Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 141 references

This paper develops a general relativistic formalism for computing how directed particle beams heat compact stars like white dwarfs and neutron stars, using geodesic congruences to map the far-away flux into local densities and recovering i

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 04:00 UTC pith:SXXFQSBG

load-bearing objection New formalism for beam heating of compact stars, but the central flux-to-density mapping fails the flat-space check by a factor of γv, so the printed rate formulas are not reliable as they stand. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.06111 v3 pith:SXXFQSBG submitted 2026-02-05 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Dark Matter Heating of Compact Stars Beyond Capture: A Relativistic Framework for Energy Deposition by Particle Beams

Jaime Hoefken Zink , Shihwen Hor , Maura E. Ramirez-Quezada This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.HE PACS 95.35.+d97.60.Jd97.20.Rp
keywords dark matter heatingcompact starsgeodesic congruencesgravitational focusingmulti-streamboosted dark matterblazarsenergy deposition
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 aims to replace the usual isotropic, low-energy treatment of dark matter capture and heating in compact stars with a general relativistic framework that works for directed, relativistic particle beams. The key idea is to transport bundles of geodesics from infinity into the stellar interior, so that gravitational focusing, multi-stream regions, and optical-depth absorption enter the local density and energy-deposition rate in a unified way. Capture becomes a special case of the more general, through-going energy deposition. The framework is applied to blazar-boosted dark matter hitting a white dwarf and a neutron star, revealing three regimes: optically thin heating, an 'interaction roof' where every crossing particle interacts, and a geometric limit where all kinetic energy is deposited. The authors emphasize that the formalism is model-independent even though their exemplar flux does not outshine standard halo heating.

Core claim

The central claim is that a directed particle beam's energy deposition inside a spherical, static compact star can be computed exactly by tracking geodesic congruences: an asymptotic flux element is transported along geodesics and the local number density is the flux times the Jacobian dV0/dVr, the gravitational-focusing amplification. Multi-stream effects are included by summing three families of geodesics (Cong. 1, 2a, 2b) that cover the interior for energies that are not extremely low. The optical factor η accounts for absorption along the trajectory. The same geometric construction yields both the capture rate and the heating rate caused by particles that scatter and escape; the isotropi

What carries the argument

The central object is the geodesic-congruence volume amplification dV0/dVr, which maps an asymptotic beam flux into the local particle density inside the star by transporting an initial volume element along the geodesic flow. Together with the optical factor η and the three-family decomposition (Cong. 1, 2a, 2b) for multi-stream regions, it replaces the old isotropic flux assumption. The isotropic-to-jet equivalence rests on the identity dA⊥ = 2π b db for both an isotropic sphere and a single directed jet, valid for spherically symmetric stars.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, for the particle energies considered, every point inside the star is crossed by at most three geodesic-congruence families (Cong. 1, 2a, 2b), so the local density is the sum of just those contributions; if more families contribute at the relevant energies, the computed densities and heating rates are underestimated.

What would settle it

Perform a numerical geodesic enumeration for a representative low-energy benchmark (e.g., Tχ ≈ 1 MeV for the white dwarf) that tracks every geodesic family passing through each interior point, and compare the full multi-stream density with the three-family sum used in the paper; any disagreement beyond numerical error demonstrates that the truncation undercounts heating.

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

If this is right

  • Beam-induced heating can exceed capture-only estimates because particles that scatter and escape still deposit energy; the formalism treats both channels on equal footing.
  • Neutron stars reach the interaction roof and the geometric limit at couplings orders of magnitude smaller than white dwarfs, making them the sharper probes of directed dark-matter fluxes.
  • Isotropic fluxes (e.g., cosmic-ray–boosted dark matter) can be computed with the same machinery without a separate low-energy formalism.
  • The three limiting regimes—optically thin, interaction roof, geometric limit—provide clear targets for interpreting any future observation of anomalous compact-star heating.
  • The specific blazar-boosted dark matter benchmark studied here yields heating that is subdominant to halo-dark-matter heating, but the framework is intentionally model-independent.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The three-family truncation is the most fragile step: at the low-energy edge of the formalism's range, additional geodesic families could contribute to the local density, so a direct ray-tracing enumeration at those energies would provide a quantitative convergence test.
  • Because the heating rate depends on the beam direction, the same formalism could be used to map anisotropy: a population of old, quiet compact stars could in principle constrain the directional distribution of astrophysical particle sources.
  • The machinery extends beyond fermionic dark matter to any species with a known cross section—e.g., boosted axion-like particles or heavy cosmic-ray neutrons—provided the geodesic structure is recomputed.
  • A practical next step is to apply the 'interaction roof' as a sensitivity bound: even without detailed optical-depth calculations, the roof sets an upper limit on observable heating from any directed beam, which can rule out source models that predict fluxes above it.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a relativistic formalism for computing the local density, capture probability, and energy deposition of directed particle beams in compact stars. Starting from an asymptotic flux, the authors map the flux to local densities via geodesic congruences (Eqs. 3-15), including gravitational focusing, multi-stream regions, an optical factor, and interactions with degenerate matter (elastic, DIS, RES). The formalism is applied to blazar-boosted dark matter benchmarks for a white dwarf and a neutron star, and the authors identify optically thin, interaction-roof, and geometric-limit regimes. The paper explicitly states that the benchmark heating rates are not competitive with halo DM heating and positions the work as a general framework for future beam-heating calculations.

Significance. If the central flux-to-density mapping is correct, the framework would be a useful and timely extension of the Press-Spergel/Gould capture formalism to anisotropic, relativistic beams, with the isotropic limit as a special case. The paper is noteworthy for attempting a unified treatment of gravitational focusing, multi-stream contributions, optical depth, and degenerate-target interactions, and for using public numerical tools (PyGRO, vegas, CT18NNLO). The authors are also transparent about the assumptions and about the fact that their BBDM benchmarks do not outshine halo DM heating. However, because the printed density mapping is internally inconsistent in the flat-space limit, the quantitative results and the claim of recovering the standard isotropic limit cannot be accepted without correction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A, Eqs. (3)-(4), (15)] The flat-space limit of the density mapping is inconsistent. For straight-line geodesics in flat spacetime, |r_λ φ_b − r_b φ_λ| = (pχ/mχ)/r, and the initial condition r0 sinφ0 = b makes Eq. (15) reduce to dV0/dVr = 1. Inserting this into Eq. (4) gives dnχ = (1+T∞χ/mχ) dΦ/dT = γ dΦ/dT, whereas the physical beam density is dΦ/v = (Eχ/pχ) dΦ/dT. The printed formulas are therefore off by a spurious factor pχ/mχ = γv, and this factor propagates into every heating rate through Eqs. (14) and (18). The problem can be traced to an inconsistent definition of dV0: Eq. (3) defines dV0 = dA⊥ dλ, while Eq. (15) effectively uses dV0 = (dt/dλ) dA⊥ dλ. No flat-space or Gould-limit check is provided, despite the claim in Section III.E that the isotropic limit is recovered. The authors should correct this mapping and provide the flat-space and non-relativistic checks. As a secondary point, the initial cond
  2. [Section III.A after Eq. (17)] The restriction to three geodesic congruence families (Cong. 1, 2a, 2b) is asserted without a quantitative justification or convergence check. The text states that 'for energies that are not extremely low, it is sufficient to consider three families', but no estimate is given of when additional families become relevant, nor is a numerical test provided (e.g., comparing the summed density with a fourth family or using a caustic-counting criterion). Since all computed heating rates in Section IV rely on this truncation, an incorrect or incomplete family count would systematically underestimate the local density. The authors should specify a quantitative validity condition for the three-family truncation at the energies used in the benchmarks, or establish convergence explicitly.
  3. [Section III.B.3] The neglect of resonant single-pion production (RES) in neutron-star energy deposition is asserted to be 'subdominant' without a quantitative estimate. The text explains that a consistent treatment would require tracking the outgoing nucleon energies for Pauli blocking, but it does not provide a bound on the omitted contribution. Since the NS heating results in Section IV depend on this approximation, the claim that RES is negligible should be supported by an explicit order-of-magnitude comparison of the RES rate to the elastic and DIS rates over the relevant energy range, or by a statement of the parameter-space region in which the neglect is safe.
  4. [Sections III.D and IV.C] There is a tension between the single-scattering optical factor and the claim that the full calculation saturates at the geometric limit. Section III.D assumes that 'once a particle interacts with the stellar material, it cannot undergo further interactions', while Section III.C defines the geometric limit as the regime in which all traversing particles are captured and deposit their full kinetic energy. With single-scattering, a particle that is not captured after its first interaction deposits only q0 and then leaves the star, so the deposited power cannot exceed the interaction roof unless the first-scattering capture probability is effectively unity. The text in Section IV.C states that the full calculation 'smoothly interpolates between the thin and saturated limits' and 'saturates at the geometric limit'; this requires clarification. If the numerical implementation includes multipl
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A, Eq. (13)] The notation σ˜b ∧ σλ is used for the area element, but the pullback/dual notation is not defined precisely; the step leading from Eq. (13) to Eq. (15) is not shown. A short derivation would improve clarity, especially given the importance of the volume ratio.
  2. [Section III.A, Eq. (16)] The symbol 've(ω)' in Eq. (1) is inconsistent with the text; it should presumably be 've(ω)'. The same notation appears immediately before Eq. (1) as 'Ω−ve(ω)' and later as 'Ω− ve=c'. Please harmonize the notation.
  3. [Section III.B, Eq. (23)] The functions gs(mχ) and βs(mχ) are introduced in Eq. (23) but not defined in the text; the expression for |w−uT| is difficult to verify without an explicit definition. Adding a compact definition would improve the readability of the subsequent formulas.
  4. [Section III.C, Eqs. (34)-(37)] The interaction-roof and geometric-limit formulas use a surface-interaction approximation but still include redshift factors 1/√gtt(R∗). The logic of combining the surface approximation with these redshift factors should be explained in one or two sentences to avoid the appearance of a contradiction.
  5. [Section IV.B, Eq. (57) and Appendix A] The flux model uses several benchmark choices (Rmin = 100 rs, Tmax = 10^8 GeV, blazar age 10 Gyr) that are introduced somewhat abruptly. These are physically motivated, but a brief recap of the sensitivity of the final fluxes to these choices would help the reader judge the robustness of the BBDM application.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the beam-heating formalism is derived in-paper via geodesic congruences; self-cited [100,124] inputs are microphysical cross sections, and nothing is fitted to the predicted heating rates.

full rationale

The central claim is a new relativistic formalism mapping an asymptotic directed flux to local densities via geodesic congruences (Eqs. 3-4, 13-15) and computing capture and energy-deposition rates (Eqs. 14, 16-18). This construction is made in the paper itself from the spacetime metric (Eq. 5), the geodesic equations (Eq. 6), and a volume-transport argument (Eqs. 8-13); it is not defined in terms of the heating rates it produces. The heating predictions (Figs. 3-4) multiply these geometric factors by physical inputs: elastic/DIS/RES cross sections quoted from the authors' earlier papers [100,124] and a blazar flux model from [70,80]. These are inputs, not outputs; couplings are swept over a range and nothing is fitted to the predicted heating curves. The isotropic-limit check (Sec. III E, Eqs. 45-50) is an internal consistency identity (dA_iso = 2 pi b db = dA_jet), not a circular reduction. The self-citations [100,124] are present but not load-bearing: [100] supplies a standard interaction-rate formula (Eq. 16) and cross sections, [124] supplies RES kinematics that are ultimately neglected inside the star (Sec. III B 3). The skeptic's flat-space Jacobian concern is a physics-consistency issue (the printed dV0/dVr would give n = gamma Phi instead of n = Phi/v), not a circularity one, so it is not scored here. Overall: no step reduces to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework itself adds no free parameters beyond the model inputs; the application relies on several external inputs (blazar catalog, EOS, PDFs) and the authors' own microphysics framework. The dark photon mediator is a standard benchmark, not introduced here.

free parameters (7)
  • DM mass mχ = 10 MeV and 1 GeV (benchmarks)
    Chosen as representative sub-GeV/GeV masses where direct detection is less sensitive; the paper fixes mediator mass as mZ' = 3 mχ.
  • mediator-to-DM mass ratio mZ'/mχ = 3
    Ad hoc choice to illustrate the framework; no strong physical motivation supplied.
  • dark-sector couplings g_D and g_NZ' = swept over ~10^-12–10^-3 (g_NZ')
    Coupling strengths are free parameters of the benchmark model; swept to show transitions between optical regimes.
  • ζ = n_T/n_free normalization factor = computed from EOS
    Rescales the Fermi-Dirac target density to match the EOS number density; introduces an additional model-dependent normalization.
  • R_min for DM column density = 100 r_s
    Benchmark cutoff for the blazar DM column density, adopted from ref [80]; affects the BBDM flux normalization.
  • Blazar proton spectrum cutoff T_max = 10^8 GeV
    Assumed maximum proton energy in the blazar jet spectrum.
  • Blazar age assumption = 10 Gyr or photon travel time, whichever is larger
    Determines which blazars can contribute DM particles that reach us within the source lifetime.
axioms (6)
  • standard math General relativity with TOV equations for stellar structure and Schwarzschild exterior
    Core background; used to construct WD/NS radial profiles and to solve geodesic equations.
  • domain assumption Compact objects are spherically symmetric and non-rotating (or slowly rotating)
    Used throughout; the isotropic-to-jet equivalence and the geodesic congruence families rely on spherical symmetry.
  • domain assumption DM particles travel on geodesics and interact only through the chosen dark-photon model
    The formalism assumes collisionless propagation until a scattering event; the example model is a vector mediator coupling DM to quarks.
  • domain assumption Microphysical cross sections from prior literature and the authors' earlier papers
    Elastic, DIS, and RES cross sections use SM form factors, Rein-Sehgal model, and CT18NNLO PDFs, as detailed in Section IV A.
  • ad hoc to paper Single-scattering hypothesis for the optical factor
    Particles that scatter once are assumed not to scatter again; the geometric limit is then treated as a separate regime.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of RES in neutron star energy deposition
    Justified by an unsupported claim of subdominance and by the lack of a Pauli-blocking-complete RES model.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26440 in / 15898 out tokens · 151720 ms · 2026-08-03T04:00:49.995527+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Compact astrophysical objects, such as neutron stars and white dwarfs, can act as detectors of energetic particle fluxes originating from astrophysical accelerators. While most existing capture and heating calculations assume isotropic very low energetic incident fluxes from the halo dark matter, many realistic sources produce highly directional beams or jets, for which gravitational focusing, trajectory multiplicity, and local energy deposition must be treated consistently. In this work, we develop a general relativistic formalism to compute the local density, capture probability, and energy deposition of particles arriving as directed beams onto compact objects. The framework is based on the mapping of an asymptotic particle flux to local densities through geodesic congruences, allowing for gravitational focusing, multi-stream regions, and optical depth effects to be incorporated in a unified way. The formalism applies to arbitrary particle species and interaction models, and separates capture from through-going energy deposition in a frame-consistent manner. As an explicit application, we consider relativistic particle beams generated in astrophysical jets and evaluate their interaction with two compact objects samples: a white dwarf and a neutron star. In particular, we illustrate the framework using boosted dark matter produced in a list of 324 blazars as a representative case study, computing the resulting fluxes and the associated heating in the selected stars. Additional regimes such as the interaction roof and geometric limit are discussed, highlighting the conditions under which compact objects can efficiently convert incident beam energy into observable heating.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06111 by Jaime Hoefken Zink, Maura E. Ramirez-Quezada, Shihwen Hor.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Example of geodesic trajectories used to determine the number of particles per unit volume for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Left panel: Fluxes for the vector and axial benchmark cases with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Heating of the WD benchmark induced by BBDM, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Heating of the NS benchmark induced by BBDM, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗

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

141 extracted references · 116 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    (24) 11 It is convenient to change variables to the Mandelstam variablet, which is better suited for these compu- tations

    Elastic interactions In the elastic regime, the computation can be performed in the center-of-momentum frame, where the differential cross section takes the form dσ dcosθ cm = ⟨M2⟩ 32π s. (24) 11 It is convenient to change variables to the Mandelstam variablet, which is better suited for these compu- tations. The relation betweentand cosθ cm is given by d...

  2. [2]

    Since the outgoing hadronic state corresponds to a jet rather than a single hadron, no specific final-state hadron is identified

    DIS regime In the DIS regime, the cross section can be expressed in terms of the standard DIS variables, dv dσ dv →dx dy d2σ dx dy,(29) wherex≡Q 2/(2p1 ·q) is the Bjorken scaling variable andy≡p 1 ·q/(p 1 ·k 1) is the inelasticity. Since the outgoing hadronic state corresponds to a jet rather than a single hadron, no specific final-state hadron is identif...

  3. [3]

    Precision Physics, Fundamental Interactions, and Structure of Matter

    RES We find the contribution from RES inside the star to be subdominant compared to both the DIS and elastic channels. Moreover, computing the RES contribution consistently would require a different modeling approach from the one currently available [124]. In particular, the existing framework does not track the energies of the outgoing nucleons, which ar...

    2021

  4. [4]

    Bernabeiet al., Eur

    R. Bernabeiet al., Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2648 (2013), arXiv:1308.5109 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Bernabeiet al., Nucl

    R. Bernabeiet al., Nucl. Phys. Atom. Energy19, 307 (2018), arXiv:1805.10486 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Armengaudet al., JCAP11, 067 (2013), arXiv:1307.1488 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Armengaudet al., JCAP11, 067 (2013), arXiv:1307.1488 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    D. Y. Akimovet al.(ZEPLIN-III), Phys. Lett. B692, 180 (2010), arXiv:1003.5626 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    D. Y. Akimovet al., Phys. Lett. B709, 14 (2012), arXiv:1110.4769 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  9. [9]

    C. E. Aalsethet al.(CoGeNT), Phys. Rev. D88, 012002 (2013), arXiv:1208.5737 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    Angloheret al.(CRESST), Eur

    G. Angloheret al.(CRESST), Eur. Phys. J. C76, 25 (2016), arXiv:1509.01515 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    Aprileet al.(XENON100), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON100), Phys. Rev. D94, 122001 (2016), arXiv:1609.06154 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    J. B. R. Battatet al.(DRIFT), Astropart. Phys.91, 65 (2017), arXiv:1701.00171 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Leyton (DMTPC), J

    M. Leyton (DMTPC), J. Phys. Conf. Ser.718, 042035 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(DAMIC), Phys

    A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(DAMIC), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 241803 (2020), arXiv:2007.15622 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Barbosa de Souzaet al.(DM-Ice), Phys

    E. Barbosa de Souzaet al.(DM-Ice), Phys. Rev. D95, 032006 (2017), arXiv:1602.05939 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    S. K. Liuet al.(CDEX, TEXONO), Phys. Rev. D90, 032003 (2014), arXiv:1403.5421 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Z. Z. Liuet al.(CDEX), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 161301 (2019), arXiv:1905.00354 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Kobayashiet al.(XMASS), Phys

    M. Kobayashiet al.(XMASS), Phys. Lett. B795, 308 (2019), arXiv:1808.06177 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    Araliset al.(SuperCDMS), Phys

    T. Araliset al.(SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. D101, 052008 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 103, 039901 (2021)], arXiv:1911.11905 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS), Phys

    R. Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 061802 (2018), arXiv:1708.08869 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    K. W. Kimet al.(KIMS), JHEP03, 194 (2019), arXiv:1806.06499 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide), Phys

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 101002 (2023), arXiv:2207.11968 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    D. S. Akeribet al.(LUX), Phys. Rev. D104, 012011 (2021), arXiv:2011.09602 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Amoleet al.(PICO), Phys

    C. Amoleet al.(PICO), Phys. Rev. D93, 061101 (2016), arXiv:1601.03729 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    Amoleet al.(PICO), Phys

    C. Amoleet al.(PICO), Phys. Rev. D100, 022001 (2019), arXiv:1902.04031 [astro-ph.CO]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Armengaudet al.(EDEL WEISS), Phys

    E. Armengaudet al.(EDEL WEISS), Phys. Rev. D98, 082004 (2018), arXiv:1808.02340 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Xiaoet al.(PandaX), Phys

    X. Xiaoet al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. D92, 052004 (2015), arXiv:1505.00771 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [28]

    Wanget al.(PandaX-II), Chin

    Q. Wanget al.(PandaX-II), Chin. Phys. C44, 125001 (2020), arXiv:2007.15469 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Ninget al.(PandaX), Phys

    X. Ninget al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041001 (2023), arXiv:2301.03010 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Baloghet al.(NEWS-G), JINST18, T02005 (2023), arXiv:2205.15433 [physics.ins-det]

    L. Baloghet al.(NEWS-G), JINST18, T02005 (2023), arXiv:2205.15433 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Angloheret al.(CRESST), Phys

    G. Angloheret al.(CRESST), Phys. Rev. D106, 092008 (2022), arXiv:2207.07640 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Adhikariet al.((DEAP Collaboration)‡, DEAP), Phys

    P. Adhikariet al.((DEAP Collaboration)‡, DEAP), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 011801 (2022), arXiv:2108.09405 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100), Phys

    G. Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100), Phys. Rev. D106, 052005 (2022), arXiv:2111.08863 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Amareet al., Phys

    J. Amareet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 102005 (2021), arXiv:2103.01175 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    A. H. Abdelhameedet al.(CRESST), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 834 (2020), arXiv:2005.02692 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    W. H. Daiet al.(CDEX), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 221802 (2022), arXiv:2209.00861 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Armengaudet al.(EDEL WEISS), Phys

    E. Armengaudet al.(EDEL WEISS), Phys. Rev. D106, 062004 (2022), arXiv:2203.03993 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Hamaide and C

    L. Hamaide and C. McCabe, Phys. Rev. D107, 063002 (2023), arXiv:2110.02985 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    A. Das, N. Kurinsky, and R. K. Leane, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 121801 (2024), arXiv:2210.09313 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Abramoffet al.(SENSEI), Phys

    O. Abramoffet al.(SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 161801 (2019), arXiv:1901.10478 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. D102, 072004 (2020), arXiv:2006.09721 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041003 (2023), arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Bringmann and M

    T. Bringmann and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 171801 (2019), arXiv:1810.10543 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, J. L. Newstead, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D101, 116007 (2020), arXiv:1907.03782 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Z.-H. Lei, J. Tang, and B.-L. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C46, 085103 (2022), arXiv:2008.07116 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Abeet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys

    K. Abeet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 031802 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 131, 159903 (2023)], arXiv:2209.14968 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    T. N. Maity and R. Laha, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 117 (2024), arXiv:2210.01815 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Wang, W.-L

    W. Wang, W.-L. Xu, J. M. Yang, and R. Zhu, Nucl. Phys. B995, 116348 (2023), arXiv:2305.12668 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    N. F. Bell, J. L. Newstead, and I. Shaukat-Ali, Phys. Rev. D109, 063034 (2024), arXiv:2309.11003 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Shanget al.(PandaX), Phys

    X. Shanget al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 101805 (2024), arXiv:2403.08361 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    C. V. Cappiello, Q. Liu, G. Mohlabeng, and A. C. Vincent, Phys. Rev. D110, 095031 (2024), arXiv:2405.00086 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    D. K. Ghosh, T. Gupta, M. Heikinheimo, K. Huitu, and S. Jeesun, Phys. Rev. D111, 063019 (2025), arXiv:2411.11973 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Diurba and H

    R. Diurba and H. Koleˇ sov´ a, JHEP07, 202 (2025), arXiv:2504.16996 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    R. A. Gustafson, G. Herrera, M. Mukhopadhyay, K. Murase, and I. M. Shoemaker, (2025), arXiv:2508.20984 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 241801 (2025), arXiv:2503.18158 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    J. Kopp, J. Liu, and X.-P. Wang, JHEP04, 105 (2015), arXiv:1503.02669 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  58. [58]

    Necib, J

    L. Necib, J. Moon, T. Wongjirad, and J. M. Conrad, Phys. Rev. D95, 075018 (2017), arXiv:1610.03486 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [59]

    Fornal, P

    B. Fornal, P. Sandick, J. Shu, M. Su, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 161804 (2020), arXiv:2006.11264 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    Toma, Phys

    T. Toma, Phys. Rev. D105, 043007 (2022), arXiv:2109.05911 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    Aoki and T

    M. Aoki and T. Toma, JCAP02, 033 (2024), arXiv:2309.00395 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Betancourt Kamenetskaia, M

    B. Betancourt Kamenetskaia, M. Fujiwara, A. Ibarra, and T. Toma, Phys. Lett. B864, 139425 (2025), arXiv:2501.12117 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    S. J. Clark, (2024), arXiv:2406.13056 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Yin, EPJ Web Conf.208, 04003 (2019), arXiv:1809.08610 [hep-ph]

    W. Yin, EPJ Web Conf.208, 04003 (2019), arXiv:1809.08610 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [65]

    Jho, J.-C

    Y. Jho, J.-C. Park, S. C. Park, and P.-Y. Tseng, (2021), arXiv:2101.11262 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    Das and M

    A. Das and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D104, 075029 (2021), arXiv:2104.00027 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    Lin, W.-H

    Y.-H. Lin, W.-H. Wu, M.-R. Wu, and H. T.-K. Wong, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 111002 (2023), arXiv:2206.06864 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Lin, T.-H

    Y.-H. Lin, T.-H. Tsai, G.-L. Lin, H. T.-K. Wong, and M.-R. Wu, Phys. Rev. D108, 083013 (2023), arXiv:2307.03522 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  69. [69]

    Lin and M.-R

    Y.-H. Lin and M.-R. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 111004 (2024), arXiv:2404.08528 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    De Romeri, A

    V. De Romeri, A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, and R. Srivastava, JCAP03, 028 (2024), arXiv:2309.04117 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    A. Das, T. Herbermann, M. Sen, and V. Takhistov, JCAP07, 045 (2024), arXiv:2403.15367 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    J.-W. Sun, L. Wu, Y.-H. Xu, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D112, 015014 (2025), arXiv:2501.07591 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    J.-W. Wang, A. Granelli, and P. Ullio, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 221104 (2022), arXiv:2111.13644 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    Granelli, P

    A. Granelli, P. Ullio, and J.-W. Wang, JCAP07, 013 (2022), arXiv:2202.07598 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  75. [75]

    J. M. Cline, S. Gao, F. Guo, Z. Lin, S. Liu, M. Puel, P. Todd, and T. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 091402 (2023), arXiv:2209.02713 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    Bhowmick, D

    S. Bhowmick, D. Ghosh, and D. Sachdeva, JCAP07, 039 (2023), arXiv:2301.00209 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    A. G. De Marchi, A. Granelli, J. Nava, and F. Sala, (2024), arXiv:2412.07861 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Xuet al.(CDEX), (2024), arXiv:2403.20276 [hep-ex]

    R. Xuet al.(CDEX), (2024), arXiv:2403.20276 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Jeesun, Phys

    S. Jeesun, Phys. Rev. D111, 103022 (2025), arXiv:2501.11569 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    G. D. Zapata, J. Jones-P´ erez, and A. M. Gago, JCAP07, 042 (2025), arXiv:2503.03823 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.