Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Self-interacting dark matter with observable $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A GeV-scale self-interacting dark matter candidate can match the observed relic abundance while producing an observable ΔNeff through late scalar decay.

desk verdict A fixable but load-bearing gauge-invariance error in Eq. (1) and a benchmark violating its own bound undercut an otherwise plausible SIDM increment to ΔNeff. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16910 v1 pith:HMAFWUIT submitted 2025-04-23 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Debasish Borah , Satyabrata Mahapatra , Narendra Sahu , Vicky Singh Thounaojam This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords self-interactingdarkmatterradiationobservableΔNeffgaugedU(1)_DextensionStueckelbergmechanismnon-thermalproductionthermalrelicunderabundancesmall-scalestructureanomalies
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that the same dark sector can solve both the small-scale puzzles of cold dark matter and the underabundance problem of light thermal relics, while leaving a measurable trace in the cosmic radiation content. The model adds a GeV-scale fermion $\chi$ that scatters off itself through a light dark vector boson $X$, and a heavier scalar $\varphi$ that decays after big bang nucleosynthesis but before the cosmic microwave background epoch into $\chi$ and a dark radiation fermion $\nu_S$. This late decay tops up the thermally underabundant dark matter and injects the dark radiation that shifts the effective number of relativistic species by $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ in the range roughly 0.01 to 0.2. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as establishing a proof of concept: strong self-interactions, correct relic abundance, and an observable cosmological signature can coexist in one minimal model.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the hybrid relic: thermal freeze-out sets the underabundance and a late scalar decay fills the gap. The scalar $\varphi$ stays in equilibrium with the Standard Model bath through its Higgs portal coupling $\lambda_{h\varphi} \gtrsim 10^{-5}$, then decouples and decays with width $\Gamma_\varphi = y^2 m_\varphi/(16\pi)\,(1 - m_\chi^2/m_\varphi^2)^2$. The same coupling $y$ controls both the injection of $\chi$ and the energy density of $\nu_S$, which is evolved through a Boltzmann equation; because $\rho_\varphi$ grows relative to radiation after $\varphi$ becomes non-relativistic, a smaller $y$ means a later decay and a larger $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$. The light vector $X$, with its Stueckelberg mass and kinetic mixing $\epsilon$, supplies an attractive exponential potential whose transfer cross-section $\sigma_T$ defines the self-interaction regime and also mediates the direct-detection rate.

What would settle it

Check the dark charge of the decay term $y\,\varphi\,\chi\,\nu_S$ under the model's own charge table: the paper assigns the same charge to $\chi$ and $\varphi$ and zero to $\nu_S$, so the operator carries net charge $2q_D$ and is forbidden by the unbroken symmetry; if the charge is not cancelled, both the non-thermal dark matter and the dark radiation are absent and the quoted $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ vanishes, while any repaired assignment changes the freeze-out and decay dynamics enough to require recomputation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a self-interacting dark matter candidate at the GeV scale can avoid the standard thermal-relic obstruction. The dark sector consists of a fermion $\chi$, a light vector mediator $X$ whose mass is generated through the Stueckelberg mechanism (a mass for a gauge boson without a scalar vacuum expectation value), a singlet scalar $\varphi$, and a dark radiation fermion $\nu_S$; $\chi$ freezes out with a relic density below the observed value because annihilations into the light mediator are efficient. The scalar $\varphi$ freezes out with a larger abundance and later decays through $\varphi \to \chi + \nu_S$, supplying the missing dark matter and simultaneously creating the dark radiation that produces $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$. The paper computes the coupled Boltzmann evolution and finds parameter points, with $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ from about 0.01 to 0.2, that agree with current CMB measurements and lie within the projected reach of future CMB experiments while respecting direct detection and free-streaming limits. The intended message is that small-scale structure anomalies, the light-thermal-relic underabundance, and the search for extra radiation are three facets of one mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The whole mechanism depends on the scalar being able to decay into the dark matter particle plus the dark radiation particle, but under the charge assignments stated in the paper that decay is forbidden by the unbroken symmetry of the dark force; unless the assignment is corrected, the late production that generates the relic top-up and the extra radiation does not exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The model removes the main obstruction for GeV-scale self-interacting dark matter: the thermal underabundance from efficient annihilation into light mediators is compensated by the late scalar decay, so the observed relic density and a self-interaction cross section near 1 cm²/g can coexist.
  • The same decay injects a dark radiation component, giving $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ from roughly 0.01 to 0.2 in the scanned region of parameter space, which current CMB bounds allow and next-generation CMB experiments can test.
  • Direct detection already closes the branch with kinetic mixing $\epsilon = 10^{-9}$ for dark matter masses above about 3 GeV; reducing the mixing to $10^{-10}$ keeps masses up to about 6 GeV viable, so near-future detectors will cover the rest.
  • The free-streaming constraint $\lambda_{\rm fs} < 0.1$ Mpc selects a definite band of decay parameters, so relic abundance, $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$, and structure formation jointly pin down the scalar mass, dark matter mass, and coupling $y$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The charge-assignment issue is repairable, but any repair (giving $\nu_S$ a dark charge or flipping the charge of $\varphi$) changes the dark-sector dynamics, so the benchmark numbers would shift even if the qualitative story survives.
  • The thermal-underabundance-plus-late-injection pattern is generic: any model with a strongly annihilating light dark matter candidate and a long-lived heavier scalar decaying into dark matter plus a light fermion will produce a similar $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ signature, making future CMB measurements a broad probe of non-thermal production.
  • The authors' alternative completion in which the scalar decays to dark matter and active neutrinos would blur the cosmological signature, because active neutrinos are already counted in the baseline $N_{\rm eff}$; distinguishing that branch from the $\nu_S$ branch would require more than a total $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ measurement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a dark U(1)_D extension of the SM containing a GeV-scale Dirac fermion DM χ, a light Stueckelberg vector X that mediates χ self-interactions, a complex singlet scalar φ, and a sterile neutrino νS. With U(1)_D left unbroken, χ is stable, and the relic density is generated in two stages: thermal freeze-out of χχ→XX, which is underabundant in the SIDM-relevant parameter region, plus non-thermal production through the late decay φ→χ νS occurring after BBN and before the CMB epoch. The same decays produce the dark radiation νS, giving ΔNeff in the range 0.01–0.2, claimed to be compatible with Planck and within reach of SPT-3G/CMB-S4/CMB-HD, while a scan over gd, mφ, mχ, and y imposes the observed relic density, the SIDM self-interaction cross-section, and the free-streaming bound λfs < 0.1 Mpc. Three benchmark points are given in Table I, and the paper includes detailed appendices for the cross-sections, Boltzmann equations, and Stueckelberg mass generation.

Significance. The setup is timely and the hybrid production mechanism is standard and clearly articulated; the paper is honest about the tension between efficient annihilation into light mediators and the resulting underabundant thermal relic, and it documents the model in unusual detail (cross-sections, Boltzmann equations, decay widths, direct detection analysis). Its concrete falsifiable predictions — ΔNeff within reach of next-generation CMB experiments and spin-independent scattering targets in Section V — are a genuine strength. However, the quantitative demonstration of the central claim is not currently reliable: the defining Yukawa interaction is written in a way that violates the stated unbroken U(1)_D; the free-streaming evaluation in Section VI appears to be wrong by orders of magnitude, so the claimed compatibility of the benchmarks (and the scan of Fig. 15) with λfs < 0.1 Mpc is not established; and Table I is internally inconsistent. These problems are fixable in principle but require a substantive recomputation, so the paper is not yet publishable in its present form.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (1)] As printed, the interaction (y φ χ νS + h.c.) is not gauge invariant under the charge assignments stated in Section II, namely Qχ = Qφ and QνS = 0: the field product carries net dark charge 2Q and is forbidden by the unbroken U(1)_D that the paper invokes to stabilize χ. This vertex is the sole source of the late-time non-thermal DM production and of the dark radiation νS, so the central decay mechanism is not consistently defined as written. The likely intended operator is y φ \barχ νS, which is invariant under equal charges; please correct the printed operator (or flip one of the charge assignments) and state the charges explicitly.
  2. [Section VI, Eqs. (26)–(28), Table I] The approximate free-streaming evaluation in Eq. (28) is internally inconsistent. The final expression vkick (Γφ)^{-1} a_d ln(a_eq/a_d) does not follow from the displayed integral: inserting H(a) = H0√Ωr a^{-2} and Γφ = H(a_d) = H0√Ωr a_d^{-2} gives λfs = vkick a_d ln(a_eq/a_d)/(H0√Ωr), not the printed result, which contains an extra factor a_d^2. Moreover, the integral drops the relativistic stage a_d < a < a_nr, where v ≈ 1, and the matter-era tail, both of which are required by Eq. (26). Evaluating Eq. (26) with the kinematics of BP2 (a_d = 6.84e-6, a_nr = 1.56e-4, vkick = 0.999) gives λfs ~ O(100) Mpc: the relativistic segment alone contributes roughly a_nr/(H0√Ωr) ≈ 70 Mpc, and the non-relativistic radiation-era segment contributes another ~45 Mpc, versus the quoted 0.006 Mpc. The paper's central claim that the benchmarks and the scan of Fig. 15 respect λfs < 0.1 Mpc therefore needs to be re-established with the full integral.
  3. [Table I, BP1 row] BP1 is inconsistent with the paper's own structure-formation constraint. The row reports λfs = 0.256 Mpc, which violates the bound λfs < 0.1 Mpc quoted in Section VI (following Refs. [66–68]), and it also has a_d = 5.2e-4 > a_eq = 2.94e-4 and a_nr > a_eq, contradicting the ordering a_d << a_nr < a_eq used to justify Eqs. (26)–(28). The statement in Section VI that the three benchmark scenarios of Table I illustrate that 'it is indeed possible to satisfy the structure formation constraints' is therefore not correct as printed; BP1 should be removed or replaced with a point that genuinely satisfies all stated constraints.
  4. [Table I vs. Eq. (16) and Section VI] The quoted Yukawa couplings are inconsistent with the quoted decay epochs. Section VI states that 'the decay happens when Γφ = H(a_d)'; using the width Γφ = y^2 mφ (1 - mχ^2/mφ^2)^2/(16π), BP2 (y = 8.1e-16, mφ = 46.56 GeV) gives Γφ ≈ 9e-7 s^{-1}, which equals H at T ≈ 1.2 keV (a ≈ 2e-7), whereas Table I lists a_d = 6.84e-6, where H(a_d) ≈ 5-8e-10 s^{-1}, i.e., Γφ/H ≈ 10^3. The same discrepancy (Γφ/H(a_d) of order 10^3) occurs for BP1 and BP3. If a_d is intended to be an effective epoch of maximal decay or energy injection rather than the Γφ = H epoch, its definition should be stated; as it stands, the benchmark table and the associated ΔNeff and λfs values cannot be reproduced from the formulas given in the paper.
  5. [Section III.B and Appendix D, Eq. (D1)] The φφ → XX annihilation cross-section is quoted inconsistently: Section III.B states ⟨σv⟩_{φφ→XX} ≃ 6πα_d/mφ^2, while the derivation in Appendix D, Eq. (D1), gives ⟨σv⟩ = 6 g_d^4/(16π mφ^2) = 6πα_d^2/mφ^2. The two expressions differ by a factor α_d ≈ 10^{-4}–10^{-3} for the couplings considered. Since the thermal abundance Yφ — and hence the non-thermal DM component and ΔNeff, both of which are produced from φ decays — is controlled by this cross-section, the correct expression must be identified and the scans (Figs. 5, 8–10, 15) recomputed consistently.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sections II and II.A] Several displayed formulas have lost their Dirac conjugation bars in the typeset version, e.g., the mass term 'mχχχ' and the operator 'yφχνS' in Eq. (1), and the phrase 'χχ and χχ interactions are repulsive' in Section II.A should presumably read χ\barχ and \barχ\barχ; please ensure the published version typesets correctly, as these details matter for the gauge-invariance discussion in the first major comment.
  2. [Appendix F] The text states that for most calculations a 'simplified form of the Boltzmann equation that does not require tracking the co-moving density of X' is adopted, but no numerical justification is given. Since the X boson decays to the SM only through a very small kinetic mixing (ε down to 10^{-10}), the lifetime of X can be comparable to BBN timescales and a residual X abundance could, in principle, alter the χ relic density or inject energy; please state the explicit check that validates dropping YX.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (17)] The definition of ΔNeff in Eq. (17) should specify the epoch at which ρνS/ρνL is evaluated and the temperature convention used (photon vs. neutrino temperature); as written, the notation 'ρνS/ρνL|_{TCMB}' is ambiguous about the integration of the Boltzmann equation (18) and about how the SM value N_eff^SM = 3.045 enters.
  4. [Section IV and Fig. 2] Section IV states that MX is restricted to 1 MeV or below 'ensuring that it can decay only into SM neutrinos', but Fig. 2 displays results for MX = 10 MeV, for which X → e+e- is kinematically open; please clarify that all benchmark and ΔNeff results use MX ≤ 1 MeV, or comment on the e+e- constraints for the 10 MeV case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: ΔNeff is a computed output of a parameter scan, not a fitted input.

full rationale

We walked the claimed derivation chain and found no step in which an output is used to construct an input. The thermal relic of χ is computed from the Boltzmann equations for given gd, mχ, and MX; the shortfall relative to the observed relic density is then identified, and mφ (with y mainly controlling the φ lifetime) is scanned so that late φ→χνS decay fills that deficit. ΔNeff is subsequently evaluated from the same decay and compared with Planck and future CMB sensitivities; it is never used as a fitting target. This is parametric freedom, not circularity: the model has enough parameters that ΔNeff is a consistency window rather than a unique number, but the paper does not fit ΔNeff to itself. The self-citations (e.g., refs. 13–17, 26–30, 44) are motivational or technical formula citations and are not load-bearing arguments; no same-author uniqueness theorem or ansatz is invoked to force the result. External benchmarks (Planck ΔNeff, direct detection, Lyman-α/free-streaming) are treated as constraints. We separately note two internal-consistency problems that are not circular reductions: (a) with the stated charge assignment Qχ=Qφ and QνS=0, the operator yφχνS in Eq. (1) is not U(1)D invariant, and (b) BP1 in Table I lists λfs=0.256 Mpc while Sec. VI requires λfs<0.1 Mpc. These are serious correctness risks, but they do not constitute a circular derivation of the paper's observables from its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central claim depends on a new dark sector with many free parameters (gd, mchi, mphi, y, MX, epsilon, lambda_hphi) and on several unproved modeling assumptions: thermalization via the Higgs portal, stability under the Stueckelberg U(1)_D, and a simplified Boltzmann treatment for X. No parameter-free prediction is made; the observable Delta Neff emerges as a range selected by the scan.

free parameters (7)
  • gd (dark U(1)_D gauge coupling) = ~0.01-0.1 (scanned)
    Sets self-interaction cross-section and annihilation cross-section; chosen to get sigma/m in 0.1-100 cm2/g and correct relic.
  • mchi (dark matter mass) = 0.1-10 GeV (benchmarks: 0.118, 1, 2.82 GeV)
    Scanned to obtain correct relic from thermal plus non-thermal production and to satisfy direct detection and free-streaming constraints.
  • mphi (scalar mass) = 3-200 GeV (benchmarks: 22.4, 46.56, 127.32 GeV)
    Chosen so phi freeze-out abundance fills exactly the relic deficit after decay; also controls kick velocity and Delta Neff.
  • y (Yukawa coupling phi chi nuS) = ~1e-17 to 1e-15
    Controls phi lifetime; chosen so decay occurs after BBN and before CMB, with small enough kick velocity to satisfy Lyman-alpha free-streaming bound.
  • MX (mediator mass) = 1 MeV or below
    Chosen so X decays only to neutrinos, evading indirect detection and CMB annihilation constraints; also sets self-interaction range.
  • epsilon (kinetic mixing) = 1e-9 or 1e-10
    Set small to keep direct detection cross-section below current limits for mchi up to about 6 GeV.
  • lambda_hphi (Higgs-scalar quartic) = ~1e-3
    Needed for dark sector thermalization with SM; value large enough that Gamma_{h->phi} >= H.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The full Lagrangian is invariant under the U(1)_D gauge symmetry with the stated charge assignments.
    Invoked in Section II; as written the equal-charge assignment makes the Yukawa term y phi chi nuS non-invariant, so the model implicitly assumes opposite charges or a compensating setup.
  • domain assumption Stueckelberg mechanism gives X a mass while preserving an unbroken U(1)_D global symmetry that stabilizes chi.
    Used in Appendix A and Section II; if the global symmetry is broken, chi could decay and the relic scenario fails.
  • domain assumption The dark sector thermalizes with the SM bath via lambda_hphi, and phi stays in equilibrium until its freeze-out.
    Required for the initial thermal relic calculation; discussed in Section III A with lambda_hphi >= 1e-5.
  • ad hoc to paper The simplified Boltzmann equations ignoring the co-moving density of X give accurate relic abundances.
    Appendix F states this simplified form is adopted for most calculations, but its validity is not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Standard radiation and matter dominated expansion history, with SM g* and no significant extra radiation before phi decay.
    Used throughout for H(T) and for the Delta Neff and free-streaming integrals.
invented entities (4)
  • Dirac fermion chi
    purpose: Dark matter candidate with self-interactions mediated by X.
    No unique direct detection or collider signature beyond the model's own parameter scan.
  • Vector boson Xmu
    purpose: Light mediator for DM self-interactions and annihilations; mass from Stueckelberg mechanism.
    Decays only to SM neutrinos for MX < 1 MeV, giving no sharp observable handle outside the model.
  • Complex scalar phi
    purpose: Late-decaying scalar that replenishes DM and produces dark radiation nuS.
    Its lifetime and couplings are free parameters tuned to give the desired relic and Delta Neff.
  • Sterile neutrino nuS
    purpose: Dark radiation species contributing to Delta Neff.
    Predicted Delta Neff range is broad (0.01-0.2); a detection would be suggestive but not uniquely attributable to this particle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-interacting dark matter with observable $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HMAFWUIT

@misc{pith2026250416910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-interacting dark matter with observable $\Delta N_\rm eff$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HMAFWUIT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16910}
}
abstract

We propose a GeV-scale self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) candidate within a dark $U(1)_D$ gauged extension of the Standard Model (SM), addressing small-scale structure issues in $\Lambda$CDM while predicting an observable contribution to $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ in the form of dark radiation. The model introduces a fermionic DM candidate $\chi$ and a scalar $\phi$, both charged under an unbroken $U(1)_D$ gauge symmetry. The self-interactions of $\chi$ are mediated by a light vector boson $X^\mu$, whose mass is generated via the Stueckelberg mechanism. The relic abundance of $\chi$ is determined by thermal freeze-out through annihilations into $X^\mu$, supplemented by a non-thermal component from the late decay of $\phi$. Crucially, $\phi$ decays after the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) but before the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) epoch, producing additional $\chi$ and a dark radiation species ($\nu_S$). This late-time production compensates for thermal underabundance due to efficient annihilation into light mediators, while remaining consistent with structure formation constraints. The accompanying dark radiation yields a detectable $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$, compatible with Planck 2018 bounds and within reach of next-generation experiments such as SPT-3G, CMB-S4, and CMB-HD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16910 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic of the proposed setup: dark matter ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The SIDM parameter space in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Kinetic decoupling of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: , where we show the non-thermal dark matter relic fraction f = Y nth χ /Y Obs. χ as a function of the dark matter mass mχ for three different values of gd. The color gradi￾FIG. 5: The fraction of DM relic, f = Y nth χ /(Y th χ + Y nth χ ), shown as a function of mχ. He…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Feynman diagram of the decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Contribution to ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Effect on ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The parameter space that will give the ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Spin-independent DM-nucleon cross-section for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: DM-electron cross-section for the direct detection is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Contributions to the free-streaming length integral. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Model parameters that gives [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Feynman diagrams for the number changing pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Feynman diagram of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.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. Interpreting the Hubble tension with a cascade decaying dark matter sector

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A cascade decaying dark matter model combining early and late effects still cannot reduce the Hubble tension below about 3 sigma, and is statistically disfavored relative to Lambda CDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    For the case of very small ϵ, the quartic coupling λhϕ serves as the only portal (Fig

    the kinetic mixing parameterϵ, and 2) the quartic cou- plingλhϕ which quantifies the strength ofhh→ϕ⋆ϕ scat- tering. For the case of very small ϵ, the quartic coupling λhϕ serves as the only portal (Fig. 1) through which the dark sector can thermalize with the SM bath. As shown in Eq. (2), the coupling λhϕ plays a crucial role in deter- mining the thermal...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Tulin and H.-B

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rept. 730, 1 (2018), 1705.02358

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    D. N. Spergel and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3760 (2000), astro-ph/9909386

    arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    M. R. Buckley and P. J. Fox, Phys. Rev. D 81, 083522 (2010), 0911.3898

    arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 55, 343 (2017), 1707.04256

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat, H. Tu, and H.-B. Yu, JCAP 07, 004 (2009), 0905.3039

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat, and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 151301 (2010), 0911.0422

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Bringmann, F

    T. Bringmann, F. Kahlhoefer, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and P. Walia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 141802 (2017), 1612.00845

    arXiv 2017

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Loeb and N

    A. Loeb and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 171302 (2011), 1011.6374

    2011 arXiv

  2. [10]

    L. G. van den Aarssen, T. Bringmann, and C. Pfrommer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 231301 (2012), 1205.5809

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kaplinghat, S

    M. Kaplinghat, S. Tulin, and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 041302 (2016), 1508.03339

    2016 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Tulin, H.-B

    S. Tulin, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 87, 115007 (2013), 1302.3898

    2013 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Borah, S

    D. Borah, S. Mahapatra, N. Sahu, and V. S. Thounao- jam, Phys. Rev. D 108, 083038 (2023), 2308.06172

    2023 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Borah, S

    D. Borah, S. Mahapatra, and N. Sahu, Phys. Rev. D 108, L091702 (2023), 2211.15703

    2023 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Borah, S

    D. Borah, S. Mahapatra, P. K. Paul, N. Sahu, and P. Shukla, Phys. Rev. D 110, 035033 (2024), 2404.14912

    2024 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Mahapatra, S

    S. Mahapatra, S. K. Sahoo, N. Sahu, and V. S. Thounao- jam, Phys. Rev. D 109, 055036 (2024), 2312.12322

    2024 arXiv

  9. [18]

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

    1977

  10. [19]

    Adhikary, D

    A. Adhikary, D. Borah, S. Mahapatra, I. Saha, N. Sahu, and V. S. Thounaojam, JCAP 12, 043 (2024), 2405.17564

    2024 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 14 662, 53 (2008), 0711.4866

    2008 arXiv

  12. [21]

    E. W. Kolb and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D 33, 1202 (1986), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 34, 2531 (1986)]

    1986

  13. [22]

    Berlin and N

    A. Berlin and N. Blinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 021801 (2018), 1706.07046

    2018 arXiv

  14. [23]

    R. T. D’Agnolo and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 061301 (2015), 1505.07107

    2015 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Herms, S

    J. Herms, S. Jana, V. P. K., and S. Saad, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 091803 (2022), 2203.05579

    2022 arXiv

  16. [25]

    R. T. D’Agnolo, D. Liu, J. T. Ruderman, and P.-J. Wang, JHEP 06, 103 (2021), 2012.11766

    2021 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Borah, P

    D. Borah, P. Das, S. Mahapatra, and N. Sahu (2024), 2401.01639

    2024 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Jaramillo, JCAP 10, 093 (2022), 2207.11269

    C. Jaramillo, JCAP 10, 093 (2022), 2207.11269

    2022 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Borah, M

    D. Borah, M. Dutta, S. Mahapatra, and N. Sahu, Phys. Rev. D 105, 015004 (2022), 2110.00021

    2022 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Dutta, S

    M. Dutta, S. Mahapatra, D. Borah, and N. Sahu, Phys. Rev. D 103, 095018 (2021), 2101.06472

    2021 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Borah, A

    D. Borah, A. Dasgupta, S. Mahapatra, and N. Sahu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 095028 (2022), 2112.14786

    2022 arXiv

  22. [31]

    A central challenge in the GeV-scale SIDM sce- nario is that the efficient annihilation of χ into light me- diators often results in an under-abundant relic density

    for simplicity, although the Higgs mechanism is also viable. A central challenge in the GeV-scale SIDM sce- nario is that the efficient annihilation of χ into light me- diators often results in an under-abundant relic density. In our model, this deficit is remedied by the late...

    2025 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Borah, M

    D. Borah, M. Dutta, S. Mahapatra, and N. Sahu, Phys. Rev. D 105, 075019 (2022), 2112.06847

    2022 arXiv

  24. [33]

    E. C. G. Stueckelberg, Helv. Phys. Acta 11, 225 (1938)

    1938

  25. [34]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], 1807.06209

    2020 arXiv

  26. [35]

    J. S. Avva et al. (SPT-3G), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1468, 012008 (2020), 1911.08047

    2020 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Abazajian et al

    K. Abazajian et al. (2019), 1907.04473

    2019 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Aiola et al

    S. Aiola et al. (CMB-HD) (2022), 2203.05728

    2022 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Kors and P

    B. Kors and P. Nath, Phys. Lett. B 586, 366 (2004), hep-ph/0402047

    2004 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Boehm and R

    C. Boehm and R. Schaeffer, Astron. Astrophys. 438, 419 (2005), astro-ph/0410591

    2005 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Mangano, G

    G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pastor, T. Pinto, O. Pisanti, and P. D. Serpico, Nucl. Phys. B 729, 221 (2005), hep- ph/0506164

    2005

  32. [41]

    Grohs, G

    E. Grohs, G. M. Fuller, C. T. Kishimoto, M. W. Paris, and A. Vlasenko, Phys. Rev. D 93, 083522 (2016), 1512.02205

    2016 arXiv

  33. [42]

    P. F. de Salas and S. Pastor, JCAP 1607, 051 (2016), 1606.06986

    2016 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Froustey, C

    J. Froustey, C. Pitrou, and M. C. Volpe, JCAP 12, 015 (2020), 2008.01074

    2020 arXiv

  35. [44]

    J. J. Bennett, G. Buldgen, P. F. De Salas, M. Drewes, S. Gariazzo, S. Pastor, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP 04, 073 (2021), 2012.02726

    2021 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Drewes, Y

    M. Drewes, Y. Georis, M. Klasen, L. P. Wiggering, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP 06, 032 (2024), 2402.18481

    2024 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Biswas, D

    A. Biswas, D. Borah, N. Das, and D. Nanda, Phys. Rev. D 107, 015015 (2023), 2205.01144

    2023 arXiv

  38. [47]

    M. S. Madhavacheril, N. Sehgal, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D 89, 103508 (2014), 1310.3815

    2014 arXiv

  39. [48]

    T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D 93, 023527 (2016), 1506.03811

    2016 arXiv

  40. [49]

    G. Elor, N. L. Rodd, T. R. Slatyer, and W. Xue, JCAP 06, 024 (2016), 1511.08787

    2016 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Profumo, F

    S. Profumo, F. S. Queiroz, J. Silk, and C. Siqueira, JCAP 03, 010 (2018), 1711.03133

    2018 arXiv

  42. [51]

    E. J. Chun, J.-C. Park, and S. Scopel, JHEP 02, 100 (2011), 1011.3300

    2011 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 241803 (2019), 1907.12771

    2019 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041003 (2023), 2303.14729

    2023 arXiv

  45. [54]

    A. H. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST), Phys. Rev. D 100, 102002 (2019), 1904.00498

    2019 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041002 (2023), 2207.03764

    2023 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (Global Argon Dark Matter), Phys. Rev. D 107, 112006 (2023), 2209.01177

    2023 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Billard et al., Rept

    J. Billard et al., Rept. Prog. Phys. 85, 056201 (2022), 2104.07634

    2022 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (DARWIN), JCAP 11, 017 (2016), 1606.07001

    2016 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Schumann, L

    M. Schumann, L. Baudis, L. B¨ utikofer, A. Kish, and M. Selvi, JCAP 10, 016 (2015), 1506.08309

    2015 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi (2020), 2005.01515

    2020 arXiv

  52. [61]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP 01, 107 (2017), 1611.03864

    2017 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171301 (2014), 1402.5143

    2014 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 251801 (2019), 1907.11485

    2019 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Li et al

    S. Li et al. (PandaX) (2022), 2212.10067

    2022 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Barak et al

    L. Barak et al. (SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 171802 (2020), 2004.11378

    2020 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Aoyama, T

    S. Aoyama, T. Sekiguchi, K. Ichiki, and N. Sugiyama, JCAP 07, 021 (2014), 1402.2972

    2014 arXiv

  58. [67]

    A. J. Long and M. Venegas (2024), 2412.14322

    2024 arXiv

  59. [68]

    E. O. Nadler et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 091101 (2021), 2008.00022

    2021 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Villasenor, B

    B. Villasenor, B. Robertson, P. Madau, and E. Schneider, Phys. Rev. D 108, 023502 (2023), 2209.14220

    2023 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Irˇ siˇ c et al., Phys

    V. Irˇ siˇ c et al., Phys. Rev. D 96, 023522 (2017), 1702.01764

    2017 arXiv

  62. [71]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner,The Early Universe , vol. 69 (Taylor and Francis, 2019), ISBN 978-0-429-49286-0, 978- 0-201-62674-2

    2019

  63. [72]

    W. B. Lin, D. H. Huang, X. Zhang, and R. H. Bran- denberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 954 (2001), astro- ph/0009003

    2001

  64. [73]

    Choi, J.-O

    K.-Y. Choi, J.-O. Gong, J. Joh, W.-I. Park, and O. Seto, Phys. Lett. B 845, 138126 (2023), 2304.07462

    2023 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Aboubrahim and P

    A. Aboubrahim and P. Nath, JHEP 09, 084 (2022), 2205.07316

    2022 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Tulin, H.-B

    S. Tulin, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 111301 (2013), 1210.0900

    2013 arXiv

  67. [76]

    S. A. Khrapak, A. V. Ivlev, G. E. Morfill, and S. K. Zhdanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 225002 (2003)

    2003

  68. [77]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B360, 145 (1991)

    1991

  69. [78]

    Edsjo and P

    J. Edsjo and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D 56, 1879 (1997), hep-ph/9704361. 15

    1997 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.