Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 85 references

Darkly Charged ALPs

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read ALPs that carry dark charges lose every ordinary d=5 coupling and interact with the Standard Model only through two d=6 operators.

desk verdict Clean, self-contained EFT paper that kills the entire d=5 ALP Lagrangian once ALPs carry dark charge, isolates two d=6 operators, and maps their distinct collider/DM phenomenology. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09852 v1 pith:PGGVXSEI submitted 2026-07-10 hep-ph hep-th

Nicolás M. Arenaza , Enrique Fernández-Martínez , Belén Gavela , Elizabeth E. Jenkins , Aneesh V. Manohar , Pablo Quílez , Thomas Steingasser This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords axion-likeparticlesdarkchargeseffectivefieldtheoryGoldstonebosonsHiggsportalhyperchargematterCCWZ
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Standard axion-like particles are assumed to be singlets under every dark symmetry as well as under the Standard Model. This paper drops that assumption. Once the ALPs transform non-trivially under an unbroken dark group H, charge conservation immediately forbids every linear, dimension-five ALP–SM operator, including the celebrated ALP–photon coupling. The leading shift-symmetric effective theory then starts at dimension six and contains only two operators: a universal Higgs-portal interaction and a single hypercharge-portal interaction that requires an antisymmetric H-invariant. The authors construct the full non-linear chiral Lagrangian for a general G o H breaking, give group-theoretic conditions that guarantee the two operators exist, map the resulting collider, astrophysical and dark-matter phenomenology, and supply concrete ultraviolet completions. The result is a qualitatively different search strategy: look for invisible Higgs and Z decays, monojets, and freeze-in or misalignment dark matter rather than photon signals.

What carries the argument

The CCWZ chiral Lagrangian for a general coset G/H, together with two group-theoretic conditions: RGB contains no H-singlet (so d=5 operators are absent) and the antisymmetric product of RGB with itself contains an H-singlet (so the Bμν operator is allowed).

What would settle it

An observation of a single ALP decaying to two photons, or a non-zero linear ALP–Higgs or ALP–fermion coupling at dimension five, would immediately rule out the dark-charge premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When ALPs transform in a non-trivial representation RGB of an unbroken dark symmetry H that contains no H-singlet, every d=5 ALP–SM operator is forbidden by H-invariance, and the lowest-order shift-symmetric Lagrangian consists of precisely two d=6 operators: the universal Higgs portal Sij(H†H)(∂μai)(∂μaj) and the antisymmetric hypercharge portal Aij Bμν(∂μai)(∂νaj).

Load-bearing premise

The dark symmetry is purely global and any explicit breaking that gives the ALPs a small mass still preserves the unbroken dark group, so the particles remain light and (in the minimal case) mass-degenerate.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper removes the implicit assumption that axion-like particles (ALPs) are singlets under any dark-sector symmetry. For pseudo-Goldstone bosons transforming in a non-trivial representation RGB of an unbroken dark group H (with no H-singlet), H-invariance forbids every d=5 ALP–SM operator. Using the CCWZ construction for a general G→H breaking, the authors show that the leading shift-symmetric EFT contains precisely two d=6 operators coupling DALPs to the SM: a universal Higgs portal Sij(H†H)(∂μai)(∂μaj) and, when an antisymmetric H-invariant exists, a hypercharge portal Aij Bμν(∂μai)(∂νaj). They reformulate the existence conditions [C1]–[C2] in group-theoretic language, classify higher-dimension operators, give concrete coset examples, compute phenomenological constraints (invisible widths, monojet, SN cooling, direct detection) and relic-density mechanisms (freeze-out, freeze-in, misalignment) for a minimal two-DALP case, and supply perturbative UV completions that generate both operators.

Significance. If correct, the result opens a qualitatively distinct corner of ALP parameter space in which the paradigmatic aγγ coupling and all other linear d=5 operators are absent by symmetry, while two d=6 portals become the leading signals. The operator classification is model-independent within the stated assumptions (global G, SM fields neutral under G), the group conditions and CCWZ derivation are clean and standard, and the UV matching calculations (including the non-expanded results in App. B obtained with Matchete) are reproducible. The phenomenology yields falsifiable predictions for invisible Higgs/Z widths, monojet rates, and a DM window that extends to surprisingly large masses via misalignment. These strengths make the work a natural and useful extension of the ALP EFT literature.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. 4 (and Figs. 3–4, 7): the entire phenomenological analysis is performed for a minimal, exactly degenerate two-DALP spectrum. While the authors note that degeneracy follows from an H-preserving explicit G-breaking, the general G→H examples of Sec. 3.5 (e.g. SU(3)→U(1)×U(1)) produce several multiplets with generically different masses and decay constants. The invisible-width formulae (4.1), (4.4), the monojet rates, and the relic-density curves then change. A short paragraph quantifying how the bounds and the DM windows generalize (or stating that they are representative only) is needed for the claim of “model-independent phenomenological implications” to hold beyond the minimal case.
  2. Sec. 4.3: the supernova-cooling window for OBa is obtained by rescaling the fermionic vector-portal bounds of Ref. [76] via averaged production and capture cross sections (4.10)–(4.12). The authors note that bosonic versus fermionic statistics differ by O(1) factors, but the radial averaging and the neglect of possible DALP self-interactions inside the SN introduce a systematic uncertainty that is not quantified. Because this window is competitive with collider bounds in Fig. 4, a brief estimate of that uncertainty (or a statement that the blue region should be regarded as indicative) is required for the exclusion to be robust.
minor comments (7)
  1. Abstract and Sec. 2: the phrase “just two d=6 operators” is accurate for the leading SM portals of mass dimension two, but Table 1 shows that other d=6 structures exist once higher-dimension SM operators are allowed. A clarifying clause (“two operators that start at d=6 with the lowest-dimension SM singlets”) would prevent misreading.
  2. Eq. (2.1) and Fig. 1: the notation Sij versus eSij (kinetic versus portal) is introduced only later; defining both tensors already in Sec. 2 would improve readability for readers who skip Sec. 3.
  3. Sec. 3.5.2, Eq. (3.37): the relation between the three decay constants and the adjoint VEV components is useful; a short remark that the most general Sij need not coincide with the kinetic-term combination would make the subsequent discussion of independent portal coefficients clearer.
  4. Figs. 3, 4 and 7: the gray “EFT breakdown” line is drawn but never defined quantitatively in the text. Stating the criterion used (e.g. fa/√c ≳ ETmax or 4πfa) would help the reader.
  5. Sec. 5.1, Table 3: the present bound on CH□ is quoted from a global SMEFiT fit; a one-sentence reminder that the bound assumes no other new physics would be useful for non-SMEFT readers.
  6. App. A.2: the sufficient condition involving the center of H is elegant; a one-line example showing that it recovers the U(1) factor criterion already stated in Sec. 3.3 would make the appendix self-contained.
  7. References: a few recent multi-axion and dark-pion papers (e.g. on freeze-in of multiple axions) are cited, but the connection of OBa to the operator already noted in Ref. [34] could be flagged more explicitly in Sec. 4.4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the two d=6 operators and the forbidding of all d=5 ALP-SM couplings follow directly from CCWZ plus H-invariance of a non-singlet RGB; phenomenology is computed against external data.

full rationale

The load-bearing derivation (Secs. 3.1–3.3 and App. A) constructs the chiral field u_μ from the CCWZ Maurer–Cartan form, imposes H-invariance on RGB (condition [C1]: RGB contains no H-singlet), and requires an antisymmetric H-invariant bilinear for the B_μν portal (condition [C2]). Both conditions are proved group-theoretically without reference to data or to any prior result of the present authors; the resulting LO Lagrangian is exactly the two operators of Eqs. (2.1)–(2.4). Higher-order terms in Table 1 are likewise fixed by the same non-linear realization. The phenomenological curves of Sec. 4 (invisible widths, monojet, SN cooling, freeze-out/freeze-in/misalignment relic densities, direct detection) are obtained by evaluating those operators against external experimental limits and standard cosmological codes; no parameter is fitted to a subset of the same data and then re-presented as a prediction. UV matchings in Sec. 5 are ordinary one-loop calculations that generate the same operators. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, load-bearing self-citation, or uniqueness theorem imported from the authors appears. The paper is therefore free of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard EFT and group-theory tools plus the modeling choice that the dark sector is global and that SM fields are dark-neutral. Free parameters are the usual Wilson coefficients and scales of any EFT analysis; the only invented entity is the DALP multiplet itself, which is defined by the representation theory of G/H.

free parameters (4)
  • c_Ha / f_a²
    Wilson coefficient of the universal Higgs-portal operator; free in the EFT and scanned in the phenomenological plots.
  • c_Ba / f_a²
    Wilson coefficient of the antisymmetric hypercharge-portal operator; free when the coset admits an antisymmetric invariant.
  • m_a
    Common DALP mass generated by a small explicit G-breaking that preserves H; treated as a free parameter in all exclusion and relic-density plots.
  • T_R
    Reheating temperature that controls freeze-in abundance; scanned as an external cosmological input.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math CCWZ non-linear realization of G/H correctly captures all shift-symmetric interactions of the Goldstone bosons.
    Invoked throughout Sec. 3 to build the chiral Lagrangian and higher-order operators.
  • domain assumption SM fields are singlets under the dark group G and DALPs are singlets under the SM gauge group.
    Stated in the abstract and Sec. 1; required for the portal structure of the two d=6 operators.
  • ad hoc to paper The dark symmetry G is purely global (no dark gauge bosons).
    Explicitly restricted in the abstract and Sec. 1; the paper notes that gauging is a possible generalization left for future work.
  • domain assumption Any explicit G-breaking that generates DALP masses preserves the unbroken H, so multiplet members remain degenerate.
    Used in Sec. 3.4 and throughout the phenomenological analysis of Sec. 4 to reduce the parameter space to a single mass m_a.
invented entities (1)
  • Darkly charged ALPs (DALPs)
    purpose: Pseudo-Goldstone bosons transforming in a non-trivial representation of an unbroken dark H, thereby forbidding d=5 operators and generating the two d=6 portals.
    Defined by the representation theory of G/H; no independent experimental evidence is claimed beyond the EFT predictions themselves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Darkly Charged ALPs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PGGVXSEI

@misc{pith2026260709852,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Darkly Charged ALPs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PGGVXSEI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09852}
}
abstract

The established $d=5$ ALP effective Lagrangian describes the interaction of scalars with approximate shift-symmetry which carry no Standard Model (SM) charges with SM fields. It implicitly assumes that ALPs are not charged under any symmetries of the dark sector. In this paper, we remove this assumption. For ALPs carrying conserved dark charges, no $d=5$ ALP effective interaction to SM particles is possible. We build the effective Lagrangian for these darkly charged ALPs stemming from a general breaking pattern, and we show that the lowest-order shift-symmetric effective Lagrangian contains just two $d=6$ operators coupling ALPs to SM particles. We explore the model-independent phenomenological implications of these interactions, as well as the question of whether the dark matter observed in the Universe may consist of darkly charged ALPs. We identify higher order operators of the effective field theory, and determine which types of dark symmetry groups can seed darkly charged ALPs. Illustrative examples of ultraviolet completions which result in darkly charged ALPs at low-energies are provided as well. The darkly-charged ALP scenario can be generalized by including dark gauge interactions. In this paper, we have considered only the case with no such interactions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith

  1. [76]

    Langhoff, N

    K. Langhoff, N. J. Outmezguine and N. L. Rodd,Irreducible Axion Background,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 241101 [2209.06216]. 26

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn,CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. Lett. 38(1977) 1440. 2

    1977

  3. [2]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn,Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1791

    1977

  4. [3]

    Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys

    S. Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys. Rev. Lett.40(1978) 223

    1978

  5. [4]

    Wilczek,Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,Phys

    F. Wilczek,Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. Lett.40(1978) 279. 2

    1978

  6. [5]

    Arkani-Hamed and Y

    N. Arkani-Hamed and Y. Grossman,Light active and sterile neutrinos from compositeness, Phys. Lett. B459(1999) 179 [hep-ph/9806223]. 2

    arXiv 1999

  7. [6]

    K. R. Dienes, E. Dudas and T. Gherghetta,Invisible axions and large radius compactifications, Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 105023 [hep-ph/9912455]

    arXiv 2000

  8. [7]

    Chang, S

    S. Chang, S. Tazawa and M. Yamaguchi,Axion model in extra dimensions with TeV scale gravity,Phys. Rev. D61(2000) 084005 [hep-ph/9908515]

    arXiv 2000

Show all 85 references
  1. [8]

    Di Lella, A

    L. Di Lella, A. Pilaftsis, G. Raffelt and K. Zioutas,Search for solar Kaluza-Klein axions in theories of low scale quantum gravity,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 125011 [hep-ph/0006327]. 2 – 41 –

    2000 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Davidson and K

    A. Davidson and K. C. Wali,Minimal Flavor Unification via Multigenerational Peccei-Quinn Symmetry,Phys. Rev. Lett.48(1982) 11. 2

    1982

  3. [10]

    Wilczek,Axions and Family Symmetry Breaking,Phys

    F. Wilczek,Axions and Family Symmetry Breaking,Phys. Rev. Lett.49(1982) 1549

    1982

  4. [11]

    Y. Ema, K. Hamaguchi, T. Moroi and K. Nakayama,Flaxion: a minimal extension to solve puzzles in the standard model,JHEP01(2017) 096 [1612.05492]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Calibbi, F

    L. Calibbi, F. Goertz, D. Redigolo, R. Ziegler and J. Zupan,Minimal axion model from flavor, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 095009 [1612.08040]. 2

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie,A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 133. 2, 26

    1983

  7. [14]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler,The Not So Harmless Axion,Phys. Lett. B120(1983) 137

    1983

  8. [15]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise and F. Wilczek,Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 127. 2, 26

    1983

  9. [16]

    G. B. Gelmini and M. Roncadelli,Left-Handed Neutrino Mass Scale and Spontaneously Broken Lepton Number,Phys. Lett. B99(1981) 411. 2

    1981

  10. [17]

    Cicoli,Axion-like Particles from String Compactifications, in9th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs, pp

    M. Cicoli,Axion-like Particles from String Compactifications, in9th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs, pp. 235–242, 2013, DOI [1309.6988]. 2

    2013 arXiv

  11. [18]

    J. E. Kim,A Composite Invisible Axion,Phys. Rev. D31(1985) 1733. 2

    1985

  12. [19]

    Choi and J

    K. Choi and J. E. Kim,Dynamical Axion,Phys. Rev. D32(1985) 1828

    1985

  13. [20]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky,On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions. (In Russian),Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.31(1980) 260

    1980

  14. [21]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler and M. Srednicki,A Simple Solution to the Strong CP Problem with a Harmless Axion,Phys. Lett. B104(1981) 199

    1981

  15. [22]

    J. E. Kim,Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance,Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979) 103

    1979

  16. [23]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov,Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions?,Nucl. Phys. B166(1980) 493. 2

    1980

  17. [24]

    Georgi, D

    H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan and L. Randall,Manifesting the Invisible Axion at Low-energies,Phys. Lett. B169(1986) 73. 2, 6

    1986

  18. [25]

    Gavela, P

    B. Gavela, P. Quílez and M. Ramos,The QCD axion sum rule,JHEP04(2024) 056 [2305.15465]. 2

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Chadha-Day,Axion-like particle oscillations,JCAP01(2022) 013 [2107.12813]

    F. Chadha-Day,Axion-like particle oscillations,JCAP01(2022) 013 [2107.12813]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    de Giorgi, J

    A. de Giorgi, J. Jaeckel, S. Monath and V. Takhistov,Multiple Axions in Laboratory Experiments,2512.16837

  21. [28]

    Murai, F

    K. Murai, F. Takahashi and W. Yin,QCD axion: A unique player in the axiverse with mixings, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 036020 [2305.18677]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Murai, Y

    K. Murai, Y. Narita, F. Takahashi and W. Yin,QCD axion dark matter from level crossing with refined adiabatic condition,JHEP04(2025) 124 [2412.10232]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [30]

    D. I. Dunsky, C. A. Manzari, P. Quílez, M. Ramos and P. Sørensen,Resonant Landau-Zener conversion in multi-axion systems,JHEP01(2026) 077 [2507.06287]. – 42 –

    2026 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Chadha-Day, J

    F. Chadha-Day, J. Maxwell and J. Turner,ALP anarchy,JCAP09(2024) 056 [2311.13658]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Baryakhtar, D

    M. Baryakhtar, D. Cyncynates and E. Henry,Axiverse Lampposts,2602.23424

    arXiv

  26. [33]

    Fernández Navarro, M

    M. Fernández Navarro, M. F. Zamoro, M. Pesut and X. Ponce Díaz,The structure of multi-axion solutions to the strong CP problem,2605.06787

    arXiv

  27. [34]

    Dessert, S

    C. Dessert, S. Kumar and J. T. Ruderman,Freezing-in the Axiverse,2511.09631. 3, 26

  28. [35]

    Grinstein, C

    B. Grinstein, C. Miró and P. Quílez Lasanta,Counting axions with IAXO,2606.20826. 2

    arXiv

  29. [36]

    Bhattacharya, B

    S. Bhattacharya, B. Melić and J. Wudka,Pionic Dark Matter,JHEP02(2014) 115 [1307.2647]. 3

    2014 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky and J. G. Wacker,Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 171301 [1402.5143]. 24

    2014 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Alexander, H

    S. Alexander, H. Gilmer, T. Manton and E. McDonough,π-axion andπ-axiverse of dark QCD, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 123014 [2304.11176]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    García-Cely, G

    C. García-Cely, G. Landini, L. Marsili and Ó. Zapata,Pion dark matter in aθvacuum: a thermal relic with sharp velocity-dependent self-interactions,JHEP02(2026) 105 [2508.21121]

    2026 arXiv

  33. [40]

    X. Chu, M. Nikolic and J. Pradler,Even SIMP miracles are possible,Phys. Rev. Lett.133 (2024) 2 [2401.12283]. 3

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Preskill,Subgroup Alignment in Hypercolor Theories,Nucl

    J. Preskill,Subgroup Alignment in Hypercolor Theories,Nucl. Phys. B177(1981) 21. 3

    1981

  35. [42]

    M. E. Peskin,The Alignment of the Vacuum in Theories of Technicolor,Nucl. Phys. B175 (1980) 197. 3

    1980

  36. [43]

    Weinberg,Goldstone Bosons as Fractional Cosmic Neutrinos,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Goldstone Bosons as Fractional Cosmic Neutrinos,Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013) 241301 [1305.1971]. 4, 5, 24

    2013 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Bauer, G

    M. Bauer, G. Rostagni and J. Spinner,Axion-Higgs portal,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 015007 [2207.05762]. 4, 5

    2023 arXiv

  38. [45]

    V. E. Vileta, B. Gavela, R. Houtz and P. Quilez,Discrete Goldstone bosons,Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 035009 [2205.09131]. 4

    2023 arXiv

  39. [46]

    S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino,Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1,Phys. Rev.177(1969) 2239. 5, 6

    1969

  40. [47]

    C. G. Callan, S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino,Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2,Phys. Rev.177(1969) 2247. 5, 6

    1969

  41. [48]

    D. B. Kaplan,Opening the Axion Window,Nucl. Phys. B260(1985) 215. 6

    1985

  42. [49]

    Manohar and H

    A. Manohar and H. Georgi,Chiral Quarks and the Nonrelativistic Quark Model,Nucl. Phys. B 234(1984) 189. 9, 26

    1984

  43. [50]

    Buchalla, O

    G. Buchalla, O. Catá and C. Krause,On the Power Counting in Effective Field Theories,Phys. Lett. B731(2014) 80 [1312.5624]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [51]

    B. M. Gavela, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and L. Merlo,Analysis of General Power Counting Rules in Effective Field Theory,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 485 [1601.07551]. 26 – 43 –

    2016 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Brivio, R

    I. Brivio, R. Gröber and K. Schmid,The Art of Counting: a reappraisal of the HEFT expansion,2511.23410. 9

    arXiv

  46. [53]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler,Chiral Perturbation Theory to One Loop,Ann. Phys.158(1984)

    1984

  47. [54]

    Bijnens, G

    J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo and G. Ecker,The Mesonic chiral Lagrangian of orderp6,JHEP02 (1999) 020 [hep-ph/9902437]. 10

    1999 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Scherer,Introduction to chiral perturbation theory,Adv

    S. Scherer,Introduction to chiral perturbation theory,Adv. Nucl. Phys.27(2003) 277 [hep-ph/0210398]. 14

    2003 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar,Geometry of the Scalar Sector,JHEP08(2016) 101 [1605.03602]. 15 [57]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001. 18 [58]CMScollaboration,Combined measurements and interpretations of Higgs b...

    2016 arXiv

  50. [57]

    G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins,A Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals,Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 3873 [physics/9711021]. 18, 21 [61]ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Hea vy Fla vour Groupcollab...

    1998 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Janot and S

    P. Janot and S. Jadach,Improved Bhabha cross section at LEP and the number of light neutrino species,Phys. Lett. B803(2020) 135319 [1912.02067]. 19

    2020 arXiv

  52. [59]

    de Blas et al.,Physics Briefing Book: Input for the 2026 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,2511.03883

    J. de Blas et al.,Physics Briefing Book: Input for the 2026 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,2511.03883. 21 [64]ATLAScollaboration,Search for new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and missing transverse momentum inppcollisions at √s=13 TeV with the ...

    2026

  53. [60]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,JHEP07(2014) 079 [1405.0301]. 21

    2014 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Butterworth et al.,PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II,J

    J. Butterworth et al.,PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II,J. Phys. G43(2016) 023001 [1510.03865]. 21

    2016 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands,PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual,JHEP05(2006) 026 [hep-ph/0603175]. 21 – 44 –

    2006 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands,A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,Comput. Phys. Commun.178(2008) 852 [0710.3820]. 21 [70]DELPHES 3collaboration,DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,JHEP02(2014) 057 [1307.6346]. 21

    2008 arXiv

  57. [64]

    A. Roy, M. A. Schmidt and G. Valencia,Monojet and direct detection constraints on real scalar dark matter: EFT and a simple UV completion,JHEP02(2026) 167 [2509.14869]. 22 [72]L3collaboration,Single photon and multiphoton events with missing energy ine +e− collisions at LEP,Ph...

    2026

  58. [65]

    Bauer, P

    M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer, P. Reimitz and T. Plehn,Light Dark Matter Annihilation and Scattering in LHC Detectors,SciPost Phys.10(2021) 030 [2005.13551]. 22

    2021 arXiv

  59. [66]

    DeRocco, P

    W. DeRocco, P. W. Graham, D. Kasen, G. Marques-Tavares and S. Rajendran,Supernova signals of light dark matter,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 075018 [1905.09284]. 22, 23

    2019 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Fernández-Martínez, M

    E. Fernández-Martínez, M. González-López, J. Hernández-García, M. Hostert and J. López-Pavón,Effective portals to heavy neutral leptons,JHEP09(2023) 001 [2304.06772]. 23

    2023 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, H. Murayama, T. Volansky and J. G. Wacker,Model for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 021301 [1411.3727]. 24

    2015 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Davighi, A

    J. Davighi, A. Greljo and N. Selimovic,Topological Portal to the Dark Sector,Phys. Rev. Lett. 134(2025) 111804 [2401.09528]. 24

    2025 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Davighi, S

    J. Davighi, S. Moldovsky, H. Murayama, C. Scherb and N. Selimovic,Topological freeze-out by semi-annihilation,JHEP02(2026) 133 [2506.05468]. 24

    2026 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov,MicrOMEGAs: A Program for calculating the relic density in the MSSM,Comput. Phys. Commun.149(2002) 103 [hep-ph/0112278]. 24

    2002 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Alguero, G

    G. Alguero, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, S. Chakraborti, A. Goudelis, S. Kraml et al., micrOMEGAs 6.0: N-component dark matter,Comput. Phys. Commun.299(2024) 109133 [2312.14894]. 24

    2024 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Blennow, E

    M. Blennow, E. Fernandez-Martinez and B. Zaldivar,Freeze-in through portals,JCAP01 (2014) 003 [1309.7348]. 25

    2014 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Goudelis, A

    A. Goudelis, A. Lessa, L. M. D. Ramos and T. Reggio,Freeze-in at all couplings,2606.19564. 25

    arXiv

  68. [75]

    Bernal, S

    N. Bernal, S. Mukherjee and J. Unwin,Minimal freeze-in dark matter: Reviving electroweak doublet dark matter with Boltzmann suppressed freeze-in,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 115065 [2602.10112]. 25 – 45 –

    2026 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald,WISPy Cold Dark Matter,JCAP06(2012) 013 [1201.5902]. 26

    2012 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Alonso-Álvarez, T

    G. Alonso-Álvarez, T. Hugle and J. Jaeckel,Misalignment & Co.: (Pseudo-)scalar and vector dark matter with curvature couplings,JCAP02(2020) 014 [1905.09836]. 26

    2020 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Di Luzio, B

    L. Di Luzio, B. Gavela, P. Quilez and A. Ringwald,Dark matter from an even lighter QCD axion: trapped misalignment,JCAP10(2021) 001 [2102.01082]. 26 [90]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A6 [1807.06209], [Erratum:...

    2021 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Del Nobile,The Theory of Direct Dark Matter Detection: A Guide to Computations, 2104.12785

    E. Del Nobile,The Theory of Direct Dark Matter Detection: A Guide to Computations, 2104.12785. 28

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Ruiz de Elvira, B. Kubis and U.-G. Meißner,High-Precision Determination of the Pion-NucleonσTerm from Roy-Steiner Equations,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 092301 [1506.04142]. 28 [94]XLZDcollaboration,The XLZD Design Book: towards the next-generation liquid xenon...

    2015 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Celada, T

    E. Celada, T. Giani, J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, J. Rojo, A. N. Rossia et al.,Mapping the SMEFT at high-energy colliders: from LEP and the (HL-)LHC to the FCC-ee,JHEP09(2024) 091 [2404.12809]. 31

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Enguita, B

    V. Enguita, B. Gavela and T. Steingasser,Higgs near-criticality at future colliders,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 115002 [2503.03825]. 30

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    M. L. Mangano, G. Ortona and M. Selvaggi,Measuring the Higgs self-coupling via Higgs-pair production at a 100 TeV p-p collider,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 1030 [2004.03505]. 30, 31

    2020 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Fuentes-Martín, M

    J. Fuentes-Martín, M. König, J. Pagès, A. E. Thomsen and F. Wilsch,A proof of concept for matchete: an automated tool for matching effective theories,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 662 [2212.04510]. 39 – 46 –

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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