Calculations of Neutralino-Stau Coannihilation Channels and the Cosmologically Relevant Region of MSSM Parameter Space

J. Ellis; K.A. Olive; M. Srednicki; T. Falk

REVIEW

Calculations of Neutralino-Stau Coannihilation Channels and the Cosmologically Relevant Region of MSSM Parameter Space

J. Ellis, T. Falk, K.A. Olive, M. Srednicki

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 26 May 1999 · 33 references

Pith's verdict: The long version of the 1998 coannihilation Letter: the 600 GeV ceiling is not new, but the amplitude set, the channel decomposition, and the parameter-dependence study are, and they hold up.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 10 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/9905481 (version 3)

Pith IDG5ZIJTNE, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationJ. Ellis, K.A. Olive, M. Srednicki, T. Falk. "Calculations of Neutralino-Stau Coannihilation Channels and the Cosmologically Relevant Region of MSSM Parameter Space." arXiv:hep-ph/9905481 (1999). https://pith.science/paper/G5ZIJTNE

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

This is the full paper behind the 1998 Phys. Lett. Letter [12], and it is worth reading for what the Letter did not contain. The 200-to-600 GeV shift in the CMSSM neutralino ceiling is a restatement, not a new result. What is new: the explicit transition amplitudes for stau-stau, stau-neutralino, and stau-selectron/smuon channels (A1-A23), the channel-by-channel decomposition in Fig. 5, the A0 and tan beta dependence, and the CCB overlay on the cosmologically allowed band. That is a real deliverable, and the machinery is standard and checkable: amplitudes from MSSM Feynman rules, S/P coefficients by evaluating at two values of cos theta_CM (Eq. 14), thermal averaging via Eq. 15, Boltzmann integration. Nothing is fitted to the 600 GeV number, so the circularity worry is empty. The reader's ACCEPT is right, and the paper is a fair referee assignment. I would cite it for the amplitudes and Fig. 5, not for the headline number. One correction to the reader's weakest-assumption call. The bino-limit chi-tau amplitudes are not what sets the 600 GeV endpoint. That endpoint is the crossing in Fig. 7 where the Omega h^2 = 0.3 contour meets m_stau_R = m_chi, i.e. Delta M -> 0, and Fig. 5a shows slepton-pair annihilation dominates there; chi-tau takes over only for 0.07 < Delta M < 0.17. So the bino-limit concern is real but lands on the middle of the band, not the endpoint. The genuine residual sensitivity is the location of the stau mass contour, which depends on stau mixing. The authors include mixing in the mass (footnote 6) but not in the amplitudes, and they say so. What they do not do is quote an uncertainty on 600 GeV. Fig. 8 shows A0 moves m1/2 by about 100 GeV at tan beta = 10, roughly 40 GeV in m_chi, so 'about 600 GeV' is a representative value with a spread of tens of GeV, not a sharp bound. Minor but worth flagging: the acknowledgments credit C. Pallis with finding Appendix errors, and the paper never says whether Figs. 1-8 were regenerated afterward. The general-MSSM sentence in the abstract is a conjecture supported by a 10-15% estimate, and should be read that way. Send it out.

Referee report

Major objections (2)

[Acknowledgments / Appendix] The acknowledgments state that C. Pallis pointed out errors in the Appendix, but the paper does not state whether Figs. 1-8 were regenerated after those corrections. Since the central numerical claim (600 GeV) rests on the cross sections computed from the Appendix amplitudes, the reproducibility chain from the Appendix to the plotted cross sections is not explicitly closed. The authors should state explicitly whether the numerical results were recomputed after the Appendix corrections, and if so, whether the 600 GeV figure changed.
[Section 4 / Appendix A21-A23] The chi-tau amplitudes are computed in the bino limit (dropping t-channel neutralino exchange) and stau mixing is omitted from all amplitudes. The authors acknowledge this ('We ignore the effect of tau mixing... which may be important at large tan beta'; 'we compute the three chi-tau amplitudes in the Bino limit'). However, no quantitative estimate of the neglected terms is given. Fig. 5 shows that chi-tau coannihilation dominates sigma_eff over the range 0.07 < Delta M < 0.17, and the width of the cosmologically allowed band (and hence the location of the Omega h^2 = 0.3 contour) depends on this channel. A quantitative estimate of the bino-limit and no-mixing errors, at least at the representative points tan beta = 3 and 10, would strengthen the 600 GeV claim. At the pinch-off itself, Delta M -> 0 and slepton-pair annihilation dominates, so the endpoint is less sensitive; but the band width over m1/2 < 1450 is sensitive.

Minor objections (10)

[Section 2, Eq. (14)] The trick of evaluating |T|^2 at cos theta_CM = ±1/sqrt(3) to extract the S- and P-wave contributions is correct (the average over these two points equals the average over the full angular range for a function of the form f_0 + f_2 cos^2 theta), but the text could state this explicitly to help the reader.
[Section 4, Fig. 5] The definition of Delta M and the normalization of the curves should be stated more explicitly in the caption.
[Section 5, Fig. 6] The paper should state more prominently that for tan beta = 2 the entire cosmologically allowed region contains CCB minima, and that for A0 = -m1/2 only a small strip is CCB-free. The paper does discuss this, but a summary sentence in the conclusions would help.
[Section 5, relic density band] The paper should state the sensitivity of the 600 GeV figure to the choice 0.1 < Omega h^2 < 0.3.
[Section 6 / abstract] The claim 'qualitatively similar increase for gauginos in the general MSSM' is an estimate, not a computation. The paper says 'if the rates are the same as for the sleptons, the effect is about a 10-15% decrease.' This is appropriately hedged, but the abstract could be more precise about the nature of the estimate.
[Section 4, three-body final states] The paper says 'We also have not included three body final state processes... In addition to being phase-space suppressed, the magnitude of these contributions to the total cross section is down by a factor of alpha relative to the two body final states we have included.' This is a fair estimate, but a quantitative check at one representative point would be useful.
[Section 2, h' term] The paper neglects the h' term in Eq. (2) because m > 2-10 GeV. This is fine, but the paper should state the size of the neglected term at the smallest neutralino mass considered.
[Section 5, Higgs mass limit] The paper says 'We take 93 GeV as our experimental lower limit on the Higgs mass, to allow for a 2 GeV uncertainty in the extraction of the radiative corrections to the Higgs mass [29].' The paper should state the sensitivity of the tan beta lower bound to this choice.
[Section 5, tan beta lower bound] The paper says 'The combined lower bound on tan beta from the Higgs search and cosmology, including the recent LEP 189 limits, indicates that tan beta >~ 2.2 for mu < 0 and >~ 1.8 for mu > 0.' The paper should state the sensitivity of these bounds to the choice of mt and A0.
[Section 5, Fig. 7] The 600 GeV figure is quoted without an uncertainty. Fig. 8 shows that A0 can move m1/2 by ~100 GeV at tan beta = 10 (roughly 40 GeV in m_chi), and the paper notes that the CCB bounds are sensitive to mt. The paper says 'about 600 GeV,' which is appropriately hedged, but a quantitative error band would make the claim more useful for comparison with experiment. The paper should also state which tan beta and which sign of mu the 600 GeV figure corresponds to, and whether it holds for both signs of mu.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Neutralino–stau coannihilation raises the cosmological upper limit on the lightest supersymmetric particle's mass from about 200 GeV to about 600 GeV.

The reading

This paper asks whether the standard bookkeeping for how much dark matter the lightest neutralino leaves behind is missing a channel that matters. In the constrained MSSM the neutralino is mostly a bino, and bino–bino annihilation into ordinary fermions is suppressed at the low speeds relevant at freeze-out, so the predicted relic density climbs steeply with mass and appears to cap the neutralino near 200 GeV. The authors show that when the lighter stau is nearly degenerate with the neutralino — which is precisely what happens in the same corner of parameter space — reactions that turn a neutralino plus a stau, or two staus, into ordinary particles keep the would-be relics in chemical equilibrium longer, raising the effective annihilation rate by roughly an order of magnitude. The payoff is that the cosmological ceiling moves up to about 600 GeV, and the surviving region of the constrained MSSM collapses into a narrow band that tracks the line where the stau and neutralino masses cross.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the standard multi-species Boltzmann equation with a single effective annihilation cross section, $m_{1/2} = m_{1/2}(m_{1/2} + m_{0})$, in which each initial-state pair is weighted by the equilibrium number densities of its members; when a species is nearly degenerate with the lightest particle its Boltzmann suppression is mild, so its (often much larger) cross section counts. To evaluate each channel the authors expand the squared matrix element in powers of the centre-of-mass momentum, so that the $S$- and $P$-wave pieces can be read off by evaluating $|T|^{2}$ at just two values of $m_{1/2}$, and then thermally average with Bessel functions. The paper supplies the transition amplitudes for the stau–stau, stau–neutralino, stau–slepton and slepton–slepton channels in an appendix, in the limit $m_{1/2} = 0$, so that the $a$ and $b$ coefficients can be extracted numerically.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that including coannihilation of the lightest neutralino with the lighter stau (and, subdominantly, with the selectron and smuon) changes the cosmologically allowed region of the constrained MSSM qualitatively, not just quantitatively. Because the neutralino's own annihilation is $P$-wave suppressed, the effective cross section $a+bt/2$ that enters the relic-density calculation is dominated, once the mass splitting $m_{1/2}$ is large enough, by channels with a slepton in the initial state; the relic density drops by a factor of order ten along the contour $m_{R}=m_{1/2}$, where $m_{R}$ denotes the lighter stau. The authors report that the upper limit on the neutralino mass rises from about 200 GeV to about 600 GeV, corresponding to $m_{1/2} < 1450$ GeV, and that the allowed band in the $(m_{1/2}, m_{0})$ plane is only 25–50 GeV wide. They also note knock-on effects: the lower bound on $m_{0}$ and the derived lower bound on $m_{1/2}$, and hence the lower bound on $m_{0}$ from Higgs searches, shift accordingly, with the combined Higgs-plus-cosmology bound becoming $m_{R} > 2.2$ for $m_{1/2} < 0$ and $m_{R} > 1.8$ for $m_{1/2} > 0$ at the LEP energies cited.

Load-bearing premise

The neutralino–stau amplitudes are computed in the pure-bino limit, dropping t-channel neutralino exchange, and stau mixing is left out of all amplitudes, so the size of the reported 600 GeV ceiling depends on those neglected terms staying small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The cosmological relic-density argument no longer excludes bino-like neutralinos in the 200–600 GeV range, so the mass range that dark-matter searches and the LHC must cover is roughly tripled.
The cosmologically favoured region of the constrained MSSM becomes a narrow strip hugging the contour where the lighter stau and the neutralino are degenerate, rather than a broad wedge in the $(m_{1/2}, m_{0})$ plane.
Because the strip's position depends on the stau mass, the lower bound on $m_{1/2}$ derived by combining LEP Higgs searches with cosmology shifts, changing the inferred lower bound on $m_{1/2}$ and hence on the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values.
Slepton–slepton annihilation dominates the effective cross section when the mass splitting is below about 0.07, neutralino–slepton coannihilation takes over between roughly 0.07 and 0.17, and ordinary neutralino annihilation re-emerges only above about 0.25.
The same mechanism should apply to gaugino dark matter in the general MSSM, where the authors estimate a qualitatively similar relaxation of the mass bound.

Reading between the lines

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

If the mechanism is right, the interesting experimental target is not a 200 GeV bino but a bino nearly degenerate with a right-handed stau, which would show up as a soft, short charged track or a small mass gap in the slepton–neutralino spectrum rather than as missing energy alone.
The narrowness of the allowed band cuts both ways: it makes the scenario sharply predictive, but it also means that small shifts in the stau mass — from mixing, from a different top mass, or from a two-loop correction — move the band appreciably, so the precise 600 GeV number should be read as an order-of-magnitude ceiling rather than a sharp boundary.
The authors' own caveat that they drop stau mixing and t-channel neutralino exchange suggests a natural follow-up: at large $m_{1/2}$, where the mixing angle grows, the neglected terms could either widen or close the allowed band, and that is a calculation, not a measurement, away.
The coannihilation logic is generic to any nearly degenerate pair of dark-matter candidates, so the same reshuffling of relic-density bounds should appear in models with a degenerate wino–chargino or Higgsino–chargino spectrum, where the effective cross section is likewise dominated by the heavier partner.

Original abstract

Assuming that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is the lightest neutralino, we present a detailed exploration of neutralino-stau coannihilation channels, including analytical expressions and numerical results. We also include neutralino coannihilations with the selectron and smuon. We evaluate the implications of coannihilations for the cosmological relic density of the LSP, which is assumed to be stable, in the constrained minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (CMSSM), in which the soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters are universal at the supergravity GUT scale. We evaluate the changes due to coannihilations in the region of the MSSM parameter space that is consistent with the cosmological upper limit on the relic LSP density. In particular, we find that the upper limit on the mass of the neutralino is increased from about 200 GeV to about 600 GeV in the CMSSM, and estimate a qualitatively similar increase for gauginos in the general MSSM.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,532 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.16 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.21 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.78 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Assuming that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is the lightest neutralino, we present a detailed exploration of neutralino-stau coannihilation channels, including analytical expressions and numerical results. We also include neutralino coannihilations with the selectron and smuon. We evaluate the implications of coannihilations for the cosmological relic density of the LSP, which is assumed to be stable, in the constrained minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (CMSSM), in which the soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters are universal at the supergravity GUT scale. We evaluate the changes due to coannihilations in the region of the MSSM parameter space that is consistent with the cosmological upper limit on the relic LSP density. In particular, we find that the upper limit on the mass of the neutralino is increased from about 200 GeV to about 600 GeV in the CMSSM, and estimate a qualitatively similar increase for gauginos in the general MSSM.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Assuming that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is the lightest neutralino, we present a detailed exploration of neutralino-stau coannihilation channels, including analytical expressions and numerical results.	contribution 1.00	0.95	0.06	asserted 0.98
s1	We also include neutralino coannihilations with the selectron and smuon.	contribution 0.99	0.92	0.02	asserted 0.99
s2	We evaluate the implications of coannihilations for the cosmological relic density of the LSP, which is assumed to be stable, in the constrained minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (CMSSM), in which the soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters are universal at the supergravity GUT scale.	contribution 0.71	0.91	0.06	asserted 0.96
s3	We evaluate the changes due to coannihilations in the region of the MSSM parameter space that is consistent with the cosmological upper limit on the relic LSP density.	contribution 0.84	0.93	0.11	asserted 0.93
s4	In particular, we find that the upper limit on the mass of the neutralino is increased from about 200 GeV to about 600 GeV in the CMSSM, and estimate a qualitatively similar increase for gauginos in the general MSSM.	result 1.00	0.96	0.81	asserted 0.97

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.88 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.96.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v3

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** The separate contributions to the cross sections σˆ ≡ a+ 1 2 bx for x = T/mχe = 1/23 and m0 = 120 GeV, as functions of m1/2: a)τ˜τ˜ ∗ , b)τ˜χe, and c) other interactions. For comparison, the thick dotted line is the χeχe cross section. 12

**Figure 5.** The separate contributions to the cross sections σˆeff for x = T/mχe = 1/23, as functions of ∆M ≡ (mτ˜R −mχe )/mχe , with a) (m1/2,tan β) = (500 GeV, 3), b) =(500 GeV, 10), c) =(300 GeV, 3), and d) =(1000 GeV, 3). 17

**Figure 6.** The light-shaded area is the cosmologically preferred region with 0.1 ≤ Ωχe h 2 ≤ 0.3. The light dashed lines show the location of the cosmologically preferred region if one ignores coannihilations with the light sleptons. In the dark shaded regions in the bottom right of each panel, the LSP is the τ˜R, leading to an unacceptable abundance of charged dark matter. Also shown are the isomass contours mχ± = 95 GeV and mh = 95, 100, 105, 110 GeV, as well as an indication of the slepton bound from LEP [31]. In the area below the solid contour, the scalar potential contains charge and/or…

**Figure 8.** The same as Fig. 6a and Fig. 6c, for A0 = −3m1/2. A0 = −2m1/2 and 0. For these choices of A0, there is again no region which satisfies both the CCB and cosmological constraints. The CCB bounds are also sensitive to the top mass. In Figs. 6 and 7 we have taken mt = 175 GeV; taking mt = 170 GeV produces the dotted CCB curves in Fig.7a-c, which expose a much larger piece of the cosmologically allowed band. We recall, however, that a low value of mt also reduces the radiative corrections to the Higgs mass, and therefore makes the Higgs constraint more severe. However, this does not…

Showing 4 of the paper's 8 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/9905481 by the authors.

References

Works cited (33)

[12]

J. Ellis, T. Falk, and K.A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B444 (1998) 367

View on Pith 1998
[1]

P. Fayet, Proc. Europhysics Study Conf. on Uniﬁcation of Fundamental Interactions, Erice, Italy, eds. S. Ferrara, J. Ellis and P. van Nieuwenhuizen (Plen um Press, 1980), p. 587

View on Pith 1980
[2]

H.E. Haber and G.L. Kane, Phys. Rep. 117 (1985) 75

View on Pith 1985
[3]

T. Han and R. Hempﬂing, Phys. Lett. B415 (1997) 161; L.J. Hall, T.Moroi, and H. Murayama, Phys. Lett. B424 (1998) 305. 36

View on Pith 1997
[4]

T. Falk, K.A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B339 (1994) 248

View on Pith 1994
[5]

H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50 (1983) 1419

View on Pith 1983
[6]

J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos, K.A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Nuc l. Phys. B238 (1984) 453

View on Pith 1984
[7]

P.H. Chankowski, J. Ellis, K.A. Olive and S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett. B452 (1999) 28

View on Pith 1999
[8]

S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B246 (1990) 347

View on Pith 1990
[9]

CMS collaboration, S. Abdullin et al., hep-ph/9806366

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[10]

K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev D43 (1991) 3191

View on Pith 1991
[11]

S. Mizuta and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Lett. B298 (1993) 120

View on Pith 1993
[13]

K.A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B230 (1989) 78; Nucl. Phys. B355 (1991) 208; K. Griest, M. Kamionkowski and M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 3565

View on Pith 1989
[14]

J. Ellis, T. Falk, K.A. Olive and M. Schmitt, Phys. Lett. B388 (1996) 97

View on Pith 1996
[15]

J. Ellis, T. Falk, K.A. Olive and M. Schmitt, Phys. Lett. B413 (1997) 355

View on Pith 1997
[16]

J. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K.A. Olive and M. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 095002

View on Pith 1998
[17]

P. Hut, Phys. Lett B69 (1977) 85; B. Lee and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 165

View on Pith 1977
[18]

M. Srednicki, R. Watkins and K.A. Olive, Nucl. Phys B310 (1988) 693

View on Pith 1988
[19]

P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B360 (1991) 145

View on Pith 1991
[20]

J. Edsj¨ o and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 1879

View on Pith 1997
[21]

V. Barger and C. Kao, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 3131

View on Pith 1998
[22]

T. Falk, Phys. Lett. B456 (1999) 171

View on Pith 1999
[23]

T. Falk, R. Madden, K.A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B318 (1993) 354

View on Pith 1993
[24]

T. Falk, K.A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B354 (1995) 99

View on Pith 1995
[25]

R. Arnowitt, and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 3696; G. Kane, C. Kolda, L. Roszkowski and J. Wells, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 6173; H. Baer and M. Brhlik, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 597

View on Pith 1993
[26]

H. Baer, M. Brhlik and D. Casta˜ no, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 6944

View on Pith 1996
[27]

S. Abel and T. Falk, Phys. Lett. B444 (1998) 427. 37

View on Pith 1998
[28]

S. Abel and C.A. Savoy, Nucl. Phys. B532 (1998) 3

View on Pith 1998
[29]

H.E. Haber, R. Hempﬂing and A.H. Hoang, Zeit. f¨ ur Phys. C75 (1997) 539; M. Carena, M. Quiros and C.E.M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B461 (1996) 407; S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 091701; R. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B447 (1999) 89; and references therein

View on Pith 1997
[30]

M. Drees, M.M. Nojiri, D.P. Roy and Y. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 276

View on Pith 1997
[31]

Oﬃcial compilations of LEP limits on supersymmetric particles are a vailable from: http://www.cern.ch/LEPSUSY/; for an oﬃcial compilation of LEP Higgs limits, see: The LEP Working Group for Higgs Boson Searches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL, CERN-EP/99-060

View on Pith
[32]

J. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K.A. Olive, M. Schmitt and M. Spiropulu, in p reparation

View on Pith
[33]

T. Falk, K.A. Olive, L. Roszkowski and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B367 (1996) 183; A. Riotto and E. Roulet, Phys. Lett. B377 (1996) 60; A. Kusenko, P. Langacker, and G. Segre, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 5824 T. Falk, K.A. Olive, L. Roszkowski, A. Singh, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B396 (1997) 50. 38

View on Pith 1996

Forward citations

Cited by 21 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Mixing-suppressed inelastic dark matter: a minimal model for the LZ 248 keV event
hep-ph 2026-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

A minimal Majorana singlet-vectorlike-doublet dark matter model explains the single LZ 248 keV nuclear-recoil-like event while suppressing the otherwise predicted event rate.
Natural Implementation of Neutralino Dark Matter
hep-ph 2006-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Neutralino dark matter can be implemented without dark-matter fine-tuning in MSSM regions with non-universal gaugino masses, where Bino annihilation through light sleptons sets the relic density.
Supergravity with a Gravitino LSP
hep-ph 2004-04 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Assuming the next-to-lightest superpartner freezes out with its thermal relic density and later decays to a gravitino, hadronic Big Bang nucleosynthesis bounds, not electromagnetic ones, set the tightest limits on sup...
Muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment in supersymmetric theories
hep-ph 2001-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A parameter-space scan shows that a light smuon, not a light chargino, is what supersymmetry needs to explain the Brookhaven muon g-2 excess, and that no model-independent chargino mass bound exists for tan beta of 3 or more.
The Tiny (g-2) Muon Wobble from Small-$\mu$ Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2021-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In the MSSM with a Bino-like dark matter candidate and opposite-sign Bino and Higgsino masses, the muon g-2 anomaly can be explained for Higgsino masses below about 500 GeV while satisfying current direct detection bounds.

Show 16 more citing papers

Exponentially Light Dark Matter from Coannihilation
hep-ph 2018-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Coannihilation among non-degenerate dark states naturally produces thermal dark matter exponentially lighter than the weak scale, down to the keV scale, with a relic density independent of the dark matter's own couplings.
How light a higgsino or a wino dark matter can become in a compressed scenario of MSSM
hep-ph 2017-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Sfermion coannihilation in a compressed pMSSM lowers the relic-density-satisfying higgsino mass to about 450 GeV and the wino mass to about 1.1 TeV, roughly halving both floors.
Unblinding the Dark Matter Blind Spots
hep-ph 2016-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Supersymmetric dark matter blind spots, where direct detection signals vanish, can be covered by future spin-dependent direct detection, neutrino telescopes, and LHC searches, including a newly identified 'most blind'...
Effects of QCD bound states on dark matter relic abundance
hep-ph 2016-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

QCD bound-state formation and annihilation of exotic colored particles raises the maximum dark matter mass compatible with the observed relic abundance by 30 to 100 percent beyond the Sommerfeld-only result.
Dark Matter from a Classically Scale-Invariant $SU(3)_X$
hep-ph 2016-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Three of the eight massive gauge bosons of a classically scale-invariant SU(3) hidden sector are stable and, for suitable couplings, can reproduce the observed dark matter abundance.
Towards the Final Word on Neutralino Dark Matter
hep-ph 2015-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Including Sommerfeld enhancement, the thermal relic neutralino surface is fully covered by next-generation direct detection, CTA, and a 100 TeV collider, with bino-winos reachable only by compressed electroweakino searches.
The Relic Neutralino Surface at a 100 TeV collider
hep-ph 2014-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 100 TeV hadron collider can discover thermal-relic MSSM neutralino dark matter up to 1.5 TeV and inter-electroweakino mass splittings down to 1 GeV, using hard jets, large missing energy, and soft photons or leptons.
Lepton Portal Dark Matter
hep-ph 2014-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Dark matter coupled only to charged leptons via a charged mediator is constrained by LUX, AMS-02 and 8 TeV LHC data, and a 14 TeV LHC run with 100 inverse femtobarns would probe nucleon cross sections near 2e-46 cm^2 ...
Light Stau Phenomenology and the Higgs \gamma\gamma Rate
hep-ph 2012-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Light staus with large left-right mixing can enhance the 125 GeV Higgs diphoton rate by up to about 50 percent while leaving weak boson rates near Standard Model values, and stau-sneutrino associated production is the...
Light Neutralino Dark Matter in the NMSSM
hep-ph 2005-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Light neutralinos between 100 MeV and 20 GeV can be viable thermal dark matter in the NMSSM because a light CP-odd Higgs provides resonant annihilation, with explicit parameter points giving the observed relic density.
Re-Evaluation of the Elastic Scattering of Supersymmetric Dark Matter
hep-ph 2000-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In the constrained MSSM with the relic neutralino density fixed to the cosmologically favoured window, elastic neutralino-nucleon cross sections form narrow bands peaking near 10^-8 pb (spin-independent) and 10^-4 pb ...
On the coverage of neutralino dark matter in coannihilations at the upgraded LHC
hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Projected HE-LHC searches could rule out neutralino dark matter up to 2.6, 1.7, and 0.8 TeV in gluino, stop, and wino coannihilation scenarios, but not in stau coannihilation.
Dark matter and Higgs bosons in the MSSM
hep-ph 2013-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Scanning the MSSM against Higgs, flavor, relic-density, and direct-detection constraints leaves a mostly Bino-like neutralino dark matter candidate whose annihilation runs through Z and Higgs resonances and co-annihilations.
Dark Matter Searches at Colliders
hep-ex 2018-10 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A structured survey of LHC dark matter searches as of 2018, showing that missing-energy searches and mediator resonance searches are complementary, model-dependent probes whose relative power depends on the assumed couplings.
Non-Baryonic Dark Matter - Observational Evidence and Detection Methods
hep-ph 2000-02 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

Observations require a non-baryonic dark matter component at roughly 20 to 40 percent of the critical density, and the leading particle candidates are axions, supersymmetric neutralinos, and massive neutrinos.
TASI 2008 Lectures on Dark Matter
hep-ph 2009-01 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

A pedagogical review of WIMP dark matter: why a GeV-to-TeV particle with a weak-scale annihilation cross section naturally lands on the observed relic density, which candidates survive, and how direct and indirect sea...

How the literature uses it

45 arXiv papers cite this in 55 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers whose main result relates to this one's

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States the same result 1 paper

Including also bino coannihilations with the selectrons and smuons, we find that the upper limit on $m_{\chi}$ is increased from about 200 GeV to about 600 GeV in the constrained MSSM, with a similar new upper limit expected in the MSSM.

Neutralino-Stau Coannihilation and the Cosmological Upper Limit on the Mass of the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle · 0.95

Papers citing it · 39 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 2 papers

It is given by the general formula [ref]

Dark Matter from a Classically Scale-Invariant $SU(3)_X$ · Boltzmann equations and relic density · 0.93
We follow the procedure given in [ref] in calculating the thermally-averaged $s$- and $p$-wave annihilation cross sections for a pair of massive colored particles into $gg$ or $qq̅$, given as $⟨σv_rel ⟩= a + b T/m_X+ 𝒪((T/m_X)^2)$.

Effects of QCD bound states on dark matter relic abundance · Thermally-averaged annihilation cross sections for S3, F3, S8 and F8 · 1.00

Compares with it 1 paper

As a result, the latest constraints from direct detection experiments are satisfied in most of the parameter space in contrast to standard supersymmetric scenarios in which fine-tuning of the parameters is necessary (coannihilation [ref] and blind-spots [ref] require fine-tuning in the parameters relevant for the DM phenomenology, while a pure Higgsino or wino requires fine-tuning of the EW scale.).

Charged Dark Matter in Supersymmetric Twin Higgs models · Conclusions · 0.85

Cites it as background 12 papers

It is well-known in the context of the Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) that a pure bino ($B$) neutralino as the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP; $$) and a Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP) could be a viable cold Dark Matter (DM) candidate, which is a thermal relic, under two specific situations: (i) if it is lighter than $∼100$ GeV and some sfermions (in particular, the right-handed sleptons with large hypercharge coupling; such light squarks being ruled out long back) are not much heavier than 100 GeV such that the so-called bulk ($t$-channel) annihilation of a pair of DM states mediated by such sfermions are optimally efficient [ref] and/or (ii) if there is an efficient coannihilation of such a DM state with slepton(s) ($ℓ$) with $≡m_B ∼m_ℓ ≲500$ GeV when the sleptons are degenerate [ref] .

A relatively light, highly bino-like dark matter in the $Z_3$-symmetric NMSSM and recent LHC searches · Introduction · 0.97
Within the MSSM there is the interesting possibility of coannihilating DM [ref] , in which the LSP and next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP) are near degenerate in mass and (co-)annihilations of the NLSP (and potentially other particles only slightly heavier than the NLSP) are the decisive processes to determine the DM relic abundance.

Leading QCD Corrections for Indirect Dark Matter Searches: a Fresh Look · Introduction · 0.96
For a Bino-like DM candidate with mass in the few-hundred GeV range, the observed relic density can be realized via thermal production through different mechanisms, such as co-annihilation with sleptons or charginos [ref] , $t$-channel annihilation via light left-right mixed staus [ref] or smuons [ref] , or resonant $s$-channel annihilation [ref] .

The Tiny (g-2) Muon Wobble from Small-$\mu$ Supersymmetry · Benchmark Points Explaining $Δa_μ$, Dark Matter and Avoiding LHC Constraints · 0.91

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [12]

J. Ellis, T. Falk, and K.A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B444 (1998) 367

View on Pith 1998

[2] [1]

P. Fayet, Proc. Europhysics Study Conf. on Uniﬁcation of Fundamental Interactions, Erice, Italy, eds. S. Ferrara, J. Ellis and P. van Nieuwenhuizen (Plen um Press, 1980), p. 587

View on Pith 1980

[3] [2]

H.E. Haber and G.L. Kane, Phys. Rep. 117 (1985) 75

View on Pith 1985

[4] [3]

T. Han and R. Hempﬂing, Phys. Lett. B415 (1997) 161; L.J. Hall, T.Moroi, and H. Murayama, Phys. Lett. B424 (1998) 305. 36

View on Pith 1997

[5] [4]

T. Falk, K.A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B339 (1994) 248

View on Pith 1994

[6] [5]

H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50 (1983) 1419

View on Pith 1983

[7] [6]

J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos, K.A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Nuc l. Phys. B238 (1984) 453

View on Pith 1984

[8] [7]

P.H. Chankowski, J. Ellis, K.A. Olive and S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett. B452 (1999) 28

View on Pith 1999

[9] [8]

S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B246 (1990) 347

View on Pith 1990

[10] [9]

CMS collaboration, S. Abdullin et al., hep-ph/9806366

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[11] [10]

K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev D43 (1991) 3191

View on Pith 1991

[12] [11]

S. Mizuta and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Lett. B298 (1993) 120

View on Pith 1993

[13] [13]

K.A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B230 (1989) 78; Nucl. Phys. B355 (1991) 208; K. Griest, M. Kamionkowski and M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 3565

View on Pith 1989

[14] [14]

J. Ellis, T. Falk, K.A. Olive and M. Schmitt, Phys. Lett. B388 (1996) 97

View on Pith 1996

[15] [15]

J. Ellis, T. Falk, K.A. Olive and M. Schmitt, Phys. Lett. B413 (1997) 355

View on Pith 1997

[16] [16]

J. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K.A. Olive and M. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 095002

View on Pith 1998

[17] [17]

P. Hut, Phys. Lett B69 (1977) 85; B. Lee and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 165

View on Pith 1977

[18] [18]

M. Srednicki, R. Watkins and K.A. Olive, Nucl. Phys B310 (1988) 693

View on Pith 1988

[19] [19]

P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B360 (1991) 145

View on Pith 1991

[20] [20]

J. Edsj¨ o and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 1879

View on Pith 1997

[21] [21]

V. Barger and C. Kao, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 3131

View on Pith 1998

[22] [22]

T. Falk, Phys. Lett. B456 (1999) 171

View on Pith 1999

[23] [23]

T. Falk, R. Madden, K.A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B318 (1993) 354

View on Pith 1993

[24] [24]

T. Falk, K.A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B354 (1995) 99

View on Pith 1995

[25] [25]

R. Arnowitt, and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 3696; G. Kane, C. Kolda, L. Roszkowski and J. Wells, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 6173; H. Baer and M. Brhlik, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 597

View on Pith 1993

[26] [26]

H. Baer, M. Brhlik and D. Casta˜ no, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 6944

View on Pith 1996

[27] [27]

S. Abel and T. Falk, Phys. Lett. B444 (1998) 427. 37

View on Pith 1998

[28] [28]

S. Abel and C.A. Savoy, Nucl. Phys. B532 (1998) 3

View on Pith 1998

[29] [29]

H.E. Haber, R. Hempﬂing and A.H. Hoang, Zeit. f¨ ur Phys. C75 (1997) 539; M. Carena, M. Quiros and C.E.M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B461 (1996) 407; S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 091701; R. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B447 (1999) 89; and references therein

View on Pith 1997

[30] [30]

M. Drees, M.M. Nojiri, D.P. Roy and Y. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 276

View on Pith 1997

[31] [31]

Oﬃcial compilations of LEP limits on supersymmetric particles are a vailable from: http://www.cern.ch/LEPSUSY/; for an oﬃcial compilation of LEP Higgs limits, see: The LEP Working Group for Higgs Boson Searches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL, CERN-EP/99-060

View on Pith

[32] [32]

J. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K.A. Olive, M. Schmitt and M. Spiropulu, in p reparation

View on Pith

[33] [33]

T. Falk, K.A. Olive, L. Roszkowski and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B367 (1996) 183; A. Riotto and E. Roulet, Phys. Lett. B377 (1996) 60; A. Kusenko, P. Langacker, and G. Segre, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 5824 T. Falk, K.A. Olive, L. Roszkowski, A. Singh, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B396 (1997) 50. 38

View on Pith 1996