray spectrum. Using data from COMPTEL and EGRET we derive the most stringent bounds on the FIP-electron couplings for heavy ALPs, sterile neutrinos, and DPs. These results strenghten existing bounds of one or two orders of magnitude, depending on the FIP model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07725 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. SNe ALP production spectra via electron coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. ALP production spectra via nuclear couplings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. DP production spectra via proton bremsstrahlung [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Local diffuse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. IA emission from ALPs coupling to baryons and electrons (left panel) and DPs (right panel) produced in SNe, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of the morphology of the IA signals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Effect of propagation uncertainties on the predicted IA signals from ALPs produced in SNe (left panel) for a few [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Example of the probability distribution and credible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Upper limits, at 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. IA annihilation bounds in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Cooling the Shock: New Supernova Constraints on Dark Photons

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Resonant dark photon production in the gain layer of a core-collapse supernova can quench the neutrino-driven shock revival, yielding constraints that supersede the SN1987A cooling bound for masses around 0.1-0.4 MeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [24]

    De la Torre Luque, S

    P. De la Torre Luque, S. Balaji, P. Carenza, and L. Mas- trototaro, (2024), arXiv:2405.08482 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    G. G. Raffelt, (1996)

    1996

  3. [2]

    Mirizzi, I

    A. Mirizzi, I. Tamborra, H.-T. Janka, N. Sa- viano, K. Scholberg, R. Bollig, L. Hudepohl, and S. Chakraborty, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 39, 1 (2016), arXiv:1508.00785 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    Horiuchi and J

    S. Horiuchi and J. P. Kneller, J. Phys. G 45, 043002 (2018), arXiv:1709.01515 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    Caputo and G

    A. Caputo and G. Raffelt, PoS COSMICWISPers, 041 (2024), arXiv:2401.13728 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Raffelt and D

    G. Raffelt and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1793 (1988)

    1988

  7. [6]

    Keil, H.-T

    W. Keil, H.-T. Janka, D. N. Schramm, G. Sigl, M. S. Turner, and J. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2419 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9612222

    arXiv 1997

  8. [7]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP 09, 051 (2018), arXiv:1803.00993 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 137 references
  1. [8]

    Carenza, T

    P. Carenza, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, G. Guo, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, and A. Mirizzi, JCAP 10, 016 (2019), [Erratum: JCAP 05, E01 (2020)], arXiv:1906.11844 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Carenza, B

    P. Carenza, B. Fore, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 071102 (2021), arXiv:2010.02943 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, JCAP 08, 045 (2022), arXiv:2204.11862 [astro-ph.SR]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D 105, 035022 (2022), arXiv:2109.03244 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    E. W. Kolb, R. N. Mohapatra, and V. L. Teplitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3066 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9605350

    1996 arXiv

  6. [13]

    G. G. Raffelt and S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 83, 093014 (2011), arXiv:1102.5124 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Mastrototaro, A

    L. Mastrototaro, A. Mirizzi, P. D. Serpico, and A. Es- maili, JCAP 01, 010 (2020), arXiv:1910.10249 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Carenza, G

    P. Carenza, G. Lucente, L. Mastrototaro, A. Mirizzi, and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063010 (2024), arXiv:2311.00033 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Akita, S

    K. Akita, S. H. Im, M. Masud, and S. Yun, JHEP 07, 057 (2024), arXiv:2312.13627 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP 01, 107 (2017), arXiv:1611.03864 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Linden, T

    T. Linden, T. T. Q. Nguyen, and T. M. P. Tait, (2024), arXiv:2406.19445 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    P. S. B. Dev, R. N. Mohapatra, and Y. Zhang, JCAP 08, 003 (2020), [Erratum: JCAP 11, E01 (2020)], arXiv:2005.00490 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Balaji, P

    S. Balaji, P. S. B. Dev, J. Silk, and Y. Zhang, JCAP 12, 024 (2022), arXiv:2205.01669 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [21]

    J. M. Camalich, J. Terol-Calvo, L. Tolos, and R. Ziegler, Phys. Rev. D 103, L121301 (2021), arXiv:2012.11632 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Hannestad, G

    S. Hannestad, G. Raffelt, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. D 76, 121701 (2007), arXiv:0708.1404 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Antel et al., Eur

    C. Antel et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1122 (2023), arXiv:2305.01715 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    De la Torre Luque, S

    P. De la Torre Luque, S. Balaji, and P. Carenza, Phys. Rev. D 109, L101305 (2024), arXiv:2307.13728 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    De la Torre Luque, S

    P. De la Torre Luque, S. Balaji, and P. Carenza, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103028 (2024), arXiv:2307.13731 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Calore, P

    F. Calore, P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, J. Jaeckel, G. Lu- cente, L. Mastrototaro, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063026 (2022), arXiv:2112.08382 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Calore, P

    F. Calore, P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, J. Jaeckel, G. Lu- cente, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. D 104, 043016 (2021), arXiv:2107.02186 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. W. Foster, M. Kongsore, C. Dessert, Y. Park, N. L. Rodd, K. Cranmer, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 051101 (2021), arXiv:2102.02207 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bouchet, E

    L. Bouchet, E. Jourdain, J. P. Roques, A. Strong, R. Diehl, F. Lebrun, and R. Terrier, Astrophys. J. 679, 1315 (2008), arXiv:0801.2086 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bouchet, J.-P

    L. Bouchet, J.-P. Roques, and E. Jourdain, Astrophys. J. 720, 1772 (2010), arXiv:1007.4753 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Siegert, R

    T. Siegert, R. Diehl, G. Khachatryan, M. G. H. Krause, F. Guglielmetti, J. Greiner, A. W. Strong, and X. Zhang, Astron. Astrophys. 586, A84 (2016), arXiv:1512.00325 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Berteaud, F

    J. Berteaud, F. Calore, J. Iguaz, P. Serpico, and T. Siegert, Physical Review D 106 (2022), 10.1103/phys- revd.106.023030

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Sreekumar, F

    P. Sreekumar, F. W. Stecker, and S. C. Kappadath, AIP Conf. Proc. 410, 344 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9709258

    1997 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A. W. Strong, I. V. Moskalenko, and O. Reimer, Astro- phys. J. 613, 962 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0406254

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    F. W. Stecker, apss 3, 579 (1969)

    1969

  29. [37]

    E. C. Stone, A. C. Cummings, F. B. McDonald, B. C. Heikkila, N. Lal, and W. R. Webber, Science 341, 1236408 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Garching core-collapse supernova research archive,

    “Garching core-collapse supernova research archive,” https://wwwmpa.mpa-garching.mpg.de/ccsnarchive/ /

  31. [39]

    Bollig, W

    R. Bollig, W. DeRocco, P. W. Graham, and H.-T. Janka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 051104 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 126, 189901 (2021)], arXiv:2005.07141 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Caputo, H.-T

    A. Caputo, H.-T. Janka, G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 221103 (2022), arXiv:2201.09890 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Lella, P

    A. Lella, P. Carenza, G. Lucente, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103017 (2023), arXiv:2211.13760 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Lella, P

    A. Lella, P. Carenza, G. Co’, G. Lucente, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and T. Rauscher, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023001 (2024), arXiv:2306.01048 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Lella, F

    A. Lella, F. Calore, P. Carenza, C. Eckner, M. Giannotti, G. Lucente, and A. Mirizzi, (2024), arXiv:2405.02395 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Lella, E

    A. Lella, E. Ravensburg, P. Carenza, and M. C. D. Marsh, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043019 (2024), arXiv:2405.00153 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    C. A. Manzari, Y. Park, B. R. Safdi, and I. Savoray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 211002 (2024), arXiv:2405.19393 [hep-ph]

    2024

  38. [46]

    Sukhbold, S

    T. Sukhbold, S. Woosley, and A. Heger, Astrophys. J. 860, 93 (2018), arXiv:1710.03243 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Rampp and H

    M. Rampp and H. T. Janka, Astron. Astrophys. 396, 361 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0203101

    2002 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Buras, M

    R. Buras, M. Rampp, H. T. Janka, and K. Kifoni- dis, Astron. Astrophys. 447, 1049 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0507135

    2006

  41. [49]

    Janka, Ann

    H.-T. Janka, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 407 (2012), arXiv:1206.2503 [astro-ph.SR]. 15

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bollig, H

    R. Bollig, H. T. Janka, A. Lohs, G. Martinez-Pinedo, C. J. Horowitz, and T. Melson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 242702 (2017), arXiv:1706.04630 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, M. Heinlein, H.-T. Janka, G. Raffelt, E. Vitagliano, and R. Bollig, Phys. Rev. D 108, 083040 (2023), arXiv:2308.01403 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Rembiasz, M

    T. Rembiasz, M. Obergaulinger, M. Masip, M. A. P´ erez- Garc ´ ıa, M.-A. Aloy, and C. Albertus, Phys. Rev. D98, 103010 (2018), arXiv:1806.03300 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Fischer, P

    T. Fischer, P. Carenza, B. Fore, M. Giannotti, A. Mi- rizzi, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103012 (2021), arXiv:2108.13726 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Betranhandy and E

    A. Betranhandy and E. O’Connor, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063019 (2022), arXiv:2204.00503 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    K. Mori, T. Takiwaki, K. Kotake, and S. Horiuchi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023031 (2024), arXiv:2402.14333 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Carenza and G

    P. Carenza and G. Lucente, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123024 (2021), arXiv:2104.09524 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Carenza and G

    P. Carenza and G. Lucente, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103007 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 110, 049901 (2024)], arXiv:2107.12393 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rept. 870, 1 (2020), arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Chang and K

    S. Chang and K. Choi, Phys. Lett. B 316, 51 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9306216

    1993 arXiv

  52. [60]

    K. Choi, H. J. Kim, H. Seong, and C. S. Shin, JHEP 02, 143 (2022), arXiv:2110.01972 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Grilli di Cortona, E

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro, JHEP 01, 034 (2016), arXiv:1511.02867 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Carena and R

    M. Carena and R. D. Peccei, Phys. Rev. D 40, 652 (1989)

    1989

  56. [64]

    R. P. Brinkmann and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 38, 2338 (1988)

    1988

  57. [65]

    Raffelt and D

    G. Raffelt and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1780 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9312019

    1995 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Stoica, B

    S. Stoica, B. Pastrav, J. E. Horvath, and M. P. Allen, Nucl. Phys. A 828, 439 (2009), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.A 832, 148 (2010)], arXiv:0906.3134 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  59. [67]

    T. E. O. Ericson and J. F. Mathiot, Phys. Lett. B 219, 507 (1989)

    1989

  60. [68]

    Raffelt and D

    G. Raffelt and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2605 (1991)

    1991

  61. [69]

    Janka, W

    H.-T. Janka, W. Keil, G. Raffelt, and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2621 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9507023

    1996 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Springmann, M

    K. Springmann, M. Stadlbauer, S. Stelzl, and A. Weiler, (2024), arXiv:2410.10945 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 45, 1066 (1992)

    1992

  64. [72]

    Fore and S

    B. Fore and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C 101, 035809 (2020), arXiv:1911.02632 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  65. [73]

    S.-Y. Ho, J. Kim, P. Ko, and J.-h. Park, Phys. Rev. D 107, 075002 (2023), arXiv:2212.01155 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Carenza, Eur

    P. Carenza, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 836 (2023), arXiv:2309.14798 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Altmann, F

    M. Altmann, F. von Feilitzsch, C. Hagner, L. Oberauer, Y. Declais, and E. Kajfasz, Z. Phys. C 68, 221 (1995)

    1995

  68. [76]

    A. M. Suliga, I. Tamborra, and M.-R. Wu, JCAP 08, 018 (2020), arXiv:2004.11389 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  69. [77]

    C. A. Arg¨ uelles, V. Brdar, and J. Kopp, Phys. Rev. D 99, 043012 (2019), arXiv:1605.00654 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Alekhin et al., Rept

    S. Alekhin et al., Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 124201 (2016), arXiv:1504.04855 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  71. [79]

    L. B. Okun, Sov. Phys. JETP 56, 502 (1982)

    1982

  72. [80]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  73. [81]

    T. T. Q. Nguyen, I. John, T. Linden, and T. M. P. Tait, (2024), arXiv:2412.00180 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Foot and X.-G

    R. Foot and X.-G. He, Phys. Lett. B 267, 509 (1991)

    1991

  75. [83]

    Kazanas, R

    D. Kazanas, R. N. Mohapatra, S. Nussinov, V. L. Teplitz, and Y. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 890, 17 (2014), arXiv:1410.0221 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Hardy and R

    E. Hardy and R. Lasenby, JHEP 02, 033 (2017), arXiv:1611.05852 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Stetina, E

    S. Stetina, E. Rrapaj, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C 97, 045801 (2018), arXiv:1712.05447 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  78. [86]

    DeRocco, P

    W. DeRocco, P. W. Graham, D. Kasen, G. Marques- Tavares, and S. Rajendran, JHEP 02, 171 (2019), arXiv:1901.08596 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Syvolap and O

    V. Syvolap and O. Ruchayskiy, (2024), arXiv:2404.19191 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Rrapaj and S

    E. Rrapaj and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C 94, 045805 (2016), arXiv:1511.09136 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  81. [89]

    W. Li, R. Chornock, J. Leaman, A. V. Filippenko, D. Poznanski, X. Wang, M. Ganeshalingam, and F. Man- nucci, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 412, 1473 (2011), arXiv:1006.4613 [astro-ph.SR]

    2011 arXiv

  82. [90]

    V. L. Ginzburg and S. I. Syrovatskii, The origin of cosmic rays (Gordon & Breach Pub- lishing Group, 1969)

    1969

  83. [91]

    V. L. Ginzburg, I. M. Khazan, and V. S. Ptuskin, Astrophysics and Space Science 68, 295 (1980)

    1980

  84. [93]

    A. W. Strong and I. V. Moskalenko, Astrophys. J. 509, 212 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9807150

    1998 arXiv

  85. [94]

    De la Torre Luque, S

    P. De la Torre Luque, S. Balaji, and J. Koechler, Astro- phys. J. 968, 46 (2024), arXiv:2311.04979 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  86. [95]

    ”dragon2 optimized dm&antinuclei

    P. De La Torre Luque, “”dragon2 optimized dm&antinuclei”,” (2023)

    2023

  87. [96]

    Evoli, D

    C. Evoli, D. Gaggero, A. Vittino, G. Di Bernardo, M. Di Mauro, A. Ligorini, P. Ullio, and D. Grasso, JCAP 02, 015 (2017), arXiv:1607.07886 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  88. [97]

    Evoli, D

    C. Evoli, D. Gaggero, A. Vittino, M. Di Mauro, D. Grasso, and M. N. Mazziotta, JCAP 07, 006 (2018), arXiv:1711.09616 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  89. [98]

    Stone et al., Science 341, 150 (2013)

    E. Stone et al., Science 341, 150 (2013)

    2013

  90. [99]

    Cummings et al., Astrophys

    A. Cummings et al., Astrophys. J. 831, 18 (2016)

    2016

  91. [100]

    De la Torre Luque, J

    P. De la Torre Luque, J. Koechler, and S. Balaji, (2024), arXiv:2406.11949 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  92. [101]

    Evoli, R

    C. Evoli, R. Aloisio, and P. Blasi, Phys. Rev. D 99, 103023 (2019), arXiv:1904.10220 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  93. [102]

    Derome, D

    L. Derome, D. Maurin, P. Salati, M. Boudaud, Y. G´ enolini, and P. Kunz´ e, Astronomy & Astrophysics 627, A158 (2019)

    2019

  94. [103]

    P. D. L. T. Luque, M. N. Mazziotta, F. Loparco, F. Gargano, and D. Serini, JCAP 07, 010 (2021), arXiv:2102.13238 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Ferriere, W

    K. Ferriere, W. Gillard, and P. Jean, Astron. Astrophys. 467, 611 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0702532

    2007 arXiv

  96. [105]

    T. Y. Steiman-Cameron, M. Wolfire, and D. Hollenbach, Astrophys. J. 722, 1460 (2010)

    2010

  97. [106]

    D. R. Lorimer et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 372, 777 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0607640. 16

    2006 arXiv

  98. [107]

    E. C. Stone, A. C. Cummings, F. B. Mc- Donald, B. C. Heikkila, N. Lal, and W. R. Webber, Science 341, 150 (2013), https://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6142/150.full.pdf

    2013

  99. [108]

    A. W. Strong, K. Bennett, H. Bloemen, R. Diehl, W. Hermsen, D. Morris, V. Schoenfelder, J. G. Stacy, C. de Vries, M. Varendorff, C. Winkler, and G. Youssefi, Astronomy & Astrophysics 292, 82 (1994)

    1994

  100. [109]

    A. W. Strong, K. Bennett, H. Bloemen, R. Diehl, W. Hermsen, D. Morris, V. Schoenfelder, J. G. Stacy, C. de Vries, M. Varendorff, C. Winkler, and G. Youssefi, A&A 292, 82 (1994)

    1994

  101. [110]

    A. W. Strong, I. V. Moskalenko, and O. Reimer, The Astrophysical Journal 613, 962 (2004)

    2004

  102. [111]

    De la Torre Luque, S

    P. De la Torre Luque, S. Balaji, and J. Silk, Astrophys. J. Lett. 973, L6 (2024), arXiv:2312.04907 [hep-ph]

    2024

  103. [112]

    De la Torre Luque, S

    P. De la Torre Luque, S. Balaji, M. Fairbairn, F. Sala, and J. Silk, (2024), arXiv:2410.16379 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  104. [113]

    J. M. Cordes and T. J. W. Lazio, (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0301598

    2003

  105. [114]

    J. M. Cordes and T. J. W. Lazio, (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0207156

    2002

  106. [115]

    J. F. Beacom and H. Yuksel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 071102 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512411

    2006 arXiv

  107. [116]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society 26, 361–375 (1930)

    1930

  108. [117]

    S. C. Kappadath, Measurement of ..., Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versity of New Hampshire (1998)

    1998

  109. [118]

    de la Torre Luque, M

    P. de la Torre Luque, M. N. Mazziotta, A. Ferrari, F. Loparco, P. Sala, and D. Serini, JCAP 07, 008 (2022), arXiv:2202.03559 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  110. [119]

    De la Torre Luque, F

    P. De la Torre Luque, F. Loparco, and M. N. Mazziotta, JCAP 10, 011 (2023), arXiv:2305.02958 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  111. [120]

    Heinbach and M

    U. Heinbach and M. Simon, The Astrophysical Journal 441, 209 (1995)

    1995

  112. [121]

    Cosmic-ray diffusive reacceleration: a critical look,

    L. O. Drury and A. W. Strong, “Cosmic-ray diffusive reacceleration: a critical look,” (2015), arXiv:1508.02675 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  113. [122]

    Seo and V

    E.-S. Seo and V. S. Ptuskin, ApJ 431, 705 (1994)

    1994

  114. [123]

    Osborne and V

    J. Osborne and V. Ptuskin, in International Cosmic Ray Conference , Vol. 2 (1987) p. 218

    1987

  115. [124]

    Weinrich, M

    N. Weinrich, M. Boudaud, L. Derome, Y. G´ enolini, J. Lavalle, D. Maurin, P. Salati, P. Serpico, and G. Weymann-Despres, The Astrophysical Journal 639, A74 (2020), arXiv:2004.00441 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  116. [125]

    and Strong, Andrew W., A&A 597, A117 (2017)

    Drury, Luke O´C. and Strong, Andrew W., A&A 597, A117 (2017)

    2017

  117. [126]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    2013 arXiv

  118. [127]

    De la Torre Luque, M

    P. De la Torre Luque, M. W. Winkler, and T. Linden, JCAP 05, 104 (2024), arXiv:2401.10329 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  119. [128]

    P. D. L. T. Luque, JCAP 11, 018 (2021), arXiv:2107.06863 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  120. [129]

    De La Torre Luque, J

    P. De La Torre Luque, J. Smirnov, and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D 109, L041301 (2024), arXiv:2309.03281 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  121. [130]

    A. Sung, H. Tu, and M.-R. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 99, 121305 (2019), arXiv:1903.07923 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  122. [131]

    Redondo and M

    J. Redondo and M. Postma, JCAP 02, 005 (2009), arXiv:0811.0326 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  123. [132]

    Fradette, M

    A. Fradette, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 90, 035022 (2014), arXiv:1407.0993 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  124. [133]

    J.-T. Li, G. M. Fuller, and E. Grohs, JCAP 12, 049 (2020), arXiv:2009.14325 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  125. [134]

    Sabti, A

    N. Sabti, A. Magalich, and A. Filimonova, JCAP 11, 056 (2020), arXiv:2006.07387 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  126. [135]

    Boyarsky, M

    A. Boyarsky, M. Ovchynnikov, O. Ruchayskiy, and V. Syvolap, Phys. Rev. D 104, 023517 (2021), arXiv:2008.00749 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  127. [136]

    Mastrototaro, P

    L. Mastrototaro, P. D. Serpico, A. Mirizzi, and N. Saviano, Phys. Rev. D 104, 016026 (2021), arXiv:2104.11752 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  128. [137]

    M. D. Diamond and G. Marques-Tavares, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 211101 (2022), arXiv:2106.03879 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  129. [138]

    R. Z. Ferreira, M. C. D. Marsh, and E. M¨ uller, JCAP 11, 057 (2022), arXiv:2205.07896 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.