Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Velocity-dependent self-interacting dark matter and composite Higgs

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

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

Pith's one-line read One strongly coupled four-dimensional gauge theory can produce a composite Higgs and a velocity-dependent self-interacting dark matter candidate from the same dynamics.

desk verdict The dimensional-analysis objection doesn't survive contact with Eq. (4.3); the real issue is the assumed TDM/TVM ratio, so this is a revise-and-resubmit rather than a reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19371 v1 pith:IEUY2APW submitted 2024-12-26 hep-ph hep-th

Martin Rosenlyst This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th PACS 95.35.+d12.60.-i
keywords compositeHiggsself-interactingdarkmattervelocity-dependentcrosssectionpseudo-Nambu-GoldstonebosonSp(4)gaugetheorysectortemperaturethermalfreeze-outsmall-scalestructureproblems
topics Dark MatterThe Hierarchy Problem
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 sets out to show that one strongly coupled, four-dimensional gauge theory can be the common origin of two things usually treated separately: the Higgs boson and a dark matter particle that scatters off itself with a velocity-dependent cross section. In the proposed minimal model, the Higgs and a light scalar mediator are both composite pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosons, while the dark matter is a Dirac fermion whose mass is generated by the mediator's vacuum expectation value. The same dynamics produces a hidden sector that is colder than the visible sector, with the temperature ratio tied to the ratio of the two composite decay constants. That colder hidden sector is what lets the model satisfy relic density, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, cosmic microwave background, and direct and indirect detection constraints while keeping the self-interaction cross section in the range suggested by dwarf galaxies and clusters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson (pNGB) structure of a minimal $\mathrm{Sp}(4)$ hypercolor theory. Global chiral symmetries of two fermion representations break to $\mathrm{Sp}(4)_Q$ and $U(1)_\Lambda$, leaving the Higgs doublet and the light scalar mediator as pNGBs; a four-fermion operator couples a Dirac fermion to the $\Lambda$ sector, generating the dark matter mass through the mediator vacuum expectation value. The second central ingredient is the scale hierarchy $f_\Lambda/f$, obtained from the running of the hypercolor coupling between the fundamental and adjoint representations, which the paper uses to set the dark sector temperature ratio $T_{\rm DM}/T_{\rm VM} \sim f_\Lambda/f$. This hierarchy suppresses the number densities of dark matter and mediators by powers of $(T_{\rm DM}/T_{\rm VM})^3$, which is what relaxes the BBN, CMB, and relic-abundance constraints.

What would settle it

A lattice computation of $\mathrm{Sp}(4)$ with one fundamental and one adjoint fermion that finds $f_\Lambda/f$ close to 1 would remove the coldness that carries the BBN and CMB suppression. A full thermal-history calculation showing $T_{\rm DM}/T_{\rm VM} \geq 1$ in the viable parameter region would likewise falsify the model's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the mass of a self-interacting dark matter Dirac fermion can be generated by the same composite dynamics that produces the Higgs, in a minimal $\mathrm{Sp}(4)$ gauge-fermion theory with two fermion sectors. The $Q$-sector fermions form the composite Higgs doublet, the $\Lambda$-sector fermions form a light complex scalar mediator, and a four-fermion interaction gives the mediator a vacuum expectation value that becomes the dark matter mass. The resulting dark matter self-scatters through Yukawa exchange with a transfer cross section that declines with collision velocity, matching the pattern inferred from dwarf galaxies, low-surface-brightness galaxies, and clusters. The paper argues that the model simultaneously addresses the small-scale structure problems of cold dark matter and the naturalness problem of the Standard Model Higgs, and that its parameter space survives the combined constraints from relic abundance, BBN, CMB, and direct and indirect searches.

Load-bearing premise

The most fragile premise is that the dark sector is colder than the visible sector, with $T_{\rm DM}/T_{\rm VM}$ set equal to the decay-constant ratio $f_\Lambda/f$ because the two sectors are almost decoupled; this ratio is an input rather than a derived result, and the paper's relaxation of every cosmological constraint scales with its third power.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single confining sector delivers the Higgs doublet, a light scalar mediator, and a sub-GeV Dirac fermion dark matter candidate, so no separate dark-matter ingredient is needed in the composite Higgs framework.
  • The temperature suppression that makes the model viable is not a separate cosmological input but a consequence of the same strong dynamics, because the ratio of decay constants sets the hidden-sector temperature.
  • The dark matter annihilation is p-wave, which avoids the CMB bound that usually excludes light-mediator self-interacting dark matter, and the relic density comes from thermal freeze-out.
  • The model gives a concrete spectrum with a 125 GeV Higgs, a pseudo-scalar near 270 GeV, a heavier state near 261 GeV, and a light mediator that can be as small as about 0.1-1 MeV, constrained by the chosen vacuum-misalignment angle.
  • In the viable parameter space the dark matter mass lies around 0.1-1 GeV and the mediator below about 1 MeV, so the model's predictions are precise enough to be checked against searches for light dark sectors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This mechanism suggests a general model-building template: any confining theory with two fermion representations of different quadratic Casimirs can generate a colder hidden sector, so the same temperature-ratio trick could be applied to other composite dark matter candidates.
  • Because the mediator mass is technically natural and small, the model predicts a light scalar with suppressed couplings to the Standard Model; searches for sub-MeV scalars in beam dumps or rare meson decays would probe this exact parameter space.
  • The equality $T_{\rm DM}/T_{\rm VM} \sim f_\Lambda/f$ is the one place where the paper's cosmology is an input; computing the full thermal history, including any portal heating and entropy production, would turn this input into a testable prediction.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a four-dimensional, strongly coupled gauge theory that unifies a composite Higgs with a hidden sector containing a light scalar mediator and a Dirac-fermion dark matter candidate. The dark matter mass is generated by the vacuum expectation value of the composite scalar, whose own small mass follows from approximate symmetries. The model aims to reproduce the observed dark-matter relic density via thermal freeze-out in a hidden sector colder than the visible sector, while the velocity-dependent self-interaction cross section addresses the core-cusp and too-big-to-fail problems. The analysis combines self-interaction cross sections with cosmological constraints from BBN, CMB, direct, and indirect detection, and concludes that the model is viable in a narrow but allowed parameter region.

Significance. If correct, this is the first composite-Higgs framework that also produces a velocity-dependent self-interacting dark matter candidate with a thermally produced relic density, thereby connecting two currently active research directions. The underlying construction is a well-defined gauge-fermion Lagrangian, and the composite dynamics provide a dynamical origin for the dark matter mass. The paper relies on standard self-interaction formulas and makes explicit numerical predictions, which is a strength. The main significance, however, is conditional on the unjustified identification of the temperature ratio with the scale ratio and on the reliability of the annihilation cross section, which is not derived in the text.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, first paragraph] The assumption TDM/TVM = fΛ/f is not derived from a cosmological history. The temperature ratio between the hidden and visible sectors depends on the initial conditions and on the expansion and energy-transfer history of the two sectors, not solely on the ratio of the confinement scales. This assumption is load-bearing: the relic density calculation and the claimed suppression of BBN and CMB constraints rely on TDM/TVM < 1. The paper should either derive this relation from a concrete production mechanism (e.g., the portal interactions of Eq. (2.26)) or treat TDM/TVM as an independent parameter and identify the allowed range, rather than asserting the identification without further justification.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (4.3)] The thermal-averaged annihilation cross section is presented without a derivation or reference, and it involves the quantities λ3Φ and gΦ, of which gΦ is not defined anywhere in the paper. Because this equation is the sole input for the relic-density results in Eqs. (4.4)-(4.6) and for the TDM/TVM values in Figure 4, the authors should provide a derivation or a clear reference and define all couplings. As printed, the numerical values in Figure 4 are not independently verifiable.
  3. [Section 5, last paragraph] The paper acknowledges that achieving the light mediator mass mΦ ~ 1 MeV requires a significant cancellation among the contributions in Eq. (2.33). Combined with the large number of free parameters (αΦ, mDM, mΦ, sθ, CtS, cQ, cΛ, Cg, CX, CyS, yL, yR, eg, μ, m), the numerical results correspond to specific benchmark points rather than a demonstrated viable region. The authors should quantify the tuning and show, for example, a scan or a set of benchmark points that simultaneously satisfy the relic-density, self-interaction, and BBN constraints, to support the claim of a viable parameter space.
  4. [Section 2.3 and Figure 3] The dark matter is described as a Dirac fermion, but the interaction in Eq. (2.20) and the annihilation process XX → eϕR eϕR shown in Figure 3 suggest a Majorana-like structure or a violation of the global U(1)Λ symmetry that is invoked for dark matter stability. The authors should clarify the global charges of X and Φ and explain how the annihilation channel XX → eϕR eϕR is consistent with the Dirac nature and with the stability of X.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (4.3)] The coupling gΦ appears in the cross-section formula but is never introduced in the text; it should be defined (presumably the quartic self-coupling of the scalar mediator).
  2. [Section 4, after Eq. (4.3)] The text mentions that λ3Φ is the cubic coupling of the mediator, but no explicit expression is given; providing it would help the reader understand the relative importance of the three terms in the bracket.
  3. [Figure 1] The figure caption refers to a gray shaded region as the BBN constraint, whereas the text discusses a limit mΦ > 2me; please clarify which constraint is actually shown and whether the region is excluded for that reason.
  4. [Section 5] The calculation leading to Figure 5 (fΛ/f as a function of eg) is described only briefly; the paper should state the inputs, such as the values of αc and the beta-function coefficients used in Eq. (5.3), so that the reader can reproduce the plot.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the composite-Higgs/SIDM construction is a self-contained Lagrangian model, and the quantities flagged as fits are explicit parameter choices or consistency checks rather than predictions derived from their own outputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The underlying Sp(4) gauge-fermion Lagrangian (Eq. 2.1) with the four-fermion operators (Eqs. 2.5 and 2.7) is an independent model input; the DM mass mX = yPhi vPhi/sqrt(2) and the scalar VEV vPhi are derived from the effective potential, not assumed to equal the target observables. The self-interaction analysis in Sec. 3 uses standard Yukawa-potential cross-sections and scans mDM, mPhi, and alphaPhi against the external SIDM data of Ref. [34]; this is parameter fitting/benchmarking, not a circular prediction, because the paper does not claim to predict those parameters from first principles. In Sec. 4, TDM/TVM is not presented as a prediction: Figure 4 explicitly gives the 'values needed' to reproduce the observed relic abundance by inverting Eq. (4.5). Section 5 then assumes TDM/TVM ~ fLambda/f and sets TDM/TVM equal to the Figure 4 values, so the agreement between Figures 4 and 5 is a consistency condition on the free coupling eg, not a quantity derived from a quantity that already contains it. The self-citations ([64], [66], [80]) supply model-building ingredients and a gap statement, but no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. Separately, Eq. (4.3) appears dimensionally inconsistent (dimension of mass rather than volume/time), which is a correctness risk for the numerical relic-density results, but that is an internal-error issue, not circularity. The TDM/TVM ~ fLambda/f relation is likewise an explicit cosmological assumption whose derivation is not supplied; this is a support/robustness concern, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 5 invented entities

The model introduces a new hypercolor sector with many adjustable parameters: the DM Yukawa coupling, the DM and mediator masses, the vacuum misalignment angle, O(1) potential coefficients, the hyperfermion masses, and an NJL coupling that sets the temperature ratio. The central Lagrangian is well-defined, but the quantitative viability claims rest on hand-picked values and on assumed strong dynamics. The light mediator mass requires a cancellation that the author acknowledges, and the temperature ratio is an input assumption rather than a derived outcome.

free parameters (8)
  • alpha_Phi (y_Phi^2/(4 pi)) = 10^-4, 10^-5, 10^-6
    Scanned to fit velocity-dependent self-interaction cross-section data in Figure 1.
  • mDM = 0.15 to 1.5 GeV, up to 5 GeV in Figure 4
    Chosen from Figure 1 to match SIDM data; the relic density calculation uses these values.
  • mPhi (light mediator mass) = 0.1 to 6 MeV, depending on alpha_Phi
    Chosen to satisfy BBN and self-interaction constraints; a tuned cancellation in Eq. (2.33) sets this mass.
  • s_theta (vacuum misalignment angle) = 0.1
    Chosen by hand, consistent with LHC and electroweak constraints, but not predicted.
  • CtS = ~0.1
    Non-perturbative coefficient fixed to reproduce the 125 GeV Higgs mass.
  • cQ, cLambda, Cg, CX, CyS, yL = yR = 1.5, 1.5, 1, 1, 1, 1
    O(1) coefficients set by hand or from lattice-motivated estimates; no systematic uncertainty is propagated.
  • eg (NJL four-fermion coupling) = Not stated explicitly; read off from Figure 5
    Controls fLambda/f and hence TDM/TVM; adjusted so the model reproduces the relic-density-required temperature ratio.
  • Hyperfermion masses mu and m = Sub-MeV to MeV values shown in Figure 7
    Chosen so the mediator pNGB mass is small; the paper acknowledges a significant cancellation in Eq. (2.33).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Sp(4) hypercolor with fundamental Q and adjoint Lambda fermions condenses as SU(4)/Sp(4) and SU(2)xU(1)/U(1).
    Section 2.2, Eq. (2.8); relies on strong-coupling dynamics that are not proven from first principles.
  • domain assumption The effective chiral Lagrangian up to NLO, with O(1) coefficients from Ref. [76], correctly captures vacuum alignment and pNGB masses.
    Sections 2.3 and 2.4, Eqs. (2.21) to (2.33); many of these coefficients are simply set to 1.
  • domain assumption Freeze-out in a decoupled hidden sector with TDM/TVM < 1 governs the relic density, and the constraints of Ref. [51] apply.
    Section 4, Eqs. (4.1) to (4.6); assumes the hidden sector thermalizes internally while staying decoupled from the visible sector.
  • ad hoc to paper TDM/TVM equals fLambda/f for almost decoupled sectors.
    Section 5: 'we assume that TDM/TVM ~ fLambda/f'; this is not derived from a complete cosmological history.
  • domain assumption The ladder approximation and gauged NJL critical coupling give the scale ratio fLambda/f in Eq. (5.3).
    Section 5, Eqs. (5.1) to (5.3); a known but approximate strong-dynamics scheme.
  • standard math Standard nonrelativistic Yukawa scattering formulas (Born, classical, Hulthén) describe the SIDM transfer cross-sections.
    Section 3, Eqs. (3.1) to (3.6); accepted approximations for attractive Yukawa potentials.
invented entities (5)
  • Sp(4) hypercolor gauge group
    purpose: New confining force that makes the Higgs and the scalar mediator composite.
    New gauge group introduced for the model; no external evidence for it exists.
  • Hyperfermions Q and Lambda
    purpose: Condense to produce the composite pNGB sectors for the Higgs and the scalar mediator.
    New fermions whose masses (m and mu) are tuned to arrange the light mediator.
  • Dirac fermion dark matter X
    purpose: Dark matter candidate whose mass is generated by the composite scalar VEV.
    Mass and coupling alpha_Phi are fit to astrophysical data, not predicted independently.
  • Light composite scalar Phi
    purpose: Mediates velocity-dependent DM self-interactions and supplies the DM mass through its VEV.
    Mass is scanned over the 0.1 to 6 MeV range to fit SIDM and BBN boundaries.
  • Composite resonances eta and Theta1 independent evidence
    purpose: Additional pNGBs in the composite spectrum.
    The paper predicts m_eta ~ 270 GeV and m_Theta1 ~ 261 GeV, which are collider-searchable masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Velocity-dependent self-interacting dark matter and composite Higgs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IEUY2APW

@misc{pith2026241219371,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Velocity-dependent self-interacting dark matter and composite Higgs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IEUY2APW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19371}
}
read the original abstract

We show that the mass of a self-interacting dark matter candidate, specifically a Dirac fermion, can be generated by composite dynamics, with a light scalar mediator emerging alongside the Higgs itself as composite particles. These novel models naturally explain the halo structure problems at various scales and alleviates the Standard Model naturalness problem simultaneously. The relic density of the dark matter candidates is particle anti-particle symmetric and due to thermal freeze-out. These models are four-dimensional gauge theories with a minimal number of fermions charged under a new confining gauge group. Finally, we demonstrate that these models satisfy various constraints set by the dark matter relic density, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, Cosmic Microwave Background, as well as direct and indirect detection experiments.

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. Dark matter in composite Higgs models with a scotogenic EFT

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In the SU(6)/Sp(6) composite Higgs model with a scotogenic Z2, three of four neutral pseudo-Goldstone dark matter candidates can reproduce the observed relic density, while the SU(2)L triplet candidate fails; spin-1 r...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [66]

    Composite self-interacting dark matter and Higgs

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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results

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

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    Steigman and M

    G. Steigman and M. S. Turner,Cosmological Constraints on the Properties of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, Nucl. Phys. B253 (1985) 375–386

    1985

  4. [3]

    J. F. Navarro, V. R. Eke, and C. S. Frenk,The cores of dwarf galaxy halos, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.283 (1996) L72–L78, [astro-ph/9610187]

    arXiv 1996

  5. [4]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White,A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering, Astrophys. J. 490 (1997) 493–508, [astro-ph/9611107]

    arXiv 1997

  6. [5]

    Borriello and P

    A. Borriello and P. Salucci,The Dark matter distribution in disk galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.323 (2001) 285, [astro-ph/0001082]

    arXiv 2001

  7. [6]

    W. J. G. de Blok and A. Bosma,High-resolution rotation curves of low surface brightness galaxies, Astron. Astrophys.385 (2002) 816, [astro-ph/0201276]. – 21 –

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  8. [7]

    3 1169–1176

    Donato, F and Gentile, Gianfranco and Salucci, P and Martins, CF and Wilkinson, MI and Gilmore, G and Grebel, EK and Koch, A and Wyse, R,A constant dark matter halo surface density in galaxies, MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY 397 (2009), no. 3 1169–1176

    2009

Show all 92 references
  1. [8]

    W. J. G. de Blok,The Core-Cusp Problem, Advances in Astronomy2010 (Jan., 2010) 789293, [arXiv:0910.3538]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Moore,Evidence against dissipationless dark matter from observations of galaxy haloes, Nature 370 (1994) 629

    B. Moore,Evidence against dissipationless dark matter from observations of galaxy haloes, Nature 370 (1994) 629

    1994

  3. [10]

    R. A. Flores and J. R. Primack,Observational and Theoretical Constraints on Singular Dark Matter Halos, apjl 427 (May, 1994) L1, [astro-ph/9402004]

    1994 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Battaglia, A

    G. Battaglia, A. Helmi, E. Tolstoy, M. Irwin, V. Hill, and P. Jablonka,The Kinematic Status and Mass Content of the Sculptor Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy, apjl 681 (July, 2008) L13, [arXiv:0802.4220]

    2008 arXiv

  5. [12]

    M. G. Walker and J. Peñarrubia,A Method for Measuring (Slopes of) the Mass Profiles of Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies, apj 742 (Nov., 2011) 20, [arXiv:1108.2404]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [13]

    N. C. Amorisco and N. W. Evans,Dark matter cores and cusps: the case of multiple stellar populations in dwarf spheroidals, mnras 419 (Jan., 2012) 184–196, [arXiv:1106.1062]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Agnello and N

    A. Agnello and N. W. Evans,A Virial Core in the Sculptor Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy, apjl 754 (Aug., 2012) L39, [arXiv:1205.6673]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [15]

    J. J. Adams, J. D. Simon, M. H. Fabricius, R. C. E. van den Bosch, J. C. Barentine, R. Bender, K. Gebhardt, G. J. Hill, J. D. Murphy, R. A. Swaters, J. Thomas, and G. van de Ven,Dwarf Galaxy Dark Matter Density Profiles Inferred from Stellar and Gas Kinematics, apj 789 (July, ...

    2014 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Oh et al.,High-resolution mass models of dwarf galaxies from LITTLE THINGS, Astron

    S.-H. Oh et al.,High-resolution mass models of dwarf galaxies from LITTLE THINGS, Astron. J. 149 (2015) 180, [arXiv:1502.01281]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [17]

    D. N. Spergel and P. J. Steinhardt,Observational evidence for selfinteracting cold dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.84 (2000) 3760–3763, [astro-ph/9909386]

    2000 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Kamada, M

    A. Kamada, M. Kaplinghat, A. B. Pace, and H.-B. Yu,How the Self-Interacting Dark Matter Model Explains the Diverse Galactic Rotation Curves, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017), no. 11 111102, [arXiv:1611.02716]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Boylan-Kolchin, J

    M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat,Too big to fail? The puzzling darkness of massive Milky Way subhaloes, mnras 415 (July, 2011) L40–L44, [arXiv:1103.0007]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Boylan-Kolchin, J

    M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat,The Milky Way’s bright satellites as an apparent failure ofΛCDM, mnras 422 (May, 2012) 1203–1218, [arXiv:1111.2048]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [21]

    E. J. Tollerud, M. Boylan-Kolchin, and J. S. Bullock,M31 Satellite Masses Compared to LCDM Subhaloes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.440 (2014), no. 4 3511–3519, [arXiv:1403.6469]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Garrison-Kimmel, M

    S. Garrison-Kimmel, M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, and E. N. Kirby,Too big to fail in the Local Group, mnras 444 (Oct., 2014) 222–236, [arXiv:1404.5313]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [23]

    E. N. Kirby, J. S. Bullock, M. Boylan-Kolchin, M. Kaplinghat, and J. G. Cohen,The dynamics of isolated Local Group galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.439 (2014), no. 1 1015–1027, [arXiv:1401.1208]. – 22 –

    2014 arXiv

  17. [24]

    too big to fail

    E. Papastergis, R. Giovanelli, M. P. Haynes, and F. Shankar,Is there a “too big to fail” problem in the field?, Astron. Astrophys.574 (2015) A113, [arXiv:1407.4665]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [25]

    R. Dave, D. N. Spergel, P. J. Steinhardt, and B. D. Wandelt,Halo properties in cosmological simulations of selfinteracting cold dark matter, Astrophys. J. 547 (2001) 574–589, [astro-ph/0006218]

    2001 arXiv

  19. [26]

    D. H. Weinberg, J. S. Bullock, F. Governato, R. Kuzio de Naray, and A. H. G. Peter,Cold dark matter: controversies on small scales, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.112 (2015) 12249–12255, [arXiv:1306.0913]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [27]

    E. D. Carlson, M. E. Machacek, and L. J. Hall,Self-interacting Dark Matter, apj 398 (Oct.,

  21. [28]

    Hochberg, E

    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 (2014) 171301, [arXiv:1402.5143]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Tulin and H.-B

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu,Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure, Phys. Rept. 730 (2018) 1–57, [arXiv:1705.02358]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Clowe, M

    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. Lett.648 (2006) L109–L113, [astro-ph/0608407]

    2006 arXiv

  24. [31]

    S. W. Randall, M. Markevitch, D. Clowe, A. H. Gonzalez, and M. Bradac,Constraints on the Self-Interaction Cross-Section of Dark Matter from Numerical Simulations of the Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E 0657-56, Astrophys. J. 679 (2008) 1173–1180, [arXiv:0704.0261]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [32]

    W. A. Dawson, D. Wittman, M. J. Jee, P. Gee, J. P. Hughes, J. A. Tyson, S. Schmidt, P. Thorman, M. Bradač, S. Miyazaki, B. Lemaux, Y. Utsumi, and V. E. Margoniner, Discovery of a Dissociative Galaxy Cluster Merger with Large Physical Separation, apjl 747 (Mar., 2012) L42, [arX...

    2012 arXiv

  26. [33]

    A. H. G. Peter, M. Rocha, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat,Cosmological Simulations with Self-Interacting Dark Matter II: Halo Shapes vs. Observations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 430 (2013) 105, [arXiv:1208.3026]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Kaplinghat, S

    M. Kaplinghat, S. Tulin, and H.-B. Yu,Dark Matter Halos as Particle Colliders: Unified Solution to Small-Scale Structure Puzzles from Dwarfs to Clusters, Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016), no. 4 041302, [arXiv:1508.03339]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [35]

    O. D. Elbert, J. S. Bullock, M. Kaplinghat, S. Garrison-Kimmel, A. S. Graus, and M. Rocha, A Testable Conspiracy: Simulating Baryonic Effects on Self-interacting Dark Matter Halos, apj 853 (Feb., 2018) 109, [arXiv:1609.08626]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Sagunski, S

    L. Sagunski, S. Gad-Nasr, B. Colquhoun, A. Robertson, and S. Tulin,Velocity-dependent Self-interacting Dark Matter from Groups and Clusters of Galaxies, JCAP 01 (2021) 024, [arXiv:2006.12515]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Tulin, H.-B

    S. Tulin, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek,Beyond Collisionless Dark Matter: Particle Physics Dynamics for Dark Matter Halo Structure, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013), no. 11 115007, [arXiv:1302.3898]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Bringmann, P

    T. Bringmann, P. F. Depta, M. Hufnagel, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg,Precise dark matter relic abundance in decoupled sectors, Phys. Lett. B817 (2021) 136341, [arXiv:2007.03696]. – 23 –

    2021 arXiv

  32. [39]

    A. Dery, J. A. Dror, L. Stephenson Haskins, Y. Hochberg, and E. Kuflik,Dark Matter in Very Supersymmetric Dark Sectors, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019), no. 9 095023, [arXiv:1901.02018]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [40]

    J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat, and H.-B. Yu,Halo Shape and Relic Density Exclusions of Sommerfeld-Enhanced Dark Matter Explanations of Cosmic Ray Excesses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 151301, [arXiv:0911.0422]

    2010 arXiv

  34. [41]

    M. R. Buckley and P. J. Fox,Dark Matter Self-Interactions and Light Force Carriers, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 083522, [arXiv:0911.3898]

    2010 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Kaplinghat, S

    M. Kaplinghat, S. Tulin, and H.-B. Yu,Direct Detection Portals for Self-interacting Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014), no. 3 035009, [arXiv:1310.7945]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Del Nobile, M

    E. Del Nobile, M. Kaplinghat, and H.-B. Yu,Direct Detection Signatures of Self-Interacting Dark Matter with a Light Mediator, JCAP 10 (2015) 055, [arXiv:1507.04007]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Bernal, X

    N. Bernal, X. Chu, C. Garcia-Cely, T. Hambye, and B. Zaldivar,Production Regimes for Self-Interacting Dark Matter, JCAP 03 (2016) 018, [arXiv:1510.08063]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Bringmann, F

    T. Bringmann, F. Kahlhoefer, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and P. Walia,Strong constraints on self-interacting dark matter with light mediators, Phys. Rev. Lett.118 (2017), no. 14 141802, [arXiv:1612.00845]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Cirelli, P

    M. Cirelli, P. Panci, K. Petraki, F. Sala, and M. Taoso,Dark Matter’s secret liaisons: phenomenology of a dark U(1) sector with bound states, JCAP 05 (2017) 036, [arXiv:1612.07295]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Kahlhoefer, K

    F. Kahlhoefer, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and S. Wild,Dark matter self-interactions from a general spin-0 mediator, JCAP 08 (2017) 003, [arXiv:1704.02149]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Hufnagel, K

    M. Hufnagel, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and S. Wild,BBN constraints on MeV-scale dark sectors. Part I. Sterile decays, JCAP 02 (2018) 044, [arXiv:1712.03972]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Hufnagel, K

    M. Hufnagel, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and S. Wild,BBN constraints on MeV-scale dark sectors. Part II. Electromagnetic decays, JCAP 11 (2018) 032, [arXiv:1808.09324]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Bernal, X

    N. Bernal, X. Chu, S. Kulkarni, and J. Pradler,Self-interacting dark matter without prejudice, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020), no. 5 055044, [arXiv:1912.06681]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Hambye and L

    T. Hambye and L. Vanderheyden,Minimal self-interacting dark matter models with light mediator, JCAP 05 (2020) 001, [arXiv:1912.11708]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [52]

    X. Chu, T. Hambye, and M. H. G. Tytgat,The Four Basic Ways of Creating Dark Matter Through a Portal, JCAP 05 (2012) 034, [arXiv:1112.0493]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [53]

    D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi,SU(2) x U(1) Breaking by Vacuum Misalignment, Phys. Lett. 136B (1984) 183–186

    1984

  47. [54]

    M. J. Dugan, H. Georgi, and D. B. Kaplan,Anatomy of a Composite Higgs Model, Nucl. Phys. B254 (1985) 299–326

    1985

  48. [55]

    Georgi and D

    H. Georgi and D. B. Kaplan,Composite Higgs and Custodial SU(2), Phys. Lett. B145 (1984) 216–220

    1984

  49. [56]

    Arkani-Hamed, A

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, and H. Georgi,Electroweak symmetry breaking from dimensional deconstruction, Phys. Lett. B513 (2001) 232–240, [hep-ph/0105239]

    2001 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Arkani-Hamed, A

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz, A. E. Nelson, T. Gregoire, and J. G. Wacker,The Minimal moose for a little Higgs, JHEP 08 (2002) 021, [hep-ph/0206020]. – 24 –

    2002 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Contino, Y

    R. Contino, Y. Nomura, and A. Pomarol,Higgs as a holographic pseudoGoldstone boson, Nucl. Phys. B671 (2003) 148–174, [hep-ph/0306259]

    2003 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Hosotani and M

    Y. Hosotani and M. Mabe,Higgs boson mass and electroweak-gravity hierarchy from dynamical gauge-Higgs unification in the warped spacetime, Phys. Lett. B615 (2005) 257–265, [hep-ph/0503020]

    2005 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Chacko, H.-S

    Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik,The Twin Higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett.96 (2006) 231802, [hep-ph/0506256]

    2006 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Alanne, H

    T. Alanne, H. Gertov, F. Sannino, and K. Tuominen,Elementary Goldstone Higgs boson and dark matter, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015), no. 9 095021, [arXiv:1411.6132]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Ma and G

    T. Ma and G. Cacciapaglia,Fundamental Composite 2HDM: SU(N) with 4 flavours, JHEP 03 (2016) 211, [arXiv:1508.07014]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [63]

    C. Cai, G. Cacciapaglia, and H.-H. Zhang,Vacuum alignment in a composite 2HDM, JHEP 01 (2019) 130, [arXiv:1805.07619]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Alanne, D

    T. Alanne, D. Buarque Franzosi, M. T. Frandsen, and M. Rosenlyst,Dark matter in (partially) composite Higgs models, JHEP 12 (2018) 088, [arXiv:1808.07515]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Cacciapaglia, H

    G. Cacciapaglia, H. Cai, A. Deandrea, and A. Kushwaha,Composite Higgs and Dark Matter Model in SU(6)/SO(6), arXiv:1904.09301

    1904 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Cacciapaglia, M

    G. Cacciapaglia, M. T. Frandsen, W.-C. Huang, M. Rosenlyst, and P. Sørensen, Techni-Composite Higgs models with (a)symmetric dark matter candidates, arXiv:2111.09319

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    D. B. Kaplan,Flavor at SSC energies: A New mechanism for dynamically generated fermion masses, Nucl. Phys. B365 (1991) 259–278

    1991

  61. [69]

    T. A. Ryttov and F. Sannino,Ultra Minimal Technicolor and its Dark Matter TIMP, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 115010, [arXiv:0809.0713]

    2008 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Witten,Current Algebra, Baryons, and Quark Confinement, Nucl

    E. Witten,Current Algebra, Baryons, and Quark Confinement, Nucl. Phys. B223 (1983) 433–444

    1983

  63. [71]

    D. A. Kosower,Symmetry breaking patterns in pseudoreal and real gauge theories, Phys. Lett. 144B (1984) 215–216

    1984

  64. [72]

    M. E. Peskin,The Alignment of the Vacuum in Theories of Technicolor, Nucl. Phys. B175 (1980) 197–233

    1980

  65. [73]

    Galloway, J

    J. Galloway, J. A. Evans, M. A. Luty, and R. A. Tacchi,Minimal Conformal Technicolor and Precision Electroweak Tests, JHEP 10 (2010) 086, [arXiv:1001.1361]

    2010 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Barnard, T

    J. Barnard, T. Gherghetta, and T. S. Ray,UV descriptions of composite Higgs models without elementary scalars, JHEP 02 (2014) 002, [arXiv:1311.6562]

    2014 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Ferretti and D

    G. Ferretti and D. Karateev,Fermionic UV completions of Composite Higgs models, JHEP 03 (2014) 077, [arXiv:1312.5330]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Alanne, N

    T. Alanne, N. Bizot, G. Cacciapaglia, and F. Sannino,Classification of NLO operators for composite Higgs models, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018), no. 7 075028, [arXiv:1801.05444]. – 25 –

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    M. T. Frandsen, S. Sarkar, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg,Light asymmetric dark matter from new strong dynamics, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 051703, [arXiv:1103.4350]

    2011 arXiv

  70. [78]

    de Blas, O

    J. de Blas, O. Eberhardt, and C. Krause,Current and Future Constraints on Higgs Couplings in the Nonlinear Effective Theory, JHEP 07 (2018) 048, [arXiv:1803.00939]

    2018 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Cacciapaglia, C

    G. Cacciapaglia, C. Pica, and F. Sannino,Fundamental Composite Dynamics: A Review, Phys. Rept. 877 (2020) 1–70, [arXiv:2002.04914]

    2020 arXiv

  72. [80]

    M. T. Frandsen and M. Rosenlyst,Electroweak precision tests of composite Higgs models, arXiv:2207.01465

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    C. T. Hill and E. H. Simmons,Strong Dynamics and Electroweak Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rept. 381 (2003) 235–402, [hep-ph/0203079]. [Erratum: Phys.Rept. 390, 553–554 (2004)]

    2003 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Arthur, V

    R. Arthur, V. Drach, M. Hansen, A. Hietanen, C. Pica, and F. Sannino,SU(2) gauge theory with two fundamental flavors: A minimal template for model building, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016), no. 9 094507, [arXiv:1602.06559]

    2016 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler,Chiral Perturbation Theory: Expansions in the Mass of the Strange Quark, Nucl. Phys. B250 (1985) 465–516

    1985

  76. [84]

    Manohar and H

    A. Manohar and H. Georgi,Chiral Quarks and the Nonrelativistic Quark Model, Nucl. Phys. B 234 (1984) 189–212

    1984

  77. [85]

    E. Aver, K. A. Olive, and E. D. Skillman,The effects of He Iλ10830 on helium abundance determinations, JCAP 07 (2015) 011, [arXiv:1503.08146]

    2015 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Peimbert, M

    A. Peimbert, M. Peimbert, and V. Luridiana,The primordial helium abundance and the number of neutrino families, Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrofis.52 (2016), no. 2 419–424, [arXiv:1608.02062]

    2016 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade et al.,Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.594 (2016) A13, [arXiv:1502.01589]

    2016 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Chacko, Y

    Z. Chacko, Y. Cui, S. Hong, and T. Okui,Hidden dark matter sector, dark radiation, and the CMB, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 055033, [arXiv:1505.04192]

    2015 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Hambye, M

    T. Hambye, M. H. G. Tytgat, J. Vandecasteele, and L. Vanderheyden,Dark matter from dark photons: a taxonomy of dark matter production, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019), no. 9 095018, [arXiv:1908.09864]

    2019 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Yamawaki,Dynamical symmetry breaking with large anomalous dimension, in14th Symposium on Theoretical Physics: Dynamical Symmetry Breaking and Effective Field Theory, 3, 1996

    K. Yamawaki,Dynamical symmetry breaking with large anomalous dimension, in14th Symposium on Theoretical Physics: Dynamical Symmetry Breaking and Effective Field Theory, 3, 1996. hep-ph/9603293

    1996 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Kondo, H

    K.-i. Kondo, H. Mino, and K. Yamawaki,Critical Line and Dilaton in Scale Invariant QED, Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 2430

    1989

  84. [92]

    ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, NATO Sci

    G. ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, NATO Sci. Ser. B59 (1980) 135–157. – 26 –

    1980

Pith tools

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