Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Electroweak Corrections to Dark Matter Direct Detection in a Vector Dark Matter Model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that next-to-leading-order electroweak corrections to vector dark matter direct detection can shift the predicted cross section by up to a factor of 2.5, moving allowed parameter points above the XENON1T limit.

desk verdict A serious NLO direct-detection calculation for a minimal vector dark matter model with an unusually honest limitations section, but the headline XENON1T-exclusion claim leans on a two-loop box approximation that is not validated for m_phi > m_t. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09249 v1 pith:DEX5TK4J submitted 2019-08-25 hep-ph

S. Glaus , M. Mühlleitner , J. Müller , S. Patel , R. Santos This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords darkmatterdirectdetectionvectorelectroweakcorrectionsnext-to-leadingorderspin-independentscatteringrenormalisationXENON1Teffectiveoperators
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper computes the next-to-leading-order electroweak corrections to the spin-independent dark matter–nucleon scattering cross section in a minimal vector dark matter model with a new dark U(1) gauge symmetry. It finds K-factors up to about 2.5, meaning the one-loop corrections can substantially enhance or suppress the cross section. As a result, parameter points that are allowed at leading order can move above the XENON1T exclusion limit, so leading-order-only comparisons with direct detection data are insufficient for this model. The paper also develops the full renormalisation of the model and shows that the scalar mixing angle counterterm must be defined with care: the KOSY scheme yields moderate corrections while other schemes give unphysically large ones.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the effective Lagrangian for spin-independent DM–nucleon scattering, whose Wilson coefficients $f_q$, $g_q$, and $f_G$ receive one-loop vertex, mediator, and box corrections. The model renormalisation combines on-shell mass and field renormalisation, an $\overline{\text{MS}}$ counterterm for the dark gauge coupling $g_\chi$, and three schemes for the scalar mixing angle $\alpha$: the KOSY scheme, an $\overline{\text{MS}}$ scheme, and a process-dependent scheme. The two-loop gluon-box contribution is treated with the Fock–Schwinger gauge effective two-Higgs–two-gluon coupling adapted from Ref. [13]. The K-factor $\sigma_{\rm NLO}/\sigma_{\rm LO}$ quantifies the net size of the corrections and is the central output for the phenomenological analysis.

What would settle it

A full two-loop calculation of the gluon-box contribution to the spin-independent cross section for a benchmark point with $m_\phi > m_t$ and $K>1$ would settle the reliability of the approximation used here; if the exact box form factor were not more than two orders of magnitude below the vertex form factor, the predicted K-factors and the inferred exclusion or recovery of parameter points would change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the one-loop electroweak corrections to the spin-independent direct detection cross section in the vector dark matter model are large enough to change the model's experimental status: K-factors, the ratio of NLO to LO cross sections, reach values of about 2.5, and the corrections can either enhance or suppress the cross section. The NLO contributions are dominated by vertex corrections to the $\chi\chi h_i$ couplings and grow with the cube of the dark gauge coupling $g_\chi$, while mediator and box corrections play a smaller role. For a sizeable number of parameter points that pass all theoretical constraints and the XENON1T limit at leading order, the NLO cross section exceeds the bound, so the model's allowed parameter space shrinks; for others the NLO suppression recovers points that would be excluded at LO. These results are obtained from the effective operator basis for spin-independent scattering, with the two-loop gluon box contribution approximated by an effective Higgs–gluon coupling in Fock–Schwinger gauge, and the paper explicitly verifies that the box form factor stays more than two orders of magnitude below the vertex form factor for the $K>1$ sample.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing approximation is that the two-loop gluon-box contribution, computed with the Fock–Schwinger gauge effective coupling based on Ref. [13] and validated there for mediator masses below the top-quark mass, also holds for mediator masses above $m_t$; the paper states it cannot judge the goodness of the approximation in that region, and its conclusion relies on the box form factor being subdominant, a property verified only for the $K>1$ sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Leading-order-only comparisons with XENON1T are insufficient for the VDM model; the NLO correction must be included to determine whether a parameter point is excluded.
  • For parameter points with $m_\phi\approx m_h$, the NLO perturbative expansion breaks down and a full two-loop calculation is needed; the paper excludes these points from its conclusions.
  • Larger dark gauge couplings $g_\chi$ give larger K-factors, so future direct detection bounds will be most sensitive to the strongly coupled regions of the model.
  • The renormalisation scheme choice for the mixing angle is decisive: KOSY gives moderate corrections, while the $\overline{\text{MS}}$ and process-dependent schemes give unphysically large ones and are unsuitable for phenomenology.
  • If NLO corrections indeed move allowed points above the XENON1T limit, then current exclusion plots for this model understate the probed parameter space, and a dedicated NLO reinterpretation of direct detection limits is required.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A similar NLO enhancement should occur in other simplified models where a scalar mediator couples a vector dark matter particle to quarks, because the $g_\chi^3$ scaling of the vertex corrections is a generic feature; the same effective-operator machinery could be applied to test this.
  • The gauge dependence of the KOSY-scheme result, though small numerically, could become relevant if future direct detection experiments probe the predicted cross sections; a pinched or physical scheme would remove this residual ambiguity.
  • Because NLO corrections can also suppress the cross section, some parameter points that appear excluded at leading order may actually be viable; reinterpreting existing exclusion limits with NLO cross sections could reveal viable regions not previously considered.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the next-to-leading-order (NLO) electroweak corrections to the spin-independent direct-detection cross section in a minimal vector dark matter (VDM) model, consisting of the Standard Model extended by a dark U(1)χ gauge boson χ and a complex SM-singlet scalar S. The authors set up the model, present its renormalisation (including the MS renormalisation of the dark gauge coupling gχ and three schemes for the scalar mixing angle α: KOSY, MS, and a process-dependent scheme), and construct the nucleon-level effective Lagrangian at NLO by separating vertex, mediator, and box corrections. A two-loop gluon contribution is included using the Fock-Schwinger effective-coupling approach of Ref. [13]. The numerical analysis uses a ScannerS-based parameter scan with theoretical, Higgs, collider, relic-density, indirect-detection, and LO direct-detection constraints, and presents K-factors, gauge-dependence checks, renormalisation-scheme comparisons, and XENON1T limit plots. The central claim is that NLO corrections reach K-factors up to about 2.5 and can move otherwise allowed parameter points above the XENON1T exclusion limit, implying that LO-only comparisons with direct-detection limits are insufficient for this model.

Significance. If the quantitative results are robust, this is a timely and useful calculation: it is one of the few complete NLO direct-detection computations in a renormalisable vector dark matter model, and it demonstrates a concrete phenomenological mechanism by which NLO corrections change the interpretation of XENON1T data. The paper is methodologically careful in several respects that deserve credit: the renormalisation is described in detail, the gauge dependence of the default KOSY scheme is studied explicitly and shown to be at the few-percent level for representative points, and the limitations of the two-loop gluon treatment and of the mφ≈mh region are stated openly rather than hidden. The phenomenological significance is, however, conditional on the unvalidated Fock-Schwinger extrapolation to mediator masses mφ>mt and on the absence of a numerical uncertainty estimate in the default renormalisation scheme; both points weaken the reliability of the headline K-factor and exclusion claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1.3 and Eq. (5.85c)] A load-bearing part of the numerical analysis uses the Fock-Schwinger effective-coupling result of Ref. [13] for mediator masses mφ>mt, a region in which that approximation was not validated and in which the authors state in Section 6.1.3 that they cannot judge its goodness. The scan of Table 1 includes mφ up to 1000 GeV, and the XENON1T comparison in Section 6.1.6 (Fig. 15) is not restricted to mφ<mt, so the claims that NLO corrections are important and that some points cross the XENON1T bound inherit exactly this unvalidated region. The supporting checks are not sufficient: the extrapolation of Fig. 4 of Ref. [13] to 1 TeV is an estimate, and the subdominance of fbox_q documented in footnote 8 does not directly control the gluonic form factor ftop_G that enters Eq. (5.85c). I ask the authors to either restrict the XENON1T and K-factor claims to mφ<mt, or provide a quantitative error estimate for ftop_G in the mφ>mt region, for example by computing the two-loop contribution at representative points or by bounding the neglected terms.
  2. [Section 6.1.2] The analysis removes points with mφ≈mh and all points with |K|>2.5 before presenting the plots, as stated in the paragraph after Fig. 10. The paper does not report how many points are removed, whether the negative-cross-section points are confined to the immediate mφ≈mh neighbourhood, or how many of the points that cross the XENON1T limit in Fig. 15 would fall into this excluded category. Since the headline K-factor range 'up to about 2.5' is defined on the surviving sample, this selection is part of the result and needs to be quantified; otherwise the reader cannot assess how much of the phenomenological impact is driven by the cut rather than by the physics. The conservative motivation is understandable, but the quantitative claims require a documentation of the removed fraction and its effect on the exclusion plot.
  3. [Section 6.1.5] No theoretical uncertainty estimate is provided for the default KOSY-scheme results, because the KOSY scheme does not allow a scale variation; the paper states this explicitly. For an NLO prediction whose main message is that K-factors reach about 2.5 and change the exclusion status of parameter points, the absence of any error estimate makes it difficult to judge whether the upper end of the K-factor range is meaningful. At minimum, the authors should estimate the size of neglected higher-order terms from the dominant vertex contribution, for example by comparing the relative size of virtual and counterterm parts, or by using the residual gauge dependence shown in Fig. 13 as a proxy, and should state the resulting uncertainty alongside the K-factors.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The maximum value of vS is printed as '10 7'; please clarify that this is 10^7 GeV.
  2. [Section 6.1.2] The text refers to the 'Xenon limit' and to 'XENON1T' interchangeably; standardising the nomenclature would avoid confusion.
  3. [Section 5.3] The statement that the results of Ref. [13] 'should be applicable' to this model because the mediator is scalar would be easier to evaluate if the differences between the fermionic DM of Ref. [13] and the vector DM considered here were spelled out at the level of the Fock-Schwinger derivation.
  4. [Conclusions] The conclusion that the two-loop box contribution is 'two orders of magnitude below the leading vertex corrections' is stronger than what is documented, since the explicit check in footnote 8 is for fbox_q and only for the K>1 sample; please soften the conclusion or add the missing check for ftop_G.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NLO direct-detection cross sections are genuine predictions from scanned model parameters; the acknowledged Fock-Schwinger approximation is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

No circularity found. The LO and NLO spin-independent cross sections are computed from scanned Lagrangian parameters (mchi, mphi, vS, alpha, gchi) with no parameter fitted to the direct-detection observable; Eq. (5.87) is a straightforward one-loop expansion of the effective form factors in Eqs. (5.84)-(5.85). The preselection of sample points by the LO XENON1T bound (Section 6: 'The sample was generated taking into account the experimental bounds on the DM nucleon SI cross section at LO') does not feed back into the NLO calculation and therefore does not force the K-factors or the number of points crossing the XENON1T line. The two-loop gluon-box treatment adopts the Fock-Schwinger gauge ansatz of the external Ref. [13] (Section 5.3); this is an uncontrolled approximation for mphi > mt, explicitly acknowledged in Section 6.1.3 ('We cannot judge the goodness of the approximation ...'), and is a correctness risk rather than a circular reduction. The KOSY renormalisation scheme and the statements about gauge and scheme dependence cite the authors' prior works Refs. [33,37], but the central NLO computation is new and the scheme choice is also justified by the paper's own Fig. 14; the self-citation is minor and not load-bearing. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central prediction depends on scanned model parameters (mχ, mφ, α, gχ) that are constrained by external data, and on approximations imported from the literature, most notably the Fock-Schwinger gauge two-loop gluon coupling. No parameter is fitted to the NLO direct detection result.

free parameters (4)
  • mχ (dark vector mass) = scanned 1-1000 GeV
    Model input scanned with ScannerS; constrained by relic density and direct detection bounds, not fitted to the NLO result.
  • mφ (non-SM-like Higgs mass) = scanned 1-1000 GeV
    Model input, constrained by Higgs searches and theoretical conditions.
  • α (scalar mixing angle) = scanned [-π/4, π/4]
    Model input constrained by Higgs signal strength measurements.
  • gχ (dark gauge coupling) = derived as mχ/vS with gχ²<4π
    Model input; effectively a free parameter of the theory, constrained by perturbativity and relic density.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The VDM model with U(1)χ gauge symmetry, complex singlet S, and Z2 stabilization is the correct low-energy description of dark matter.
    The paper investigates this model; it is not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption The effective operator basis for spin-independent direct detection (Eq. 4.56) from Ref. [49] captures all relevant contributions; the gluon twist-2 operator is neglected.
    Operator basis assumed; gluon twist-2 contribution is one order higher in αs.
  • domain assumption Vertex corrections to the hi q qbar coupling are not computed; they are assumed to be encoded in the nucleon matrix elements.
    Stated in Section 5, this is an approximation that affects the NLO result.
  • ad hoc to paper The Fock-Schwinger gauge approximation of Ref. [13] for the two-loop gluon interaction applies to this model and remains valid for mφ > mt.
    Adopted from literature; validity beyond mt is assumed and not checked by a full two-loop calculation.
  • domain assumption Renormalization of gχ in the MS scheme and of α in the KOSY scheme yields physically sensible counterterms; MS and process-dependent schemes are discarded because they give spuriously large corrections.
    Scheme choice affects the NLO result; KOSY is selected based on moderate K-factors.
invented entities (2)
  • Dark vector boson χµ independent evidence
    purpose: Vector dark matter candidate with mass mχ and U(1)χ gauge interaction.
    Predicted couplings to SM through scalar mixing; observable via direct detection, relic density, and collider searches; the particle is assumed in the model, not discovered.
  • Complex SM-singlet scalar S independent evidence
    purpose: Spontaneous breaking of U(1)χ and source of the dark vector mass; mixes with the SM Higgs.
    Its CP-even component mixes with the SM Higgs, affecting Higgs couplings and Higgs data; the scalar is a model ingredient inherited from prior work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electroweak Corrections to Dark Matter Direct Detection in a Vector Dark Matter Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DEX5TK4J

@misc{pith2026190809249,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electroweak Corrections to Dark Matter Direct Detection in a Vector Dark Matter Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DEX5TK4J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09249}
}
read the original abstract

Although many astrophysical and cosmological observations point towards the existence of Dark Matter (DM), the nature of the DM particle has not been clarified to date. In this paper, we investigate a minimal model with a vector DM (VDM) candidate. Within this model, we compute the cross section for the scattering of the VDM particle with a nucleon. We provide the next-to-leading order (NLO) cross section for the direct detection of the DM particle. Subsequently, we study the phenomenological implications of the NLO corrections, in particular with respect to the sensitivity of the direct detection DM experiments. We further investigate more theoretical questions such as the gauge dependence of the results and the remaining theoretical uncertainties due to the applied approximations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09249 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Generic diagrams contributing to A VC h1h1h1 . Here F denotes fermions, S scalars, V gauge bosons, and U ghost fields. 3.2 Renormalisation of the Scalar Mixing Angle α The final parameter that needs to be renormalised is the mixing angle α. Again, this is a quantity that cannot be related directly to an observable, except if we would use a process-dependent renormalisation scheme which is known to lead to unphysical… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Higgs bosons hi mediating the coupling of two gluons to two VDM particles through a heavy quark loop. coupling constant αs [49]. For vanishing momentum transfer and on-shell nucleon states, the nucleon matrix elements are given by hN| mqqq¯ |Ni = mN f N Tq (4.59a) − 9αS 8π hN| G a µνG a,µν |Ni =  1 − X q=u,d,s f N Tq   mN = mN f N TG (4.59b) hN(p)| Oq µν |N(p)i = 1 mN  pµpν − 1 4 m2 N gµν [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Generic tree-level diagram contribution to the SI cross section. The mediator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Generic one-loop corrections to the scattering of VDM with the nucleon. The grey blob corresponds to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Generic diagrams contributing to the virtual corrections to the vertex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Generic diagrams of the box topology contributing to the SI cross section. The symbol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The full two-loop gluon interaction with the DM candidate (left) and the effective two-loop interaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Grey: The tree-level SI cross section σ LO versus the DM mass mχ in GeV for the complete parameter sample compatible with the applied constraints. The blue line denotes the Xenon Limit. 6.1.2 Results for mφ < mt We now investigate the dependence of the LO and NLO direc…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spin-independent direct detection LO cross section (left) and NLO cross section (right) versus the mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: K-factor versus the Higgs mass mφ (left) and σ LO (right) for the parameter sample passing all constraints and mφ < mt. The color code denotes the size of the dark gauge coupling gχ. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: K-factor as function of the LO direct detection cross section with the color code indicating the size of sin2 2α (left) and mχ (right). 6.1.3 Results for mφ > mt We now turn to the parameter region of our sample of valid points where the approximation described in Sub…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: K-factor versus the LO SI cross section. The color code denotes the size of the dark gauge coupling gχ for the parameter sample passing all constraints and mφ > mt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Relative gauge dependence ∆ξσ versus the gauge parameter ξ for parameter point number 5 (left) and 6 (right). See text, for their definitions. As can be inferred from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The K-factor versus the LO SI direct detection cross section for the whole data sample passing all constraints and for three different renormalisation schemes of α: the KOSY scheme (yellow), the process-dependent scheme (green), the MS scheme (violet). The uncertainty…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The SI cross section including the correction factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Ertas and F

    F. Ertas and F. Kahlhoefer, (2019), 1902.11070

    arXiv 2019

  2. [1]

    Zwicky, Helv

    F. Zwicky, Helv. Phys. Acta 6, 110 (1933), [Gen. Rel. Grav.41,207(2009)]

    1933

  3. [2]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045002 (2018), 1605.04909

    arXiv 2018

  4. [3]

    M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D31, 3059 (1985), [,325(1984)]

    work page 1985

  5. [4]

    On the importance of loop-induced spin-independent interactions for dark matter direct detection

    U. Haisch and F. Kahlhoefer, JCAP 1304, 050 (2013), 1302.4454

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  6. [5]

    New Constraints on Dark Matter Effective Theories from Standard Model Loops

    A. Crivellin, F. D’Eramo, and M. Procura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 191304 (2014), 1402.1173

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  7. [6]

    R. J. Hill and M. P. Solon, Phys. Rev. D91, 043504 (2015), 1401.3339

    arXiv 2015

  8. [7]

    Abe and R

    T. Abe and R. Sato, JHEP 03, 109 (2015), 1501.04161

    arXiv 2015

Show all 76 references
  1. [8]

    Klasen, K

    M. Klasen, K. Kovarik, and P. Steppeler, Phys. Rev. D94, 095002 (2016), 1607.06396

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Azevedo et al., JHEP 01, 138 (2019), 1810.06105

    D. Azevedo et al., JHEP 01, 138 (2019), 1810.06105

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Ishiwata and T

    K. Ishiwata and T. Toma, JHEP 12, 089 (2018), 1810.08139

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Ghorbani and P

    K. Ghorbani and P. H. Ghorbani, JHEP 05, 096 (2019), 1812.04092

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    T. Abe, M. Fujiwara, and J. Hisano, JHEP 02, 028 (2019), 1810.01039

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hambye, JHEP 01, 028 (2009), 0811.0172

    T. Hambye, JHEP 01, 028 (2009), 0811.0172

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Lebedev, H

    O. Lebedev, H. M. Lee, and Y. Mambrini, Phys. Lett. B707, 570 (2012), 1111.4482

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Farzan and A

    Y. Farzan and A. R. Akbarieh, JCAP 1210, 026 (2012), 1207.4272

    2012 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S. Baek, P. Ko, W.-I. Park, and E. Senaha, JHEP 05, 036 (2013), 1212.2131. 28

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    S. Baek, P. Ko, and W.-I. Park, Phys. Rev. D90, 055014 (2014), 1405.3530

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    M. Duch, B. Grzadkowski, and M. McGarrie, JHEP 09, 162 (2015), 1506.08805

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Azevedo et al., Phys

    D. Azevedo et al., Phys. Rev. D99, 015017 (2019), 1808.01598

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hahn, Comput

    T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun. 140, 418 (2001), hep-ph/0012260

    2001 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Staub, Comput

    F. Staub, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 1773 (2014), 1309.7223

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Staub, Comput

    F. Staub, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1792 (2013), 1207.0906

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Staub, Comput

    F. Staub, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 808 (2011), 1002.0840

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Staub, Comput

    F. Staub, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 1077 (2010), 0909.2863

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, Comput. Phys. Commun. 207, 432 (2016), 1601.01167

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Mertig, M

    R. Mertig, M. Bohm, and A. Denner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64, 345 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    Passarino and M

    G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B160, 151 (1979)

    1979

  21. [29]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and L. Hofer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 212, 220 (2017), 1604.06792

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Denner and S

    A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Nucl. Phys. B658, 175 (2003), hep-ph/0212259

    2003 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Denner and S

    A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Nucl. Phys. B734, 62 (2006), hep-ph/0509141

    2006 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Denner and S

    A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Nucl. Phys. B844, 199 (2011), 1005.2076

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Krause, R

    M. Krause, R. Lorenz, M. Muhlleitner, R. Santos, and H. Ziesche, JHEP 09, 143 (2016), 1605.04853

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bojarski, G

    F. Bojarski, G. Chalons, D. Lopez-Val, and T. Robens, JHEP 02, 147 (2016), 1511.08120

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Denner, L

    A. Denner, L. Jenniches, J.-N. Lang, and C. Sturm, JHEP 09, 115 (2016), 1607.07352

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Krause, M

    M. Krause, M. Muhlleitner, R. Santos, and H. Ziesche, Phys. Rev. D95, 075019 (2017), 1609.04185

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Krause, D

    M. Krause, D. Lopez-Val, M. Muhlleitner, and R. Santos, JHEP 12, 077 (2017), 1708.01578

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Altenkamp, S

    L. Altenkamp, S. Dittmaier, and H. Rzehak, JHEP 09, 134 (2017), 1704.02645

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Altenkamp, S

    L. Altenkamp, S. Dittmaier, and H. Rzehak, JHEP 03, 110 (2018), 1710.07598

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    M. Fox, W. Grimus, and M. L¨ oschner, Int. J. Mod. Phys.A33, 1850019 (2018), 1705.09589

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and J.-N. Lang, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018, 104 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Grimus and M

    W. Grimus and M. L¨ oschner, (2018), 1807.00725. 29

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Krause, M

    M. Krause, M. M¨ uhlleitner, and M. Spira, (2018), 1810.00768

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Krause and M

    M. Krause and M. M¨ uhlleitner, (2019), 1904.02103

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Pilaftsis, Nucl

    A. Pilaftsis, Nucl. Phys. B504, 61 (1997), hep-ph/9702393

    1997 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kanemura, Y

    S. Kanemura, Y. Okada, E. Senaha, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D70, 115002 (2004), hep-ph/0408364

    2004 arXiv

  39. [47]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B44, 189 (1972)

    1972

  40. [48]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B61, 455 (1973)

    1973

  41. [49]

    Hisano, K

    J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata, N. Nagata, and M. Yamanaka, Prog. Theor. Phys. 126, 435 (2011), 1012.5455

    2011 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hisano, K

    J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata, and N. Nagata, Phys. Rev. D82, 115007 (2010), 1007.2601

    2010 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hisano, R

    J. Hisano, R. Nagai, and N. Nagata, JHEP 05, 037 (2015), 1502.02244

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. 78B, 443 (1978)

    1978

  45. [53]

    Coimbra, M

    R. Coimbra, M. O. P. Sampaio, and R. Santos, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2428 (2013), 1301.2599

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Costa, M

    R. Costa, M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, and R. Santos, JHEP 06, 034 (2016), 1512.05355

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Aad et al., Phys

    ATLAS, CMS, G. Aad et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 191803 (2015), 1503.07589

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 138 (2010), 0811.4169

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 2605 (2011), 1102.1898

    2011 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bechtle et al., Eur

    P. Bechtle et al., Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2693 (2014), 1311.0055

    2014 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Aaboud et al., Eur

    ATLAS, M. Aaboud et al., Eur. Phys. J. C78, 293 (2018), 1712.06386

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, and M. Spira, Comput. Phys. Commun. 108, 56 (1998), hep- ph/9704448

    1998

  53. [61]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, M. Muehlleitner, and M. Spira, Comput. Phys. Commun. 238, 214 (2019), 1801.09506

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 176, 367 (2007), hep-ph/0607059

    2007 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, Comput.Phys.Commun. 177, 894 (2007)

    2007

  56. [64]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, (2010), 1005.4133

    2010 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 960 (2014), 1305.0237. 30

    2014 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Planck, P. A. R. Ade et al., Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016), 1502.01589

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Ackermann et al., Phys

    Fermi-LAT, M. Ackermann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 231301 (2015), 1503.02641

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Aguilar et al., Phys

    AMS, M. Aguilar et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 221102 (2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    Accardo et al., Phys

    AMS, L. Accardo et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 121101 (2014)

    2014

  62. [70]

    G. Elor, N. L. Rodd, T. R. Slatyer, and W. Xue, JCAP 1606, 024 (2016), 1511.08787

    2016 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Aprile et al., Phys

    XENON, E. Aprile et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 181301 (2017), 1705.06655

    2017 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Aprile et al., (2018), 1805.12562

    XENON, E. Aprile et al., (2018), 1805.12562

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Angloher et al., Eur

    CRESST, G. Angloher et al., Eur. Phys. J. C76, 25 (2016), 1509.01515

    2016 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Agnese et al., Phys

    SuperCDMS, R. Agnese et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 071301 (2016), 1509.02448

    2016 arXiv

  67. [75]

    B´ elanger, F

    G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Goudelis, A. Pukhov, and B. Zaldivar, Comput. Phys. Commun. 231, 173 (2018), 1801.03509

    2018 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Pumplin et al., JHEP 07, 012 (2002), hep-ph/0201195

    J. Pumplin et al., JHEP 07, 012 (2002), hep-ph/0201195. 31

    2002 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.