The third-generation-philic WIMP: an EFT analysis

Emanuelle Pinsard; Georgios Demetriou; Gino Isidori; Gioacchino Piazza

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The third-generation-philic WIMP: an EFT analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a WIMP coupled mainly to the top, bottom, and tau can evade current direct-detection bounds as a 1–2 TeV thermal relic, and predicts the next generation of experiments will cover this window.

desk verdict A useful bottom-up map of third-generation-philic DM, but the advertised 1–2 TeV fermion window is largely an artifact of a hand-picked EFT-validity cutoff. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04708 v1 pith:QP4FHMIL submitted 2025-05-07 hep-ph hep-th

Georgios Demetriou , Gino Isidori , Gioacchino Piazza , Emanuelle Pinsard This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-th PACS 95.35.+d

keywords darkmatterWIMPeffectivefieldtheorythird-generationfermionsdirectdetectionthermalfreeze-outrelicabundancevectormediator

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 asks whether dark matter can be a weakly interacting massive particle whose dominant couplings are to the heaviest Standard-Model fermions — the top, bottom, and tau — rather than to all quarks equally. It argues that because those couplings reach ordinary nuclei only through loop diagrams, current direct-detection experiments constrain the effective new-physics scale at only a few TeV, more than an order of magnitude weaker than for flavor-universal interactions. Requiring the same effective operators to produce the observed relic abundance through thermal freeze-out then selects a fermionic dark-matter mass between 1 and 2 TeV. The paper reports that this surviving window lies almost entirely within the reach of next-generation direct-detection experiments, and that a vector-mediator extension can reopen parameter space through resonant annihilation. If correct, the result keeps alive a low-scale WIMP solution to both the dark-matter problem and the electroweak hierarchy problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-loop matching coefficient $C_{VV}^{\chi q}$ (or $C_{VV}^{\phi q}$) of Eqs. (6) and (9), which converts high-scale operators coupling dark matter to third-generation fermions into the low-energy dark-matter–light-quark vector current that drives spin-independent scattering. It encodes the central suppression: the $Z$- and photon-penguin loops carry factors of gauge couplings, $m_f^2$, color factors, and logs of $\mu_{\rm UV}/m_f$. A second piece of machinery is the EFT-validity criterion of Eq. (10), $C^{(6)}_i/\Lambda^2 \simeq g_{\rm eff}^2/M_{\rm med}^2$, with the requirement $m_\chi < M_{\rm med}/2$, which defines the gray regions in the exclusion plots and ultimately bounds the 1–2 TeV window from above.

What would settle it

Run a next-generation direct-detection search with roughly an order of magnitude better sensitivity than current limits: the claimed 1–2 TeV fermionic window predicts a resolvable spin-independent rate, so a null result across that mass range would rule out the surviving thermal third-generation-philic WIMP. In the resonant-extension scenario, a UV calculation with a definite $Z'$ mass and coupling that finds no point with $m_\chi \approx M_{Z'}/2$ giving $\Omega_\chi h^2 = 0.12$ would falsify that recovery mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Treating dark matter as a $Z_2$-odd singlet and its interactions as dimension-6 operators that couple the dark-matter bilinear to third-generation weak doublets and singlets, the paper derives the one-loop matching of these operators onto the vector dark-matter–light-quark currents that dominate spin-independent nuclear scattering. The matching coefficient $C_{\chi q}^{VV}$, Eq. (6), sums $Z$-penguin and photon-penguin contributions from top, bottom, and tau, with a loop factor and a logarithm. Recasting current direct-detection limits through this matching, the paper finds that effective scales in the few-TeV range remain allowed, in contrast to the tens-of-TeV bounds on direct dark-matter–light-quark couplings. Imposing $\Omega_\chi h^2 = 0.12$ from thermal freeze-out within the same EFT leaves a well-defined fermionic window with $m_\chi$ in the 1–2 TeV range, and the paper argues the projected sensitivity of next-generation detectors will almost fully cover it. For scalar dark matter no single-operator thermal region survives except the fine-tuned combination $C_L^{\phi L} = -C_{\tau R}^{\phi}$, where a viable region around $m_\phi \sim \mathcal{O}(100)$ GeV appears.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is the kinematical EFT-validity cutoff $m_\chi < M_{\rm med}/2$, with $M_{\rm med}$ inferred from $C/\Lambda^2 = g_{\rm eff}^2/M_{\rm med}^2$ for $g_{\rm eff}=1,2$: if a different breakdown criterion is more correct, the upper edge of the 1–2 TeV fermionic window would move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The next generation of direct-detection experiments should see a signal in the 1–2 TeV region or exclude the fermionic thermal WIMP outright.
If the window survives, the proximity $m_\chi \sim M_{\rm med}/2$ motivates models where the dark-matter and mediator masses share a common origin.
Scalar dark matter in this EFT is nearly excluded: only the fine-tuned cancellation $C_L^{\phi L} = -C_{\tau R}^{\phi}$ leaves a viable region, so the scalar version of the idea is much more fragile.
Whenever $m_\chi$ approaches $M_{\rm med}/2$, EFT-based relic-density calculations break down and simplified mediator models must be used; resonant annihilation can shift the viable parameter space by orders of magnitude.

Reading between the lines

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

The precise upper boundary of the 1–2 TeV window is fixed by the assumed EFT-validity cutoff, not by a UV-derived threshold; a model with a definite mediator mass and coupling would replace that guess with a physical mass relation, and the window could shrink or widen.
If a flavor non-universal $Z'$ is the mediator, the same coupling that sets dark-matter annihilation also contributes to third-generation flavor observables; combining direct detection with flavor data and collider searches for the $Z'$ would test the scenario more tightly than this paper does.
The fine-tuned direction that cancels the photon contribution predicts a strongly suppressed dark-matter–nucleon coupling; measuring the relative size of spin-independent versus spin-dependent scattering could distinguish that choice from the natural one-operator case.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this paper does something genuinely useful, but its headline result is more fragile than it looks. The authors build a systematic EFT for dark matter coupled mainly to third-generation fermions, perform the one-loop matching to light-quark operators, and recast current direct-detection bounds in that language. That is new and worth having on record: it shows the effective scale can be as low as a few TeV, which is qualitatively different from the 30–100 TeV bounds on flavor-universal couplings. The scalar-DM statement—no viable parameter space except under a fine-tuned cancellation—is also a clean, useful result. I expect this paper to get cited as the default reference for this class of models.

The main soft spot is the EFT-validity boundary. The gray regions in Figs. 2–5 are defined by the criterion mχ < Mmed/2 with geff = 1, where Mmed is inferred from Eq. (10). That is a kinematical guess, not a UV-derived threshold. The stress-test note is right: change the criterion to mχ < Mmed/4 and the fermion window drops below a TeV; use mχ < Mmed and it extends to several TeV. The paper is transparent about this—it flags the limitation in Sec. IV and adds a Z′ simplified model to illustrate resonant effects—but the abstract and conclusions still call the 1–2 TeV region “well-defined.” That overstates the robustness. The region is better described as a plausible target that depends on a conventional cutoff choice.

Two more things, both addressable rather than fatal. First, the LZ limits are obtained by rescaling XENON1T bounds rather than a dedicated recast; acceptable as an estimate, but a referee should ask for more detail on the rescaling procedure or a direct reanalysis. Second, the thermally averaged annihilation cross section that sets the relic density is described in words but the formula is never shown. For a paper whose central constraint is the relic abundance, that is a real gap in reproducibility.

Who is this for? Anyone working on dark matter coupled to the third generation, or on the B-anomaly models that motivate such couplings. It deserves a serious referee—the topic is timely and the framework is reusable—but the authors should be required to either justify the EFT-validity choice with a UV example or present the window as cutoff-dependent. I would accept it for peer review, and I’d cite it once the reliability issues are tightened.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an EFT analysis of dark matter (DM) that couples dominantly to third-generation Standard Model fermions. The authors define dimension-six operators for fermionic and scalar DM, compute the one-loop matching onto light-quark vector currents relevant for spin-independent direct detection, and recast XENON1T/LUX-ZEPLIN bounds into constraints on the high-scale Wilson coefficients. They then impose the thermal relic abundance Omega h^2 = 0.12 and identify an allowed fermionic DM mass region around 1-2 TeV, while finding that scalar DM is largely excluded unless a fine-tuned combination of Wilson coefficients is chosen. The paper closes by showing that resonant annihilation through a Z' mediator can open up additional parameter space, using micrOMEGAs for the Z' benchmark.

Significance. If the advertised 1-2 TeV fermionic window is robust, the result is significant: it would show that a weakly interacting DM candidate coupled mainly to the third generation can saturate the observed relic abundance while evading current direct-detection bounds and staying within reach of next-generation experiments. The one-loop matching expressions in Eqs. (6) and (9) are clearly presented, and the explicit comparison with flavor-universal couplings illustrates the important loop suppression. The Z' benchmark is a useful illustration of how EFT conclusions can change near resonances. However, the central 'well-defined region' claim depends on an ad hoc EFT-validity criterion, which the paper itself cautions against in Section IV A; the significance of the result therefore hinges on whether that boundary can be made robust or the claim appropriately softened.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Eq. (10) and Figs. 3-4] The upper boundary of the claimed 1-2 TeV fermion window is set by the EFT-validity criterion m_chi < M_med/2, with M_med extracted from Eq. (10) for g_eff = 1. This is a kinematic guess, not a UV-derived threshold. Along the relic-abundance line the required coefficient scales roughly as C proportional to Lambda^2/m_chi, so M_med^2 is proportional to g_eff^2 m_chi; replacing m_chi < M_med/2 with the equally plausible m_chi < M_med/4 would push the upper edge below 1 TeV and remove the window, while m_chi < M_med would extend it to several TeV. Near the top of the orange regions in Figs. 3 and 4, s/M_med^2 is of order 0.7-1, so the EFT annihilation rate that defines the region is not parametrically reliable there. The paper's own statement in Section IV A that the EFT 'might miss relevant features when analysing the relic-abundance constraint' reinforces this concern. The abstract's 'well-defined region' is therefore, at present, a cutoff artifact. The authors should either derive the validity boundary in a concrete UV model, scan over the criterion to show robustness, or reformulate the headline claim so that it does not depend on the ad hoc choice.
[Section III, first paragraph and Fig. 3] The direct-detection constraints for the fermion case are obtained by rescaling the XENON1T bounds on the light-quark coefficients C_VV using the LUX-ZEPLIN upper limit on the spin-independent DM-nucleon cross section. This is not a dedicated recast: it does not account for differences in exposure, detector acceptance, energy response, or the fact that LZ and XENON1T probe somewhat different operator combinations. Since the lower boundary of the orange viable region in Fig. 3 is set by this rescaled LZ exclusion, the existence and precise location of the 1-2 TeV window depends on an approximate procedure. A dedicated recast of the LZ data for the specific C_VV operator, or at least a demonstration that the simple rescaling is conservative, is needed before the exclusion regions can be taken as quantitative.
[Section IV, first paragraph] The paper states that the thermally averaged annihilation cross section was computed and used to impose Omega h^2 = 0.12, but it does not show the formula for sigma v, the list of included final states (e.g., whether t, b, tau, and nu_tau channels are all included), or the treatment of velocity dependence and possible p-wave suppression. Without this information, the relic-density lines in Figs. 3 and 4 cannot be checked or reproduced by a reader. The authors should provide the explicit annihilation cross-section expressions or a clear reference, and state whether the Boltzmann equation was solved with standard approximations or a numerical package.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are several typographical and grammar issues: 'recasted' should be 'recast' in Section V, 'constrains' should be 'constraints' in Section III, and the author affiliation line contains a garbled umlaut ('f¨ ur' instead of 'für').
[Figures 3 and 4] The label 'Best fit region' is not defined anywhere in the text; the text only describes the orange region as the mass range that yields the observed relic abundance while satisfying direct-detection and EFT-validity bounds. This label is misleading and should be changed to something like 'Relic-viable region'.
[Eqs. (6) and (9)] The logarithms should be written with parentheses, i.e., log(mu_UV^2/m_f^2), both for clarity and to avoid ambiguity. It would also help to state explicitly that the zero-recoil limit means |q| -> 0 with m_f kept finite.
[Section IV A] The transition from the EFT relic-density computation to the Z' calculation is slightly abrupt: the text says the Z' model was implemented in micrOMEGAs, but it is not stated what values of the Z' couplings were used or whether the Wilson coefficients were matched to the same normalization as Eq. (10). Adding a sentence on this matching would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the direct-detection bounds and relic-density target are external inputs, the Wilson-coefficient constraints are computed rather than fitted, and the EFT-validity cutoff is an explicitly stated modeling assumption rather than a hidden reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. Direct-detection constraints are taken from external experiments (XENON1T, LUX-ZEPLIN) and mapped to the high-scale third-generation operators through the one-loop formulas in Eqs. (6) and (9); no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The relic-abundance condition is imposed by setting Omega h^2 = 0.12, an external cosmological observable, and the Boltzmann equation is solved to determine the required Wilson coefficient as a function of mass; the coefficient is not fitted to the quantity being predicted. The fine-tuned combination C_L_VL = -C_tau_VR is explicitly introduced as an illustrative cancellation that suppresses the photon contribution, not derived from the data. The Z' example is presented as an explicit simplified model, computed with micrOMEGAs, and is not used to derive the EFT bounds. Self-citations to flavor-deconstruction literature motivate the low-scale third-generation hypothesis but do not enter the matching calculation, the relic computation, or the direct-detection recasting. The only notable caveat is that the upper edge of the advertised 1-2 TeV fermionic window is controlled by the stated EFT-validity assumption m_chi < M_med/2 with geff = 1, as described after Eq. (10). This is a transparent modeling assumption about EFT breakdown, and the paper explicitly discusses the limitation and explores a UV-complete resonant example. An assumption-dependent boundary is a robustness concern, not a circular reduction of the derivation to its inputs. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard EFT and cosmology inputs plus two paper-specific choices: the hand-picked EFT-validity threshold (g_eff=1,2 and m_chi<M_med/2) and the rescaling of XENON1T bounds to LZ. The renormalization scale mu_UV=1 TeV and the benchmark Z' masses are stated but not derived.

free parameters (3)

mu_UV (renormalization scale) = 1 TeV
Set by hand in Eqs. (6) and (9) for the one-loop matching; the logarithm log(mu_UV^2/mf^2) directly sets the size of the loop-induced DM-light-quark coupling, so the numerical bounds inherit an O(1) scale choice.
g_eff (EFT validity coupling) = 1 and 2
Used in Eq. (10) to convert Wilson coefficient bounds into a mediator mass and to define the gray 'Excluded by EFT validity' regions; the boundary of the claimed 1-2 TeV fermion window depends on this choice.
M_Z' (benchmark mediator mass) = 1 TeV and 2 TeV
Chosen by hand for the simplified-model resonance illustration in Fig. 5; not derived from data, but the resonant annihilation behavior depends on them.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The DM field is a SM gauge singlet charged under an exact Z2 symmetry that makes it stable.
Stated in Section II; this is the standard WIMP stability postulate.
domain assumption At the high scale the EFT contains only vector currents to third-generation fermions; scalar and tensor operators are negligible in the Lambda >> m_chi limit.
Section II A argues tensor operators start at d=7 and are suppressed for Lambda >> m_chi, scalar operators are Yukawa-suppressed; this restricts the operator basis.
ad hoc to paper Direct-detection bounds from XENON1T and LUX-ZEPLIN can be combined by rescaling XENON1T's C_VV constraints by the ratio of SI cross-section upper limits.
Section III; this rescaling assumes identical nuclear response and linear scaling, and is used to derive all numeric bounds.
ad hoc to paper The EFT is valid for m_chi < M_med/2, with M_med extracted from C_i/Lambda^2 = g_eff^2/M_med^2.
Section III and Eq. (10); this kinematical criterion defines the gray excluded regions and shapes the viable fermion window.
domain assumption The observed relic abundance Omega_DM h^2 = 0.12 is imposed as the target for thermal freeze-out.
Section IV; standard cosmological input.
domain assumption No fine-tuned cancellations among Wilson coefficients are present.
Section II: 'in absence of fine-tuned cancellation mechanisms'; the paper does, however, consider the C_L_VL = -C_tau_VR combination as an illustrative cancellation.

invented entities (2)

Fermionic DM field chi (SM singlet, Z2-odd) independent evidence
purpose: Candidate DM particle whose couplings to third-generation SM fermions are the subject of the EFT analysis.
The paper carries a concrete falsifiable target: the 1-2 TeV window compatible with relic abundance is stated to be fully probed by the projected XLZD sensitivity, giving an independent experimental handle.
Flavor non-universal Z' vector mediator
purpose: Illustrative UV completion in Section IV A that replaces the EFT contact interaction with resonant s-channel annihilation.
The Z' mass is a free benchmark (1 and 2 TeV), no specific mass or coupling is predicted, and no new collider signature is derived beyond generic Z' searches.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The third-generation-philic WIMP: an EFT analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QP4FHMIL

@misc{pith2026250504708,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The third-generation-philic WIMP: an EFT analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QP4FHMIL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04708}
}

read the original abstract

We consider fermionic and scalar dark matter (DM) candidates that couple predominantly to third-generation Standard Model fermions, describing their interactions within an effective field theory framework. We show that current direct-detection constraints on these interactions are more than an order of magnitude weaker than those for flavor-universal couplings: effective scales in the few-TeV range remain allowed by existing data, leaving open the possibility of a connection between this type of new physics and a solution to the electroweak hierarchy problem. Imposing the observed relic abundance from thermal freeze-out within the same effective theory, a well-defined region for a fermionic DM candidate with mass in the 1-2 TeV range emerges. Notably, this region will be fully probed by upcoming direct-detection experiments. Finally, we show that additional parameter space for both fermion and scalar cases can be recovered by going beyond the effective theory, through the introduction of a suitable vector mediator enabling resonant DM annihilation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04708 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Constraints on the Wilson coefficients of the EFT at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Constraints on the Wilson coefficients of four rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Constraints on the Wilson coefficients of two repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Bounds on the Wilson coefficients of two repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

The Dark Side of a Tera-Z Factory
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Future Tera-Z runs at FCC-ee/CEPC could indirectly probe TeV-scale t-channel dark matter portals through one-loop and two-loop electroweak precision shifts, and in leptophilic models would be the only planned experime...
Dark Matter in the General 2HDM with Extra Top Yukawa Couplings
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

G2HDM plus a Z2-odd real scalar singlet yields viable top-window dark matter and six LHC benchmarks, including flavor-violating mono-top production of invisible H→SS.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Sofue and V

Y. Sofue and V. Rubin, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 39, 137 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010594

arXiv 2001
[2]

Bartelmann and P

M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Phys. Rept. 340, 291 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/9912508

arXiv 2001
[3]

Mateo, Ann

M. Mateo, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 36, 435 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9810070

arXiv 1998
[4]

Effective field theory and inelastic dark matter results from XENON1T

E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. D 109, 112017 (2024), arXiv:2210.07591 [hep-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[5]

Aprile et al

E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041003 (2023), arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2023
[6]

Aalbers et al

J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), (2024), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2024
[7]

Pospelov and T

M. Pospelov and T. ter Veldhuis, Phys. Lett. B 480, 181 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0003010

arXiv 2000
[8]

Generalized Analysis of Weakly-Interacting Massive Particle Searches

A. Kurylov and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 69, 063503 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0307185

work page Pith review arXiv 2004

Show all 64 references

[9]

J. Kopp, T. Schwetz, and J. Zupan, JCAP 02, 014 (2010), arXiv:0912.4264 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[10]

J. Fan, M. Reece, and L.-T. Wang, JCAP 11, 042 (2010), arXiv:1008.1591 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[11]

R. J. Hill and M. P. Solon, Phys. Lett. B707, 539 (2012), arXiv:1111.0016 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[12]

A. L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers, and Y. Xu, (2012), arXiv:1211.2818 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[13]

A. L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers, and Y. Xu, JCAP 02, 004 (2013), arXiv:1203.3542 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[14]

Cirigliano, M

V. Cirigliano, M. L. Graesser, and G. Ovanesyan, JHEP 10, 025 (2012), arXiv:1205.2695 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[15]

Menendez, D

J. Menendez, D. Gazit, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. D 86, 103511 (2012), arXiv:1208.1094 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[16]

R. J. Hill and M. P. Solon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 211602 (2014), arXiv:1309.4092 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[17]

P. Klos, J. Men´ endez, D. Gazit, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. D 88, 083516 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 029901 (2014)], arXiv:1304.7684 [nucl-th]

2013 arXiv
[18]

Anand, A

N. Anand, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. C. Haxton, Phys. Rev. C 89, 065501 (2014), arXiv:1308.6288 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[19]

Barello, S

G. Barello, S. Chang, and C. A. Newby, Phys. Rev. D 90, 094027 (2014), arXiv:1409.0536 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[20]

Catena and P

R. Catena and P. Gondolo, JCAP 09, 045 (2014), arXiv:1405.2637 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[21]

R. J. Hill and M. P. Solon, Phys. Rev. D 91, 043505 (2015), arXiv:1409.8290 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[22]

Hoferichter, P

M. Hoferichter, P. Klos, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Lett. B 746, 410 (2015), arXiv:1503.04811 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[23]

D’Eramo, B

F. D’Eramo, B. J. Kavanagh, and P. Panci, JHEP 08, 111 (2016), arXiv:1605.04917 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[24]

Bishara, J

F. Bishara, J. Brod, B. Grinstein, and J. Zupan, JCAP 02, 009 (2017), arXiv:1611.00368 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[25]

Hoferichter, P

M. Hoferichter, P. Klos, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. D 94, 063505 (2016), arXiv:1605.08043 [hep- ph]

2016 arXiv
[26]

J. Brod, A. Gootjes-Dreesbach, M. Tammaro, and J. Zu- pan, JHEP 10, 065 (2018), [Erratum: JHEP 07, 012 (2023)], arXiv:1710.10218 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[27]

Bishara, J

F. Bishara, J. Brod, B. Grinstein, and J. Zupan, (2017), arXiv:1708.02678 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[28]

Bishara, J

F. Bishara, J. Brod, B. Grinstein, and J. Zupan, JHEP 11, 059 (2017), arXiv:1707.06998 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[29]

D’Eramo, B

F. D’Eramo, B. J. Kavanagh, and P. Panci, Phys. Lett. B 771, 339 (2017), arXiv:1702.00016 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[30]

Hoferichter, P

M. Hoferichter, P. Klos, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. D 99, 055031 (2019), arXiv:1812.05617 [hep- ph]

2019 arXiv
[31]

C.-Y. Chen, R. J. Hill, M. P. Solon, and A. M. Wijangco, Phys. Lett. B 781, 473 (2018), arXiv:1801.08551 [hep- ph]

2018 arXiv
[32]

J. Brod, B. Grinstein, E. Stamou, and J. Zupan, JHEP 02, 174 (2018), arXiv:1801.04240 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[33]

Hoferichter, J

M. Hoferichter, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. D 102, 074018 (2020), arXiv:2007.08529 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[34]

Brod, SciPost Phys

J. Brod, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 38, 1 (2022), arXiv:2108.11931 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[35]

Aebischer, W

J. Aebischer, W. Altmannshofer, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, JHEP 06, 086 (2022), arXiv:2202.06968 [hep-ph]. 8

2022 arXiv
[36]

Cirelli, E

M. Cirelli, E. Del Nobile, and P. Panci, JCAP 10, 019 (2013), arXiv:1307.5955 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[37]

Barbieri, G

R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, J. Jones-Perez, P. Lodone, and D. M. Straub, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1725 (2011), arXiv:1105.2296 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[38]

Panico and A

G. Panico and A. Pomarol, JHEP 07, 097 (2016), arXiv:1603.06609 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[39]

Bordone, C

M. Bordone, C. Cornella, J. Fuentes-Martin, and G. Isidori, Phys. Lett. B 779, 317 (2018), arXiv:1712.01368 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[40]

Greljo and B

A. Greljo and B. A. Stefanek, Phys. Lett. B 782, 131 (2018), arXiv:1802.04274 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[41]

Barbieri, Acta Phys

R. Barbieri, Acta Phys. Polon. B 52, 789 (2021), arXiv:2103.15635 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[42]

Fuentes-Martin, G

J. Fuentes-Martin, G. Isidori, J. M. Lizana, N. Selimovic, and B. A. Stefanek, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137382 (2022), arXiv:2203.01952 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[43]

Davighi and G

J. Davighi and G. Isidori, JHEP 07, 147 (2023), arXiv:2303.01520 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[44]

Allwicher, C

L. Allwicher, C. Cornella, G. Isidori, and B. A. Stefanek, JHEP 03, 049 (2024), arXiv:2311.00020 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[45]

A. A. Andrianov, P. Osland, A. A. Pankov, N. V. Roma- nenko, and J. Sirkka, Phys. Rev. D 58, 075001 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9804389

1998 arXiv
[46]

B´ elanger, C

G. B´ elanger, C. Delaunay, and S. Westhoff, Phys. Rev. D 92, 055021 (2015), arXiv:1507.06660 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[47]

Bauer and M

M. Bauer and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 93, 115030 (2016), arXiv:1512.06828 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[48]

Altmannshofer, S

W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, JHEP 12, 106 (2016), arXiv:1609.04026 [hep- ph]

2016 arXiv
[49]

Falkowski, S

A. Falkowski, S. F. King, E. Perdomo, and M. Pierre, JHEP 08, 061 (2018), arXiv:1803.04430 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[50]

D. G. Cerde˜ no, A. Cheek, P. Mart´ ın-Ramiro, and J. M. Moreno, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 517 (2019), arXiv:1902.01789 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[51]

Trifinopoulos, Phys

S. Trifinopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 100, 115022 (2019), arXiv:1904.12940 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[52]

Guadagnoli, M

D. Guadagnoli, M. Reboud, and P. Stangl, JHEP 10, 084 (2020), arXiv:2005.10117 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[53]

M. J. Baker, D. A. Faroughy, and S. Trifinopoulos, JHEP 11, 084 (2021), arXiv:2109.08689 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[54]

Agrawal, Z

P. Agrawal, Z. Chacko, C. Kilic, and R. K. Mishra, (2010), arXiv:1003.1912 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[55]

Aalbers et al

J. Aalbers et al. (XLZD), (2024), arXiv:2410.17137 [hep- ex]

2024
[56]

Langacker, Rev

P. Langacker, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1199 (2009), arXiv:0801.1345 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[57]

Fern´ andez Navarro and S

M. Fern´ andez Navarro and S. F. King, JHEP 08, 020 (2023), arXiv:2305.07690 [hep-ph]

2023
[58]

Davighi and B

J. Davighi and B. A. Stefanek, JHEP 11, 100 (2023), arXiv:2305.16280 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[59]

Barbieri and G

R. Barbieri and G. Isidori, JHEP 05, 033 (2024), arXiv:2312.14004 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[60]

Greljo and G

A. Greljo and G. Isidori, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138900 (2024), arXiv:2406.01696 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[61]

F. C. Correia and S. Fajfer, Phys. Rev. D 94, 115023 (2016), arXiv:1609.00860 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[62]

F. C. Correia and S. Fajfer, JHEP 10, 278 (2019), arXiv:1905.03867 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[63]

F. C. Correia and S. Fajfer, JHEP 10, 279 (2019), arXiv:1905.03872 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[64]

Alguero, G

G. Alguero, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, S. Chakraborti, A. Goudelis, S. Kraml, A. Mjallal, and A. Pukhov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 299, 109133 (2024), arXiv:2312.14894 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Sofue and V

Y. Sofue and V. Rubin, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 39, 137 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010594

arXiv 2001

[2] [2]

Bartelmann and P

M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Phys. Rept. 340, 291 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/9912508

arXiv 2001

[3] [3]

Mateo, Ann

M. Mateo, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 36, 435 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9810070

arXiv 1998

[4] [4]

Effective field theory and inelastic dark matter results from XENON1T

E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. D 109, 112017 (2024), arXiv:2210.07591 [hep-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Aprile et al

E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041003 (2023), arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Aalbers et al

J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), (2024), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Pospelov and T

M. Pospelov and T. ter Veldhuis, Phys. Lett. B 480, 181 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0003010

arXiv 2000

[8] [8]

Generalized Analysis of Weakly-Interacting Massive Particle Searches

A. Kurylov and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 69, 063503 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0307185

work page Pith review arXiv 2004