Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

The Light Neutralino Dark Matter in the Generalized Minimal Supergravity (GmSUGRA)

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the GmSUGRA model, the lightest neutralino can still be dark matter near 45–60 GeV, but only when the Higgsino mass parameter is negative.

desk verdict Useful sign-asymmetry update in GmSUGRA, but the Z-pole survival claim leans on an admitted LZ relaxation and the abstract oversells it; the H-pole result is the solid part. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12039 v1 pith:FOLEWAAT submitted 2025-01-21 hep-ph

Imtiaz Khan , Waqas Ahmed , Tianjun Li , Shabbar Raza , Ali Muhammad This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.60.Jv95.35.+d14.80.Ly
keywords lightneutralinodarkmatterGmSUGRAHiggsinoZpoleHiggsspin-independentscatteringLZexperiment
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 asks whether the lightest neutralino can still account for dark matter in the Generalized Minimal Supergravity (GmSUGRA) model after the latest LHC electroweakino searches and the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) direct-detection limits. It claims that for a positive Higgsino mass parameter $\mu>0$, the $Z$-boson and Higgs-boson pole solutions with light second neutralinos are excluded, while for negative $\mu<0$ such light Higgsinos survive. The surviving benchmark points have $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} \sim 45$ GeV (Z pole) and $\sim 60$ GeV (Higgs pole), with the heavier electroweakinos around 195–215 GeV. If this is correct, the $\mu<0$ branch of GmSUGRA is a concrete target for LHC Run-3 and for future LZ exposure, and a direct-detection signal in the Z pole would point to negative $\mu$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the sign-dependent interference in the spin-independent dark-matter–nucleon cross section. In the MSSM, for $\mu<0$, the contributions of the two CP-even Higgs bosons $h$ and $H$ to scattering off down-type quarks interfere destructively, lowering the cross section below the LZ limit; for $\mu>0$ they interfere constructively and push it above the limit. The paper's scan machinery is GmSUGRA boundary conditions, including the gaugino mass relation $M_3 = \frac{5}{2}M_1 - \frac{3}{2}M_2$, evolved with ISAJET from the GUT scale to the weak scale and sampled with the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm over the parameter ranges in Eq. (8). The interference term is what selects the $\mu<0$ benchmark points in Table I.

What would settle it

Search LHC Run-3 for chargino and neutralino pairs in the 175–215 GeV window: a confirmed signal would support the $\mu<0$ benchmarks, while an exclusion would falsify them. Independently, recompute the Z-pole benchmark against the published LZ limit without relaxation; if its spin-independent cross section exceeds the limit, the Z-pole survival rests on the relaxed treatment rather than on the cancellation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, within GmSUGRA, the sign of the Higgsino mass parameter decides whether a light thermal neutralino can still be the dark matter after current bounds. For $\mu>0$, the $Z$- and $H$-pole regions with $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}$ below roughly 350 GeV are excluded by the combination of LZ and electroweakino searches, leaving only heavy Higgsinos. For $\mu<0$, a narrow allowed band survives in both poles, with Table I giving $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}=48$ GeV and 58 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}=213$ GeV and 208 GeV, and charginos at 199 GeV and 195 GeV. The survival is caused by a cancellation between $h$ and $H$ exchange in spin-independent scattering that operates only for negative $\mu$. The paper also reports that these points give SUSY contributions to $(g-2)_\mu$ within about $2\sigma$ of the recent lattice calculation, so the sign that survives direct detection is also the sign that best tracks the muon anomaly.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Metropolis-Hastings scan gives representative coverage of the parameter space, so the absence of light-Higgsino points for $\mu>0$ and their presence for $\mu<0$ are physical and not sampling artifacts; the Z-pole survival also assumes the paper's slightly relaxed treatment of the LZ bound does not change the result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LHC Run-3 searches for chargino and neutralino pairs in the 175–215 GeV mass window can directly confirm or exclude the surviving $\mu<0$ light-Higgsino points.
  • With its full 1000-day exposure, LZ is expected to cover the Z-pole region, so continued running can test the 45 GeV solution.
  • A confirmed direct-detection signal at the Z pole would indicate $\mu<0$; at the H pole, only a light Higgsino would do so, while a heavy Higgsino would leave the sign of $\mu$ ambiguous.
  • The $\mu>0$ case is driven to heavy Higgsinos above roughly 850 GeV, so future electroweakino searches in that range would further separate the two signs.
  • The surviving points keep the SUSY contribution to $(g-2)_\mu$ within about $2\sigma$ of the lattice value, so the $\mu<0$ branch remains relevant to that anomaly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper keeps the LZ bound slightly relaxed when showing the Z pole; the 45 GeV benchmark should be rechecked against the published LZ limit in full, since that relaxation could be what lets the point survive.
  • A scan with explicit convergence diagnostics could settle whether the $\mu>0$ exclusion is complete; the paper does not report chain lengths, acceptance rates, or surviving point counts.
  • If LHC Run-3 finds the 175–215 GeV charginos but LZ reports no signal, the viable region would shift from the Z pole to the H pole, because the H-pole cross-sections sit below current LZ reach.
  • The same $h$-$H$ cancellation operates in any MSSM-like model, so the sign asymmetry found here is likely a general feature of light Higgsino dark matter, not an artifact of the specific GmSUGRA boundary conditions.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies light neutralino dark matter in the Generalized Minimal Supergravity (GmSUGRA) framework, focusing on the Z- and H-pole annihilation regions for both signs of the Higgsino mass parameter μ. Using a random scan with the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm and the ISAJET package, the authors apply LHC sparticle constraints, B-physics bounds, Higgs mass constraints, relic-density requirements, and direct-detection limits from LZ and other experiments. They report that for μ>0 the light-Higgsino Z- and H-pole regions are excluded, while for μ<0 a narrow set of light-Higgsino solutions remains in both poles, with benchmark points at mχ01≈48 GeV (Z pole) and ≈58 GeV (H pole). They also discuss the implications for the muon g−2 anomaly. The central claim is that μ<0 light Higgsinos remain consistent with current LZ and LHC electroweakino constraints.

Significance. If the μ<0 survival claim is correct, GmSUGRA would still accommodate a light thermal neutralino DM candidate in the 45–60 GeV mass range, providing a concrete target for LHC Run-3 searches in the 175–215 GeV chargino/neutralino window and for the LZ 1000-day exposure. The paper also gives a falsifiable prediction: a detected Z-pole DM signal would point to μ<0, while an H-pole signal with light Higgsinos would also favor μ<0. The use of a constrained GUT-scale framework with multiple low-energy constraints, the explicit benchmark points, and the identification of LHC/LZ testable regions are useful contributions. However, the manuscript does not provide scan-convergence diagnostics, so the statistical robustness of the exclusion/survival regions is not established. The most important issue is the admitted relaxation of the LZ bound for the Z-pole points that anchor the abstract's claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results and Discussion, paragraph on the Z pole; Fig. 3 caption and Table I] The text states: "we keep the LZ present bound a bit relaxed to see the picture more clearly in this region, as our Z pole is severely constraint by the LZ present bound for the solutions to satisfy the Planck2018 constraint (red solutions)." This directly contradicts the abstract's claim that light Higgsinos are "consistent with the current constraints from the electroweakino searches and LZ experiment in the Z and H poles." The red Z-pole points, including Point 1 in Table I (mχ01=48 GeV, σSI=1.3×10−11 pb), survive only because the published LZ limit was weakened; they are not consistent with the actual LZ 90% CL bound. The Fig. 3 caption labels red points as a subset of green "After LZ" points, which is internally inconsistent with the admitted relaxation. The authors should either remove the Z-pole survival claim from the central conclusion, present those points only as lying within the projected LZ 1000-day sensitivity, or quantify and physically justify the relaxation (e.g., by including theoretical uncertainties in the SI cross-section calculation).
  2. [Procedure of scanning and Eq. (8)] The scan uses the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm described in Ref. [52], but no convergence diagnostics are reported: there is no information about chain lengths, number of chains, acceptance rates, or the number of surviving points in each region. The central exclusion claim for μ>0 and the survival claim for μ<0 both assume that the scan provides representative coverage of the parameter ranges in Eq. (8). Without evidence of convergence, the absence of light μ>0 points and the presence of μ<0 points could be sampling artifacts rather than physical results. Please provide convergence tests (e.g., multiple chains with Gelman-Rubin statistics or a comparison of independent scans) or at least the sample sizes and acceptance rates for the relevant regions.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4 (g−2 discussion)] The abstract refers to "CMD and BDM," while the text refers to the BMW lattice result and the CMD-3 experiment; also the text says the SUSY contribution is consistent with CMD data up to 3σ, whereas the abstract says "up to 2σ." Please align the terminology and the stated significance.
  2. [Table I] The first entry in the μ row reads "-207,06" using a comma decimal separator, while the rest of the table uses a period (e.g., -201.32). This is presumably a typographical error for -207.06 and should be corrected for consistency.
  3. [General] There is a typo in the text "we present the results" appearing as "e present the results"; also "the data point have been collected" should be "data points have been collected." A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the GmSUGRA scan is constrained by external data, and the light-Higgsino survival claim is a scan output; the admitted LZ relaxation is a validity caveat for the Z-pole claim, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a random scan over GmSUGRA parameters in Eq. (8) followed by a sequence of external experimental and cosmological cuts (LEP, Higgs, B-physics, LHC sparticle limits, direct-detection bounds, and Planck relic density). The surviving red points are outputs of this selection, not inputs used to define the model, so the central claim about mu<0 light Higgsinos is not equivalent to the scan input by construction. The GmSUGRA framework is cited from the authors' own prior work ([43,44]), but that prior work defines the boundary conditions in Eqs. (1)-(7) without assuming the target light-neutralino result; these self-citations are therefore not load-bearing in a circular sense. The a_mu result is computed from the scanned spectra rather than fitted, so no fitting circularity is present. One in-scope limitation must be flagged: the text states, "we keep the LZ present bound a bit relaxed to see the picture more clearly in this region, as our Z pole is severely constraint by the LZ present bound for the solutions to satisfy the Planck2018 constraint (red solutions)." This explicitly weakens the LZ constraint for the Z-pole red points (e.g., Point 1: m_chi1^0 = 48 GeV, sigma_SI = 1.3e-11 pb), so labeling them "After LZ" in Fig. 3 and claiming Z-pole consistency with LZ in the abstract is not supported as stated. This is a validity or overclaim concern rather than a circular reduction, because the constraints are experimental data and the survival claim is not used to define the model or the scan ranges. Similarly, the absence of Metropolis-Hastings convergence diagnostics is a scan-coverage concern, not circularity. On balance, no prediction reduces to its own input by construction; the score of 2 reflects the minor self-citations in the model setup and the flagged limitation, without treating them as circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the GmSUGRA framework and the MSSM, on a set of scanned GUT-scale inputs, and on the accuracy of ISAJET for RGE running, relic density, and direct detection cross-sections. No parameters are fitted to target data, but the scan ranges and the explicit relaxation of the LZ bound in the Z-pole region are hand-chosen choices that affect the result. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • M1 (bino gaugino mass at GUT scale) = 99.34 GeV in Point 1; scan range 80-1000 GeV
    Gaugino mass input scanned over a range; not fitted to data, but the surviving point location depends on it.
  • M2 (wino gaugino mass at GUT scale) = 944.6 GeV in Point 1; scan range 100-1500 GeV
    Gaugino mass input; M3 is determined by Eq. (4).
  • tanβ = 26.2 in Point 1; scan range 2-60
    Ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values; scanned input.
  • Slepton mass inputs m_Ec and m_L = 787.2 and 166.3 GeV in Point 1
    Right- and left-handed slepton soft masses; chosen in the scan to produce light sleptons.
  • Remaining GUT-scale inputs (m_U0, m_Hu, m_Hd, A_E, A_U=A_D) = see Point 1 in Table I (m_U0=1977 GeV etc.)
    Scan inputs for sfermions and trilinears; central to the spectrum but not fitted to data.
  • LZ bound relaxation for Z-pole region = unspecified, described as 'a bit relaxed'
    The paper admits relaxing the LZ direct detection limit to show the Z-pole region; this hand-chosen adjustment weakens the consistency claim.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption R-parity conservation and neutralino LSP is the dark matter
    Invoked in the Introduction via refs [7,8]; makes the lightest neutralino stable and the DM candidate.
  • domain assumption GmSUGRA GUT-scale boundary conditions (Eqs. 1-4), with k=5/3 and M3 determined as 5/2 M1 - 3/2 M2
    Defines the model framework from refs [43,44]; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Radiative electroweak symmetry breaking (REWSB) selects viable points
    Used in the scanning procedure to discard points without proper EWSB.
  • domain assumption ISAJET 7.85 two-loop MSSM RGEs and IsaTools routines for cross-sections and relic density are accurate
    The entire scan depends on these unverified code outputs.
  • domain assumption For μ<0, the spin-independent direct detection cross-section is suppressed by cancellation between h and H contributions to down-quark scattering
    Quoted from refs [61,62] and relied on to explain the survival of light Higgsinos; the paper does not derive it.
  • domain assumption Standard thermal relic cosmology computes Ωh^2 from annihilation cross-sections
    The Planck2018 relic density constraint is applied assuming standard freeze-out.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Light Neutralino Dark Matter in the Generalized Minimal Supergravity (GmSUGRA)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FOLEWAAT

@misc{pith2026250112039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Light Neutralino Dark Matter in the Generalized Minimal Supergravity (GmSUGRA)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FOLEWAAT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12039}
}
abstract

We investigate both the $Z$ and $H$ poles solutions for the Higgsino mass parameter $\mu>0$ and $\mu<0$ for the neutralino dark matter in light of the LHC supersymmetry searches and the direct detection dark matter experiments, LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ), in the Generalized Minimal Supergravity (GmSUGRA). Our study indicates that the latest experimental constraints from the LHC and LZ Collaborations exclude the light Higgsinos in the $Z$ and $H$ pole regions for the $\mu>0$ case. Interestingly, for the $\mu < 0$ case, a very light Higgsinos can still be consistent with the current constraints from the electroweakino searches and LZ experiment in the $Z$ and $H$ poles. Consequently, the $\mu < 0$ case appears more promising and thus requires the dedicated efforts to make definitive conclusions about their current status from the experimental Collaborations. In this framework, our findings indicate a deviation of up to $2\sigma$ from the central value of \( a_\mu \equiv (g-2)_\mu/2 \), resonating with the experimental results reported by CMD and BDM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12039 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: We present [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: As a function of the LSP neutralino DM, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: As a function of the LSP neutralino DM, the SI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: As a function of the LSP neutralino DM and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

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. Revisiting the Realistic Intersecting D6-Brane Model with positive and negative {\mu} Terms

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A scan of an intersecting D6-brane Pati-Salam model finds viable supersymmetric spectra for both mu signs, with dark matter from coannihilation and Higgs resonance mechanisms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [52]

    The Electroweak Supersymmetry (EWSUSY) from the GmSUGRA in the MSSM

    T. Li and S. Raza, Phys. Rev. D 91, no.5, 055016 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.055016 [arXiv:1409.3930 [hep- ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  2. [1]

    This process provides an addi- tional DM signature within the Higgs sector. Extensive research has investigated the potential of light neutralino DM in the Phenomenological MSSM (pMSSM) and Con- strained MSSM (cMSSM) and, taking into account differ- ent experimental constraints available back then[18–27]. Recent findings from collider experiments, such as...

    arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    We anticipate that the LZ experiment, with a 1000- day exposure, will probe this region in the near future. Fig. 1 highlights the impact of electroweakino searches, which impose a lower limit of m ˜χ0 2 ≳ 850 GeV for the µ >0 scenario. Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 mU0 1977 1897 1891 1061 M1, M2, M3 99.34,944.6,-1168.5 124.6, 962.7, -1132.6 127.7, 1024,...

    work page 1977

  4. [3]

    Before LZ

    Notably, the ATLAS’s analysis has extended sensitivity to higher mass regions, especially with the incorporation of hadronic final states. We apply con- straints to explore our parameter space through a series of sequential steps. First, referred to as “Before LZ” (orange points), we incorporate the constraints from various sources including LEP, the cons...

    work page

  5. [4]

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, Phys. Rev. D 11, 2558 (1975) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.11.2558

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.11.2558 1975

  6. [5]

    Consequently, the lighter hig- gsinos exhibit smaller values of the SD DM cross-section compared to their heavier counterparts, leading to the emergence of two distinct red solutions in the H pole re- gion in the lower plot of Fig. 3. It is important to note that detecting a DM signal in the Z pole from DD ex- periments would probably suggest µ negative w...

    work page

  7. [6]

    Dimopoulos, S

    S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1681-1683 (1981) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1681; U. Amaldi, W. de Boer and H. Furstenau, Phys. Lett. B 260, 447-455 (1991) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)91641- 8; J. R. Ellis, S. Kelley and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 260, 131-137 (1991) doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(91)90980-5; P. Langacker, J. Phys. G 29, 35...

    work page arXiv 1981

  8. [7]

    Georgi and S

    H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1494 (1972) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.1494

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.28.1494 1972

Show all 72 references
  1. [8]

    J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D 10, 275-289 (1974) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 11, 703-703 (1975)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.275

    1974 doi

  2. [9]

    Slavich, S

    P. Slavich, S. Heinemeyer, E. Bagnaschi, H. Bahl, M. Goodsell, H. E. Haber, T. Hahn, R. Harlander, W. Hollik and G. Lee, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.5, 450 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09198-2 [arXiv:2012.15629 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Fritzsch and P

    H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Annals Phys. 93, 193-266 (1975) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(75)90211-0

    1975 doi

  4. [11]

    Georgi, AIP Conf

    H. Georgi, AIP Conf. Proc. 23, 575-582 (1975) doi:10.1063/1.2947450

    1975 doi

  5. [12]

    Goldberg, Phys

    H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1419 (1983) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 099905 (2009)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.1419; J. R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B 238, 453-476 (1984) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90461-9

    1983 doi

  6. [13]

    Jungman, M

    For reviews, see G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. 267, 195-373 (1996) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(95)00058-5 [arXiv:hep- ph/9506380 [hep-ph]]; K. A. Olive, [arXiv:astro- ph/0301505 [astro-ph]]; J. L. Feng, eConf C0307282, L11 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0405215 [hep-p...

    1996

  7. [14]

    CMS Collaboration, CMS PAS SUS-19-006

  8. [15]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2019-040

    2019

  9. [16]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.8, 737 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8102-8 [arXiv:2004.14060 [hep-ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], JHEP 12, 060 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2019)060 [arXiv:1908.03122 [hep- ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    CMS Collaboration, CMS PAS SUS-19-005

  12. [19]

    Djouadi, P

    A. Djouadi, P. Janot, J. Kalinowski and P. M. Zer- was, Phys. Lett. B376 (1996), 220-226 doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(96)00414-5 [arXiv:hep-ph/9603368 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Ahmed, I

    W. Ahmed, I. Khan, T. Li, S. Raza and W. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 832 (2022), 137216 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137216 [arXiv:2202.11011 [hep-ph]]

    2022

  14. [21]

    Zhang, W

    W. Zhang, W. Ahmed, I. Khan, T. Li and S. Raza, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.5, 055006 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.055006 [arXiv:2304.01082 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    I. Khan, W. Ahmed, T. Li and S. Raza, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no.7, 075051 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.075051 [arXiv:2312.07863 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Griest and H

    K. Griest and H. E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D 37, 719 (1988) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.37.719

    1988 doi

  17. [24]

    J. Cao, Y. He, L. Shang, W. Su and Y. Zhang, JHEP 03 (2016), 207 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2016)207 [arXiv:1511.05386 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Hooper and T

    D. Hooper and T. Plehn, Phys. Lett. B 562 (2003), 18-27 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00548-3 [arXiv:hep- ph/0212226 [hep-ph]]

    2003

  19. [26]

    Calibbi, J

    L. Calibbi, J. M. Lindert, T. Ota and Y. Takan- ishi, JHEP 10 (2013), 132 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)132 [arXiv:1307.4119 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [27]

    T. Han, Z. Liu and S. Su, JHEP 08 (2014), 093 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2014)093 [arXiv:1406.1181 [hep- ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Hamaguchi and K

    K. Hamaguchi and K. Ishikawa, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.5, 055009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.055009 [arXiv:1510.05378 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [29]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 04 (2021), 123 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2021)123 [arXiv:2012.08600 [hep- ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Pozzo and Y

    G. Pozzo and Y. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 789 (2019), 582-591 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.062 [arXiv:1807.01476 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Wang and J

    K. Wang and J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.9, 095028 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.095028 [arXiv:2003.01662 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Van Beekveld, W

    M. Van Beekveld, W. Beenakker, M. Schutten and J. De Wit, SciPost Phys. 11 (2021) no.3, 049 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.11.3.049 [arXiv:2104.03245 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) no.5, 051801 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.051801 [arXiv:2002.12223 [hep-ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. [XENON], Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) no.11, 111302 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.111302 [arXiv:1805.12562 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.12, 1118 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09749-7 [arXiv:2106.01676 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.11, 112010 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.112010 [arXiv:2108.07586 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Lett. B 842 (2023), 137460 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137460 [arXiv:2205.09597 [hep-ex]]

    2023

  31. [38]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], JHEP 08 (2022), 104 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)104 [arXiv:2202.07953 [hep- ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Huang et al

    Z. Huang et al. [PandaX], Phys. Lett. B 834 (2022), 137487 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137487 [arXiv:2208.03626 [hep-ex]]

    2022

  33. [40]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. [XENON], Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) no.14, 141301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.141301 [arXiv:1902.03234 [astro-ph.CO]]. 8

    2019 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Amole et al

    C. Amole et al. [PICO], Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.2, 022001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.022001 [arXiv:1902.04031 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Meng et al.[PandaX-4T], Phys

    Y. Meng et al.[PandaX-4T], Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) no.26, 261802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.261802 [arXiv:2107.13438 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. [LZ], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.4, 041002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002 [arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Balazs, T

    C. Balazs, T. Li, D. V. Nanopoulos and F. Wang, JHEP 09, 003 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2010)003 [arXiv:1006.5559 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  38. [45]

    R. K. Barman, G. B´ elanger, B. Bhat- tacherjee, R. M. Godbole and R. Sengupta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.1, 011802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.011802 [arXiv:2207.06238 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [46]

    D. P. Aguillard et al. [Muon g-2], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.16, 161802 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.161802 [arXiv:2308.06230 [hep-ex]]

    2023

  40. [47]

    Ahmed, I

    W. Ahmed, I. Khan, J. Li, T. Li, S. Raza and W. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 827 (2022), 136879 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136879 [arXiv:2104.03491 [hep-ph]]

    2022

  41. [48]

    Li and D

    T. Li and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 692, 121-125 (2010) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.07.024 [arXiv:1002.4183 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [49]

    H. Baer, F. E. Paige, S. D. Protopopescu and X. Tata, [arXiv:hep-ph/0001086 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  43. [50]

    Cheng, J

    T. Cheng, J. Li, T. Li, D. V. Nanopoulos and C. Tong, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2322 (2013) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 013-2322-0 [arXiv:1202.6088 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Cheng and T

    T. Cheng and T. Li, Phys. Rev. D 88, 015031 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.015031 [arXiv:1305.3214 [hep- ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hisano, H

    J. Hisano, H. Murayama and T. Yanagida, Nucl. Phys. B 402, 46-84 (1993) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90636-4 [arXiv:hep-ph/9207279 [hep-ph]]; Y. Yamada, Z. Phys. C 60, 83-94 (1993) doi:10.1007/BF01650433

    1993 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS and CMS Collaborations], JHEP 1608, 045 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)045 [arXiv:1606.02266 [hep-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    [CDF and D0], [arXiv:0903.2503 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Gogoladze, R

    I. Gogoladze, R. Khalid, S. Raza and Q. Shafi, JHEP 06, 117 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)117 [arXiv:1102.0013 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and R. K. Singh, JHEP 11, 026 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2009/11/026 [arXiv:0906.5048 [hep-ph]]. H. Baer, S. Kraml, S. Sekmen and H. Summy, JHEP 03, 056 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/056 [arXiv:0801.1831 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  50. [58]

    R. L. Workman et al.[Particle Data Group], PTEP2022, 083C01 (2022) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptac097

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    1: We present m ˜χ0 1 -m ˜χ0 2 plane for the positive µ (upper) and negative µ (lower)

    measurement In short, we choose m˜g ≥ 2.2 TeV, met1 ≳ 1.25 TeV, meb1 ≳ 1.5 TeV , (9) meq ≳ 2 TeV, mh = 122 − 128 GeV , (10) 0.114 ≤ ΩCDMh2(Planck2018) ≤ 0.126 (5σ) , (11) 0.15 ≤ BR(Bu → τ ντ )MSSM BR(Bu → τ ντ )SM ≤ 2.41 (3σ) , (12) 2.99 × 10−4 ≤ BR(b → sγ) ≤ 3.87 × 10−4 (2σ) ...

  52. [60]

    B. C. Allanach, A. Djouadi, J. L. Kneur, W. Porod and P. Slavich, JHEP 0409, 044 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2004/09/044

    2004 doi

  53. [61]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, no. 2, 021801 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.021801 [arXiv:1211.2674 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Amhis et al

    Y. Amhis et al. [HFLA V], [arXiv:1207.1158 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Asner et al

    D. Asner et al. [HFLA V], [arXiv:1010.1589 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 [arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    H. Baer, C. Balazs and A. Belyaev, JHEP 03, 042 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/03/042 [arXiv:hep- ph/0202076 [hep-ph]]

    2002

  58. [66]

    J. R. Ellis, A. Ferstl and K. A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 481 (2000), 304-314 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00459-7 [arXiv:hep-ph/0001005 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  59. [67]

    H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev and J. O’Farrill, JCAP 09 (2003), 007 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2003/09/007 [arXiv:hep-ph/0305191 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. [Muon g-2], Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, no.14, 141801 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141801 [arXiv:2104.03281 [hep-ex]]

    2021

  61. [69]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, L. Lellouch, T. Lippert, K. Miura, L. Parato and K. K. Szabo, et al.Nature 593, no.7857, 51-55 (2021) doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03418-1 [arXiv:2002.12347 [hep- lat]]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Kuberski, PoS LA TTICE2023, 125 (2024) doi:10.22323/1.453.0125 [arXiv:2312.13753 [hep-lat]]

    S. Kuberski, PoS LA TTICE2023, 125 (2024) doi:10.22323/1.453.0125 [arXiv:2312.13753 [hep-lat]]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    F. V. Ignatov et al. [CMD-3], Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, no.23, 231903 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.231903 [arXiv:2309.12910 [hep-ex]]

    2024

  64. [72]

    Davier, A

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, A. M. Lutz, B. Malaescu and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.7, 721 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12964-7 [arXiv:2312.02053 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.