Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 127 references

In a warped Randall–Sundrum dimension, gravity-mediated freeze-in alone can set the observed dark-matter abundance and, via TeV-scale resonant leptogenesis, the baryon asymmetry.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 09:35 UTC pith:CEGLVCU4

load-bearing objection Worth engaging: the low-reheating freeze-in branch and the LHC–T_rh complementarity are solid and citable; the high-T_rh branch rests on an approximation the authors flag as unphysical, and the 'coincidence' is actually coexistence. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.13315 v2 pith:CEGLVCU4 submitted 2026-01-19 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th

Baryon-dark matter coincidence in Randall-Sundrum Model

Basabendu Barman , Ashmita Das , Partha Kumar Paul , Narendra Sahu , Rakesh Kumar SivaKumar This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th PACS 95.35.+d98.80.Cq
keywords Randall-Sundrum modelfreeze-in dark mattergraviton portalradion portalreheating temperatureresonant leptogenesisKK gravitonDelta N_eff
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that the observed dark-matter relic density and the observed matter–antimatter asymmetry can both be produced in a minimal Randall–Sundrum setup, with no direct coupling between dark matter and the Standard Model. It assumes both sectors sit on the infrared brane and talk only through the Kaluza–Klein graviton tower and the radion. For scalar, Majorana-fermion, and massive-vector dark matter, freeze-in from Standard Model scattering yields the Planck abundance for a wide band of reheating temperatures while the warp factor still solves the hierarchy problem. The same graviton and radion portals produce TeV-mass right-handed neutrinos whose resonant CP-violating decays generate the baryon asymmetry. If correct, collider bounds on KK gravitons become indirect probes of the reheating temperature.

Core claim

The paper derives a concrete relation: for a given dark-matter mass m_DM, radion mass m_r, and interaction scale Λ_r, there is a reheating temperature T_rh at which the freeze-in yield satisfies Y0 m_DM = 4.3×10^-10 GeV, the Planck-measured relic density. Production is dominated by s-channel radion and KK-graviton exchange, with cross-sections growing like s^3/Λ_r^4; near each mediator mass the narrow-width approximation controls the yield, while far above the first KK mass the tower is treated as a continuum. With benchmark parameters the first KK graviton stays above current LHC diphoton bounds and ΔN_eff stays within limits. The same portals produce right-handed neutrinos; with a 500 GeV

What carries the argument

The engine is the Randall–Sundrum warp factor e^{-kr_cπ}, which redshifts fundamental Planck-scale masses down to TeV values on the infrared brane, together with the two portals it creates: the radion, a stabilized modulus coupling through the trace of the energy–momentum tensor at scale Λ_r, and the KK graviton tower, spin-2 modes with masses m_{G_n}=kx_n e^{-kr_cπ} and couplings of order 1/Λ_r. Freeze-in is computed by integrating the Boltzmann equation for 2→2 Standard Model→DM scattering through these s-channel mediators, using analytic cross-sections in the massless limit and a full numerical treatment below the electroweak scale. The load-bearing output is the relic-density constraint

Load-bearing premise

The high-reheating branch of the relic-density result assumes that KK-graviton scattering cross-sections growing like s^3 remain under control when the tower is replaced by a continuum; footnote 4 concedes this likely violates unitarity and no cure is included in the paper.

What would settle it

Recompute the dark-matter yield for T_rh ≫ m_{G1}/2 using the discrete KK tower with all modes, including inter-mode interference and widths, instead of the continuum replacement of Eq. (3.11); if the integrated yield or cross-section violates the unitarity bound or differs by more than an O(1) factor from the continuum result, the wide-range-in-T_rh claim fails. Alternatively, a future LHC diphoton limit excluding m_{G1} ≳ 6 TeV at k/M_P ≈ 0.1 would remove the T_rh ≲ 10 GeV solutions shown for 1 MeV dark matter.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, Planck's Ω_DM h² ≈ 0.12 traces out a T_rh–Λ_r contour for each dark-matter spin rather than selecting a single mass or coupling.
  • Current LHC high-mass diphoton bounds on the first KK graviton cut off the low-reheating tail of the allowed region, so collider searches indirectly constrain the reheating temperature.
  • Graviton decays to dark radiation generate ΔN_eff up to about 0.13 for spin-1 dark matter, within current Planck limits for m_G ≳ 0.02 GeV and potentially testable with future CMB surveys such as CMB-S4 and CMB-HD.
  • Because the warp factor pulls fundamental-scale right-handed neutrino masses down to the TeV range, resonant leptogenesis is the natural baryogenesis route here, and it requires T_rh ≳ M_1 ≈ 500 GeV, which is compatible with the dark-matter relic contours at large Λ_r.
  • For heavy dark matter the instantaneous-reheating condition T_rh > m_DM removes much of the hierarchy-solving parameter space, while sub-GeV dark matter keeps a viable region where the warp factor is large enough to solve the hierarchy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the unitarity issue in the T_rh ≫ m_{G1}/2 branch is cured by including the full KK tower, the high-reheating part of the relic contours will likely shrink, pushing allowed cosmologies toward the mediator-resonance regimes rather than the continuum region.
  • The collider–cosmology complementarity suggests a concrete test: a future diphoton measurement that pushes the first-KK-graviton bound above roughly 5.6 TeV would exclude the lowest reheating solutions for 1 MeV dark matter, which could be checked against independent BBN reheating constraints.
  • The same radion/graviton freeze-in machinery could be applied to other feebly coupled states, such as axion-like particles or sterile neutrinos, with ΔN_eff as the primary observable for dark radiation.
  • If reheating is not instantaneous, UV freeze-in with a reaction density scaling as T^7 or steeper can receive an enhancement factor, which would relax the tension for heavier dark matter and change the T_rh values extracted from the relic-density contours.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies freeze-in production of scalar, fermionic, and vector dark matter in the Randall–Sundrum warped extra-dimensional setup, with both SM and DM fields localized on the IR brane. DM interacts with the SM only through the radion and the KK gravitons, in addition to the unavoidable massless graviton. The authors derive approximate analytic expressions for the reaction density and relic yield in several temperature regimes, present numerical relic-density contours in the T_rh–Λ_r and T_rh–m_DM planes, impose collider, BBN, and ΔN_eff constraints, and show that LHC diphoton searches can constrain the reheating temperature. They then add two right-handed neutrinos and demonstrate, using resonant leptogenesis, that the observed baryon asymmetry can be reproduced with TeV-scale RHNs. The paper concludes that the framework can simultaneously account for DM and the baryon asymmetry while addressing the hierarchy problem.

Significance. If the high-temperature branch is reliable, the paper provides a useful exploration of gravitational freeze-in in a well-motivated extra-dimensional framework. Its analytic separation of production regimes is a strength, as are the explicit cross-section and decay formulae in the appendices and the transparent treatment of thermalization, EFT-validity, and ΔN_eff constraints. The claimed complementarity between LHC KK-graviton searches and the allowed reheating temperature is an interesting and falsifiable qualitative message. However, the central 'wide range of reheating temperatures' claim rests partly on an unresolved unitarity/continuum issue in the KK-graviton calculation, and the baryon-asymmetry part is a parameter fit rather than a prediction. With the high-T_rh branch repaired or explicitly removed, and with the claims appropriately moderated, the remaining low-T_rh phenomenology would be a solid contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (3.11)–(3.12), Fig. 5] The high-T_rh branch (last lines of Eq. (3.11) and Eq. (3.12), and the rising contours in Fig. 5) relies on replacing the discrete KK-graviton sum by a continuum, Σ_n → ∫ dm/Δm. For the benchmark m_G1 ≈ 9.15 TeV and Λ_r = 100 TeV, Γ_1/Δm ≈ [m_G1^3/(960πΛ_r^2)] / [m_G1/x_1] ≈ 10^-5: the resonances are narrow and non-overlapping, so the continuum replacement is not controlled. Footnote 4 concedes that the s^3 growth is 'not physical' and that a cure 'can possibly' come from the full KK tower, but no such cure is implemented in Eqs. (3.11)–(3.12). The last line of Eq. (3.12), and hence the high-T_rh relic contours, is therefore unsupported. Please either remove this branch or replace it with a unitarized/resummed KK amplitude whose validity is quantified.
  2. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.9)–(4.10), Fig. 8] The leptogenesis result is a demonstration of tunability, not a prediction of the baryon asymmetry. The observed Y_B^0 ≈ 8.75×10^-11 is reproduced by choosing the Casas–Ibarra angle z = 0.1 + i and a near-degenerate RHN spectrum so that Eq. (4.9) is resonantly enhanced. No independent relation connects those parameters to m_DM, Λ_r, or T_rh apart from the mild requirement T_rh ≳ M_1. The text's wording that the framework 'simultaneously explains observed DM abundance' and the baryon asymmetry overstates the logical status. Recommend rewording to state that the setup can accommodate both observables for suitable choices of parameters, and identify explicitly which combinations are fitted.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (3.7), Figs. 4–6] The relic-density contours are obtained by imposing Eq. (3.7), i.e., by solving for the reheating temperature that reproduces the Planck DM abundance. This is standard freeze-in practice, and not an error, but the paper's presentation tends to present the resulting 'wide range of T_rh' as a prediction. Since the observed abundance is used as an input to fix T_rh, the contours are consistency regions. The abstract and introduction should state this more carefully; otherwise the reader may infer predictive power that the calculation does not have.
  4. [§2.1, footnote 1; Appendix B] The paper notes in footnote 1 that the radion acquires loop-induced couplings to photons and gluons through the trace anomaly, yet the radion-mediated production cross-sections in Appendix B and the statement in §3.1 that above EWSB only hh→DM DM contributes for the radion do not include these channels. If such loop couplings are present, gluon-initiated processes at T ≫ EWSB can contribute to γ_(2→2) and affect the relic contours. Please either include these channels quantitatively or justify that they are negligible in the parameter range considered.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (3.12)] The text says the analytic yield expressions hold for all DM spins 'with only modification in the numerical pre-factors.' Since the thermalization bound in Eq. (3.14) also depends on the DM degrees of freedom and the spin-dependent cross-section prefactors, it would help to state explicitly which numerical coefficients are used for each spin in the contours.
  2. [§3.2.1, Fig. 6] The caption and text repeat nearly identical exclusion values for the left and right panels (T_rh ≲ 10.6 GeV and m_G1 ≲ 4630 GeV). Since the panels correspond to different k̃ values, the reader expects different bounds; please clarify whether this repetition is intentional or a presentation error.
  3. [§4.2, Eq. (4.9)] The paper says flavor effects are not included and states that the standard flavored-leptogenesis formalism applies without modification. Given that the analysis uses M_1 = 500 GeV, where flavor effects are typically relevant for the final asymmetry, a short quantitative statement (or a bound on the induced error) would strengthen the lepton-asymmetry claim.
  4. [General] There are occasional typos and grammatical slips, e.g., 'brayonic' in §4 and 'behaviour' vs 'behavior' inconsistencies. These do not affect the physics but should be corrected in a revised version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: relic and baryon abundances are used as external constraints to fix free parameters, not predicted from fitted inputs; self-citations are technical/background, and the high-Trh continuum approximation is a correctness caveat rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The observed DM relic abundance enters through Eq. (3.7) as an external constraint, and the paper solves the Boltzmann equation for the free parameter Trh (along with mDM, mr, Λr) to find contours satisfying that constraint. This is parameter fitting in the standard model-building sense, not a prediction of the relic abundance from fitted data; the paper labels the resulting curves as 'Contours corresponding to the observed DM abundance' (Fig. 4) and 'values of Trh required to satisfy the observed DM abundance' (Fig. 6), not as independent predictions. Similarly, leptogenesis uses the Casas–Ibarra complex angle z = 0.1 + i and near-degenerate RHN masses to make the final asymmetry match YB0 = 8.75×10^-11; the text explicitly says 'the CI parameters are chosen such that the resulting asymmetry reproduces the observed value'. This is an acknowledged choice, not a disguised input called a prediction. The paper does invoke self-citations ([63], [70], [105]), but they are technical derivations or background results (vierbein manipulations, minimal gravitational freeze-in, reheating dynamics) and are not load-bearing for the central claim; the KK spectrum, couplings, cross-sections, and constraints are derived from standard RS references and numerical tools (CalcHEP, LanHEP, FeynRules). No 'uniqueness theorem' from the authors' prior work is used to force a model choice. The one substantive weakness, flagged in footnote 4, is that the graviton cross section grows as s^3 and the KK tower is replaced by a continuum in Eq. (3.11), so the high-Trh branch of the relic contours rests on an unvalidated approximation. But this is a physical/technical validity issue, not a circular reduction: the input is not being renamed as an output. Therefore the circularity score is low, with the modest score reflecting only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 7 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on the RS model setup (IR-brane SM/DM, bulk graviton), a set of tuned parameters (m_DM, m_r, Λ_r, T_rh, kr_c, RHN masses, z), and several modeling assumptions: instantaneous reheating, EFT validity with unmodified s^3 cross sections, and neglect of flavor effects in leptogenesis. The DM relic and baryon asymmetry are used as constraints to fix parameters rather than predicted.

free parameters (8)
  • DM mass m_DM = scanned; e.g., 1 MeV, 2300 GeV
    Independent input; the relic condition fixes T_rh for each m_DM rather than predicting m_DM.
  • Radion mass m_r = 1 TeV (2 TeV in leptogenesis plots)
    Set by hand rather than derived from the Goldberger–Wise stabilization parameters; controls resonance positions.
  • Radion/graviton interaction scale Λ_r = varied 10^3–10^12 GeV
    The warped-down scale; treated as free and fixed by the relic/hierarchy interplay.
  • Reheating temperature T_rh = solved from Ω_DM h^2 = 0.12; values ~10 GeV–10^4 GeV in benchmarks
    Not predicted; obtained by imposing the observed relic abundance (Eq. 3.7).
  • Warp factor kr_c (or ktilde) = kr_c = 11; ktilde = 0.01, 0.1
    Chosen to give TeV KK masses and satisfy hierarchy/collider bounds; not derived.
  • RHN mass M_1 (and near-degenerate M_2) = M_1 = 500 GeV; M_2 ≈ M_1
    Set to TeV scale for resonant leptogenesis; the required near-degeneracy is tuned.
  • Casas–Ibarra complex angle z = z = 0.1 + i
    Chosen so the produced B−L asymmetry matches Y_B^0; fitted, not predicted.
  • Fundamental DM mass m_0 = M_P for TeV DM; 10^12 GeV for 1 MeV DM
    Input mass warped down by the RS factor; for the 1 MeV DM case the fundamental scale is 10^12 GeV, not Planckian, so the DM mass hierarchy is not addressed in that branch.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption RS geometry with SM and DM localized on the IR brane and only the graviton propagating in the bulk
    The model setup of Sec. 2; not derived within the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper DM stability via an ad-hoc Z2 symmetry (and no kinetic mixing for the vector DM)
    Introduced ad hoc in Secs. 2.2–2.3 to make all three DM candidates stable.
  • domain assumption Goldberger–Wise stabilization gives a light radion with mass formula Eq. (2.4)
    Input from Refs. [55,56]; used to set the radion mass scale.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous reheating, radiation domination from T_rh, and empty DM sector at T_rh
    Stated in Sec. 3.2.2; the paper acknowledges non-instantaneous reheating can change yields, and the T_rh > m_DM condition depends on this.
  • ad hoc to paper EFT valid up to Λ_r with m_G1 < Λ_r and unmodified KK-graviton s-channel sum
    Sec. 3.2.1 and footnote 4: cross sections grow as s^3 and may violate unitarity; the paper assumes the full KK tower cures it without including it.
  • ad hoc to paper Flavor effects in leptogenesis do not modify the one-flavor result
    Sec. 4.2: 'applies to our scenario without modification'; not computed, but TeV-scale leptogenesis is known to be flavor-sensitive.
  • standard math Type-I seesaw with Casas–Ibarra parametrization and one complex angle
    Standard formalism; the R-matrix choice in Eq. (4.7) is a free input.
invented entities (2)
  • Gauge-singlet dark matter candidates (scalar S, Majorana fermion Ψ, massive vector X_μ) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide DM produced via freeze-in through radion/graviton portals
    Masses and couplings are free; stability imposed by hand; no unique signal prediction tied to a specific mass.
  • Heavy right-handed neutrinos (RHNs) N_1, N_2 no independent evidence
    purpose: Generate neutrino masses and the baryon asymmetry via resonant leptogenesis
    Standard Type-I seesaw extension; masses and near-degeneracy are tuned, and the CP phase z is fitted.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32599 in / 25960 out tokens · 258175 ms · 2026-08-03T09:35:40.236204+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Within the framework of the extra-dimensional Randall-Sundrum set-up, we investigate the freeze-in production of Standard Model (SM) gauge-singlet scalar, fermionic, and massive vector dark matter (DM). Assuming that both the DM and SM fields reside on the IR brane and interact solely through the graviton and radion portal, we demonstrate that the Planck-observed DM relic abundance can be achieved across a wide range of reheating temperatures, all while naturally addressing the hierarchy problem, satisfying constraints from collider and early Universe cosmology. We further show that the same set-up can accommodate TeV-scale leptogenesis capable of generating the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe. Interestingly, we find that current graviton searches at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) already impose strong constraints on the reheating temperature in this scenario, providing a complementarity between cosmological and collider probes.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 112 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper,History of dark matter,Rev. Mod. Phys.90(2018) 045002 [1605.04909]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    de Swart, G

    J. de Swart, G. Bertone and J. van Dongen,How Dark Matter Came to Matter,Nature Astron.1(2017) 0059 [1703.00013]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Y. Ema, R. Jinno, K. Mukaida and K. Nakayama,Gravitational Effects on Inflaton Decay, JCAP05(2015) 038 [1502.02475]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Garny, M

    M. Garny, M. Sandora and M.S. Sloth,Planckian Interacting Massive Particles as Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 101302 [1511.03278]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Tang and Y.-L

    Y. Tang and Y.-L. Wu,Pure Gravitational Dark Matter, Its Mass and Signatures,Phys. Lett. B758(2016) 402 [1604.04701]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Y. Ema, R. Jinno, K. Mukaida and K. Nakayama,Gravitational particle production in oscillating backgrounds and its cosmological implications,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 063517 [1604.08898]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Garny, A

    M. Garny, A. Palessandro, M. Sandora and M.S. Sloth,Theory and Phenomenology of Planckian Interacting Massive Particles as Dark Matter,JCAP02(2018) 027 [1709.09688]. – 30 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Tang and Y.-L

    Y. Tang and Y.-L. Wu,On Thermal Gravitational Contribution to Particle Production and Dark Matter,Phys. Lett. B774(2017) 676 [1708.05138]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Bernal, M

    N. Bernal, M. Dutra, Y. Mambrini, K. Olive, M. Peloso and M. Pierre,Spin-2 Portal Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 115020 [1803.01866]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Kolb and A.J

    E.W. Kolb and A.J. Long,Cosmological gravitational particle production and its implications for cosmological relics,Rev. Mod. Phys.96(2024) 045005 [2312.09042]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Antoniadis,A Possible new dimension at a few TeV,Phys

    I. Antoniadis,A Possible new dimension at a few TeV,Phys. Lett. B246(1990) 377

    1990

  12. [12]

    Antoniadis, S

    I. Antoniadis, S. Dimopoulos and G.R. Dvali,Millimeter range forces in superstring theories with weak scale compactification,Nucl. Phys. B516(1998) 70 [hep-ph/9710204]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  13. [13]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali,The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,Phys. Lett. B429(1998) 263 [hep-ph/9803315]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  14. [14]

    Antoniadis, N

    I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G.R. Dvali,New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,Phys. Lett. B436(1998) 257 [hep-ph/9804398]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  15. [15]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum,A Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999) 3370 [hep-ph/9905221]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  16. [16]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum,An Alternative to compactification,Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999) 4690 [hep-th/9906064]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  17. [17]

    H.M. Lee, M. Park and V. Sanz,Gravity-mediated (or Composite) Dark Matter,Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 2715 [1306.4107]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    H.M. Lee, M. Park and V. Sanz,Gravity-mediated (or Composite) Dark Matter Confronts Astrophysical Data,JHEP05(2014) 063 [1401.5301]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [19]

    Han, H.M

    C. Han, H.M. Lee, M. Park and V. Sanz,The diphoton resonance as a gravity mediator of dark matter,Phys. Lett. B755(2016) 371 [1512.06376]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Rueter, T.G

    T.D. Rueter, T.G. Rizzo and J.L. Hewett,Gravity-Mediated Dark Matter Annihilation in the Randall-Sundrum Model,JHEP10(2017) 094 [1706.07540]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    Rizzo,Kinetic mixing, dark photons and an extra dimension

    T.G. Rizzo,Kinetic mixing, dark photons and an extra dimension. Part I,JHEP07(2018) 118 [1801.08525]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Carrillo-Monteverde, Y.-J

    A. Carrillo-Monteverde, Y.-J. Kang, H.M. Lee, M. Park and V. Sanz,Dark Matter Direct Detection from new interactions in models with spin-two mediators,JHEP06(2018) 037 [1803.02144]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Rizzo,Kinetic mixing, dark photons and extra dimensions

    T.G. Rizzo,Kinetic mixing, dark photons and extra dimensions. Part II: fermionic dark matter,JHEP10(2018) 069 [1805.08150]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    P. Brax, S. Fichet and P. Tanedo,The Warped Dark Sector,Phys. Lett. B798(2019) 135012 [1906.02199]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Folgado, A

    M.G. Folgado, A. Donini and N. Rius,Gravity-mediated Scalar Dark Matter in Warped Extra-Dimensions,1907.04340

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  26. [26]

    Chivukula, J.A

    R.S. Chivukula, J.A. Gill, K.S. Goh, K.A. Mohan, G. Sanamyan, D. Sengupta et al.,Radion Portal Freeze-Out Dark-Matter,2507.21218

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Kang and H.M

    Y.-J. Kang and H.M. Lee,Lightening Gravity-Mediated Dark Matter,Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 602 [2001.04868]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Chivukula, D

    R.S. Chivukula, D. Foren, K.A. Mohan, D. Sengupta and E.H. Simmons,Massive Spin-2 Scattering Amplitudes in Extra-Dimensional Theories,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 075013 [2002.12458]. – 31 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Kang and H.M

    Y.-J. Kang and H.M. Lee,Dark matter self-interactions from spin-2 mediators,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 868 [2002.12779]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Kang and H.M

    Y.-J. Kang and H.M. Lee,Effective theory for self-interacting dark matter and massive spin-2 mediators,J. Phys. G48(2021) 045002 [2003.09290]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Arcadi, M

    G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre et al.,The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 203 [1703.07364]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Roszkowski, E.M

    L. Roszkowski, E.M. Sessolo and S. Trojanowski,WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects,Rept. Prog. Phys.81(2018) 066201 [1707.06277]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    McDonald,Thermally generated gauge singlet scalars as selfinteracting dark matter,Phys

    J. McDonald,Thermally generated gauge singlet scalars as selfinteracting dark matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.88(2002) 091304 [hep-ph/0106249]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  34. [34]

    McDonald and N

    J. McDonald and N. Sahu,keV Warm Dark Matter via the Supersymmetric Higgs Portal, Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 103523 [0809.0247]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [35]

    L.J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S.M. West,Freeze-In Production of FIMP Dark Matter,JHEP03(2010) 080 [0911.1120]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  36. [36]

    Bernal, M

    N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuominen and V. Vaskonen,The Dawn of FIMP Dark Matter: A Review of Models and Constraints,Int. J. Mod. Phys.A32(2017) 1730023 [1706.07442]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    Elahi, C

    F. Elahi, C. Kolda and J. Unwin,UltraViolet Freeze-in,JHEP03(2015) 048 [1410.6157]. [38]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [39]

    Kolb and M.S

    E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner,The Early Universe,Front. Phys.69(1990) 1

    1990

  39. [40]

    Steigman,Primordial nucleosynthesis: successes and challenges,Int

    G. Steigman,Primordial nucleosynthesis: successes and challenges,Int. J. Mod. Phys. E15 (2006) 1 [astro-ph/0511534]. [41]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of Particle Physics,J. Phys. G33(2006) 1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  40. [42]

    Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,Pisma Zh

    A.D. Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5(1967) 32

    1967

  41. [43]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida,Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,Phys. Lett.B174 (1986) 45

    1986

  42. [44]

    Kuzmin, V.A

    V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov and M.E. Shaposhnikov,On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,Phys. Lett.155B(1985) 36

    1985

  43. [45]

    Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys

    P. Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 421

    1977

  44. [47]

    Mohapatra and G

    R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic,Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Violation,Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 912

    1980

  45. [48]

    Schechter and J.W.F

    J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle,Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,Phys. Rev.D22 (1980) 2227

    1980

  46. [49]

    Schechter and J.W.F

    J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle,Neutrino Decay and Spontaneous Violation of Lepton Number, Phys. Rev. D25(1982) 774

    1982

  47. [50]

    Davidson, E

    S. Davidson, E. Nardi and Y. Nir,Leptogenesis,Phys. Rept.466(2008) 105 [0802.2962]. – 32 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  48. [51]

    Davidson and A

    S. Davidson and A. Ibarra,A Lower bound on the right-handed neutrino mass from leptogenesis,Phys. Lett.B535(2002) 25 [hep-ph/0202239]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  49. [52]

    H.M. Lee, M. Park and V. Sanz,Gravity-Mediated Dark Matter at a low reheating temperature,JHEP05(2025) 126 [2412.07850]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [53]

    Bernal, A

    N. Bernal, A. Donini, M.G. Folgado and N. Rius,Kaluza-Klein FIMP Dark Matter in Warped Extra-Dimensions,JHEP09(2020) 142 [2004.14403]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [54]

    de Giorgi and S

    A. de Giorgi and S. Vogl,Warm dark matter from a gravitational freeze-in in extra dimensions,JHEP04(2023) 032 [2208.03153]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [55]

    Goldberger and M.B

    W.D. Goldberger and M.B. Wise,Modulus stabilization with bulk fields,Phys. Rev. Lett.83 (1999) 4922 [hep-ph/9907447]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  53. [56]

    Goldberger and M.B

    W.D. Goldberger and M.B. Wise,Phenomenology of a stabilized modulus,Phys. Lett. B475 (2000) 275 [hep-ph/9911457]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  54. [57]

    K. Blum, M. Cliche, C. Csaki and S.J. Lee,WIMP Dark Matter through the Dilaton Portal, JHEP03(2015) 099 [1410.1873]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  55. [58]

    Csaki, M

    C. Csaki, M. Graesser, L. Randall and J. Terning,Cosmology of brane models with radion stabilization,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 045015 [hep-ph/9911406]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  56. [59]

    Stueckelberg,Interaction energy in electrodynamics and in the field theory of nuclear forces,Helv

    E.C.G. Stueckelberg,Interaction energy in electrodynamics and in the field theory of nuclear forces,Helv. Phys. Acta11(1938) 225

    1938

  57. [60]

    Ruegg and M

    H. Ruegg and M. Ruiz-Altaba,The Stueckelberg field,Int. J. Mod. Phys.A19(2004) 3265 [hep-th/0304245]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  58. [61]

    Kors and P

    B. Kors and P. Nath,A Stueckelberg extension of the standard model,Phys. Lett. B586 (2004) 366 [hep-ph/0402047]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  59. [62]

    Kors and P

    B. Kors and P. Nath,Aspects of the Stueckelberg extension,JHEP07(2005) 069 [hep-ph/0503208]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  60. [63]

    Barman, N

    B. Barman, N. Bernal, A. Das and R. Roshan,Non-minimally coupled vector boson dark matter,JCAP01(2022) 047 [2108.13447]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [64]

    Davoudiasl, J.L

    H. Davoudiasl, J.L. Hewett and T.G. Rizzo,Phenomenology of the Randall-Sundrum Gauge Hierarchy Model,Phys. Rev. Lett.84(2000) 2080 [hep-ph/9909255]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  62. [65]

    Goldberger and M.B

    W.D. Goldberger and M.B. Wise,Bulk fields in the Randall-Sundrum compactification scenario,Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 107505 [hep-ph/9907218]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  63. [66]

    M. Duch, B. Grzadkowski and D. Huang,Strongly self-interacting vector dark matter via freeze-in,JHEP01(2018) 020 [1710.00320]. [67]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of Particle Physics,PTEP2022(2022) 083C01

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  64. [68]

    Han, J.D

    T. Han, J.D. Lykken and R.-J. Zhang,On Kaluza-Klein states from large extra dimensions, Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 105006 [hep-ph/9811350]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  65. [69]

    de Giorgi and S

    A. de Giorgi and S. Vogl,Dark matter interacting via a massive spin-2 mediator in warped extra-dimensions,JHEP11(2021) 036 [2105.06794]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [70]

    Barman and N

    B. Barman and N. Bernal,Gravitational SIMPs,JCAP06(2021) 011 [2104.10699]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [71]

    Bae and H.S

    S. Bae and H.S. Lee,Bounds on the mass and coupling constant of radion in the Randall-Sundrum theory,Phys. Lett. B506(2001) 147 [hep-ph/0011275]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  68. [72]

    S. Bae, P. Ko, H.S. Lee and J. Lee,Phenomenology of the radion in Randall-Sundrum scenario at colliders,Phys. Lett. B487(2000) 299 [hep-ph/0002224]. – 33 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  69. [73]

    Mahanta and A

    U. Mahanta and A. Datta,Production of light stabilized radion at high-energy hadron collider, Phys. Lett. B483(2000) 196 [hep-ph/0002183]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  70. [74]

    Cheung, C.S

    K. Cheung, C.S. Kim and J.-h. Song,A Probe of the radion Higgs mixing in the Randall-Sundrum model at e+ e- colliders,Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 075017 [hep-ph/0301002]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  71. [75]

    Cheung, C.S

    K. Cheung, C.S. Kim and J.-h. Song,Probing the radion - Higgs mixing at hadronic colliders, Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 075011 [hep-ph/0311295]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  72. [76]

    Cheung, C.S

    K. Cheung, C.S. Kim and J. Song,Probing the radion-Higgs mixing at photon colliders,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 115015 [hep-ph/0509017]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  73. [77]

    de Sandes and R

    H. de Sandes and R. Rosenfeld,Radion-Higgs mixing effects on bounds from LHC Higgs Searches,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 053003 [1111.2006]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  74. [78]

    Ohno and G.-C

    Y. Ohno and G.-C. Cho,Production and decay of a heavy radion in Rundall-Sundrum model at the LHC,EPJ Web Conf.49(2013) 18003 [1301.7514]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  75. [79]

    G.-C. Cho, D. Nomura and Y. Ohno,Constraints on radion in a warped extra dimension model from Higgs boson searches at the LHC,Mod. Phys. Lett. A28(2013) 1350148 [1305.4431]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  76. [80]

    Kubota and M

    H. Kubota and M. Nojiri,Prospect for a study of Randall-Sundrum models from Higgs bosons decay at future colliders,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 035006 [1404.3013]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  77. [81]

    Giudice, R

    G.F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi and J.D. Wells,Graviscalars from higher dimensional metrics and curvature Higgs mixing,Nucl. Phys. B595(2001) 250 [hep-ph/0002178]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  78. [82]

    Csaki, M.L

    C. Csaki, M.L. Graesser and G.D. Kribs,Radion dynamics and electroweak physics,Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 065002 [hep-th/0008151]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  79. [83]

    Dominici, B

    D. Dominici, B. Grzadkowski, J.F. Gunion and M. Toharia,The Scalar sector of the Randall-Sundrum model,Nucl. Phys. B671(2003) 243 [hep-ph/0206192]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  80. [84]

    Frank, B

    M. Frank, B. Korutlu and M. Toharia,Radion Phenomenology with 3 and 4 Generations, Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 115020 [1110.4434]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

Showing first 80 references.