Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Dark Matter and Naturalness

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dark matter could be a stable dark “baryon” with no added symmetries

desk verdict A genuinely systematic scan of dark sectors without imposed global symmetries, whose minimal SU(3)xSU(2) chiral model is a real step forward, but whose relic-density 'prediction' rests on a QCD-scaled annihilation cross-section and a free temperature ratio. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09841 v2 pith:NRA457KB submitted 2019-08-26 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-th

Mark P. Hertzberg , McCullen Sandora This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-th
keywords darkmatternaturalnesschiralsectorconfininggaugetheorybaryonsfreeze-outradiationaccidentalsymmetry
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that dark matter can be explained without adding any new global symmetries, fine-tuning, or small parameters: only the rules of relativity and quantum mechanics. It argues that singlet scalars and fermions naturally decay, pure strongly coupled spin-1 sectors overproduce glueballs, and the simplest viable option is a dark copy of $SU(3)\times SU(2)$ with one generation of chiral quarks and leptons and no scalars. Confinement then creates stable dark baryons, and their freeze-out annihilation into massless dark leptons yields the observed dark matter density with a confinement scale $\Lambda \sim 50\,\mathrm{TeV}/\sqrt{\xi}$ and dark baryon mass $m_n \sim 150\,\mathrm{TeV}/\sqrt{\xi}$, all input couplings being order one. If true, this gives a concrete, minimal realization of the “nightmare scenario” in which dark matter is cosmologically correct yet practically impossible to detect directly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dark gauge theory $SU(3)_D \times SU(2)_D$ with one chiral generation of dark quarks and leptons and no Higgs scalars. Chirality forbids tree-level fermion masses, so the only masses come from dimensional transmutation; the $SU(3)$ confines at a scale $\Lambda$ set by the running of a unified order-one coupling, and the lightest states are dark baryons of mass $m_n \sim \mathrm{few}\times\Lambda$. The abundance is set by standard freeze-out: baryon–antibaryon pairs annihilate into massless dark leptons with a cross section taken near the unitarity bound, $\langle\sigma v\rangle \sim 4\pi/m_n^2$, scaled from QCD including the color-factor dependence $N_d^4/(N_d+1)^2$. Dark sphalerons are Boltzmann suppressed during freeze-out and do not alter the relic.

What would settle it

Compute, on the lattice or with a controlled strong-dynamics method, the low-velocity dark baryon–antibaryon annihilation cross section for the one-generation $SU(3)\times SU(2)$ chiral theory. If $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ at freeze-out is not within roughly an order of magnitude of the QCD-scaled estimate, then the derived $m_n \sim 150\,\mathrm{TeV}/\sqrt{\xi}$ and the claimed consistency with $\alpha_{\mathrm{UV}} \sim 1/35$ fail. A simpler observational check: measure the relativistic-species count at big bang nucleosynthesis; for $\xi=1$ with only Standard Model degrees of freedom the model requires $\Delta N_{\mathrm{eff}} \approx 2.9$, so a precise bound excluding this without new visible states would force the low-reheat branch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a completely natural dark sector—no added global symmetries, no small couplings—can still yield the right dark matter abundance. Singlet scalars and fermions should decay rapidly, and a pure strongly coupled Yang-Mills sector overproduces glueballs; the way out is a chiral theory whose lightest bound states are dark baryons. In the minimal model, dark $SU(3)\times SU(2)$ with one generation of massless chiral quarks and leptons confines at $\Lambda \sim 50\,\mathrm{TeV}/\sqrt{\xi}$, producing dark baryons of mass $m_n \sim 150\,\mathrm{TeV}/\sqrt{\xi}$ that freeze out by annihilating into massless dark leptons, leaving a symmetric baryon–antibaryon relic. Accidental dark baryon number makes the nucleon stable, and the scale is consistent with a unified coupling $\alpha_{\mathrm{UV}} \sim 1/35$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that dark baryons annihilate with antibaryons about as efficiently as the strongest interaction allows, with the cross section scaled from QCD by the color-factor dependence used in the paper; if the true strong-dynamics rate is off by even an order of magnitude, the derived mass scales shift by the same factor and the claimed consistency with grand unification is lost.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper's central claim is correct, the observed dark matter density fixes $\Lambda \sim 50\,\mathrm{TeV}/\sqrt{\xi}$ and $m_n \sim 150\,\mathrm{TeV}/\sqrt{\xi}$, with all dark-sector couplings naturally $O(1)$ apart from the inflationary sector.
  • The one-generation model has no dark CKM phase, so no dark baryon asymmetry is generated; the relic is an equal mix of dark baryons and antibaryons stabilized by accidental baryon number.
  • Massless dark leptons contribute dark radiation, giving $\Delta N_{\mathrm{eff}} \approx 2.9\,\xi^4/\gamma^{4/3}$; consistency with $\Delta N_{\mathrm{eff}} \lesssim 0.3$ requires either extra visible degrees of freedom ($\gamma \gtrsim 6$) or a cooler dark sector ($\xi \lesssim 0.6$).
  • Simpler candidate sectors fail systematically: singlet scalars and fermions decay, charged scalars overclose through tiny annihilation cross sections, and pure $SU(N)$ dark sectors overproduce glueballs; only chiral confining constructions survive the naturalness filters.
  • If the dark sector is produced cold ($\xi \sim 0.1$, natural for a real-scalar inflaton), the model lands in the “nightmare scenario”: no appreciable scattering in galaxies and essentially no direct-detection signal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, a lattice calculation of the one-generation dark-baryon annihilation cross section would turn the mass formula $m_n \sim 150\,\mathrm{TeV}/\sqrt{\xi}$ into a sharp, checkable prediction; a factor-of-ten deviation would move the preferred scale out of the $\alpha_{\mathrm{UV}} \sim 1/35$ window and undercut the naturalness argument.
  • The same reasoning suggests a general rule: any natural, chiral, confining dark sector without a dark asymmetry will have its relic abundance set by a near-unitarity annihilation rate, pinning the dark matter mass to the 10–100 TeV range by dimensional transmutation rather than by hand.
  • A precision measurement of the relativistic-species count at big bang nucleosynthesis is a clean test: if the dark sector ever reached the same temperature as the visible one, the model predicts $\Delta N_{\mathrm{eff}} \approx 2.9$; an improved bound excluding this without new visible degrees of freedom would force the cooler-dark-sector branch ($\xi \lesssim 0.6$).
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that, if one refuses to impose any additional global symmetries on the dark sector and simultaneously requires the absence of fine-tuning and small parameters, most simple dark matter candidates (singlet scalars, singlet fermions, pure Yang-Mills glueballs, charged scalars, and abelian sectors) are excluded by decay or overproduction arguments. It then constructs strongly coupled chiral dark sectors in which composite dark baryons are stable by an accidental baryon number. The minimal model is a dark SU(3)×SU(2) gauge theory with one generation of chiral dark quarks and leptons and no scalars. Dark baryons with mass m_n~4Λ freeze out by annihilating into massless dark leptons; requiring Ω_dark≈0.26 yields m_n≈150 TeV/√(ξ̄) and Λ≈50 TeV/√(ξ̄), and with ξ̄~0.1 this is consistent with α_UV~1/35 at a unifications-like scale. The BBN constraint from dark radiation is evaded either by a low dark-sector reheating temperature (ξ≲0.6) or by adding heavy visible-sector degrees of freedom (γ≳6). The paper closes by noting that these candidates can be essentially impossible to detect directly.

Significance. If the quantitative estimates hold, the paper would be a distinctive contribution: a fully natural, strongly interacting dark matter candidate with no imposed global symmetries, stability arising from accidental baryon number, few free parameters, and a falsifiable dark-radiation signature. The systematic taxonomy of why simpler spin assignments fail is also useful and will likely be cited. The central numerical coincidence α_UV≈1/35 is attractive, but it currently rests on an order-of-magnitude strong-dynamics estimate for the annihilation cross section rather than a computed quantity; the significance of the claim is therefore high while its current certainty is moderate.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 8, Eqs. (8.3)–(8.6)] The quantitative bridge from field content to relic density is an assumed annihilation cross section, not a derived one. Equation (8.3) is a general kinematic decomposition of ⟨σv⟩; the numerical input is the assertion, following Ref. [68], that the dark baryon-antibaryon cross section is of order the unitarity bound scaled from QCD. Because Eq. (8.5) has Ω_dark ∝ 1/⟨σv⟩, an order-of-magnitude error in this non-perturbative input changes m_n and Λ by an order of magnitude and removes the α_UV≈1/35 coincidence. The authors themselves state in Section 10 that only order-of-magnitude estimates have been provided. I ask them to either supply a controlled estimate of ⟨σv⟩ for dark baryon annihilation into gauge bosons and leptons in this specific SU(3)×SU(2) theory, or explicitly reframe the central claim as a consistency check with a quantified uncertainty.
  2. [Section 8, Eq. (8.2)] The color-factor dependence σ ∝ N_d^4/(N_d+1)^2 is quoted from Ref. [79], but that reference computes composite-state scattering in a single SU(N) theory; its applicability to baryon-antibaryon annihilation into SU(2) gauge bosons and dark leptons in a product gauge group is not demonstrated. Since this factor directly rescales ⟨σv⟩ and hence the derived mass, the manuscript should address whether the same color factor applies to the annihilation channels used in the freeze-out calculation.
  3. [Section 8, Eqs. (8.5)–(8.6); Section 9, Eq. (9.5)] The prediction Λ≈50 TeV/√(ξ̄) depends on the free parameter ξ̄, the dark-to-visible temperature ratio after reheating. Because ξ̄ is not fixed by the dark sector itself, the agreement with α_UV≈1/35 is conditional: ξ̄=0.1 gives Λ≈160 TeV while ξ̄=1 gives Λ≈50 TeV. The paper should either tie ξ̄ to a concrete reheating/inflaton model and quantify its expected range, or present the result as a one-parameter family and state which range of ξ̄ yields α_UV≈1/35.
  4. [Section 8, Eq. (8.5); Section 9] The freeze-out calculation is presented as essentially standard, but the treatment of the dark radiation background in the Hubble rate is not addressed. Dark leptons contribute to the energy density during freeze-out, which modifies the relation between freeze-out temperature and relic abundance when ξ̄ is not very small. The paper should state the assumption that this contribution is negligible or include it in the Boltzmann analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 8, Eq. (8.5)] The 'mild logarithmic dependence on the number of degrees of freedom of dark baryons' is not quantified; a formula or reference for this correction would help the reader assess the precision of Eq. (8.5).
  2. [Section 9, Eq. (9.5)] The values g_dark=46.5 and g_dark*=3.5 are not derived in the text; a short counting of degrees of freedom would make the BBN constraint transparent.
  3. [Figure 3] The green curve corresponding to the benchmark N_d=3, n_d=2 is not explicitly labeled in the figure caption; please identify the curve used for the main claim.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract says the confinement scale can be naturally O(100) TeV, while Eq. (8.6) gives Λ≈50 TeV/√(ξ̄); with ξ̄=1 the scale is 50 TeV, so the abstract should either state the ξ̄ dependence or quote the range.
  5. [Section 8, text after Eq. (8.3)] The sentence 'it can go into intermediate dark W bosons, which then decay into dark leptons' is ambiguous about whether the s-channel sum includes annihilation directly into W+W− as well as into lepton pairs; please clarify the final-state set.
  6. [Table 1] The row 'SM w/o Higgs' is potentially confusing because the main text argues that including a U(1) factor is problematic; a footnote distinguishing this row from the preferred SU(3)×SU(2) model would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: m_n is solved from the observed relic abundance via the QCD-scaled cross section, and the alpha_UV ~ 1/35 check is an independent beta-function output.

full rationale

The load-bearing numerical chain (Sec. 8) is not circular. Equation (8.5) is the standard freeze-out relation Omega_dark ~ xi 0.26 / ((18 TeV)^2 <sigma v>); Eq. (8.6) then solves for m_n and Lambda by requiring the observed Omega_dark, using an annihilation cross section scaled from QCD as in [68] and the unitarity estimate [78]. This is the usual thermal-relic inversion: the observed abundance is an input and the mass scale is the output, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The claimed success is the subsequent consistency check that this mass scale, combined with the two-loop beta function (5.2)-(5.4) and Fig. 3, gives alpha_UV ~ 1/35. That check is an independent output of the field content and renormalization-group running. The cross-section magnitude and color-factor dependence (8.1)-(8.2) are taken from external literature ([77], [78], [79], [68]), not from the authors' own fitted values, so there is no self-citation load-bearing; the authors' self-citations [33] and [62] are peripheral. The Conclusions caveat that 'only order of magnitude estimates have been provided here' is a precision limitation on the strong-dynamics input, not a circular reduction. The residual model-dependence of the QCD-to-dark-sector scaling is a robustness or uncertainty concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model has no directly fitted parameters, but two inputs are not fully determined by first principles: the temperature ratio xi and the strong-dynamics annihilation cross section. The dark gauge coupling at the unification scale is chosen to match the target confinement scale, which the paper presents as a consistency check rather than a fit. The axioms encode the paper's naturalness philosophy and the standard cosmological assumptions for decoupled sectors.

free parameters (3)
  • xi (dark-to-visible temperature ratio after reheating) = not fitted; estimated xi ~ 0.1 for real scalar inflaton, xi ~ 1 for pseudoscalar
    Sets the dark sector temperature; the dark matter mass scale m_n ~ 150 TeV / sqrt(xi) and the BBN constraint Delta N_eff proportional to xi^4 depend on it.
  • alpha_UV (dark gauge coupling at unification scale) = alpha_UV ~ 1/35 for the required Lambda ~ 50 TeV / sqrt(xi)
    The confinement scale Lambda is derived from alpha_UV via dimensional transmutation; choosing alpha_UV determines Lambda and hence the dark matter mass. The paper claims consistency with grand unification, but it is an input parameter.
  • cross-section normalization <sigma v> for dark baryon annihilation = ~ 1/m_n^2 (unitarity bound, scaled from QCD)
    The freeze-out abundance is inversely proportional to <sigma v>. The paper assumes the strong-dynamics cross section saturates the unitarity bound; this is an assumption, not a calculation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption No exact or approximate global symmetries are imposed in the dark sector.
    This is the paper's philosophical starting point, stated in the abstract and Section 1. It excludes axion-like and Z2-stabilized models. It is a modeling choice, not a physical law.
  • domain assumption The inflaton couples to the dark sector only through non-renormalizable operators (e.g., phi/M X_mu_nu X^mu_nu) while it may couple to the visible sector through renormalizable ones.
    Section 4. This leads to the natural expectation xi < 1 for a real scalar inflaton. If the dark sector had renormalizable couplings to the inflaton, the analysis changes.
  • ad hoc to paper The dark baryon-antibaryon annihilation cross section is of order 4 pi / m_n^2, saturating the unitarity bound, with color factors from eq. (8.2).
    Section 8, eq. (8.3). This is the central quantitative input for the relic abundance. It is an estimate from strong dynamics, not a first-principles computation.
  • domain assumption Entropy is conserved independently in the dark and visible sectors after decoupling.
    Section 9, eq. (9.2). Standard assumption for thermally decoupled sectors.
  • domain assumption The dark sector has no U(1) factor, avoiding massless charged particles and kinetic mixing.
    Section 7.2. The authors exclude the full SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) copy because the U(1) is problematic. This is a restriction of the model space.
invented entities (2)
  • Dark SU(3)xSU(2) gauge sector with 1 generation of chiral dark quarks and leptons independent evidence
    purpose: Provides a natural dark matter candidate (dark baryons) without added global symmetries.
    The model predicts a specific confinement scale and a contribution to Delta N_eff from massless dark leptons. The latter is a falsifiable handle, though it may be tiny if xi is small.
  • Massless dark leptons independent evidence
    purpose: Provide an annihilation channel for dark baryon freeze-out; remain as dark radiation.
    They contribute to Delta N_eff during BBN; the paper constrains xi or gamma to satisfy the bound, giving an observable window if xi is not too small.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Matter and Naturalness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NRA457KB

@misc{pith2026190809841,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Matter and Naturalness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NRA457KB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09841}
}
abstract

The Standard Model of particle physics is governed by Poincar\'e symmetry, while all other symmetries, exact or approximate, are essentially dictated by theoretical consistency with the particle spectrum. On the other hand, many models of dark matter exist that rely upon the addition of new added global symmetries in order to stabilize the dark matter particle and/or achieve the correct abundance. In this work we begin a systematic exploration into truly natural models of dark matter, organized by only relativity and quantum mechanics, without the appeal to any additional global symmetries, no fine-tuning, and no small parameters. We begin by reviewing how singlet dark sectors based on spin 0 or spin ${1\over2}$ should readily decay, while pure strongly coupled spin 1 models have an overabundance problem. This inevitably leads us to construct chiral models with spin ${1\over2}$ particles charged under confining spin 1 particles. This leads to stable dark matter candidates that are analogs of baryons, with a confinement scale that can be naturally $\mathcal{O}(100)$TeV. This leads to the right freeze-out abundance by annihilating into massless unconfined dark fermions. The minimal model involves a dark copy of $SU(3)\times SU(2)$ with 1 generation of chiral dark quarks and leptons. The presence of massless dark leptons can potentially give rise to a somewhat large value of $\Delta N_{\text{eff}}$ during BBN. In order to not upset BBN one may either appeal to a large number of heavy degrees of freedom beyond the Standard Model, or to assume the dark sector has a lower reheat temperature than the visible sector, which is also natural in this framework. This reasoning provides a robust set of dark matter models that are entirely natural. Some are concrete realizations of the nightmare scenario in which dark matter may be very difficult to detect, which may impact future search techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09841 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Some of the important processes during reheating. The solid lines are the inflaton, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The strong coupling scale of the dark sector Λ (defined as the scale when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The strong coupling scale of the dark sector Λ (defined as the scale when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Fuzzy Axions and Associated Relics

    hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    In explicit string theory compactifications, fuzzy axion dark matter is rare and typically requires fine-tuning of initial axion displacements or a non-standard reheating epoch to avoid overproducing heavier axions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [68]

    A scenario of heavy but visible baryonic dark matter,

    R. Huo, S. Matsumoto, Y. L. Sming Tsai and T. T. Yanagida, “A scenario of heavy but visible baryonic dark matter,” JHEP 1609, 162 (2016) [arXiv:1506.06929 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [79]

    Challenges for models with composite states,

    J. M. Cline, W. Huang and G. D. Moore, “Challenges for models with composite states,” Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 5, 055029 (2016) [arXiv:1607.07865 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [1]

    Viable range of the mass scale of the standard model,

    V. Agrawal, S. M. Barr, J. F. Donoghue and D. Seckel, “Viable range of the mass scale of the standard model,” Phys. Rev. D 57, 5480 (1998) [hep-ph/9707380]

    arXiv 1998

  4. [2]

    Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant,

    S. Weinberg, “Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2607 (1987)

    1987

  5. [3]

    Asymmetric Dark Matter,

    D. E. Kaplan, M. A. Luty and K. M. Zurek, “Asymmetric Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 115016 (2009) [arXiv:0901.4117 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2009

  6. [4]

    Asymmetric Dark Matter from a GeV Hidden Sector,

    T. Cohen, D. J. Phalen, A. Pierce and K. M. Zurek, “Asymmetric Dark Matter from a GeV Hidden Sector,” Phys. Rev. D 82, 056001 (2010) [arXiv:1005.1655 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2010

  7. [5]

    Darkogenesis: A baryon asymmetry from the dark matter sector,

    J. Shelton and K. M. Zurek, “Darkogenesis: A baryon asymmetry from the dark matter sector,” Phys. Rev. D 82, 123512 (2010) [arXiv:1008.1997 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2010

  8. [6]

    Origins of Hidden Sector Dark Matter I: Cosmology,

    C. Cheung, G. Elor, L. J. Hall and P. Kumar, “Origins of Hidden Sector Dark Matter I: Cosmology,” JHEP 1103, 042 (2011) [arXiv:1010.0022 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2011

Show all 85 references
  1. [7]

    Cosmological Limits on Hidden Sector Dark Matter,

    S. Das and K. Sigurdson, “Cosmological Limits on Hidden Sector Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 85, 063510 (2012) [arXiv:1012.4458 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Dissipative hidden sector dark matter,

    R. Foot and S. Vagnozzi, “Dissipative hidden sector dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 91, 023512 (2015) [arXiv:1409.7174 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Dark Matter Antibaryons from a Supersymmetric Hidden Sector,

    N. Blinov, D. E. Morrissey, K. Sigurdson and S. Tulin, “Dark Matter Antibaryons from a Supersymmetric Hidden Sector,” Phys. Rev. D 86, 095021 (2012) [arXiv:1206.3304 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Grand unified hidden-sector dark matter,

    S. J. Lonsdale and R. R. Volkas, “Grand unified hidden-sector dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 8, 083501 (2014) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 12, 129906 (2015)] [arXiv:1407.4192 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Scalar Simplified Models for Dark Matter,

    M. R. Buckley, D. Feld and D. Goncalves, “Scalar Simplified Models for Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 91, 015017 (2015) [arXiv:1410.6497 [hep-ph]]. 27

    2015 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Model-Independent Indirect Detection Constraints on Hidden Sector Dark Matter,

    G. Elor, N. L. Rodd, T. R. Slatyer and W. Xue, “Model-Independent Indirect Detection Constraints on Hidden Sector Dark Matter,” JCAP1606, no. 06, 024 (2016) [arXiv:1511.08787 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [13]

    The lightest visible- sector supersymmetric particle is likely to be unstable,

    B. S. Acharya, S. A. R. Ellis, G. L. Kane, B. D. Nelson and M. J. Perry, “The lightest visible- sector supersymmetric particle is likely to be unstable,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 181802 (2016) [arXiv:1604.05320 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Dynamical Dark Matter from Strongly- Coupled Dark Sectors,

    K. R. Dienes, F. Huang, S. Su and B. Thomas, “Dynamical Dark Matter from Strongly- Coupled Dark Sectors,” Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 4, 043526 (2017) [arXiv:1610.04112 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Hidden Sector Dark Matter and the Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess: A Closer Look,

    M. Escudero, S. J. Witte and D. Hooper, “Hidden Sector Dark Matter and the Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess: A Closer Look,” JCAP 1711, no. 11, 042 (2017) [arXiv:1709.07002 [hep- ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [16]

    FIMP Dark Matter Freeze-in Gauge Mediation and Hidden Sector,

    K. H. Tsao, “FIMP Dark Matter Freeze-in Gauge Mediation and Hidden Sector,” J. Phys. G 45, no. 7, 075001 (2018) [arXiv:1710.06572 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Axions in inflationary cosmology,

    A. D. Linde, “Axions in inflationary cosmology,” Phys. Lett. B 259, 38 (1991)

    1991

  12. [18]

    A Model of anthropic reasoning, addressing the dark to ordinary matter coinci- dence,

    F. Wilczek, “A Model of anthropic reasoning, addressing the dark to ordinary matter coinci- dence,” In *Carr, Bernard (ed.): Universe or multiverse* 151-162 [hep-ph/0408167]

    arXiv

  13. [19]

    Dimensionless constants, cosmology and other dark matters,

    M. Tegmark, A. Aguirre, M. Rees and F. Wilczek, “Dimensionless constants, cosmology and other dark matters,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 023505 (2006) [astro-ph/0511774]

    2006 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Dark matter and the anthropic principle,

    S. Hellerman and J. Walcher, “Dark matter and the anthropic principle,” Phys. Rev. D 72, 123520 (2005) [hep-th/0508161]

    2005 arXiv

  15. [21]

    The Anthropic landscape of string theory,

    L. Susskind, “The Anthropic landscape of string theory,” In *Carr, Bernard (ed.): Universe or multiverse?* 247-266 [hep-th/0302219]

    arXiv

  16. [22]

    Flux compactifications in string theory: A Comprehensive review,

    M. Grana, “Flux compactifications in string theory: A Comprehensive review,” Phys. Rept. 423, 91 (2006) [hep-th/0509003]

    2006 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Flux compactification,

    M. R. Douglas and S. Kachru, “Flux compactification,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 733 (2007) [hep-th/0610102]

    2007 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,” NATO Sci. Ser. B 59, 135 (1980)

    1980

  19. [25]

    Photons and Gravitons in S Matrix Theory: Derivation of Charge Conservation and Equality of Gravitational and Inertial Mass,

    S. Weinberg, “Photons and Gravitons in S Matrix Theory: Derivation of Charge Conservation and Equality of Gravitational and Inertial Mass,” Phys. Rev. 135, B1049 (1964). 28

    1964

  20. [26]

    Gravity and global symmetries,

    R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde and L. Susskind, “Gravity and global symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D 52, 912 (1995) [hep-th/9502069]

    1995 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Symmetries and Strings in Field Theory and Gravity,

    T. Banks and N. Seiberg, “Symmetries and Strings in Field Theory and Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 83, 084019 (2011) [arXiv:1011.5120 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Symmetries in quantum field theory and quantum gravity,

    D. Harlow and H. Ooguri, “Symmetries in quantum field theory and quantum gravity,” arXiv:1810.05338 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  23. [29]

    Anthropic tuning of the weak scale and of m(u) / m(d) in two- Higgs-doublet models,

    S. M. Barr and A. Khan, “Anthropic tuning of the weak scale and of m(u) / m(d) in two- Higgs-doublet models,” Phys. Rev. D 76, 045002 (2007) [hep-ph/0703219 [HEP-PH]]

    2007 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Dark Matter Stability without New Symmetries,

    O. Cata and A. Ibarra, “Dark Matter Stability without New Symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 6, 063509 (2014) [arXiv:1404.0432 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Accidental Composite Dark Matter,

    O. Antipin, M. Redi, A. Strumia and E. Vigiani, “Accidental Composite Dark Matter,” JHEP 1507, 039 (2015) [arXiv:1503.08749 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Dark Matter and Global Symmetries,

    Y. Mambrini, S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, “Dark Matter and Global Symmetries,” Phys. Lett. B 760, 807 (2016) [arXiv:1508.06635 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Special Relativity from Soft Gravitons,

    M. P. Hertzberg and M. Sandora, “Special Relativity from Soft Gravitons,” Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 8, 084048 (2017) [arXiv:1704.05071 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [34]

    CP conservation in the presence of instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “CP conservation in the presence of instantons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  29. [35]

    A new light boson?,

    S. Weinberg, “A new light boson?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  30. [36]

    Problem of strong P and T invariance in the Presence of instantons,

    F. Wilczek, “Problem of strong P and T invariance in the Presence of instantons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  31. [37]

    Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise and F. Wilczek, “Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  32. [38]

    A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, “A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  33. [39]

    The Not So Harmless Axion,

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, “The Not So Harmless Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  34. [40]

    Axions and the Strong CP Problem,

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, “Axions and the Strong CP Problem,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 557 (2010) [arXiv:0807.3125 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  35. [41]

    String Axi- verse,

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper and J. March-Russell, “String Axi- verse,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010) [arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]]. 29

    2010 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Planck scale physics and the Peccei-Quinn mecha- nism,

    M. Kamionkowski and J. March-Russell, “Planck scale physics and the Peccei-Quinn mecha- nism,” Phys. Lett. B 282, 137 (1992) [hep-th/9202003]

    1992 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Update on scalar singlet dark mat- ter,

    J. M. Cline, K. Kainulainen, P. Scott and C. Weniger, “Update on scalar singlet dark mat- ter,” Phys. Rev. D 88, 055025 (2013) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 3, 039906 (2015)] [arXiv:1306.4710 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Z2 SIMP Dark Matter,

    N. Bernal and X. Chu, “ Z2 SIMP Dark Matter,” JCAP 1601, 006 (2016) [arXiv:1510.08527 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [45]

    De- tection of An Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-ray spectrum of Galaxy Clusters,

    E. Bulbul, M. Markevitch, A. Foster, R. K. Smith, M. Loewenstein and S. W. Randall, “De- tection of An Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-ray spectrum of Galaxy Clusters,” Astrophys. J. 789, 13 (2014) [arXiv:1402.2301 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Thermal Relics in Hidden Sectors,

    J. L. Feng, H. Tu and H. B. Yu, “Thermal Relics in Hidden Sectors,” JCAP 0810, 043 (2008) [arXiv:0808.2318 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Chilly Dark Sectors and Asymmetric Reheating,

    P. Adshead, Y. Cui and J. Shelton, “Chilly Dark Sectors and Asymmetric Reheating,” JHEP 1606, 016 (2016) [arXiv:1604.02458 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Symmetric and Asymmetric Reheating,

    E. Hardy and J. Unwin, “Symmetric and Asymmetric Reheating,” JHEP 1709, 113 (2017) [arXiv:1703.07642 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Lectures on Anomalies,

    A. Bilal, “Lectures on Anomalies,” arXiv:0802.0634 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  44. [50]

    An SU(2) Anomaly,

    E. Witten, “An SU(2) Anomaly,” Phys. Lett. B 117, 324 (1982) [Phys. Lett. 117B, 324 (1982)]

    1982

  45. [51]

    String Theory and the Dark Glueball Problem,

    J. Halverson, B. D. Nelson and F. Ruehle, “String Theory and the Dark Glueball Problem,” Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 4, 043527 (2017) [arXiv:1609.02151 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Hidden SU(N) Glueball Dark Matter,

    A. Soni and Y. Zhang, “Hidden SU(N) Glueball Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 11, 115025 (2016) [arXiv:1602.00714 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Asymptotic Behavior of Nonabelian Gauge Theories to Two Loop Order,

    W. E. Caswell, “Asymptotic Behavior of Nonabelian Gauge Theories to Two Loop Order,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 244 (1974)

    1974

  48. [54]

    Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,

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

    2014 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Self-Interacting Dark Matter from a Non-Abelian Hidden Sector,

    K. K. Boddy, J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat and T. M. P. Tait, “Self-Interacting Dark Matter from a Non-Abelian Hidden Sector,” Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 11, 115017 (2014) [arXiv:1402.3629 [hep-ph]]. 30

    2014 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Production Regimes for Self-Interacting Dark Matter,

    N. Bernal, X. Chu, C. Garcia-Cely, T. Hambye and B. Zaldivar, “Production Regimes for Self-Interacting Dark Matter,” JCAP 1603, no. 03, 018 (2016) [arXiv:1510.08063 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [57]

    SIMP Spectroscopy,

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik and H. Murayama, “SIMP Spectroscopy,” JHEP 1605, 090 (2016) [arXiv:1512.07917 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Dark matter freeze-out in a nonrelativistic sector,

    D. Pappadopulo, J. T. Ruderman and G. Trevisan, “Dark matter freeze-out in a nonrelativistic sector,” Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 3, 035005 (2016) [arXiv:1602.04219 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [59]

    Direct constraints on the dark matter self-interaction cross-section from the merging galaxy cluster 1E0657-56,

    M. Markevitch et al., “Direct constraints on the dark matter self-interaction cross-section from the merging galaxy cluster 1E0657-56,” Astrophys. J. 606, 819 (2004) [astro-ph/0309303]

    2004 arXiv

  54. [60]

    The non-gravitational interac- tions of dark matter in colliding galaxy clusters,

    D. Harvey, R. Massey, T. Kitching, A. Taylor and E. Tittley, “The non-gravitational interac- tions of dark matter in colliding galaxy clusters,” Science 347, 1462 (2015) [arXiv:1503.07675 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [61]

    Hidden Charged Dark Matter,

    J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat, H. Tu and H. B. Yu, “Hidden Charged Dark Matter,” JCAP 0907, 004 (2009) [arXiv:0905.3039 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  56. [62]

    Charged Planckian Interacting Dark Matter,

    M. Garny, A. Palessandro, M. Sandora and M. S. Sloth, “Charged Planckian Interacting Dark Matter,” JCAP 1901, no. 01, 021 (2019) [arXiv:1810.01428 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [63]

    Bound-state formation for thermal relic dark matter and unitarity,

    B. von Harling and K. Petraki, “Bound-state formation for thermal relic dark matter and unitarity,” JCAP 1412, 033 (2014) [arXiv:1407.7874 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  58. [64]

    Higgs-field portal into hidden sectors,

    B. Patt and F. Wilczek, “Higgs-field portal into hidden sectors,” hep-ph/0605188

    arXiv

  59. [65]

    Dark Matter through the Higgs portal,

    G. Arcadi, A. Djouadi and M. Raidal, “Dark Matter through the Higgs portal,” arXiv:1903.03616 [hep-ph]

    1903 arXiv

  60. [66]

    Light Chiral Dark Sector,

    K. Harigaya and Y. Nomura, “Light Chiral Dark Sector,” Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 3, 035013 (2016) [arXiv:1603.03430 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [67]

    Chiral Dark Sector,

    R. T. Co, K. Harigaya and Y. Nomura, “Chiral Dark Sector,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no. 10, 101801 (2017) [arXiv:1610.03848 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Cosmological Bounds on Non-Abelian Dark Forces,

    L. Forestell, D. E. Morrissey and K. Sigurdson, “Cosmological Bounds on Non-Abelian Dark Forces,” Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 7, 075029 (2018) [arXiv:1710.06447 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Dark Matter and Neutrino Mass from the Smallest Non-Abelian Chiral Dark Sector,

    J. M. Berryman, A. de Gouva, K. J. Kelly and Y. Zhang, “Dark Matter and Neutrino Mass from the Smallest Non-Abelian Chiral Dark Sector,” Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 7, 075010 (2017) [arXiv:1706.02722 [hep-ph]]. 31

    2017 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Gedanken Worlds without Higgs: QCD-Induced Electroweak Sym- metry Breaking,

    C. Quigg and R. Shrock, “Gedanken Worlds without Higgs: QCD-Induced Electroweak Sym- metry Breaking,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 096002 (2009) [arXiv:0901.3958 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Chiral Perturbation Theory: Expansions in the Mass of the Strange Quark,

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, “Chiral Perturbation Theory: Expansions in the Mass of the Strange Quark,” Nucl. Phys. B 250, 465 (1985)

    1985

  66. [73]

    Light quark masses and mixing angles,

    J. F. Donoghue, “Light quark masses and mixing angles,” hep-ph/9403263

    arXiv

  67. [74]

    Dashen’s theorem and electromagnetic masses of the mesons,

    D. N. Gao, M. L. Yan and B. A. Li, “Dashen’s theorem and electromagnetic masses of the mesons,” hep-ph/9612258

    arXiv

  68. [75]

    Composite strongly interacting dark matter,

    J. M. Cline, Z. Liu, G. Moore and W. Xue, “Composite strongly interacting dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 1, 015023 (2014) [arXiv:1312.3325 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Pion production and elastic scattering in anti-proton-proton collisions at 6.94 bev/c,

    T. Ferbel, J. A. Johnson, H. L. Kraybill, J. Sandweiss and H. D. Taft, “Pion production and elastic scattering in anti-proton-proton collisions at 6.94 bev/c,” Phys. Rev. 173, 1307 (1968)

    1968

  70. [77]

    Production of mesons as a shock wave problem

    W. Heisenberg, “Production of mesons as a shock wave problem.” Zeit. Phys 133 (1952): 65

    1952

  71. [78]

    Unitarity Limits on the Mass and Radius of Dark Matter Particles,

    K. Griest and M. Kamionkowski, “Unitarity Limits on the Mass and Radius of Dark Matter Particles,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 615 (1990)

    1990

  72. [80]

    Review of strongly-coupled composite dark matter models and lattice simulations,

    G. D. Kribs and E. T. Neil, “Review of strongly-coupled composite dark matter models and lattice simulations,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31, no. 22, 1643004 (2016) [arXiv:1604.04627 [hep- ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Baryogenesis,

    J. M. Cline, “Baryogenesis,” hep-ph/0609145

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter,

    D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones and D. Zaritsky, “A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter,” Astrophys. J. 648, L109 (2006) [astro-ph/0608407]

    2006 arXiv

  76. [84]

    What does the Bullet Cluster tell us about self-interacting dark matter?,

    A. Robertson, R. Massey and V. Eke, “What does the Bullet Cluster tell us about self-interacting dark matter?,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 465, no. 1, 569 (2017) [arXiv:1605.04307 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Remarks on the Chiral Phase Transition in Chromodynamics,

    R. D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, “Remarks on the Chiral Phase Transition in Chromodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 29, 338 (1984). 32

    1984

Pith tools

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