The bremsstrahlung-like production of the massive spin-2 dark matter mediator

D. V. Kirpichnikov; I. V. Voronchikhin

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 90 references

The bremsstrahlung-like production of the massive spin-2 dark matter mediator

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The E137 beam-dump experiment rules out a massive spin-2 dark-matter mediator that couples to photons and electrons, for mediator masses between 100 MeV and 800 MeV and couplings in the range $8\times10^{-8}$ to $10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-1}$.

desk verdict Useful WW/ETL comparison for spin-2 mediators, but the E137 exclusion band is built on a photon width that looks 36x too small. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10150 v1 pith:2MSO6HHT submitted 2024-12-13 hep-ph

I. V. Voronchikhin , D. V. Kirpichnikov This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords spin-2mediatordarkmatterbremsstrahlung-likeproductionfixed-targetexperimentE137Weizsacker-Williamsapproximationexacttree-levelvisibledecay

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

The paper studies a massive spin-2 particle as a mediator between Standard Model particles and dark matter, produced in lepton fixed-target collisions through a bremsstrahlung-like process. It compares two calculational schemes, the Weizsacker-Williams approximation and the exact tree-level approach, for several experiments and finds agreement at the level of a few percent for mediator masses above roughly 200 MeV. Its central new result is an exclusion from the E137 electron beam-dump experiment: with $1.87\times10^{20}$ electrons on target and zero observed signal events, the paper claims the couplings of a spin-2 mediator that couples universally to electrons and photons are ruled out in the band $8\times10^{-8}\lesssim c_{ee}^{G}\lesssim10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-1}$ for mediator masses $100\,\mathrm{MeV}\lesssim m_G\lesssim800\,\mathrm{MeV}$. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns an old null result into a concrete constraint on a relatively unexplored spin-2 portal scenario in the sub-GeV mass range.

What carries the argument

The central object is the massive spin-2 mediator field $G_{\mu\nu}$ coupled to Standard Model fields through their energy-momentum tensors, with coupling constants $c_i^G$ of dimension GeV$^{-1}$. The calculation that carries the argument is the bremsstrahlung-like production process $lN\to lNG$, evaluated either by the exact tree-level matrix element or by the Weizsacker-Williams approximation that reduces it to a Compton-like $l\gamma^*\to lG$ subprocess with a virtual photon flux. The signal estimate then uses the decay lengths of the mediator in the lab frame, $l_G = (E_G/m_G)(1/\Gamma_{\rm tot}^G)$, together with the thick-target formula, to count how many produced mediators survive through the shielding and decay inside the E137 fiducial volume; the Tsai-Schiff nuclear form factor is used throughout for the target.

What would settle it

Recompute the E137 visible-decay signal by weighting every produced mediator with its actual energy fraction $x=E_G/E_e$ drawn from the exact tree-level differential cross section $d\sigma/dx$, and integrate the survival probability $e^{-L_{\rm sh}/l_G(E_G)}-e^{-L_{\rm tot}/l_G(E_G)}$ over $x$ from $0.1$ to $1$; if the resulting 90% confidence excluded band shifts noticeably from $8\times10^{-8}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}\lesssim c_{ee}^G\lesssim10^{-5}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, the central claim as stated would not hold at that precision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the E137 null result excludes the simplified massive spin-2 mediator scenario with universal couplings to electrons and photons, $c_{ee}^G = c_{\gamma\gamma}^G$, over a specific coupling-mass band. The exclusion is derived by computing the number of visible decays $G\to\gamma\gamma$ and $G\to e^+e^-$ expected from bremsstrahlung-like production of the mediator, using both the exact tree-level cross section and the Weizsacker-Williams approximation, and comparing with the observed zero events under a 90% confidence level Poisson assumption. As a supporting technical claim, the paper shows that the Weizsacker-Williams and exact tree-level total cross sections agree at the $O(1)$ percent level for mediator masses $m_G\gtrsim200$ MeV across the fixed-target experiments considered, while discrepancies above 50% appear for light mediators below about 100 MeV because the exact amplitude contains terms that grow as $1/m_G^2$ and $1/m_G^4$.

Load-bearing premise

The signal estimate assumes that the produced mediator carries essentially all of the beam energy when computing its decay length, even though the production cross section is integrated over mediator energy fractions down to $x_{\rm cut}=0.1$; if a significant fraction of events have much lower mediator energy, the decay-length averaging changes and the excluded coupling band shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The E137 experiment excludes spin-2 mediator couplings $8\times10^{-8}\lesssim c_{ee}^G\lesssim10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-1}$ for masses $100\,\mathrm{MeV}\lesssim m_G\lesssim800\,\mathrm{MeV}$, assuming universal couplings to electrons and photons and visible decays.
The Weizsacker-Williams approximation is reliable at the percent level for mediator masses above roughly 200 MeV, so it can be used for future sensitivity projections in this mass range.
For mediator masses below about 100 MeV the Weizsacker-Williams approximation disagrees with the exact tree-level result by more than 50% and should not be trusted there.
The projected visible-mode sensitivity of LDMX with $10^{15}$ electrons on target is already covered by the BaBar mono-photon constraint for $m_G\lesssim7$ GeV and $c_{ee}^G\lesssim3\times10^{-5}$ GeV.
The E137 exclusion also rules out a vector dark-matter benchmark with $m_V\simeq300$ MeV for couplings around $10^{-7}\lesssim c_{ee}^G\lesssim3\times10^{-6}$ GeV$^{-1}$.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the decay-length averaging in the signal formula assumes the mediator carries essentially all of the beam energy ($E_e\simeq E_G$) while the production cross section is integrated down to $x_{\rm cut}=0.1$, the lower boundary of the excluded coupling band could shift once the actual energy distribution is folded in; a re-analysis with energy-weighted decay probabilities would sharpen the b
The same exact tree-level machinery can be applied to the muon-beam experiments NA64$\mu$ and M3 in visible mode, which would produce analogous exclusions on a muonphilic spin-2 mediator coupling $c_{\mu\mu}^G$.
The good Weizsacker-Williams and exact tree-level agreement for heavy mediators means future high-statistics fixed-target searches can use the cheaper Weizsacker-Williams cross section in Monte Carlo generators without introducing percent-level bias.
Combining the E137 exclusion with relic-density curves for vector dark matter leaves a narrower surviving parameter window, and the paper's result removes one of the few remaining sub-GeV spin-2 thermal targets.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know upfront. The WW/ETL comparison for spin-2 mediator production in lepton fixed-target experiments is a genuinely useful piece of work. The authors have done the exact tree-level calculation, checked it against the Weizsacker-Williams approximation across NA64e, NA64μ, LDMX, M3, and E137 parameters, and found agreement at the percent level for mG > 200 MeV. That is a real result for anyone planning dark-sector searches. The self-citations are to independent cross-section calculations, so no circularity issue.

The second thing is less friendly. The E137 visible-mode exclusion band in the abstract and Fig. 5 rests on Eq. (32), the partial width Γ(G→γγ). The paper quotes (1/3)c^2 m^3/(960π). The standard result from the same coupling c Gμν T^{μν} is c^2 m^3/(80π), i.e. 36 times larger. With c_ee = c_γγ, that means the total width in the paper is underestimated by about a factor of 2.8, and the decay length in Eq. (33) is overestimated by the same factor. The shape of the excluded band changes accordingly. The qualitative claim that E137 excludes a band may survive, but the specific numbers 8e-8 to 1e-5 GeV^-1 are not reliable as they stand.

Other soft spots are secondary. Eq. (33) assumes Ee ≈ EG for the decay probability while the production cross section integrates down to xcut = 0.1; the error from that is not quantified. The amplitude squared in Appendix B is a long algebraic expression with no derivation or code, which makes the ETL calculation hard to verify. The low-mass edge of the band sits where WW and ETL already differ, so that boundary is less robust.

The paper is a competent recasting with one load-bearing mistake. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should send it back for a corrected photon width, a re-evaluated E137 band, and ideally a quantitative estimate of the energy-loss effect. The WW/ETL comparison is worth keeping. I would not cite the E137 band in its current form.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies bremsstrahlung-like production of a massive spin-2 mediator in lepton fixed-target experiments, comparing the Weizsäcker-Williams (WW) approximation with an exact tree-level (ETL) calculation, and then uses the E137 null result to derive a 90% C.L. exclusion band for the mediator coupling to electrons and photons. The central quantitative claim is that E137 excludes 8×10^-8 GeV^-1 ≲ c_ee^G ≲ 10^-5 GeV^-1 for mediator masses 100 MeV ≲ m_G ≲ 800 MeV under the assumption c_ee^G = c_γγ^G. The paper also gives a brief comparison with the LDMX reach and with BaBar constraints.

Significance. If the central calculation is correct, the paper provides a new and useful exclusion for a simplified massive spin-2 mediator scenario, and the WW/ETL comparison for masses above roughly 200 MeV is a valuable cross-check for future fixed-target proposals. The E137 bound is an external null-result recast rather than a fit, so the circularity burden is low. The paper is also notable for giving explicit analytic expressions for the ETL amplitude squared and for the spin-2 vertices. However, the numerical E137 exclusion range is not robust until the photon decay width and the energy-spectrum treatment are corrected and quantified.

major comments (3)

[Eq. (32) and following paragraph] The decay width for G→γγ is given in Eq. (32) as Γ_{G→γγ} = (1/3) c² m_G³/(960π) = c² m_G³/(2880π). For the same Fierz-Pauli coupling to the photon energy-momentum tensor, the standard result is Γ_{G→γγ} = c² m_G³/(80π), a factor of 36 larger. This is not merely a convention issue: the numerical estimate for l_{G→γγ} stated in the text, 4.5×10^5 cm at E_G=10 GeV, m_G=100 MeV, and c=10^-6 GeV^-1, is consistent with the standard width and not with Eq. (32). Since l_G enters the decay-probability factor in Eq. (33) exponentially, the E137 exclusion band in Fig. 5 and the quoted range in the abstract must be re-evaluated; with c_ee=c_γγ the total width increases by a factor ≈54/19≈2.84, shifting the lower edge by about (54/19)^{1/4} and the upper edge by a comparable factor. The authors should correct Eq. (32) and recompute the limits.
[Sec. V.B, Eq. (33)] The signal estimate in Eq. (33) assumes that the mediator carries essentially all of the beam energy, E_e ≈ E_G, when computing the decay probability, while the production cross section σ_tot is integrated over energy fractions x down to x_cut=0.1 for E137 (Table I). Because l_G is proportional to E_G, events with x≪1 have considerably shorter decay lengths, and the exponential factor in Eq. (33) is not correctly averaged over the production spectrum. The paper provides no quantification of the resulting shift in the exclusion band. The authors should either weight the decay probability over the ETL/WW differential cross section in x or justify explicitly that the spectrum is so sharply peaked near x≈1 that the approximation is accurate for the quoted bounds.
[Appendix B, Eq. (B1)] The ETL amplitude squared |A^G_{2→3}|² in Eq. (B1), with the coefficients in Eqs. (B3)–(B17), is central to both the WW/ETL comparison and the E137 limit, but it is presented without derivation and without an accompanying code or ancillary file. A reader cannot independently verify the expression, and the paper does not state which computer-algebra tool or method was used to obtain it. The authors should provide the derivation or a machine-readable ancillary file, and ideally a numerical cross-check against an independent evaluation at a representative phase-space point.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract vs. Conclusion] The abstract states the lower edge of the excluded coupling range as 8×10^-8 GeV^-1, while the conclusion states 10^-7 GeV^-1. This numerical discrepancy should be resolved, especially after the width correction is applied.
[Sec. IV A] The text refers to the small-mass regime as m_G ≲ 100 GeV; from context this should be 100 MeV.
[Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors, e.g., 'has been ruled out the the couplings' in the abstract and 'the E137 experiment has been ruled out the the parameter space' in Sec. V C. These should be corrected in a revision.
[Eq. (29) and Sec. V B] The production estimate N^{brem}_G uses a single target radiation length for E137, but the shielding and detector geometry are described only in words; it would be clearer to state explicitly that L_T^{E137}=X_0 and to define all lengths in one place.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the E137 exclusion is an external null-result recast, and the central bound is computed from the paper's own ETL matrix element rather than from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the E137 exclusion range 8e-8 GeV^-1 <= c_ee <= 1e-5 GeV^-1 for 100 MeV <= mG <= 800 MeV. This is derived through Eq. (33), which combines the production yield Eq. (29) with the decay-probability factor (e^{-L_sh/l_G} - e^{-L_tot/l_G}). The inputs are the E137 null result (Ref. [83]), the fixed geometry parameters in Eq. (35), and the model decay widths in Eqs. (31)-(32). None of these quantities is fitted to make the claimed excluded range emerge; the range is the solution of N_vis^G >= 2.3 under Poisson statistics. The self-citations to Refs. [44,49,82] supply the WW amplitude and form-factor discussion, but the E137 reach shown in Fig. 5 is computed using the ETL cross section derived in this paper via Eq. (21) and Appendix B, so the central constraint does not reduce to a self-citation chain. The kinematic approximation Ee ~ EG stated in Eq. (33), while potentially shifting the bound numerically, is an assumption rather than a definitional identity with the output. Likewise, the possible factor-of-36 issue in Eq. (32) noted by a skeptic, if correct, would be an external consistency error in the width, not a circularity: the prediction is not equivalent to its input by construction. Overall, the derivation is a self-contained recast of an external experimental null result, with only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The calculation is a standard recasting of an external null result. No parameters are fitted to produce the central bound. The main assumptions are the Fierz-Pauli model for the mediator, the Tsai-Schiff nuclear form factor, the thick-target approximations, and the background-free interpretation of E137. The hand-chosen angular cut theta_max is the main tunable parameter.

free parameters (1)

theta_max = 0.1 rad
Hand-chosen angular integration cut, stated as optimal for the forward peak; it directly sets the total production cross section in Eqs. (21) and (28).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The spin-2 mediator is described by linearized Fierz-Pauli theory with polarization sum Eq. (A4) and propagator Eq. (A5).
This is the benchmark massive spin-2 model from Refs [32,33]; the polarization sum includes 1/mG^2 longitudinal terms that drive the low-mass ETL/WW discrepancy.
domain assumption The mediator couples universally to the SM energy-momentum tensor, Eq. (1), with c_ee = c_γγ for the visible decay scenario.
The simplified benchmark assumes equal coupling to photons and charged leptons; the derived E137 bound only applies under this universality.
domain assumption The nuclear current is approximated by a spin-0 form factor with Tsai-Schiff parametrization, Eqs. (13) and (14).
Standard for heavy nuclei at small momentum transfer; the paper adopts it as benchmark and does not vary it.
domain assumption E137 is treated as a background-free experiment, so a null result gives a 90% C.L. upper limit of N = 2.3 signal events (Sec. V C).
Standard Poisson limit for zero observed events; any unmodeled background would weaken the excluded band.
ad hoc to paper The mediator is produced within the first radiation length and carries the full beam energy when computing decay probabilities, Eqs. (29) and (33).
Simplifications chosen by the authors; production in deeper layers and lower-energy mediators are not modeled, and the resulting shift in the bound is not quantified.
domain assumption Secondary positron production and mediator absorption in the target are neglected.
Stated assumption after Eq. (33); these effects would typically increase or reduce the signal and are not included.

invented entities (1)

Massive spin-2 mediator G independent evidence
purpose: Couples the Standard Model to dark matter; the paper constrains its coupling c_ee through E137 data.
The mediator is adopted from prior benchmarks (Refs [32,33]), not introduced here. It is falsifiable through predicted production and decay signatures; the E137 bound is one such test.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The bremsstrahlung-like production of the massive spin-2 dark matter mediator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2MSO6HHT

@misc{pith2026241210150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The bremsstrahlung-like production of the massive spin-2 dark matter mediator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2MSO6HHT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10150}
}

abstract

The link between Standard Model (SM) particles and dark matter (DM) can be introduced via spin-2 massive mediator, G, that couples to photon and charged leptons. Moreover, in a mediator mass range from sub-MeV to sub-GeV, fixed-target facilities such as NA64e, LDMX, NA64$\mu$, M$^3$, and E137, can potentially probe such particle of the hidden sector via the signatures that are described by the bremsstrahlung-like process involving tensor mediator. We compare numerically the Weizsaker-Williams (WW) approximation and the exact tree-level (ETL) approach for the bremsstrahlung-like mediator production cross section by choosing various parameters of the fixed-target experiments. In addition, we derive novel constraints on spin-2 DM mediator parameter space from the data of the E137 fixed-target experiment. In particular, we demonstrate that the E137 experiment has been ruled out the the couplings of the spin-2 mediator at the level of $8\times10^{-8}~\mbox{GeV}^{-1}~\lesssim~c^{\rm G}_{ee}~\lesssim~10^{-5}~\mbox{GeV}^{-1}$ for the typical masses in the range $100~\mbox{MeV}~\lesssim~m_{\rm G}~\lesssim 800~\mbox{MeV}$, that corresponds to the statistics of $1.87\times 10^{20}$ electrons accumulated on target. The latter implies its universal coupling to photons and leptons, $c^{\rm G}_{ee} = c^{\rm G}_{\gamma \gamma}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10150 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The differential cross sections as a function of energy fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The total cross sections σtot for tensor mediator production with typical angle cut θmax = 0.1, where the benchmark Tsai-Schiff’s form-factor is chosen. The green, blue, purple, red and magenta lines correspond to NA64e, LDMX, NA64µ, M3 , and E137 experiments, respectively. Solid line, dashed line and dots correspond to calculations for WW, IWW, and ETL approximations, respectively. by the numerical integration of t… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Number of signal events (33) as a function of the coupling constant c G ee for the typical set of masses. Left and right panels correspond to the LDMX (EOT = 1015) and E137 (EOT = 1.87 × 1020). The number of signal events for the ETL (21) and WW (28) methods correspond…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The experimental reach at 90 % C.L. as the function of MED mass for the LDMX (EOT = 1015) and E137 (EOT = 1.87 × 1020) fixed-target facilities in the case of the visible mode. Green shaded region is the current reach of the electron beam dump E137 [83] experiment, and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

Bergstrom, Annalen Phys

L. Bergstrom, Annalen Phys. 524, 479 (2012), arXiv:1205.4882 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2012
[2]

Bertone and D

G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 045002 (2018), arXiv:1605.04909 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2018
[3]

Cirelli, A

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024
[4]

Bertone, D

G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

arXiv 2005
[5]

G. B. Gelmini, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Journeys Through the Precision Frontier: Amplitudes for Colliders (2015) pp. 559–616, arXiv:1502.01320 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2015
[6]

Aoyama et al

T. Aoyama et al. , Phys. Rept. 887, 1 (2020), arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2020
[7]

Davis, G

M. Davis, G. Efstathiou, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J.292, 371 (1985)

1985
[8]

P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2016

Show all 90 references

[9]

Aghanimet al

N. Aghanimet al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[10]

B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.39, 165 (1977)

1977
[11]

E. W. Kolb and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D 33, 1202 (1986)

1986
[12]

Krnjaic, Phys

G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. D 94, 073009 (2016), arXiv:1512.04119 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[13]

McDonald, Phys

J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D50, 3637 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/0702143

1994
[14]

C. P. Burgess, M. Pospelov, and T. ter Veldhuis, Nucl. Phys. B619, 709 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0011335

2001 arXiv
[15]

J. D. Wells, , 283 (2008), arXiv:0803.1243 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[16]

R. M. Schabinger and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D 72, 093007 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0509209

2005 arXiv
[17]

Bickendorf and M

G. Bickendorf and M. Drees, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1163 (2022), arXiv:2206.05038 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[18]

E. E. Boos, V. E. Bunichev, and S. S. Trykov, Phys. Rev. D107, 075021 (2023), arXiv:2205.07364 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[19]

Sieber, D

H. Sieber, D. V. Kirpichnikov, I. V. Voronchikhin, P. Crivelli, S. N. Gninenko, M. M. Kirsanov, N. V. Kras- nikov, L. Molina-Bueno, and S. K. Sekatskii, Phys. Rev. D 108, 056018 (2023), arXiv:2305.09015 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[20]

Catena and T

R. Catena and T. R. Gray, JCAP 11, 058 (2023), arXiv:2307.02207 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[21]

Holdom, Phys

B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B166, 196 (1986)

1986
[22]

Izaguirre, G

E. Izaguirre, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 251301 (2015), arXiv:1505.00011 [hep- ph]

2015 arXiv
[23]

Essig, P

R. Essig, P. Schuster, N. Toro, and B. Wojtsekhowski, JHEP 02, 009 (2011), arXiv:1001.2557 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[24]

Y. Kahn, G. Krnjaic, J. Thaler, and M. Toups, Phys. Rev. D91, 055006 (2015), arXiv:1411.1055 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[25]

Batell, R

B. Batell, R. Essig, and Z. Surujon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171802 (2014), arXiv:1406.2698 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[26]

Izaguirre, G

E. Izaguirre, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D88, 114015 (2013), arXiv:1307.6554 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[27]

Kachanovich, S

A. Kachanovich, S. Kovalenko, S. Kuleshov, V. E. Lyubovitskij, and A. S. Zhevlakov, Phys. Rev. D105, 075004 (2022), arXiv:2111.12522 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[28]

V. E. Lyubovitskij, A. S. Zhevlakov, A. Kachanovich, and S. Kuleshov, Phys. Rev. D 107, 055006 (2023), arXiv:2210.05555 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[29]

Gorbunov and D

D. Gorbunov and D. Kalashnikov, Phys. Rev. D107, 015014 (2023), arXiv:2211.06270 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[30]

Claude, M

J. Claude, M. Dutra, and S. Godfrey, Phys. Rev. D107, 075006 (2023), arXiv:2208.09422 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[31]

Wang, W.-L

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

2023 arXiv
[32]

H. M. Lee, M. Park, and V. Sanz, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2715 (2014), arXiv:1306.4107 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[33]

Y.-J.KangandH.M.Lee,Eur.Phys.J.C 80,602(2020), arXiv:2001.04868 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[34]

Bernal, M

N. Bernal, M. Dutra, Y. Mambrini, K. Olive, M. Peloso, and M. Pierre, Phys. Rev. D 97, 115020 (2018), arXiv:1803.01866 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[35]

M. G. Folgado, A. Donini, and N. Rius, JHEP04, 036 (2020), arXiv:1912.02689 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[36]

Y.-J.KangandH.M.Lee,Eur.Phys.J.C 81,868(2021), arXiv:2002.12779 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[37]

Dutra, PoS LeptonPhoton2019, 076 (2019), arXiv:1911.11844 [hep-ph]

M. Dutra, PoS LeptonPhoton2019, 076 (2019), arXiv:1911.11844 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[38]

Clery, Y

S. Clery, Y. Mambrini, K. A. Olive, A. Shkerin, and S. Verner, Phys. Rev. D 105, 095042 (2022), arXiv:2203.02004 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[39]

J. A. Gill, D. Sengupta, and A. G. Williams, Phys. Rev. D 108, L051702 (2023), arXiv:2303.04329 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[40]

W. Wang, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, H. Zhou, and B. Zhu, JHEP 12, 072 (2020), [Erratum: JHEP 02, 052 (2021)], arXiv:1912.09904 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[41]

de Giorgi and S

A. de Giorgi and S. Vogl, JHEP 11, 036 (2021), arXiv:2105.06794 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[42]

de Giorgi and S

A. de Giorgi and S. Vogl, JHEP 04, 032 (2023), arXiv:2208.03153 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[43]

Jod lowski, Phys

K. Jod lowski, Phys. Rev. D 108, 115017 (2023), arXiv:2305.05710 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[44]

I. V. Voronchikhin and D. V. Kirpichnikov, Phys. Rev. D 106, 115041 (2022), arXiv:2210.00751 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[45]

S. N. Gninenko, D. V. Kirpichnikov, M. M. Kirsanov, and N. V. Krasnikov, Phys. Lett. B 782, 406 (2018), arXiv:1712.05706 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[46]

Y.-S. Liu, D. McKeen, and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 95, 036010 (2017), arXiv:1609.06781 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[47]

Liu and G

Y.-S. Liu and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D96, 016004 (2017), arXiv:1705.01633 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[48]

D. V. Kirpichnikov, H. Sieber, L. M. Bueno, P. Crivelli, and M. M. Kirsanov, Phys. Rev. D104, 076012 (2021), arXiv:2107.13297 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[49]

I. V. Voronchikhin and D. V. Kirpichnikov, (2024), arXiv:2409.12748 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[50]

Fermi, Nuovo Cim

E. Fermi, Nuovo Cim. 2, 143 (1925), arXiv:hep- th/0205086

1925
[51]

C. F. von Weizsacker, Z. Phys.88, 612 (1934)

1934
[52]

E. J. Williams, Kong. Dan. Vid. Sel. Mat. Fys. Med. 13N4, 1 (1935)

1935
[53]

V. M. Budnev, I. F. Ginzburg, G. V. Meledin, and V. G. Serbo, Phys. Rept.15, 181 (1975)

1975
[54]

Bl¨ umlein and J

J. Bl¨ umlein and J. Brunner, Phys. Lett. B731, 320 (2014), arXiv:1311.3870 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[55]

Foroughi-Abari and A

S. Foroughi-Abari and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D105, 095045 (2022), arXiv:2108.05900 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[56]

Foroughi-Abari, P

S. Foroughi-Abari, P. Reimitz, and A. Ritz, (2024), arXiv:2409.09123 [hep-ph]. 12

2024 arXiv
[57]

Gorbunov and E

D. Gorbunov and E. Kriukova, JHEP01, 058 (2024), arXiv:2306.15800 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[58]

Harland-Lang, J

L. Harland-Lang, J. Jaeckel, and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Lett. B793, 281 (2019), arXiv:1902.04878 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[59]

Gorbunov and E

D. Gorbunov and E. Kriukova, (2024), arXiv:2409.11386 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[60]

Gorbunov and E

D. Gorbunov and E. Kriukova (2024) arXiv:2409.11089 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[61]

d’Enterria, M

D. d’Enterria, M. A. Tamlihat, L. Schoeffel, H.-S. Shao, and Y. Tayalati, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138237 (2023), arXiv:2306.15558 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[62]

H. M. Lee, M. Park, and V. Sanz, (2024), arXiv:2412.07850 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[63]

M. G. Folgado, A. Donini, and N. Rius, (2019), 10.1007/JHEP01(2020)161, arXiv:1907.04340 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[64]

Banerjee et al

D. Banerjee et al. (NA64), Phys. Rev. D 97, 072002 (2018), arXiv:1710.00971 [hep-ex]

2018 arXiv
[65]

Y. M. Andreev et al. (NA64), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 211803 (2024), arXiv:2401.01708 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[66]

Mans (LDMX), EPJ Web Conf.142, 01020 (2017)

J. Mans (LDMX), EPJ Web Conf.142, 01020 (2017)

2017
[67]

˚Akesson et al

T. ˚Akesson et al. (LDMX), (2018), arXiv:1808.05219 [hep-ex]

2018 arXiv
[68]

˚Akesson et al

T. ˚Akesson et al. , in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08192 [hep-ex]

2022 arXiv
[69]

M. D. Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

2014
[70]

S. D. Drell and J. D. Walecka, Annals Phys. 28, 18 (1964)

1964
[71]

V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii, QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS, Course of Theoret- ical Physics, Vol. 4 (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1982)

1982
[72]

Beranek, H

T. Beranek, H. Merkel, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D88, 015032 (2013), arXiv:1303.2540 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[73]

C. F. Perdrisat, V. Punjabi, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 59, 694 (2007), arXiv:hep- ph/0612014

2007
[74]

J. D. Bjorken, R. Essig, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D80, 075018 (2009), arXiv:0906.0580

2009 arXiv
[75]

Tsai, Rev

Y.-S. Tsai, Rev. Mod. Phys.46, 815 (1974)

1974
[76]

L. I. Schiff, Phys. Rev. 92, 988 (1953), [Erratum: Phys.Rev. 93, 1434–1434 (1954)]

1953
[77]

K. J. Kim and Y.-S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D8, 3109 (1973)

1973
[78]

C.-Y. Chen, M. Pospelov, and Y.-M. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 95, 115005 (2017), arXiv:1701.07437 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[79]

Y. Kahn, G. Krnjaic, N. Tran, and A. Whitbeck, JHEP 09, 153 (2018), arXiv:1804.03144 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[80]

Bondi, A

M. Bondi, A. Celentano, R. R. Dusaev, D. V. Kirpich- nikov, M. M. Kirsanov, N. V. Krasnikov, L. Marsicano, and D. Shchukin, Comput. Phys. Commun.269, 108129 (2021), arXiv:2101.12192 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[81]

B. B. Oberhauseret al., Comput. Phys. Commun.300, 109199 (2024), arXiv:2401.12573 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[82]

I. V. Voronchikhin and D. V. Kirpichnikov, Phys. Rev. D 107, 115034 (2023), arXiv:2304.14052 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[83]

J. D. Bjorken, S. Ecklund, W. R. Nelson, A. Abashian, C. Church, B. Lu, L. W. Mo, T. A. Nunamaker, and P. Rassmann, Phys. Rev. D38, 3375 (1988)

1988
[84]

Y. M. Andreevet al. (NA64), Phys. Rev. D106, 032015 (2022), arXiv:2206.03101 [hep-ex]

2022 arXiv
[85]

Berlin, N

A. Berlin, N. Blinov, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D 99, 075001 (2019), arXiv:1807.01730 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[86]

Marsicano, M

L. Marsicano, M. Battaglieri, M. Bondi’, C. D. R. Car- vajal, A. Celentano, M. De Napoli, R. De Vita, E. Nardi, M. Raggi, and P. Valente, Phys. Rev. D 98, 015031 (2018), arXiv:1802.03794 [hep-ex]

2018 arXiv
[87]

Andreas, C

S. Andreas, C. Niebuhr, and A. Ringwald, Phys. Rev. D 86, 095019 (2012), arXiv:1209.6083 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[88]

Hinterbichler, Rev

K. Hinterbichler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 671 (2012), arXiv:1105.3735 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[89]

de Rham, Living Rev

C. de Rham, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 7 (2014), arXiv:1401.4173 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[90]

Fierz and W

M. Fierz and W. Pauli, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A173, 211 (1939)

1939

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bergstrom, Annalen Phys

L. Bergstrom, Annalen Phys. 524, 479 (2012), arXiv:1205.4882 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2012

[2] [2]

Bertone and D

G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 045002 (2018), arXiv:1605.04909 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2018

[3] [3]

Cirelli, A

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Bertone, D

G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

arXiv 2005

[5] [5]

G. B. Gelmini, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Journeys Through the Precision Frontier: Amplitudes for Colliders (2015) pp. 559–616, arXiv:1502.01320 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2015

[6] [6]

Aoyama et al

T. Aoyama et al. , Phys. Rept. 887, 1 (2020), arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2020

[7] [7]

Davis, G

M. Davis, G. Efstathiou, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J.292, 371 (1985)

1985

[8] [8]

P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2016