Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 38 references

Various constraints on BSM physics from extensive air showers and from ultra-high energy gamma-ray and neutrino searches

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray searches now place quantitative exclusion bounds on several beyond-Standard-Model parameters, from Lorentz-violating coefficients to gravitino dark-matter couplings and cosmic-string tension.

desk verdict A faithful, well-organized proceedings review of current UHECR-based BSM constraints; no new results, but a useful map with a few small editorial warts. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19322 v1 pith:CJGE55AA submitted 2025-01-31 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

O. Deligny This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords ultra-high-energycosmicraysextensiveairshowersLorentzinvarianceviolationStandardModelExtensionsuperheavydarkmatterstringssterileneutrinosupward-going
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

Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays are the only particles available for probing scales well above a few tens of TeV, and this review collects what their observed silence currently rules out. The paper argues that concrete beyond-Standard-Model setups—Lorentz invariance violation, superheavy dark matter, cosmic strings, and sterile neutrinos—can be tested through air-shower observables and diffuse gamma-ray and neutrino fluxes. Its central message is that existing data already fix quantitative exclusion ranges, such as $\eta_{\pi^0 1} > -6\times 10^{-6}$ at 90% confidence and $-6\times 10^{-21} < \kappa < 3\times 10^{-20}$ at 98% confidence, and that the upgraded Auger observatory will decide whether a sub-dominant proton component reopens the case for new physics at the highest energies. The reader should take the paper as the current map of what a viable BSM model must survive.

What carries the argument

Extensive air showers act as the calorimeter that converts Lorentz violation into measurable changes: neutral pions that stay stable keep feeding hadronic sub-showers, which lowers the relative fluctuation of the muon number, while faster photon propagation or vacuum Cherenkov emission makes the shower maximum shallower. The second load-bearing mechanism is fragmentation: a superheavy particle decaying at high energy produces cascades of Standard Model particles whose prompt gamma-ray and neutrino fluxes are computed from QCD and electroweak fragmentation functions, and the absence of these fluxes above observed limits yields the dark-matter, cosmic-string, and sterile-neutrino constraints. For upward-going events, the rising Standard Model neutrino-nucleon cross section makes the Earth a filter, and any event emerging from below must be compared with the predicted small background from mis-reconstructed UHECR showers.

What would settle it

Compare two hadronic-interaction models at $10^{19}$ eV: if the predicted relative muon-number fluctuation changes by as much as the difference between the excluded and allowed curves in Fig. 1, the $\eta_{\pi^0 1}$ bound would have to be re-derived. A direct check is a future measurement of muon-number fluctuations at the upgraded Auger observatory with an independently determined composition, which would either confirm the optimal proton/iron mixture or break the assumption behind bound (2).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working within the Standard Model Extension, the paper establishes that air-shower measurements exclude negative values of the leading Lorentz-violating neutral-pion coefficient below $\eta_{\pi^0 1}\simeq-6\times10^{-6}$ at 90% CL, because such values suppress $\pi^0$ decay and reduce the relative muon-number fluctuations below what Auger observes. The shower depth and the absence of vacuum Cherenkov radiation and photon decay constrain the isotropic CPT-even QED parameter to $-6\times10^{-21}<\kappa<3\times10^{-20}$ at 98% CL. For decaying superheavy gravitino dark matter, requiring the associated gamma-ray and neutrino fluxes to stay below observed limits gives an R-parity-violating coupling bound $\mu' \lesssim 10^{-5}(M_{3/2}/10^8\,\mathrm{GeV})^{-2}\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and cosmic-string models with moduli emission become observable only for tensions $G\mu \lesssim 10^{-20}$. The Auger search for upward-going showers, with expected background $0.27\pm0.12$ events, excludes a physics origin for the two ANITA anomalous events under $E^{-1}$ and $E^{-2}$ spectra. As a review, the paper's contribution is to state these exclusions as the current quantitative constraints that BSM models must pass.

Load-bearing premise

The bounds depend on the assumption that air-shower Monte Carlo simulations, together with an optimal proton/iron mixture at each energy, correctly predict the relative muon-number fluctuations and the depth of shower maximum at ultra-high energies; if the simulations mis-model hadronic interactions, the quoted Lorentz-violation limits would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any BSM model that induces a negative $\eta_{\pi^0 1}$ below $-6\times10^{-6}$ is excluded at 90% CL by the observed muon-content fluctuations.
  • If cosmic strings emit moduli that decay to gluons, the predicted neutrino flux has a sharp rise above the cosmogenic floor, so a detection at Auger or a next-generation detector would probe tensions down to $G\mu\simeq10^{-20}$.
  • R-parity-violating gravitino dark matter must satisfy $\mu'\lesssim10^{-5}(M_{3/2}/10^8\,\mathrm{GeV})^{-2}\,\mathrm{GeV}$ to keep the resulting ultra-high-energy gamma-ray and neutrino fluxes within current limits.
  • The Auger upward-going limits exclude a physics origin for the ANITA anomalous events under simple $E^{-1}$ and $E^{-2}$ spectra, so any BSM explanation must alter the spectral assumption or the propagation.
  • A future measurement of mass composition at the upgraded Auger observatory will determine whether the sub-dominant proton component required in some scenarios remains a viable place for BSM physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The author leaves implicit that the muon-fluctuation observable could also bound Lorentz violation in the charged-pion or photon sector, since any shifted threshold that changes the hadronic-to-electromagnetic balance of the shower affects the same measured quantity.
  • A testable extension of the $\kappa$ analysis would be to use the shower width in addition to $X_{\mathrm{max}}$, because electromagnetic-subshower development leaves a wider fingerprint than a single depth value.
  • The cosmic-string prediction could be sharpened by fitting gamma-ray and neutrino limits jointly, since moduli decaying to gluons produce photons and neutrinos from the same quark-gluon cascade and the two channels are not independent.
  • The same Earth-emergence geometry that excludes the ANITA events can be reused to search for deca-GeV sterile neutrinos from a bright transient such as GRB 221009A, and the paper's sensitivity estimate for POEMMA indicates this would be competitive with long-lived-particle experiments.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is the written version of a UHECR2024 proceedings talk. It reviews constraints on BSM physics obtained from ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray air showers and from ultra-high-energy gamma-ray and neutrino searches. The review covers: Lorentz invariance violation via the neutral-pion LIV coefficient eta_pi01 and the isotropic non-birefringent QED coefficient kappa; superheavy dark matter, especially gravitino dark matter with R-parity-violating decays; cosmic-string cusp emission of moduli and the associated neutrino fluxes; and upward-going air-shower searches, including the interpretation of the ANITA anomalous events and future sterile-neutrino sensitivity with POEMMA. No new calculations are presented; the paper compiles and restates published results, with the main constraints being Eq. (2) for eta_pi01, Eq. (6) for kappa, Eq. (14) for mu', Eq. (16) for G mu as a projected sensitivity, and the Auger upward-going flux limits in Section 6.

Significance. As a review, the paper is useful and appropriate for its venue: it anchors each constraint to a concrete model parameter, gives the relevant scaling relations and confidence levels, and names the original analyses. It also correctly distinguishes existing exclusion bounds (Eqs. 2, 6, 14, and the Auger upward-going limits) from future detection prospects (Eq. 16 and Fig. 6). The review is a convenient entry point for model builders who need current UHECR-based limits. Its limitations are largely those of the cited analyses rather than of the review's internal logic; in particular, the muon-fluctuation and Xmax constraints in Section 2 inherit the hadronic-interaction and composition assumptions of Refs. [8]-[10]. I do not regard this inheritance as an error in the manuscript, but an explicit caveat would improve the accuracy of the review for readers who use it as a constraints compendium.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2)] The sentence introducing Eq. (2) says the constraints were 'obtained in a robust way', but the 90% CL bound depends on the hadronic interaction models used in the air-shower simulations and on the assumption that the optimal proton/iron mixture brackets the true composition at each energy. Please add a sentence stating this model dependence explicitly and directing the reader to Ref. [8] for the treatment of these systematics.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (11)] Eq. (11) evaluates to 2e8 GeV only if M_P is the reduced Planck mass, whereas Eq. (1) defines M_P as 'the Planck mass' without qualification. Please state the convention for M_P at first use; otherwise the numerical value in Eq. (11) is not reproducible as written.
  3. [Section 6] The sentence 'These limits are stringent enough to exclude a physics origin of the two anomalous ANITA events' is stronger than the preceding material supports. The quoted Auger upper limits are derived for an assumed isotropic flux with E^-1 or E^-2 spectra; beamed or transient sources are not excluded by those numbers. Please qualify the conclusion as excluding the corresponding isotropic, power-law flux interpretations rather than 'a physics origin' in general.
  4. [Section 2.2, footnote 2] The caveat that the primary must reach Earth without radiating is essential to the validity of the kappa bound in Eq. (6). Please move this caveat from the footnote into the main text so that it is not easily missed by readers.
  5. [Section 5, Eq. (16)] Eq. (16) appears as if it were an existing exclusion bound, while the text correctly states that it is a detection prospect ('would make it possible to probe'). Adding 'projected' or 'would be probed' to the equation or its surrounding sentence would prevent misreading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review compiles externally derived constraints, and its self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a conference proceedings review that reports constraints obtained in prior publications, chiefly the Pierre Auger Collaboration result [8], Duenkel et al. [9,10], Dudas et al. [31], Berezinsky et al. [34], and the Auger upward-going search [37]; none of these constraints is re-derived in the text from the experimental data or from the self-cited works. The two self-citations, Deligny [16] and Berat et al. [35], are used only to motivate the possible relevance of synchrotron emission from superheavy dark matter and to display a benchmark cosmogenic neutrino floor in Figure 5; they are not used to derive any of the reviewed bounds. Equation (2) is presented as the published 90% confidence-level result of [8], obtained by comparing simulated relative muon-number fluctuations to Auger data, and the composition choice is explicitly a conservative maximization rather than a fitted prediction. Similarly, Eq. (6) is quoted from [9,10], Eq. (14) from [32,33], and Eq. (16) from [34]. The paper's caveats, such as footnote 2 concerning primaries reaching Earth without radiating and the reliance on hadronic interaction models, are assumptions inherited from the underlying analyses, but they do not make the reviewed constraints circular. No equation in the manuscript reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no load-bearing claim depends on a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters, axioms, or entities of its own: it is a review. All numbers and entities are inherited from the cited literature. The free parameters listed are the reviewed constraint values that constitute the paper's content, each traced to its source analysis. The axioms are the physical and modeling premises on which the reviewed constraints rest, notably the SME framework, the reliability of air-shower simulations, the gravitino dark matter scenario, the cosmic-string cusp and modulus emission model, and SM neutrino cross sections plus the minimal sterile-neutrino Lagrangian. Invented entities: none by this paper; the gravitino, sterile neutrino, moduli, and cosmic strings reviewed here are all imported from the cited models.

free parameters (4)
  • eta_pi01 (first-order LIV coefficient for neutral pions) = > -6e-6 (90% CL)
    Reported constraint from air-shower simulations compared with Auger muon-number data [8]; the proton/iron mixture chosen to maximize muon fluctuations is a composition ansatz that shapes the bound.
  • kappa (isotropic, non-birefringent CPT-even QED coefficient) = -6e-21 to 3e-20 (98% CL)
    Constraint propagated from Auger Xmax data [9] and from photon-decay and pion-stability signatures [10]; reported, not fitted, in this paper.
  • mu' (R-parity-violating bilinear coupling in gravitino decay) = <~ 1e-5 (M_3/2 / 1e8 GeV)^-2 GeV
    Equation (14) summarizes flux-limit constraints from [32, 33]; the value depends on fragmentation and secondary spectra of gravitino decay.
  • G mu (cosmic string tension) = < 1e-20 (prospective sensitivity)
    Drawn from the modulus-emission model of [34] together with current neutrino flux limits (Fig. 5); the neutrino flux scales as (G mu)^3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model Extension provides a consistent EFT for Lorentz violation, with dispersion relation (1) parameterizing Planck-suppressed effects.
    Sections 2.1 and 2.2 rely on the SME and Coleman-Glashow frameworks [5, 6, 7] to translate the absence of anomalous shower signatures into bounds on eta and kappa.
  • domain assumption Air-shower Monte Carlo simulations correctly predict relative muon-number fluctuations and Xmax for given primaries and LIV parameters.
    Section 2.1 and Fig. 1: the eta_pi01 bound follows from comparing simulated muon fluctuations with Auger data; if simulations mispredict fluctuations, the bound fails.
  • domain assumption The gravitino is the lightest supersymmetric particle, is the dark matter, and has tiny R-parity violation; its mass and reheating history follow [31].
    Section 4: the gravitino scenario and Eqs. (11) through (13) are inherited from [31], including the inflaton mass M_phi ~ 3e13 GeV used as input.
  • domain assumption Cosmic-string cusps emit moduli that decay to gluons, with the neutrino flux model of [34] as used in Eq. (15).
    Section 5: the G mu < 1e-20 sensitivity depends on the cusp-burst rate and modulus-emission model of [34].
  • domain assumption For upward-going showers, SM neutrino cross sections and the minimal sterile-neutrino Lagrangian (17) govern Earth propagation and decay.
    Section 6: the POEMMA sensitivity projection and the ANITA-exclusion conclusion rely on these physics inputs and the assumed E^-1 and E^-2 spectra.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Various constraints on BSM physics from extensive air showers and from ultra-high energy gamma-ray and neutrino searches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJGE55AA

@misc{pith2026250119322,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Various constraints on BSM physics from extensive air showers and from ultra-high energy gamma-ray and neutrino searches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJGE55AA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19322}
}
read the original abstract

Various phenomena of physics beyond that of the Standard Model could occur at high scale. Ultra-high energy cosmic rays are the only particles available to explore scales above a few dozens of TeV. Although these explorations are much more limited than those carried out with colliders, they provide a series of constraints in several topics such as tests of Lorentz invariance, dark matter, phase transitions in the early universe or sterile neutrinos. Several of these constraints are reviewed in these proceedings of UHECR2024 based on searches for anomalous characteristics in extensive air showers or searches for ultra-high energy gamma rays and neutrinos.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.19322 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relative fluctuations in the number of muons in EAS as a function of energy as measured at the Pierre Auger Observatory. Expectations from negative values of 𝜂𝜋 01 are shown as the colored curves. From [8]. Lorentz-violating effects can be abrupt or gradual. Among abrupt ones is the suppression of the 𝜋 0 decay into two photons above some threshold that depends on negative values of 𝜂𝜋 0𝑛 . Conversely, the photon de… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cartoon illustration of fragmentation. Current limits on ultra-high￾energy gamma rays and neutrinos fluxes are especially well suited to constrain high-scale BSM physics. Indeed, due to fragmentation effects for particles with mass much larger than the electroweak scale and a for￾tiori the QCD transition scale, high and ultra-high energy particles, in￾cluding nucleons, electrons, neutrinos and photons, are expected … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Viable values of Yukawa-like coupling of in￾flaton to matter and of gravitino mass to match the relic density of DM, for different values of branching ratio of inflaton decay to gravitinos. From [31]. In this scenario, the gravitino could be created in two ways. The first one is through thermal production in the s-channel via the gluon+gluon → gravitino+gravitino process, which is the only one allowed kine￾matically… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cartoon illustration of cusp annihilation. Under certain circumstances, yet, the energy stored in the unbroken vac￾uum phase can be liberated in the form of high-scale quanta of the fields. This is the case in particular when the dy￾namics of the strings leads to “cusp…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energy flux of neutrinos (single flavor) expected from cosmic-ray interactions in the milky way (“Milky Way”) or from various source environments that fit with the minimal model explaining the Auger data above 109.7 GeV (“Min. model sce￾narios”) [35]. Upper limits from…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sensitivity at 99.7% confidence level of POEMMA to sterile neutrinos for an emergence angle of 60◦ and considering a Gamma Ray Burst similar to GRB221009A located at a distance 𝐷. From [38]. The claim from ANITA has at￾tracted much attention from particle physics theor…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Pierre Augercollaboration, Constraining Lorentz Invariance Violation using the muon content of extensive air showers measured at the Pierre Auger Observatory, PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 340

    work page 2021

  2. [16]

    Deligny,Superheavy dark matter within the seesaw framework, 2408.17111

    O. Deligny,Superheavy dark matter within the seesaw framework, 2408.17111

    work page arXiv

  3. [35]

    Berat, A

    C. Berat, A. Condorelli, O. Deligny, F. Montanet and Z. Torres,Floor of Cosmogenic Neutrino Fluxes above 1017 eV,Astrophys. J.966 (2024) 186 [2402.04759]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [10]

    Duenkel, M

    F. Duenkel, M. Niechciol and M. Risse,Photon decay in ultrahigh-energy air showers: Stringent bound on Lorentz violation, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 015010 [2106.01012]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [1]

    Luders,On the Equivalence of Invariance under Time Reversal and under Particle-Antiparticle Conjugation for Relativistic Field Theories, Kong

    G. Luders,On the Equivalence of Invariance under Time Reversal and under Particle-Antiparticle Conjugation for Relativistic Field Theories, Kong. Dan. Vid. Sel. Mat. Fys. Med.28N5(1954) 1

    work page 1954

  6. [2]

    Jost,A remark on the C.T.P

    R. Jost,A remark on the C.T.P. theorem, Helv. Phys. Acta30(1957) 409

    work page 1957

  7. [3]

    Schwinger,Spin, statistics, and the TCP theorem, Proc

    J.S. Schwinger,Spin, statistics, and the TCP theorem, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.44 (1958) 223

    work page 1958

  8. [4]

    Kostelecky and S

    V.A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel,Spontaneous Breaking of Lorentz Symmetry in String Theory,Phys. Rev. D39(1989) 683

    1989

Show all 38 references
  1. [5]

    Colladay and V.A

    D. Colladay and V.A. Kostelecky,Lorentz violating extension of the standard model, Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 116002 [hep-ph/9809521]

    1998 arXiv

  2. [6]

    Coleman and S.L

    S.R. Coleman and S.L. Glashow,High-energy tests of Lorentz invariance, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 116008 [hep-ph/9812418]

    1999 arXiv

  3. [7]

    Aloisio, P

    R. Aloisio, P. Blasi, P.L. Ghia and A.F. Grillo,Probing the structure of space-time with cosmic rays, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 053010 [astro-ph/0001258]. 11 Constraints on BSM physics Olivier Deligny

    2000 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Duenkel, M

    F. Duenkel, M. Niechciol and M. Risse,New bound on Lorentz violation based on the absence of vacuum Cherenkov radiation in ultrahigh energy air showers, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 083004 [2303.05849]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Sarkar and R

    S. Sarkar and R. Toldra,The High-energy cosmic ray spectrum from relic particle decay, Nucl. Phys. B621 (2002) 495 [hep-ph/0108098]

    2002 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Barbot and M

    C. Barbot and M. Drees,Detailed analysis of the decay spectrum of a super heavy X particle, Astropart. Phys.20(2003) 5 [hep-ph/0211406]

    2003 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Aloisio, V

    R. Aloisio, V. Berezinsky and M. Kachelriess,Fragmentation functions in SUSY QCD and UHECR spectra produced in top-down models, Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 094023 [hep-ph/0307279]

    2004 arXiv

  8. [14]

    V.Berezinsky,M.KachelriessandS.Ostapchenko, Electroweakjetcascadinginthedecayof superheavy particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.89(2002) 171802 [hep-ph/0205218]

    2002 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Munbodh and S

    P. Munbodh and S. Profumo,Astrophysical constraints from synchrotron emission on very massive decaying dark matter, 2405.00798

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    Leite, R

    N. Leite, R. Reuben, G. Sigl, M.H.G. Tytgat and M. Vollmann,Synchrotron Emission from Dark Matter in Galactic Subhalos. A Look into the Smith Cloud, JCAP 11(2016) 021 [1606.03515]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Blumenthal and R.J

    G.R. Blumenthal and R.J. Gould,Bremsstrahlung, synchrotron radiation, and compton scattering of high-energy electrons traversing dilute gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.42 (1970) 237

    1970

  12. [19]

    Chung, E.W

    D.J.H. Chung, E.W. Kolb and A. Riotto,Superheavy dark matter,Phys. Rev. D59(1998) 023501 [hep-ph/9802238]

    1998 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Kuzmin and I.I

    V.A. Kuzmin and I.I. Tkachev,Ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays and inflation relics,Phys. Rept. 320 (1999) 199 [hep-ph/9903542]

    1999 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Garny, M

    M. Garny, M. Sandora and M.S. Sloth,Planckian Interacting Massive Particles as Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) 101302 [1511.03278]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Mambrini and K.A

    Y. Mambrini and K.A. Olive,Gravitational Production of Dark Matter during Reheating, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 115009 [2102.06214]. 12 Constraints on BSM physics Olivier Deligny

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Uehara,Right-handed neutrinos as superheavy dark matter,JHEP 12 (2001) 034 [hep-ph/0107297]

    Y. Uehara,Right-handed neutrinos as superheavy dark matter,JHEP 12 (2001) 034 [hep-ph/0107297]

    2001 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Feldstein, A

    B. Feldstein, A. Kusenko, S. Matsumoto and T.T. Yanagida,Neutrinos at IceCube from Heavy Decaying Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 015004 [1303.7320]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [25]

    P.S.B. Dev, D. Kazanas, R.N. Mohapatra, V.L. Teplitz and Y. Zhang,Heavy right-handed neutrino dark matter and PeV neutrinos at IceCube, JCAP 08 (2016) 034 [1606.04517]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    C. Rott, K. Kohri and S.C. Park,Superheavy dark matter and IceCube neutrino signals: Bounds on decaying dark matter,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 023529 [1408.4575]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Dudas, L

    E. Dudas, L. Heurtier, Y. Mambrini, K.A. Olive and M. Pierre,Model of metastable EeV dark matter, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 115029 [2003.02846]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Pierre Augercollaboration, Constraints on metastable superheavy dark matter coupled to sterile neutrinos with the Pierre Auger Observatory, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) L081101 [2311.14541]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Kuzmin and V.A

    V.A. Kuzmin and V.A. Rubakov,Ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays: A Window to postinflationary reheating epoch of the universe?,Phys. Atom. Nucl.61(1998) 1028 [astro-ph/9709187]

    1998 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Pierre Augercollaboration, Limits to Gauge Coupling in the Dark Sector Set by the Nonobservation of Instanton-Induced Decay of Super-Heavy Dark Matter in the Pierre Auger Observatory Data,Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023) 061001 [2203.08854]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Dudas, Y

    E. Dudas, Y. Mambrini and K. Olive,Case for an EeV Gravitino,Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) 051801 [1704.03008]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Dudas, T

    E. Dudas, T. Gherghetta, K. Kaneta, Y. Mambrini and K.A. Olive,Gravitino decay in high scalesupersymmetrywithR-parityviolation ,Phys.Rev.D 98(2018)015030[ 1805.07342]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Allahverdi, C

    R. Allahverdi, C. Arina, M. Chianese, M. Cicoli, F. Maltoni, D. Massaro et al., Phenomenology of superheavy decaying dark matter from string theory, JHEP 02(2024) 192 [2312.00136]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Berezinsky, E

    V. Berezinsky, E. Sabancilar and A. Vilenkin,Extremely High Energy Neutrinos from Cosmic Strings, Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 085006 [1108.2509]

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    ANITAcollaboration,Characteristics of Four Upward-pointing Cosmic-ray-like Events Observed with ANITA,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 071101 [1603.05218]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    13 Constraints on BSM physics Olivier Deligny

    Pierre Augercollaboration, Constraints on upward-going air showers using the Pierre Auger Observatory data,PoS ICRC2023(2023) 1099. 13 Constraints on BSM physics Olivier Deligny

    2023

  30. [38]

    Heighton, L

    R. Heighton, L. Heurtier and M. Spannowsky,Hunting for neutral leptons with ultrahigh-energy neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 055009 [2303.11352]. 14

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.