Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Neutrino observations place sharp upper limits on the fraction of dark matter in primordial black holes, down to f_PBH ~ 10^-8, when particle dark matter annihilates in PBH-enhanced minispikes.

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 02:38 UTC pith:TYAP5PK2

load-bearing objection Solid incremental bounds on f_PBH from neutrinos; limits are linear in the unvalidated minispike luminosity, which the paper flags but does not quantify. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14253 v1 pith:TYAP5PK2 submitted 2026-07-15 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Constraining the Coexistence of Primordial Black Holes and Particle Dark Matter with Neutrino Observations

Prolay Chanda , Sagnik Mukherjee , James Unwin This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.HE
keywords primordial black holesdark matter minispikesneutrino indirect detectiondiffuse neutrino fluxWIMP annihilationfreeze-in dark matterU(1)_L_mu_minus_L_tauf_PBH limits
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.

This paper argues that if particle dark matter is gravitationally captured around primordial black holes, the resulting dense minispikes so strongly boost annihilation that the emitted high-energy neutrinos cannot exceed the observed diffuse neutrino flux. Requiring that the predicted flux stay below that observed envelope yields upper limits on f_PBH, the fraction of dark matter in PBHs, reaching f_PBH ~ 10^-8 for the idealized neutrino-line benchmark. The authors refine earlier work by using realistic piecewise power-law halo profiles and their redshift evolution rather than a single r^-9/4 law, and they apply the same machinery to both freeze-out (WIMP) and freeze-in (FIMP) dark matter. They also show that a consistent particle-physics completion, based on a gauged U(1)_{L_mu - L_tau} symmetry, unavoidably produces correlated charged-lepton and neutrino final states, making multi-messenger searches complementary. If these limits are correct, PBHs can be only a tiny minority component of dark matter in scenarios where particle dark matter annihilates to neutrinos.

Core claim

The central claim is that the extragalactic neutrino flux from dark-matter annihilation in PBH-induced minispikes cannot exceed the observed diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux; imposing this conservative envelope gives upper limits on f_PBH as a function of PBH mass and dark-matter mass. For the phenomenological chi-bar-chi -> nu-bar-nu channel, the limits reach f_PBH ~ 10^-8 over a range of masses. The key improvement over earlier analyses is the profile treatment: using self-consistent nested power-law halos (with slopes -3/4, -3/2, and -9/4 in different PBH-mass regimes) and including annihilation reshaping of the inner halo changes the annihilation luminosity and therefore shifts the in

What carries the argument

The annihilation-boosted dark-matter minispike is the central object: the dark-matter density around each PBH is modeled as rho_DM(r,z) = min[rho_max(z), rho_grav(r,z)], where rho_grav is a piecewise power law with slopes -3/4, -3/2, and -9/4 depending on the PBH mass regime, and rho_max encodes the saturation of density due to annihilation. The redshift-dependent annihilation rate Gamma_ann(z) feeds the cosmological neutrino flux integral, so every limit in the paper is proportional to this rate; the choice of halo profile and its evolution determines whether neutrino observations can constrain PBH dark matter at all.

Load-bearing premise

The limits assume every PBH has retained its undisrupted, s-wave-annihilating piecewise power-law halo from formation to the present day; if the inner halo is shallower, disrupted by tidal encounters, or annihilation is p-wave, the predicted luminosity and all derived bounds shift by orders of magnitude.

What would settle it

A measurement that pins down f_PBH > 10^-8 for a mass range where the paper predicts a neutrino flux above the observed diffuse envelope, for instance from gravitational-wave or microlensing observations, followed by continued non-observation of the corresponding neutrino signal, would disprove the assumed minispike annihilation model.

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

If this is right

  • PBH fractions above roughly 10^-8 are excluded for the neutrino-line benchmark over a broad window of PBH and dark-matter masses, since larger fractions would overproduce the observed diffuse neutrino flux.
  • The redshift-broadened spectral endpoint near E_nu ~ m_chi is a distinctive feature that an optimized spectral fit could exploit to strengthen the conservative envelope limits.
  • Freeze-in dark matter in the Boltzmann-suppressed regime is not necessarily more elusive: around PBHs it can produce detectable neutrino signals, and the resulting limits depend on the reheating history and halo assumptions.
  • In a consistent gauged U(1)_{L_mu - L_tau} model, the neutrino channel carries only about one third of the annihilations, so neutrino limits must be combined with correlated muon, tau, and gamma-ray searches.
  • The refined piecewise halo profile shifts the inferred f_PBH limits relative to a single r^-9/4 approximation, so comparisons between different PBH-dark-matter constraints require a common profile prescription.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If these limits hold, the 'mixed dark matter' scenario with both PBHs and particle dark matter is viable only when PBHs are a sub-percent minority, sharpening the all-or-nothing question for PBH dark matter.
  • The same formalism could be turned around: a future detection of a neutrino line from PBH-induced spikes would directly measure the dark-matter mass and the annihilation cross section, and would probe the inner halo slope.
  • A testable corollary is that tidal disruption of minispikes by early structure formation would weaken the limits; observing an f_PBH that lies in the nominally excluded region would indicate either p-wave annihilation or halo disruption.
  • The analysis assumes s-wave annihilation with a velocity-independent cross section; extending it to p-wave annihilation, where the annihilation plateau is spatially dependent, could shift the limits by orders of magnitude.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the extragalactic high-energy neutrino flux from dark matter annihilation in PBH minispikes, using the Boudaud et al. piecewise halo profiles modified by annihilation reshaping. It then uses the non-observation of an excess over the IceCube/ANTARES diffuse neutrino flux to set upper limits on the PBH fraction f_PBH for a phenomenological chi-bar-chi -> nu-bar-nu channel, and extends the treatment to freeze-in dark matter. The main quantitative result is a conservative envelope bound that reaches f_PBH ~ 1e-8 for some dark-matter masses, together with idealized IceCube event-based sensitivity projections. The paper is transparent about several approximations and explicitly labels its diffuse-flux bounds as conservative relative to a spectral fit.

Significance. If the halo model is correct, the conservative envelope limits provide a broad and complementary probe of mixed PBH+particle DM scenarios, particularly for DM that annihilates to neutrinos and is therefore difficult to constrain with gamma rays. The refined treatment of the halo profile and redshift evolution is a genuine step beyond the single r^{-9/4} power law used in earlier neutrino analyses, and the explicit U(1)_{L_mu-L_tau} completion is a useful caution against neutrino-only benchmarks. The paper also makes its main derivation (Sec. 3) coherent and clearly distinguishes conservative diffuse-flux limits from idealized detector projections. The main weaknesses are the unspecified redshift-scaling exponent for light/intermediate PBHs and the unverified thermalization assumption for the freeze-in benchmarks; these directly affect the numerical limits.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2, Eq. (2.5)] The exponent x that controls Gamma_ann(z) = Gamma_ann(0) h(z)^x is never provided for the light and intermediate PBH regimes. The text only states that x=2/3 applies to a 'restricted velocity-independent, heavy-PBH regime'. Since Eq. (3.8) evaluates Gamma_ann(z_star) at every redshift and the flux constraint in Eq. (5.4) is linearly proportional to this quantity, all f_PBH limits in Figs. 4 and 6 inherit the unspecified x. Please quote the values or functional form of x used for each PBH-mass regime, and validate Eq. (2.5) against a direct numerical integration of Eqs. (2.2)-(2.4) using the Appendix A profiles. Without this, the central numerical results are not reproducible and an order-one change in x directly rescales every quoted limit.
  2. [§7, Figs. 5-6] The freeze-in limits assume the same annihilation-reshaped, thermalized halo model as in the WIMP case. The text notes that this requires Gamma_self(T')>H(T) (Eq. 7.6) and that, if this condition fails, the nonthermal momentum distribution must be evolved directly. However, the paper does not demonstrate that Eq. (7.6) is satisfied for the plotted benchmarks. Because freeze-in couplings are typically very small, this condition is nontrivial; if the hidden sector is not internally equilibrated, the phase-space distribution entering rho_max and Gamma_ann is different, and the FIMP limits in Figs. 5-6 are not supported as stated. Please show that Eq. (7.6) holds for the chosen benchmark parameters, or quantify how the limits would change if it does not.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] Typo in the abstract: 'context fo' should be 'context of'. Also, the roadmap in the Introduction says Section 7 presents the UV-complete model and Section 8 adapts the limits to freeze-in, but the actual layout has freeze-in in Section 7 and concluding remarks in Section 8.
  2. [§4, Eq. (4.2)] The Earth-transmission approximation T_nu = T_antinu = 1 tends to overestimate the high-energy upward-going muon signal. Since the diffuse-flux envelope limits do not rely on this approximation, it affects only the idealized event-based projections; please state the direction and rough magnitude of this effect.
  3. [§4, Eq. (4.8)] In the piecewise parameterization of A0(E_mu), the first branch is written as '0' with no units. Please clarify that A0 = 0 in that energy range.
  4. [§5] The figures are the main deliverable, but no numerical table of the f_PBH limits is provided. A table of representative values for the envelope limits would greatly aid quantitative comparison with other constraints.
  5. [§6.3, Eq. (6.16)] The gamma-ray flux expression uses dPhi_gamma/(dE dOmega) without an explicit solid-angle integral, and the optical-depth factor e^{-tau(z,E')} is not defined in the text. Please add definitions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the f_PBH limits are obtained by comparing an independently computed annihilation luminosity to external neutrino data; the self-citations supply parameter-free published inputs, not the target result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) adopt Boudaud et al. halo profiles [28] with annihilation reshaping from [18] via Eq. (2.3); (ii) compute the per-halo annihilation rate Γann(z) in Eq. (2.4); (iii) integrate the cosmological flux in Eqs. (3.5)/(3.8); (iv) invert the inequality against the measured IceCube/ANTARES diffuse flux envelope, Eqs. (5.4)-(5.6). At no point is a parameter fitted to the quantity being predicted. The f_PBH bound is a linear inversion: n_PBH ∝ f_PBH, hence flux ∝ f_PBH (Eqs. 5.1-5.2), and the limit is simply the ratio of the observed upper envelope to the unit-abundance prediction (Eq. 5.5). The target f_PBH does not enter the halo profile, the cross section, or the redshift evolution. The main self-citations, [18] and [19], are load-bearing, but they are prior published parameter-free derivations with stated assumptions (s-wave annihilation, order-one annihilation per halo lifetime, thermalized FIMP phase space); they do not include the neutrino data or f_PBH, so per the review rules they constitute independent support rather than circularity. The paper also explicitly flags its genuine weaknesses: p-wave annihilation would make ρmax spatially dependent and is not treated (Sec. 2), a nonthermal freeze-in distribution would require a different halo calculation (Sec. 7), and the pointwise envelope bound is acknowledged to be non-optimized compared with a spectral fit (Sec. 5). These are robustness/correctness caveats, not circular steps. No definitional identity, fitted-input-as-prediction, or author-imported uniqueness argument is present. Hence the analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks and receives score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 9 axioms · 0 invented entities

The ledger captures the main astrophysical and particle-physics assumptions the f_PBH limits rest on. No genuinely new entity is introduced; the U(1)_Lmu-Ltau Z' mediator is borrowed from prior literature. The largest uncertainties are the halo profile model and unchecked freeze-in thermalization.

free parameters (3)
  • WIMP annihilation cross section <sigma v>_tot = Canonical thermal value ~3e-26 cm^3/s (not explicitly stated in text)
    Sets rho_max in Eq. (2.2) and the annihilation rate; all WIMP limits assume this value.
  • Detector response parameters (A0(E_mu), thresholds) = Eq. (4.8); E_th^mu = 50 GeV; T_exp = 10 yr; V_eff = 0.04 km^3
    Hand-parameterized IceCube effective area; event-based projected sensitivities depend directly on these choices.
  • Freeze-in benchmarks (Lambda, T_RH, m_chi) = Lambda = 1e5, 1e7 GeV; T_RH ~ 50 GeV; m_chi = (3.5,5,9)e3 GeV (illustrative)
    Chosen parameter points for FIMP limits; not fitted to data. Relic-density matching fixes the relation among them via Eq. (7.2).
axioms (9)
  • domain assumption Minispike halo profiles of Boudaud et al. [28] and the annihilation-modified profile rho_DM = min[rho_max, rho_grav] [18] are correct.
    Used in Section 2 and Appendix A; all fluxes and limits inherit this model. No direct verification in this paper.
  • domain assumption PBHs form a monochromatic mass function, capture ambient DM, and their halos are not disrupted by tidal interactions.
    Section 3 assumes uniform M_dot and n_PBH proportional to f_PBH; the entire signal requires intact minispikes.
  • domain assumption Annihilation is s-wave (velocity-independent); p-wave is omitted.
    Section 2 states this restriction; for p-wave the annihilation-limited profile is spatially dependent and would change limits.
  • domain assumption Annihilation-limited central density rho_max = m_chi/(<sigma v>_tot [t(z)-t_in]) corresponds to roughly one annihilation per particle per halo age.
    Eq. (2.2); controls the inner cutoff and the total luminosity.
  • domain assumption Transmission probability through the Earth T_nu = T_antinu = 1 for upward events.
    Eq. (4.2) approximation; at E_nu >~ 1e6 GeV Earth absorption would reduce the signal and weaken event-based limits.
  • domain assumption Equal-flavor (1:1:1) composition at Earth; no model-specific flavor mixing matrix.
    Section 3 states this; authors note O(1) changes for other compositions.
  • domain assumption Integrate only over 0 <= z <= z_eq; contributions from z > z_eq are neglected.
    Eq. (3.8) uses Theta(z_max - z_star) with z_max = z_eq; PBH halos at earlier times are not included.
  • domain assumption Freeze-in calculations assume a thermalized hidden sector with Gamma_self(T') > H(T); otherwise the nonthermal phase-space distribution must be used.
    Section 7; the benchmarks are not checked against Eq. (7.6), so FIMP limits may be invalid if thermalization fails.
  • domain assumption Relic density is matched with instantaneous reheating and the standard UV freeze-in yield Eq. (7.2).
    Section 7; non-instantaneous reheating changes yields and limits.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16178 in / 13805 out tokens · 145591 ms · 2026-08-02T02:38:07.869284+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Primordial black holes (PBH) with a uniform mass scale could contribute up to 1\% of the gravitationally inferred dark matter relic abundance and remain consistent with observational limits over a large range of masses. In this case, the vast majority of the dark matter relic abundance is comprised of dark matter particles, such as WIMPs or FIMPs. Particle dark matter gravitationally captured around primordial black holes can form dense minispikes in which the annihilation rate is strongly enhanced. In this work, we investigate the constraints on the coexistence of PBHs and particle dark matter from high-energy neutrino observations. Relative to earlier analyses, we refine the treatment of the dark matter halo profile and its redshift evolution. We consider models of freeze-out and freeze-in dark matter, as well as Boltzmann-suppressed freeze-in. We present idealized IceCube event-based sensitivities together with conservative limits obtained by requiring that the predicted extragalactic neutrino intensity not exceed the upper envelope of the measured diffuse flux. We explore the constraints in terms of an idealized model with 100\% branching to neutrinos, we also discuss these results within the context fo a motivated gauged U(1)${}_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ mediator model, emphasizing that a consistent particle-physics completion generally predicts correlated charged-lepton and neutrino final states.

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

56 extracted references · 41 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich and I. D., NovikovThe Hypothesis of Cores Retarded during Expansion and the Hot Cosmological Model,Soviet Astron. AJ (Engl. Transl. ),10, 602 (1967)

    1967

  2. [2]

    Hawking,Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,MNRAS152, 75 (1971)

    S. Hawking,Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,MNRAS152, 75 (1971)

    1971

  3. [3]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking,Black holes in the early Universe,MNRAS168, 399-415 (1974)

    1974

  4. [4]

    B. J. CarrThe primordial black hole spectrum,ApJ,201, (1975)

    1975

  5. [5]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel,Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Recent Developments,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70, 355-394 (2020) [2006.02838]. – 21 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Bertschinger,Self-similar secondary infall and accretion in an Einstein-de Sitter universe, Astrophys

    E. Bertschinger,Self-similar secondary infall and accretion in an Einstein-de Sitter universe, Astrophys. J. Suppl.58, 39 (1985)

    1985

  7. [7]

    Ackermannet al.[Fermi-LAT],The spectrum of isotropic diffuse gamma-ray emission between 100 MeV and 820 GeV,Astrophys

    M. Ackermannet al.[Fermi-LAT],The spectrum of isotropic diffuse gamma-ray emission between 100 MeV and 820 GeV,Astrophys. J.799, 86 (2015) [1410.3696]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    B. C. Lacki and J. F. Beacom,Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Almost All or Almost Nothing,Astrophys. J. Lett.720, L67-L71 (2010) [1003.3466]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    Adamek, C

    J. Adamek, C. T. Byrnes, M. Gosenca and S. Hotchkiss,WIMPs and stellar-mass primordial black holes are incompatible,Phys. Rev. D100, no.2, 023506 (2019) [1901.08528]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Y. N. Eroshenko,Dark matter density spikes around primordial black holes,Astron. Lett.42, no.6, 347-356 (2016) [1607.00612]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    E. U. Gin´ es, S. J. Witte and O. Mena,Revisiting constraints on WIMPs around primordial black holes,Phys. Rev. D106, no.6, 063538 (2022) [2207.09481]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Kadota and H

    K. Kadota and H. Tashiro,Primordial black hole dark matter in the presence of p-wave WIMP annihilation,JCAP03, no.03, 045 (2022) [2112.04179]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Tashiro and K

    H. Tashiro and K. Kadota,Constraining Mixed Dark-Matter Scenarios of WIMPs and Primordial Black Holes from CMB and 21-cm observations,Phys. Rev. D103, no.12, 123532 (2021) [2104.09738]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    B. Carr, F. Kuhnel and L. Visinelli,Black holes and WIMPs: all or nothing or something else, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.506, no.3, 3648-3661 (2021) [2011.01930]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Kadota and H

    K. Kadota and H. Tashiro,Radio bounds on the mixed dark matter scenarios of primordial black holes and WIMPs,JCAP08, no.08, 004 (2022) [2204.13273]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Scholtz and J

    J. Scholtz and J. Unwin,What If Planet 9 Is a Primordial Black Hole?Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 051103 (2020) [1909.11090]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Boucenna, F

    S. Boucenna, F. Kuhnel, T. Ohlsson and L. Visinelli,Novel Constraints on Mixed Dark-Matter Scenarios of Primordial Black Holes and WIMPs,JCAP07, 003 (2018) [1712.06383]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Chanda, J

    P. Chanda, J. Scholtz and J. Unwin,Improved constraints on dark matter annihilations around primordial black holes,JHEP07, 273 (2024) [2209.07541]

    arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Chanda, S

    P. Chanda, S. Mukherjee and J. Unwin,Constraining the coexistence of freeze-in dark matter and primordial black holes,JHEP11, 033 (2025) [2505.02935]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Y. Yang, G. Yang and H. Zong,Neutrino signals from ultracompact minihalos and constraints on the primordial curvature perturbation,Phys. Rev. D87, no.10, 103525 (2013) [1305.4213]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Yang and Y

    Y. Yang and Y. Qin,Tau neutrinos from ultracompact dark matter minihalos and constraints on the primordial curvature perturbations,Phys. Rev. D96, no.10, 103509 (2017) [1711.00993]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Hao,et al

    J. Hao,et al. Muon neutrinos and the cosmological abundance of primordial black holes,Phys. Rev. D110, no.2, 023532 (2024) [2406.00664]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz and M. B. Voloshin,Secluded WIMP Dark Matter,Phys. Lett. B662, 53-61 (2008) [0711.4866]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  24. [24]

    Martin, J

    A. Martin, J. Shelton and J. Unwin,Fitting the Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess with Cascade Annihilations,Phys. Rev. D90, no.10, 103513 (2014) [1405.0272]. – 22 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [25]

    G. Elor, N. L. Rodd, T. R. Slatyer and W. Xue,Model-Independent Indirect Detection Constraints on Hidden Sector Dark Matter,JCAP06, 024 (2016) [1511.08787]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Arguelles,et al

    Carlos A. Arguelles,et al. Dark Matter Annihilation to Neutrinos,arXiv:1912.09486

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  27. [27]

    Yuksel, S

    H. Yuksel, S. Horiuchi, J. F. Beacom and S. Ando,Neutrino Constraints on the Dark Matter Total Annihilation Cross Section,Phys. Rev. D76, 123506 (2007) [0707.0196]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  28. [28]

    Boudaud,et al

    M. Boudaud,et al. In-depth analysis of the clustering of dark matter particles around primordial black holes I: density profiles,JCAP08, 053 (2021) [2106.07480]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    In-depth analysis of the clustering of dark matter particles around primordial black holes. Part III: CMB constraints,

    J. Lavalle, V. Poulin and P. Salati,“In-depth analysis of the clustering of dark matter particles around primordial black holes. Part III: CMB constraints,”[2604.18007]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Lavalle and P

    J. Lavalle and P. Salati,In-depth analysis of the clustering of dark matter particles around primordial black holes. Part II. Analytical prescriptions for spikes,[2511.16800]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Abbasi,et al

    R. Abbasi,et al. Improved Characterization of the Astrophysical Muon–neutrino Flux with 9.5 Years of IceCube Data,Astrophys. J.928, no.1, 50 (2022) [2111.10299]

    arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Abbasiet al.[IceCube],Improved measurements of the TeV-PeV extragalactic neutrino spectrum from joint analyses of IceCube tracks and cascades,Phys

    R. Abbasiet al.[IceCube],Improved measurements of the TeV-PeV extragalactic neutrino spectrum from joint analyses of IceCube tracks and cascades,Phys. Rev. D113, 062002 (2026) [2507.22234]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Albertet al.[ANTARES],Constraints on the energy spectrum of the diffuse cosmic neutrino flux from the ANTARES neutrino telescope,JCAP08, 038 (2024) [2407.00328]

    A. Albertet al.[ANTARES],Constraints on the energy spectrum of the diffuse cosmic neutrino flux from the ANTARES neutrino telescope,JCAP08, 038 (2024) [2407.00328]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Cirelli,et al

    M. Cirelli,et al. Spectra of neutrinos from dark matter annihilations,Nucl. Phys. B727, 99-138 (2005) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B790, 338-344 (2008)] [hep-ph/0506298]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  35. [35]

    K. Asai, S. Okawa and K. Tsumura,Search forU(1) Lµ−Lτ charged dark matter with neutrino telescope,JHEP03, 047 (2021) [2011.03165]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Honda,et al.Atmospheric neutrino flux calculation using the NRLMSISE-00 atmospheric model,Phys

    M. Honda,et al.Atmospheric neutrino flux calculation using the NRLMSISE-00 atmospheric model,Phys. Rev. D92, no.2, 023004 (2015) [1502.03916]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    Bergstrom, J

    L. Bergstrom, J. Edsjo and M. Kamionkowski,Astrophysical neutrino detection with angular and energy resolution,Astropart. Phys.7, 147-160 (1997) [astro-ph/9702037]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  38. [38]

    A. E. Erkoca, M. H. Reno and I. Sarcevic,Muon Fluxes From Dark Matter Annihilation,Phys. Rev. D80, 043514 (2009) [0906.4364]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  39. [39]

    Baek and P

    S. Baek and P. Ko,Phenomenology of U(1) Lµ−Lτ charged dark matter at PAMELA and colliders,JCAP10, 011 (2009), [0811.1646]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  40. [40]

    X. G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew and R. R. Volkas,Simplest Z-prime model,Phys. Rev. D44 (1991), 2118-2132

    1991

  41. [41]

    X. G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew and R. R. Volkas,New Z-prime Phenomenology,Phys. Rev. D43 (1991), 22-24

    1991

  42. [42]

    Choubey and W

    S. Choubey and W. Rodejohann,A Flavor symmetry for quasi-degenerate neutrinos: L(mu) - L(tau),Eur. Phys. J. C40(2005), 259-268 [hep-ph/0411190]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  43. [43]

    E. C. G. Stueckelberg,Interaction energy in electrodynamics and in the field theory of nuclear forces,Helv. Phys. Acta11(1938), 225-244 – 23 –

    1938

  44. [44]

    L. D. Landau,On the angular momentum of a system of two photons,Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz.60, 207 (1948)

    1948

  45. [45]

    C. N. Yang,Selection Rules for the Dematerialization of a Particle into Two Photons,Phys. Rev.77, 242 (1950)

    1950

  46. [46]

    Keung, I

    W.-Y. Keung, I. Low and J. Shu,Landau-Yang Theorem and Decays of aZ ′ Boson into TwoZ Bosons,Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 091802 (2008), [0806.2864]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  47. [47]

    Coogan, S

    A. Coogan, S. Profumo and W. Shepherd,Monochromatic Gamma Rays from Dark Matter Annihilation to Leptons,JHEP08(2015), 074 [1504.05187]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  48. [48]

    Cirelli,et al

    M. Cirelli,et al. PPPC 4 DM ID: A Poor Particle Physicist Cookbook for Dark Matter Indirect Detection,JCAP03, 051 (2011) [1012.4515]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  49. [49]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S. M. West,Freeze-In Production of FIMP Dark Matter,JHEP2010, 80 (2010) [0911.1120]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  50. [50]

    Elahi, C

    F. Elahi, C. Kolda and J. Unwin,UltraViolet Freeze-in,JHEP03, 048 (2015) [1410.6157]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [51]

    Bernal, F

    N. Bernal, F. Elahi, C. Maldonado and J. Unwin,Ultraviolet Freeze-in and Non-Standard Cosmologies,JCAP11, 026 (2019) [1909.07992]

    arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    G. F. Giudice, E. W. Kolb and A. Riotto,Largest temperature of the radiation era and its cosmological implications,Phys. Rev. D64, 023508 (2001) [hep-ph/0005123]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  53. [53]

    Cosme, F

    C. Cosme, F. Costa and O. Lebedev,Freeze-in at stronger coupling,Phys. Rev. D109, no.7, 075038 (2024) [2306.13061]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Bernal, S

    N. Bernal, S. Mukherjee, and J. Unwin,Boltzmann Suppressed Ultraviolet Freeze-in,JCAP02, 010 (2026) [2510.01311]

    arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Cheung, G

    C. Cheung, G. Elor, L. J. Hall and P. Kumar,Origins of Hidden Sector Dark Matter I: Cosmology,JHEP03, 042 (2011) [1010.0022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  56. [56]

    Yang,Constraining primordial black holes and primordial curvature power spectrum with extragalactic muon neutrino,[2607.10524]

    Y. Yang,Constraining primordial black holes and primordial curvature power spectrum with extragalactic muon neutrino,[2607.10524]. – 24 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv