Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 92 references

A residual Z2 symmetry in a composite Higgs model leaves exactly three viable dark matter candidates.

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

2026-08-02 02:45 UTC pith:TAOLQOJV

load-bearing objection New and useful scan of the SU(6)/Sp(6) scotogenic DM sector, but the 'only three' claim overreaches the Δ0 exclusion. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14210 v1 pith:TAOLQOJV submitted 2026-07-15 hep-ph

Dark matter in composite Higgs models with a scotogenic EFT

Yu Chen , Werner Porod This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords composite Higgsscotogenic modeldark matter relic densitypseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosonSU(6)/Sp(6)Z2 symmetryspin-1 resonancesdirect detection
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 argues that the SU(6)/Sp(6) composite Higgs model, with a fermionic ultraviolet completion, naturally contains a stable Z2-odd sector whose lightest pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson can be dark matter. Among the four neutral candidates—η3, the electroweak-triplet component Δ0, η4, and the doublet component φ0—Markov-Chain-Monte-Carlo scans find that only η3, η4, and φ0 can reproduce the observed relic density while surviving current direct-detection limits; Δ0 annihilates too efficiently through electroweak gauge bosons and always undershoots the relic density. The scans also show that heavy spin-1 composite resonances, not just the Higgs and electroweak bosons, contribute substantially to (co-)annihilation in a large fraction of the viable parameter space. The paper's point is that this model class offers concrete, testable dark matter candidates with a shared origin in the same strong dynamics that produces the Higgs, and that the candidates can be distinguished by future direct-detection and collider measurements.

Core claim

In the concrete SU(6)/Sp(6) model studied, the unbroken Z2 symmetry embedded in the custodial Sp(6) subgroup stabilizes the lightest of four neutral pNGB states. Treating pNGB masses, a set of quartic couplings, and the overall mass scale of spin-1 vector and axial-vector resonances as free parameters, the authors compute relic density and direct-detection observables with an eight-dimensional MCMC scan. The result: η3, η4, and φ0 each have parameter regions with Ωch² = 0.120 ± 0.012 after imposing current direct-detection bounds, while Δ0 does not, because its SU(2)L triplet nature makes annihilation into W and Z pairs too strong. Spin-1 resonances are not a minor correction: resonant s-cha

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the SU(6)/Sp(6) coset, whose spontaneous breaking yields fourteen pNGBs; among them the Z2-odd sector contains a triplet Δ, a bi-doublet Φ, and singlets η3 and η4, giving four neutral candidates (Δ0, φ0, η3, η4). The effective potential is truncated to seven quartic operators, with pNGB masses treated as free parameters. Co-annihilation is included by pairing η3 with Δ and η4 with φ, and spin-1 resonances are incorporated through the hidden-symmetry approach as vector and axial-vector states that mix with the electroweak gauge bosons. The MCMC scan explores an eight-dimensional parameter space (Mχ, ΔM, cχχhh, cππhh, θ, gVππ, g̃, MV) and imposes the relic density within

Load-bearing premise

The entire relic-density map, including the Δ0 exclusion, rests on the assumption that the four Z2-odd pNGBs do not mix with each other and that all other pNGBs are too heavy to participate; if those states mix or are not decoupled, the viable regions—and the list of viable candidates—could change.

What would settle it

Repeat the relic-density calculation with the full 14-pNGB effective potential, including mixing among Δ0, η3, η4, φ0 and non-decoupled heavier pNGBs, and look for a point where Δ0 is the lightest Z2-odd state, Ωch² = 0.120 ± 0.012, and the direct-detection cross section lies below the current limit. If such a point exists, the paper's conclusion that only three candidates work is false.

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

If this is right

  • The electroweak-triplet candidate Δ0 cannot alone match the observed relic density; any model that wants a pNGB triplet as dark matter needs additional annihilation-suppressing structure.
  • Relic-density calculations for this model class that omit spin-1 resonances miss a substantial portion of the allowed parameter space; resonant and threshold effects near the resonance mass can change the density by a large factor.
  • For η4 and φ0 dark matter, viable freeze-out requires the co-annihilating partners to be nearly degenerate (ΔM ≲ 10 GeV) and masses above roughly 500 GeV; for η3, the preferred splitting is larger, around 25 GeV.
  • Direct-detection experiments at the level of about 10^-48 to 10^-49 cm² would probe Higgs-portal couplings as small as about 10^-3, mapping out much of the surviving parameter space.
  • The residual Z2 symmetry forces every sector—pNGBs, spin-1 resonances, and top-partners—to contain Z2-odd states, which gives the model class a generic collider signature of large missing transverse momentum.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The Δ0 exclusion looks like a structural feature rather than a scan artifact: because the triplet couples directly to electroweak bosons, its annihilation is too efficient for a thermal relic; the same reasoning would apply to any SU(2)L-triplet pNGB in this class.
  • The decisive unexamined hinge is the no-mixing assumption. Extending the scalar potential to include the full NLO operator set and mixing among the four Z2-odd states could shift the surviving regions or even revive Δ0; this is the most direct test of the paper's central claim.
  • Top-partner resonances, which the authors leave to future work, should be expected to participate in t-channel annihilation for the heavier candidates and could alter the preferred mass ranges or open new resonant features.
  • A testable extension would be to scan with more than two co-annihilating multiplets: the sharp ΔM bounds found here may reflect the truncated spectrum rather than a robust prediction.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies dark matter in a class of composite Higgs models with a residual Z2 symmetry, focusing on the SU(6)/Sp(6) coset. Four neutral Z2-odd pNGB states (η3, Δ0, η4, φ0) are identified as potential DM candidates. Using FeynRules/CalcHEP/micrOMEGAs and MCMC scans, the authors conclude that only three of these (η3, η4, φ0) have parameter regions reproducing the observed relic density, while Δ0 does not. They further find that spin-1 resonances can significantly affect the relic abundance, apply LZ 2025 direct-detection limits, and sketch LHC signatures.

Significance. If the exclusions are robust, the paper provides a valuable systematic survey of DM candidates in a concrete composite Higgs setup and highlights an often-neglected role of spin-1 resonances. The numerical pipeline is described in detail and is reproducible in principle; the use of current LZ 2025 limits and the explicit MCMC methodology are strengths. However, the headline claim 'only three of them can produce a relic density' is stronger than the presented scan evidence: it depends on the finite scan range and on the assumption of no pNGB mixing. The Δ0 exclusion in particular needs a robustness argument before the statement can be taken as a model-level result.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Table 5; §2.1 assumption (iii); Abstract] The abstract and §5 state that 'only three' of the four Z2-odd pNGBs can explain the relic density. This is not established by the evidence in §3.2. The Δ0 exclusion comes from an MCMC scan with Mχ ∈ [250,1500] GeV (Table 5) under assumption (iii), which excludes all pNGB mixing. Fig. 2b shows Ωh² for Δ0 increasing with Mχ, so the observed band may simply lie above the scanned upper edge. More importantly, Δ0–η3 mixing is not forbidden by the Z2 and could arise from terms omitted from eq. (2.4); such mixing would reduce the triplet fraction of the DM state, weaken the electroweak gauge-annihilation channels, and raise Ωh². The assertion in §5 that omitted mixing 'would change details but not overall features' is unsupported by any quantitative estimate. The claim should be qualified as 'within the simplified slice considered', or the Δ0 exclusion should be backed by an extended scan and
  2. [§3.2, 'We did not find any valid parameter combination for the Δ0 DM candidate'] Unlike the other three candidates, no corner plot, chain length, acceptance rate, or posterior information is shown for Δ0. The paper reports 'we did not find any valid parameter combination' but gives no details on how the Δ0 chain was initialized ('Each chain was initialized from a phenomenologically viable point'), how many points were generated specifically for Δ0, or why the chain did not explore higher Mχ. Since the claim is an exclusion, the absence of this documentation makes the result difficult to verify. A dedicated Δ0 scan over an extended mass range, or at least explicit statistics for the Δ0 chain, is needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.3 and Table 5] ξ = M_A/M_V is listed as an independent parameter in the spin-1 sector, but it does not appear in the MCMC scan vector Θ of eq. (3.2) nor in Table 5. The value used in the scans should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption's sentence 'The gray band is considered as consistent with the observed DM relic density within the adopted' appears incomplete. Also, the curves for Δ0 in panels (a)-(d) should be identified more clearly, since the text discussion refers to all four candidates.
  3. [Footnote 1, §5] The footnote admits that vacuum stability, including charge-breaking minima, is not fully checked. This caveat should be carried into the conclusions so that the quoted viable regions are not over-interpreted.
  4. [§3.2, code availability] The implementation is said to be 'available from the authors upon request'. For reproducibility, a public repository with the FeynRules model files and the MCMC scan inputs would be preferable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the 'only three' claim is a scan-based posterior result with explicit limitations, not a reduction of inputs to outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is a model-based parameter scan benchmarked with external tools and data. The SU(6)/Sp(6) coset, the residual Z2 and the pNGB content are taken from ref. [42], which is not authored by the present authors, and the spin-1 resonance formalism follows the standard hidden-symmetry approach of refs. [60-62]; the importance of spin-1 resonances is computed from the generated amplitudes, not imported as a self-citation theorem. The MCMC likelihood, Eq. (3.3), is centred on the Planck value and is used to select viable parameter regions, so those regions are posterior selections rather than independent first-principles predictions of the relic density. However, this does not make the candidate ranking circular: the paper explicitly qualifies the Delta0 statement to the scanned mass range ('the relic density is always too low for the Delta0 DM candidate in the mass range considered'), and the exclusion follows from the calculated cross sections and the scan bounds in Table 5 (Mchi <= 1.5 TeV), not from the likelihood by construction. The main weaknesses are the simplifying assumptions (i)-(iv) of Sec. 2.1, in particular no pNGB mixing and the truncated seven-operator potential of Eq. (2.4), and footnote 1 concedes that vacuum stability is not fully checked. These are robustness or scan-coverage limitations, not definitional circularity: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation forbids alternatives, and no equation is reproduced from its own input by construction. The external constraints (Planck, LZ 2025, DARWIN projections) are imposed independently, so the analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 6 axioms · 3 invented entities

The model is built from a postulated SU(6)/Sp(6) coset with hidden-symmetry resonances; the DM scan sets most pNGB masses, quartic couplings, the misalignment angle, and resonance couplings by hand or scan range. These are not derived from the UV theory, so the relic-density result is a property of the simplified EFT, not an independent prediction of the underlying fermionic completion.

free parameters (9)
  • Mχ (DM mass) = scanned 250-1500 GeV
    DM mass treated as free (§2.1, 2.3); controls relic density.
  • ΔM (mass splitting) = scanned 2-50 GeV
    Common mass splitting for co-annihilating pNGBs (§2.3).
  • c3, c4 (η3/Δ quartics) = scanned 1e-8 to 1
    Eq. (2.4); free potential couplings for the η3/Δ sector.
  • c5, c6 (η4/φ quartics) = scanned 1e-8 to 1
    Eq. (2.4); free potential couplings for the η4/φ sector.
  • θ (vacuum misalignment) = scanned 0.01-0.2
    Relation fπ sinθ = vSM (A.12); controls mixing with SM gauge sector.
  • g_Vππ = scanned 1-4
    pNGB-vector coupling (A.32); determines resonance contributions.
  • tilde g = scanned 1-10
    Composite gauge coupling in the hidden-symmetry Lagrangian.
  • M_V = scanned 2000-5000 GeV
    Mass scale of vector resonances; treated as free (§2.2).
  • ξ = M_A/M_V = 1.4 (fixed by hand)
    Axial-vector mass ratio chosen as a default, not scanned; affects resonance spectrum.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption An Sp(4) hyper-color gauge theory confines and forms a condensate breaking SU(6) to Sp(6).
    Section 2; the entire pNGB spectrum follows from this postulate.
  • domain assumption The residual Z2 symmetry generated by S9 is preserved by the true vacuum, making the lightest Z2-odd state stable.
    Eq. (A.14) and §2.1; required for the DM candidates to be stable.
  • domain assumption Thermal freeze-out of cold dark matter governs the relic abundance.
    Section 3.1 uses the Planck Ωch² value; no non-thermal production is considered.
  • domain assumption The hidden local symmetry construction of refs. [60-62] correctly captures spin-1 resonance masses and couplings.
    Section 2.2 and A.3 adopt this framework without independent verification.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar potential is dominated by the quartic operators in eq. (2.4), with Higgs self-couplings set to SM values.
    §2.1; reduces the parameter count; vacuum stability is only partly checked (footnote 1).
  • ad hoc to paper All pNGB states other than the DM candidate and one co-annihilating multiplet are decoupled, and no pNGB-pNGB mixing occurs.
    §2.1 assumptions (i)-(iv) and §2.3; load-bearing for the resulting relic-density maps.
invented entities (3)
  • Hyper-fermions Ψ1, Ψ2, Ψ3 no independent evidence
    purpose: UV fermionic content whose condensation generates the composite Higgs and pNGB sector
    Postulated in §2; no independent experimental evidence for these states is provided.
  • Z2-odd pNGB sector (Δ, η3, Φ, η4) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide the stable dark matter candidates
    Predicted by the SU(6)/Sp(6) coset with residual Z2 (eqs. A.13-A.14); their masses are treated as free parameters.
  • Composite spin-1 resonances (vectors and axial-vectors) no independent evidence
    purpose: Mediate DM annihilation and co-annihilation; important in part of the parameter space
    Inherited from the hidden-symmetry framework of refs. [61,62]; masses M_V and M_A are scanned or fixed by hand, with no external detection.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23964 in / 15328 out tokens · 160267 ms · 2026-08-02T02:45:48.801702+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We discuss a class of Composite Higgs models with a fermionic UV completion that can explain the dark matter relic density. The resulting low-energy theory resembles so-called scotogenic models. A residual $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry implies that one of the pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosons is stable and therefore is a viable dark matter candidate. As a concrete example, we take a model based on the $\mathrm{SU}(6)/\mathrm{Sp}(6)$ coset, which in principle contains four dark matter candidates. However, only three of them can produce a relic density consistent with observations. We perform a MCMC study focusing on dark matter observables to explore the available parameter space of the effective theory. In particular, we find that spin-1 resonances play an important role in a substantial part of the parameter space. Finally, we comment on possible LHC signatures of this model class.

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

92 extracted references · 69 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Bertone and T

    G. Bertone and T. Tait, M. P.,A new era in the search for dark matter,Nature562(2018) 51–56, [1810.01668]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

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

    P. Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 421–428

    1977

  3. [3]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky,Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,Conf. Proc. C 790927(1979) 315–321, [1306.4669]. – 22 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  4. [4]

    Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,Conf

    T. Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,Conf. Proc. C7902131(1979) 95–99

    1979

  5. [5]

    Schechter and J

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

    1980

  6. [6]

    T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li,Neutrino Masses, Mixings and Oscillations in SU(2) x U(1) Models of Electroweak Interactions,Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 2860

    1980

  7. [7]

    R. Foot, H. Lew, X. G. He and G. C. Joshi,Seesaw Neutrino Masses Induced by a Triplet of Leptons, Z. Phys. C44(1989) 441

    1989

  8. [8]

    Tao,Radiative seesaw mechanism at weak scale,Phys

    Z.-j. Tao,Radiative seesaw mechanism at weak scale,Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 5693–5697, [hep-ph/9603309]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  9. [9]

    Ma,Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter,Phys

    E. Ma,Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter,Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 077301, [hep-ph/0601225]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  10. [10]

    Sarazin, J

    M. Sarazin, J. Bernigaud and B. Herrmann,Dark matter and lepton flavour phenomenology in a singlet-doublet scotogenic model,JHEP12(2021) 116, [2107.04613]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Alvarez, A

    A. Alvarez, A. Banik, R. Cepedello, B. Herrmann, W. Porod, M. Sarazin et al.,Accommodating muon (g−2) and leptogenesis in a scotogenic model,JHEP06(2023) 163, [2301.08485]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    F. A. de Souza, N. F. Castro, M. Crispim Rom˜ ao and W. Porod,Exploring scotogenic parameter spaces and mapping uncharted dark matter phenomenology with multi-objective search algorithms, JHEP10(2025) 116, [2505.08862]

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Weinberg,Implications of Dynamical Symmetry Breaking,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Implications of Dynamical Symmetry Breaking,Phys. Rev. D13(1976) 974–996. [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 19, 1277–1280 (1979)]

    1976

  14. [14]

    Dimopoulos and L

    S. Dimopoulos and L. Susskind,Mass Without Scalars,Nucl. Phys. B155(1979) 237–252

    1979

  15. [15]

    Dimopoulos, L

    S. Dimopoulos, L. Susskind and S. Raby,Technicolour,AIP Conf. Proc.59(1980) 407–452

    1980

  16. [16]

    Casalbuoni, S

    R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, D. Dominici and R. Gatto,Effective Weak Interaction Theory with Possible New Vector Resonance from a Strong Higgs Sector,Phys. Lett. B155(1985) 95–99

    1985

  17. [17]

    D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi,SU(2) x U(1) Breaking by Vacuum Misalignment,Phys. Lett. B136 (1984) 183–186

    1984

  18. [18]

    D. B. Kaplan, H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos,Composite Higgs Scalars,Phys. Lett. B136(1984) 187–190

    1984

  19. [19]

    Agashe, R

    K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol,The Minimal composite Higgs model,Nucl. Phys. B719 (2005) 165–187, [hep-ph/0412089]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  20. [20]

    Galloway, J

    J. Galloway, J. A. Evans, M. A. Luty and R. A. Tacchi,Minimal Conformal Technicolor and Precision Electroweak Tests,JHEP10(2010) 086, [1001.1361]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  21. [21]

    Cacciapaglia and F

    G. Cacciapaglia and F. Sannino,Fundamental Composite (Goldstone) Higgs Dynamics,JHEP04 (2014) 111, [1402.0233]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  22. [22]

    Ferretti and D

    G. Ferretti and D. Karateev,Fermionic UV completions of Composite Higgs models,JHEP03(2014) 077, [1312.5330]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Ferretti,Gauge theories of Partial Compositeness: Scenarios for Run-II of the LHC,JHEP06 (2016) 107, [1604.06467]

    G. Ferretti,Gauge theories of Partial Compositeness: Scenarios for Run-II of the LHC,JHEP06 (2016) 107, [1604.06467]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    Belyaev, G

    A. Belyaev, G. Cacciapaglia, H. Cai, G. Ferretti, T. Flacke, A. Parolini et al.,Di-boson signatures as Standard Candles for Partial Compositeness,JHEP01(2017) 094, [1610.06591]. [Erratum: JHEP 12, 088 (2017)]. – 23 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Marzocca and A

    D. Marzocca and A. Urbano,Composite Dark Matter and LHC Interplay,JHEP07(2014) 107, [1404.7419]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  26. [26]

    Fonseca, R

    N. Fonseca, R. Zukanovich Funchal, A. Lessa and L. Lopez-Honorez,Dark Matter Constraints on Composite Higgs Models,JHEP06(2015) 154, [1501.05957]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    Y. Wu, T. Ma, B. Zhang and G. Cacciapaglia,Composite Dark Matter and Higgs,JHEP11(2017) 058, [1703.06903]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Cacciapaglia, T

    G. Cacciapaglia, T. Ma, S. Vatani and Y. Wu,Towards a fundamental safe theory of composite Higgs and Dark Matter,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 1088, [1812.04005]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Alanne, D

    T. Alanne, D. Buarque Franzosi, M. T. Frandsen and M. Rosenlyst,Dark matter in (partially) composite Higgs models,JHEP12(2018) 088, [1808.07515]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Davoli, A

    A. Davoli, A. De Simone, D. Marzocca and A. Morandini,Composite 2HDM with singlets: a viable dark matter scenario,JHEP10(2019) 196, [1905.13244]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Ramos,Composite dark matter phenomenology in the presence of lighter degrees of freedom,JHEP 07(2020) 128, [1912.11061]

    M. Ramos,Composite dark matter phenomenology in the presence of lighter degrees of freedom,JHEP 07(2020) 128, [1912.11061]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Cacciapaglia, H

    G. Cacciapaglia, H. Cai, A. Deandrea and A. Kushwaha,Composite Higgs and Dark Matter Model in SU(6)/SO(6),JHEP10(2019) 035, [1904.09301]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Cai and G

    H. Cai and G. Cacciapaglia,Singlet dark matter in the SU(6)/SO(6) composite Higgs model,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 055002, [2007.04338]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Rosenlyst,Composite self-interacting dark matter and Higgs,Phys

    M. Rosenlyst,Composite self-interacting dark matter and Higgs,Phys. Lett. B833(2022) 137369, [2112.14759]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Baldes, Y

    I. Baldes, Y. Gouttenoire, F. Sala and G. Servant,Supercool composite Dark Matter beyond 100 TeV, JHEP07(2022) 084, [2110.13926]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    A. S. Cornell, A. Deandrea, T. Flacke, B. Fuks and L. Mason,Top partners and scalar dark matter: A nonminimal reappraisal,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 075004, [2209.13093]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Nussinov,TECHNOCOSMOLOGY: COULD A TECHNIBARYON EXCESS PROVIDE A ’NATURAL’ MISSING MASS CANDIDATE?,Phys

    S. Nussinov,TECHNOCOSMOLOGY: COULD A TECHNIBARYON EXCESS PROVIDE A ’NATURAL’ MISSING MASS CANDIDATE?,Phys. Lett. B165(1985) 55–58

    1985

  38. [38]

    S. M. Barr, R. S. Chivukula and E. Farhi,Electroweak Fermion Number Violation and the Production of Stable Particles in the Early Universe,Phys. Lett. B241(1990) 387–391

    1990

  39. [39]

    Cacciapaglia, M

    G. Cacciapaglia, M. T. Frandsen, W.-C. Huang, M. Rosenlyst and P. Sørensen,Techni-composite Higgs models with symmetric and asymmetric dark matter candidates,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 075022, [2111.09319]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    M. G. Belyakova and R. Nevzorov,Spin-independent interactions of Dirac fermionic dark matter in the composite Higgs models,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 115038, [2406.12483]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Rosenlyst,Velocity-dependent self-interacting dark matter and composite Higgs,2412.19371

    M. Rosenlyst,Velocity-dependent self-interacting dark matter and composite Higgs,2412.19371

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Cacciapaglia and M

    G. Cacciapaglia and M. Rosenlyst,Loop-generated neutrino masses in composite Higgs models,JHEP 09(2021) 167, [2010.01437]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    S.-M. Choi, H. M. Lee, P. Ko and A. Natale,Resolving phenomenological problems with strongly-interacting-massive-particle models with dark vector resonances,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 015034, [1801.07726]. – 24 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    Bernreuther, F

    E. Bernreuther, F. Kahlhoefer, M. Kr¨ amer and P. Tunney,Strongly interacting dark sectors in the early Universe and at the LHC through a simplified portal,JHEP01(2020) 162, [1907.04346]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby and M. Piai,Dilaton forbidden dark matter,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 035013, [2404.07601]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Bernreuther, N

    E. Bernreuther, N. Hemme, F. Kahlhoefer and S. Kulkarni,Dark matter relic density in strongly interacting dark sectors with light vector mesons,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 035009, [2311.17157]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Alfano, N

    A. Alfano, N. Evans, S. Kulkarni and W. Porod,Surveying the theory space of pion dark matter,JHEP 05(2026) 199, [2509.04892]

    arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    Asadi, A

    P. Asadi, A. Batz and G. D. Kribs,Rich Phenomenology from Simple Ingredients: A Review of Confining Dark Sectors,2606.30760

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino,Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.,Phys. Rev.177 (1969) 2239–2247

    1969

  51. [51]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino,Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2.,Phys. Rev.177(1969) 2247–2250

    1969

  52. [52]

    Alanne, N

    T. Alanne, N. Bizot, G. Cacciapaglia and F. Sannino,Classification of NLO operators for composite Higgs models,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 075028, [1801.05444]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Golterman and Y

    M. Golterman and Y. Shamir,Effective potential in ultraviolet completions for composite Higgs models, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 095005, [1707.06033]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    Bennett, D

    E. Bennett, D. K. Hong, J.-W. Lee, C.-J. D. Lin, B. Lucini, M. Mesiti et al.,Sp(4)gauge theories on the lattice: quenched fundamental and antisymmetric fermions,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 074516, [1912.06505]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    Kulkarni, A

    S. Kulkarni, A. Maas, S. Mee, M. Nikolic, J. Pradler and F. Zierler,Low-energy effective description of darkSp(4)theories,SciPost Phys.14(2023) 044, [2202.05191]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Bennett, J

    E. Bennett, J. Holligan, D. K. Hong, H. Hsiao, J.-W. Lee, C. J. D. Lin et al.,Sp(2N) Lattice Gauge Theories and Extensions of the Standard Model of Particle Physics,Universe9(2023) 236, [2304.01070]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Bennett, D

    E. Bennett, D. K. Hong, H. Hsiao, J.-W. Lee, C. J. D. Lin, B. Lucini et al.,Meson spectroscopy in the Sp(4) gauge theory with three antisymmetric fermions,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 074511, [2412.01170]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Erdmenger, N

    J. Erdmenger, N. Evans, W. Porod and K. S. Rigatos,Gauge/gravity dual dynamics for the strongly coupled sector of composite Higgs models,JHEP02(2021) 058, [2010.10279]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    Erdmenger, N

    J. Erdmenger, N. Evans, Y. Liu and W. Porod,Holography for Sp(2N c) gauge dynamics: from composite Higgs to technicolour,JHEP07(2024) 169, [2404.14480]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo and K. Yamawaki,Nonlinear Realization and Hidden Local Symmetries,Phys. Rept.164(1988) 217–314

    1988

  61. [61]

    Buarque Franzosi, G

    D. Buarque Franzosi, G. Cacciapaglia, H. Cai, A. Deandrea and M. Frandsen,Vector and Axial-vector resonances in composite models of the Higgs boson,JHEP11(2016) 076, [1605.01363]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  62. [62]

    Caliri, J

    R. Caliri, J. Hadlik, M. Kunkel, W. Porod, C. Verollet and C. Verollet,Electroweak spin-1 resonances in Composite Higgs models,JHEP04(2025) 160, [2412.08720]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Griest and D

    K. Griest and D. Seckel,Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances,Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 3191–3203

    1991

  64. [64]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2250–2300, [1310.1921]. – 25 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  65. [65]

    Belyaev, N

    A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen and A. Pukhov,CalcHEP 3.4 for collider physics within and beyond the Standard Model,Comput. Phys. Commun.184(2013) 1729–1769, [1207.6082]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov,micrOMEGAs 3: A program for calculating dark matter observables,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 960–985, [1305.0237]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  67. [67]

    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]. [68]Planckcollaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6, [1807.06209]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [69]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller and E. Teller,Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines,J. Chem. Phys.21(1953) 1087–1092

    1953

  69. [70]

    W. K. Hastings,Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their Applications, Biometrika57(1970) 97–109

    1970

  70. [71]

    F. A. de Souza, N. F. Castro, M. Crispim Rom˜ ao, M. D. Goodsell, F. Ibrahimov and W. Porod, BSMArt 2: simpler and faster parameter space scans,2606.05410. [72]LZcollaboration, J. Aalbers et al.,First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 041002, [2207.03764]. [73]XENONcollaboration, E. Aprile et al.,Dark...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [78]

    C. A. J. O’Hare,New Definition of the Neutrino Floor for Direct Dark Matter Searches,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 251802, [2109.03116]. [79]DAR WINcollaboration, J. Aalbers et al.,DAR WIN: towards the ultimate dark matter detector,JCAP 11(2016) 017, [1606.07001]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [80]

    Agugliaro, G

    A. Agugliaro, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea and S. De Curtis,Vacuum misalignment and pattern of scalar masses in the SU(5)/SO(5) composite Higgs model,JHEP02(2019) 089, [1808.10175]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  73. [81]

    Cacciapaglia, T

    G. Cacciapaglia, T. Flacke, M. Kunkel, W. Porod and L. Schwarze,Exploring extended Higgs sectors via pair production at the LHC,JHEP12(2022) 087, [2210.01826]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [82]

    Flacke, J

    T. Flacke, J. H. Kim, M. Kunkel, P. Ko, J. S. Pi, W. Porod et al.,Uncovering doubly charged scalars with dominant three-body decays using machine learning,JHEP11(2023) 009, [2304.09195]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [83]

    Cacciapaglia, H

    G. Cacciapaglia, H. Cai, A. Deandrea, T. Flacke, S. J. Lee and A. Parolini,Composite scalars at the LHC: the Higgs, the Sextet and the Octet,JHEP11(2015) 201, [1507.02283]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  76. [84]

    Cacciapaglia, A

    G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, T. Flacke and A. M. Iyer,Gluon-Photon Signatures for color octet at the LHC (and beyond),JHEP05(2020) 027, [2002.01474]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  77. [85]

    Flacke, J

    T. Flacke, J. H. Kim, M. Kunkel, J. S. Pi and W. Porod,Hunting and identifying coloured resonances in four top events with machine learning,JHEP02(2026) 028, [2506.04318]. – 26 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  78. [86]

    Cacciapaglia, A

    G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, M. Kunkel and W. Porod,Coloured spin-1 states in composite Higgs models,JHEP06(2024) 092, [2404.02198]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [87]

    Bizot, G

    N. Bizot, G. Cacciapaglia and T. Flacke,Common exotic decays of top partners,JHEP06(2018) 065, [1803.00021]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [88]

    K.-P. Xie, G. Cacciapaglia and T. Flacke,Exotic decays of top partners with charge 5/3: bounds and opportunities,JHEP10(2019) 134, [1907.05894]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.