Opening up New Parameter Space for Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter

Aaroodd Ujjayini Ramachandran; Bhaskar Dutta; Jianrong Paul Tang; P. S. Bhupal Dev; Srubabati Goswami

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Opening up New Parameter Space for Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that active-sterile neutrino non-standard interactions can produce sterile-neutrino dark matter at arbitrarily small mixing angles, bypassing the Dodelson-Widrow exclusion.

desk verdict Active-sterile NSI producing sterile neutrino DM via the number-changing channel is a genuinely new and plausible mechanism; the main caveat is the unvalidated spectral closure, not the rate-vs-Hubble worry in the stress test. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22463 v3 pith:BGTCVPPO submitted 2025-05-28 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

P. S. Bhupal Dev , Bhaskar Dutta , Srubabati Goswami , Jianrong Paul Tang , Aaroodd Ujjayini Ramachandran This is my paper

classification hep-phastro-ph.CO

keywords sterileneutrinodarkmatternon-standardinteractionsfreeze-inDodelson-Widrowmechanismnumber-changingprocessscalarmediatorkeV-scalerelicabundance

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

The paper proposes a previously unexplored production route for sterile-neutrino dark matter: a scalar-mediated non-standard interaction between active and sterile neutrinos. The central number-changing process $\nu_a\nu_a \to \nu_s\nu_s$ produces sterile neutrinos at a rate that does not depend on the active-sterile mixing angle, so the observed relic abundance $\Omega_s h^2 = 0.12$ can be reached even as $\sin^2 2\theta \to 0$. This would bypass the astrophysical exclusion of the standard Dodelson-Widrow mechanism, which requires relatively large mixing angles. If correct, keV-scale sterile neutrinos become viable dark-matter candidates in a broad new parameter region that is testable with future X-ray and gamma-ray telescopes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the number-changing process $\nu_a\nu_a \leftrightarrow \nu_s\nu_s$ mediated by the scalar $\phi$, whose heavy-mediator rate $\Gamma_{\nu_a\nu_a \to \nu_s\nu_s}(p) \simeq 7\pi y_{as}^4 p T^4 / (216 m_\phi^4)$ enters the sterile number- and energy-density equations and supplies the mixing-independent production. To close those equations, the sterile distribution is modeled as a modified Fermi-Dirac form $f_s(p) = \alpha/(e^{p/T_s}+1)$, with $\alpha$ and $T_s$ fixed by matching the number and energy densities; $\alpha$ is the normalization that suppresses the final abundance and $T_s$ controls the spectral shape. The elastic process $\nu_a\nu_s \to \nu_a\nu_s$ supplies the thermal potential and damping that modify the residual oscillation production, but it is the number-changing rate that carries the new production path.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier is to solve the unintegrated Boltzmann equation (3) for $f_s(p)$ without assuming the two-parameter ansatz and recompute the relic density at the benchmark point $m_s=10$ keV, $y_{as}=3\times10^{-4}$, $m_\phi=25$ GeV; if the exact momentum distribution changes $\Omega_s h^2$ by more than the observational uncertainty around $0.12$, the central claim collapses. Less directly, a future X-ray decay-line search that excludes the benchmark region would not falsify the production mechanism but would move the viable contours.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The claim is that the interaction $\mathcal{L} \supset y_{as}\bar{\nu}_a\nu_s\phi + \mathrm{h.c.}$, with a heavy scalar $\phi$, opens a number-changing channel $\nu_a\nu_a \leftrightarrow \nu_s\nu_s$ whose rate (Eq. 10) is independent of $\sin^2 2\theta$. Solving the integrated Boltzmann equations with a modified Fermi-Dirac ansatz for the sterile distribution, the authors find that this channel alone produces the full observed dark-matter abundance for mixing angles that can be arbitrarily small, including exactly zero. The viable region spans sterile masses of roughly $1$--$100$ keV, active-sterile couplings $y_{as}\sim 10^{-4}$--$10^{-3}$, and mediator masses above about $5$ GeV, while remaining consistent with X-ray, gamma-ray, Lyman-$\alpha$, BBN and laboratory constraints. No fine-tuned resonance or primordial lepton asymmetry is required.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the sterile-neutrino population, although never in thermal equilibrium, always has the two-parameter modified Fermi-Dirac shape of Eq. (2), with $\alpha$ and $T_s$ fixed by its number and energy densities; if freeze-in actually produces a differently shaped momentum distribution, the predicted relic abundance and the allowed parameter contours would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Sterile-neutrino dark matter can be produced at arbitrarily small active-sterile mixing angles, so the excluded Dodelson-Widrow region is no longer a barrier for keV-scale warm dark matter.
The viable parameter space with $\Omega_s h^2 = 0.12$ extends to $m_s$ in the $1$--$100$ keV range, $y_{as}\sim 10^{-4}$--$10^{-3}$ and $m_\phi\gtrsim 5$ GeV, where future X-ray missions and beta-decay experiments can search for the decay line and kinematic signatures.
The same scalar interaction gives an energy-dependent opacity for neutrinos passing through dark-matter halos, producing attenuation signatures in astrophysical neutrino spectra.
The $\nu_a\nu_a \to \nu_s\nu_s$ process can deplete active neutrinos in core-collapse supernovae, suppressing the diffuse supernova neutrino background relative to standard predictions.
For sub-MeV sterile neutrinos, the process acts as a post-decoupling neutrino cooling channel that mimics self-interacting neutrinos and could ease current cosmological tensions.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper's sterile-neutrino focus, the mixing-independent freeze-in logic should apply to any number-changing $2\to 2$ process connecting a thermal bath to an almost empty sector, so similar parameter openings may exist for axion-like particles or other feebly interacting hidden-sector states.
The paper does not solve the full momentum-dependent Boltzmann equation; a dedicated solution that develops spectral features the two-parameter Fermi-Dirac ansatz cannot represent would shift the relic-density contours, and the size of that shift is a quantitative test of the approximation.
In the benchmark window the elastic rate briefly exceeds Hubble while number-changing production stays below it; that kinetic-equilibrium-with-suppressed-chemical-abundance regime could leave a distinctive non-thermal momentum spectrum that future Lyman-$\alpha$ or 21-cm measurements might distinguish from the standard Dodelson-Widrow spectrum.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new ingredient here is the number-changing process ν_a ν_a → ν_s ν_s mediated by a scalar that couples active and sterile neutrinos. That makes production independent of the active-sterile mixing angle, which is a real departure from the DW mechanism and from earlier NSI scenarios that only had active-active or sterile-sterile self-interactions. The paper shows this can open up a parameter region previously excluded by X-ray searches, and it maps out observational prospects. The central logic holds up: the rate calculations in the supplemental material are consistent in the heavy-mediator limit, the DW limit is recovered for small couplings, and the constraints from X-ray, gamma-ray, BBN, and structure formation are folded in sensibly.

The main soft spot is the two-parameter modified Fermi-Dirac ansatz for the sterile neutrino spectrum, with α and T_s matched to number and energy densities. The paper does not validate this closure against a full QKE solution, and all the rates are evaluated assuming that shape. If freeze-in actually produces a non-thermal spectrum that this ansatz cannot represent, the contours in Figs. 1 and 4 could shift. That is a moderate concern, not a fatal one, but it is the thing I would want to see addressed in revision. Also, the numerical solver is not released, which limits reproducibility.

I checked the stress-test note's claim that the forward rate exceeds Hubble at T_i. It does not hold up. The note uses H ≈ 2.6×10^-21 GeV, but the standard expression H = 1.66√g* T^2 / M_Pl with g* ≈ 70 and T = 1.5 GeV gives H ≈ 2.6×10^-18 GeV. The forward rate from Eq. (10) is about 1.6×10^-20 GeV, so Γ/H ≈ 0.006. The paper's Fig. S1, which shows the rates staying below H, is consistent. The stress-test's arithmetic, not the paper's, is off.

The paper deserves a serious referee. It is a plausible new production mechanism, the calculations are presented at a level that can be checked, and the phenomenological implications are clearly laid out. Who is it for? DM model builders and sterile neutrino phenomenologists, especially anyone working on X-ray and neutrino observables. I would recommend sending it to peer review, with the request that the authors either provide a QKE sanity check for the spectral closure or at least discuss its limitations, and consider releasing the code.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new production mechanism for sterile-neutrino dark matter, in which a scalar mediator couples active to sterile neutrinos (Eq. 1) and opens the number-changing channel ν_aν_a → ν_sν_s (Fig. 2c). The authors argue that this channel produces sterile neutrinos at a rate independent of the active-sterile mixing angle, so the observed relic abundance Ω_s h² = 0.12 can be obtained even for sin²2θ → 0, evading the Dodelson-Widrow exclusion. They solve integrated Boltzmann equations for the sterile number and energy densities, closing the system with a two-parameter modified Fermi-Dirac ansatz (Eq. 2), and present allowed regions in the (m_s, sin²2θ) and (m_φ, y_as) planes. The paper also discusses X-ray, Lyman-α, and future laboratory sensitivities.

Significance. If the quantitative results are correct, the mechanism is genuinely novel: it opens a previously unexplored production channel for sterile-neutrino DM that does not rely on mixing, a resonance, or a lepton asymmetry. The paper contains a serious effort to confront the parameter space with astrophysical constraints and to identify falsifiable signatures (X-ray and gamma-ray telescopes, beta-decay experiments, DSNB and supernova probes). The analytic collision terms in the heavy-mediator limit are provided in the supplemental material, and the DW limit is recovered as a check. These are strengths. However, the quantitative relic-density contours rest on two assumptions that are not adequately validated: the spectral closure of Eq. (2) and the choice of initial temperature. Both need to be addressed before the central claim can be considered established.

major comments (2)

[Footnote 2 and Eq. (10)] The claim that the final result is insensitive to the initial temperature T_i is not supported. For the benchmark (m_s=10 keV, y_as=3e-4, m_φ=25 GeV), Eq. (10) with p≃T gives Γ_{νaνa→νsνs}/H ≈ 6×10^-3 at T=1.5 GeV, using H≈2.6×10^-18 GeV for g_*=70. This ratio grows as T^3 and reaches unity at T≈6–8 GeV. A standard radiation-dominated universe passes through temperatures above this before cooling to T_i=1.5 GeV, so the zero-abundance initial condition is not the generic one: the sterile sector would have reached chemical equilibrium at higher temperatures, invalidating the freeze-in calculation and leading to a thermal (overproduced) abundance. The paper must either impose an explicit upper bound on the reheating temperature (T_RH ≲ a few GeV for the benchmark) and restrict the parameter space accordingly, or integrate from a sufficiently high temperature and demonstrate that the abundance is not overproduced. As written, the statement of insensitivity to T_i is incorrect and the parameter-space plots in Figs. 1 and 4 implicitly assume a non-standard low reheating temperature that is not stated.
[Eq. (2), Eqs. (S5)–(S7), Fig. S2] The two-moment closure assumes that f_s(p) is always of the form α/(e^{p/T_s}+1), with α and T_s fixed by n_s and ρ_s. All collision terms, including the inverse number-changing rate and the modified DW production term, are evaluated using this ansatz. For the benchmark, the elastic scattering rate ν_aν_s→ν_aν_s is smaller than H over most of the integration range (it becomes comparable to H only near pT∼m_φ², i.e., T≳10 GeV, which is above the chosen T_i), so kinetic equilibrium does not justify the ansatz. The resulting relic-density contours in Figs. 1 and 4 are therefore contingent on an unvalidated spectral shape. Please validate the moment closure against a momentum-resolved solution of Eq. (3) for at least the benchmark point and one additional point, or alternatively demonstrate that the integrated yield is insensitive to the closure by comparing with a different parametrization (e.g., a distribution with a true chemical potential or a spectral-index deformation).

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (10) vs. Fig. S1] I checked the apparent tension between Eq. (10) and the caption of Fig. S1: using the correct Hubble rate H≈2.6×10^-18 GeV at T=1.5 GeV (g_*=70), Eq. (10) gives Γ/H≈6×10^-3 for p=T, so the statement that the number-changing rates stay below H over the plotted range is consistent with Eq. (10). The concern about a rate exceeding H at T_i appears to be based on a numerical error in the Hubble rate.
[Eq. (S16)] The second term in the bracket of Eq. (S16) appears to be missing a denominator: as typeset, 2m_φ²(2m_φ²+s) log(...) has dimensions of mass squared rather than being dimensionless. Please check the original LaTeX and ensure the printed formula is correct.
[Eq. (1) and flavor structure] The active flavor index is suppressed in Eq. (1), but it is not clear whether y_as couples to a single active flavor or to a sum over flavors. This changes the production rate by a factor of the number of flavors and should be stated explicitly, together with the corresponding effect on the relic-density contours.
[Fig. 4 and Lyman-α bound] The text states a Lyman-α lower bound m_s≳8 keV, but Fig. 4 shows viable contours for masses as low as 1 keV. Please indicate clearly in Fig. 4 or its caption which parts of the plotted mass range are excluded by the Lyman-α bound.
[Potential Impact section] The discussion of supernova and DSNB signatures is speculative and would benefit from a brief statement that quantitative analyses are needed before those claims are made.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: relic contours are computed from the stated Boltzmann equations; 0.12 is a contour condition, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense. The central claim, that νaνa → νsνs produces sterile-neutrino dark matter at a rate independent of sin^2 2θ, follows from an explicit matrix element (Eqs. S15–S16), the integrated collision terms (Eqs. S7, S10), and the Boltzmann equations (Eqs. 3 and S6). The active–sterile mixing angle appears only in the DW collision term, not in the number-changing production rate, so the claimed independence from mixing is a genuine computational result rather than an input. The relic-abundance contours in Figs. 1, 4, and S3 are obtained by scanning the input parameters y_as, m_phi, m_s, and θ and solving for the points where Ω_s h^2 = 0.12; the observed abundance is used as a contour condition, not as a fitted parameter that is later relabeled as a prediction. The modified Fermi–Dirac closure of Eq. (2) is an explicitly stated approximation, not a hidden one: α and T_s are defined by matching n_s and ρ_s (Eqs. S18–S19), and the Boltzmann equations then evolve n_s and ρ_s, so the closure is a self-consistency constraint rather than a circular definition of the final relic density. Self-citations such as Refs. [42], [73], [74], [96], and [104] are contextual or phenomenological and are not load-bearing for the production-rate calculation. Any concern about the numerical reliability of the spectral closure or the rate comparison in Fig. S1 would be a correctness or consistency issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The main inputs beyond standard cosmology and neutrino physics are the new scalar mediator, its Yukawa coupling to active and sterile neutrinos, and the two-parameter description of the sterile neutrino spectrum. The coupling and mediator mass are scanned to match the observed DM relic density, while the spectral ansatz and the neglect of on-shell mediator effects are assumptions specific to this analysis. No additional fine-tuned resonance or lepton asymmetry is required, which is the point of the mechanism.

free parameters (4)

y_as (active-sterile Yukawa coupling) = 3e-4 (benchmark); scanned 1e-5 to 1e-1
Coupling of the nu_a-nu_s-scalar interaction; chosen and scanned to produce Omega_s h^2 = 0.12, defining the central contours in Figs. 1, 4, and S3.
m_phi (mediator mass) = 25 GeV (benchmark); scanned 5 to 1000 GeV
Mass of the scalar mediator; chosen to lie in the heavy-mediator limit and scanned to map the allowed parameter space.
m_s (sterile neutrino mass) = 10 keV (benchmark); 1 to 100 keV
Sterile neutrino mass; input parameter scanned, with a lower bound near 8 keV from Lyman-alpha constraints.
sin^2 2theta (active-sterile mixing) = 1e-12 (benchmark); can be 0
Mixing angle; the central point of the paper is that viable production persists even as this parameter vanishes.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper The sterile neutrino distribution always has the modified Fermi-Dirac form f_s(p) = alpha / (exp(p/T_s) + 1) (Eq. 2).
Used to close the Boltzmann moments; not derived from the underlying dynamics. If the real spectrum is non-thermal, the collision terms (S2, S7) are mis-modeled.
domain assumption The scalar mediator is heavy (m_phi^2 >> pT) and decays much faster than the production timescales, so its abundance and on-shell effects are neglected.
Stated in the Model section; restricts the analysis to m_phi >= 5 GeV and y_as >= 1e-8, and leaves the light-mediator regime for future work.
domain assumption No primordial sterile neutrino population is present; production starts from the active sector at T_i = 1.5 GeV.
Stated in the Model section; standard for freeze-in. If an initial population existed, the relic abundance would increase.
domain assumption The semi-classical Boltzmann equation with an effective transition probability is valid in the small mixing angle limit.
Invoked to justify Eq. (3) from the QKE, citing Refs. [44-46]; for theta = 0 the mixing term vanishes but the number-changing term remains.
domain assumption Sterile neutrino masses and active neutrino masses are negligible compared with the relevant temperatures and momenta in the cross-section calculations.
Used in the rate simplifications (S14, S16, S17); valid for keV sterile neutrinos at MeV to GeV temperatures.

invented entities (1)

Complex scalar mediator phi coupled to nu_a-nu_s via y_as independent evidence
purpose: Mediates the active-sterile scattering and the number-changing process nu_a nu_a -> nu_s nu_s that drives sterile neutrino DM production.
The same scalar mediates nu_a-nu_s scattering that can attenuate astrophysical neutrino fluxes through DM halos (Refs. [40,41,74,81-86]) and affects supernova neutrino spectra and the DSNB; laboratory searches for the scalar are bounded by Z, tau, and LHC constraints [72,73], although the cosmologically allowed regime lies below current lab reach. This gives external falsifiable handles.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Opening up New Parameter Space for Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BGTCVPPO

@misc{pith2026250522463,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Opening up New Parameter Space for Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BGTCVPPO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22463}
}

abstract

Sterile neutrinos are compelling dark matter (DM) candidates, yet the minimal production mechanism solely based on active ($\nu_a$)-sterile ($\nu_s$) oscillations is excluded by astrophysical observations. Non-standard self-interactions in either active ($\nu_a-\nu_a$) or sterile ($\nu_s-\nu_s$) sector are known to alter the sterile neutrino DM production in the early Universe, which could alleviate the tension with astrophysical constraints to some extent. Here we propose a novel solution where scalar-mediated non-standard interactions between active and sterile neutrinos ($\nu_a-\nu_s$) generate new production channels for $\nu_s$, independent of the active-sterile mixing and without the need for any fine-tuned resonance or primordial lepton asymmetry. This framework enables efficient sterile neutrino DM production even at vanishingly small mixing angles and opens up new viable regions of parameter space that can be tested with future $X$-ray and gamma-ray observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22463 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Feynman diagrams illustrating active–sterile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Evolution of the comoving yield for sterile neu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Mediator mass versus coupling strength for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter as a Probe of Inflationary Reheating
hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Inflaton decays during reheating can produce all of the observed sterile-neutrino dark matter with a branching ratio below 10^-4, evading X-ray bounds and making a future X-ray line a probe of the inflaton mass and re...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Arcadi, D

G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, J. P. Neto, M. Pierre, S. Pro- fumo, and F. S. Queiroz, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 152 (2025), arXiv:2403.15860 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2025
[2]

Baer, K.-Y

H. Baer, K.-Y. Choi, J. E. Kim, and L. Roszkowski, Phys. Rept.555, 1 (2015), arXiv:1407.0017 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2015
[3]

J. L. Feng and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 231301 (2008), arXiv:0803.4196 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2008
[4]

L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, JHEP03, 080, arXiv:0911.1120 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[5]

C. B. Adamset al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.14923 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2022
[6]

K. N. Abazajian, Phys. Rept. , 1 (2017), arXiv:1705.01837 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2017
[7]

Hui, Ann

L. Hui, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.59, 247 (2021), arXiv:2101.11735 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2021
[8]

Birdet al., Phys

S. Birdet al., Phys. Dark Univ.41, 101231 (2023), arXiv:2203.08967 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2023

Show all 105 references

[9]

Asaka, S

T. Asaka, S. Blanchet, and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B631, 151 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0503065

2005 arXiv
[10]

Dreweset al., JCAP01, 025, arXiv:1602.04816 [hep- ph]

M. Dreweset al., JCAP01, 025, arXiv:1602.04816 [hep- ph]

arXiv
[11]

Boyarsky, M

A. Boyarsky, M. Drewes, T. Lasserre, S. Mertens, and O. Ruchayskiy, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.104, 1 (2019), arXiv:1807.07938 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[12]

Dasgupta and J

B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp, Phys. Rept.928, 1 (2021), arXiv:2106.05913 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[13]

Dodelson and L

S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 17 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9303287

1994 arXiv
[14]

Borriello, M

E. Borriello, M. Paolillo, G. Miele, G. Longo, and R. Owen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.425, 1628 (2012), arXiv:1109.5943 [astro-ph.GA]

2012 arXiv
[15]

Riemer-Sørensen, Astron

S. Riemer-Sørensen, Astron. Astrophys.590, A71 (2016), arXiv:1405.7943 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[16]

M. E. Anderson, E. Churazov, and J. N. Breg- man, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.452, 3905 (2015), arXiv:1408.4115 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[17]

Hofmann, J

F. Hofmann, J. S. Sanders, K. Nandra, N. Clerc, and M. Gaspari, Astron. Astrophys.592, A112 (2016), arXiv:1606.04091 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[18]

Dessert, N

C. Dessert, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Safdi, Science367, 1465 (2020), arXiv:1812.06976 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[19]

K. C. Y. Ng, B. M. Roach, K. Perez, J. F. Beacom, S. Horiuchi, R. Krivonos, and D. R. Wik, Phys. Rev. D 99, 083005 (2019), arXiv:1901.01262 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[20]

Calore, A

F. Calore, A. Dekker, P. D. Serpico, and T. Siegert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.520, 4167 (2023), [Er- ratum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 538, 132 (2025)], arXiv:2209.06299 [hep-ph]

2023
[21]

R. A. Krivonos, V. V. Barinov, A. A. Mukhin, and D. S. Gorbunov, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 261002 (2024), arXiv:2405.17861 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[22]

W. Yin, Y. Fujita, Y. Ezoe, and Y. Ishisaki, (2025), arXiv:2503.04726 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[23]

Shi and G

X.-D. Shi and G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2832 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9810076

1999 arXiv
[24]

X. Shi, D. N. Schramm, and B. D. Fields, Phys. Rev. D 48, 2563 (1993), arXiv:astro-ph/9307027

1993 arXiv
[25]

Boyarsky, O

A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, and M. Shaposh- nikov, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.59, 191 (2009), arXiv:0901.0011 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[26]

Bodeker and A

D. Bodeker and A. Klaus, JHEP07, 218, arXiv:2005.03039 [hep-ph]

2005 arXiv
[27]

Gorbunov, D

D. Gorbunov, D. Kalashnikov, and G. Krugan, (2025), arXiv:2502.17374 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[28]

P. S. B. Devet al., SciPost Phys.2, 001 (2019), arXiv:1907.00991 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[29]

Datta, R

A. Datta, R. Roshan, and A. Sil, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 231801 (2021), arXiv:2104.02030 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[30]

Abada, G

A. Abada, G. Arcadi, M. Lucente, G. Piazza, and S. Rosauro-Alcaraz, JHEP11, 180, arXiv:2308.01341 [hep-ph]
[31]

Abada, G

A. Abada, G. Arcadi, M. Lucente, and S. Rosauro- Alcaraz, (2025), arXiv:2503.20017 [hep-ph]

2025
[32]

De Gouvˆ ea, M

A. De Gouvˆ ea, M. Sen, W. Tangarife, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 081802 (2020), arXiv:1910.04901 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[33]

K. J. Kelly, M. Sen, W. Tangarife, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D101, 115031 (2020), arXiv:2005.03681 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[34]

Alonso- ´Alvarez and J

G. Alonso- ´Alvarez and J. M. Cline, JCAP10, 041, arXiv:2107.07524 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[35]

Benso, W

C. Benso, W. Rodejohann, M. Sen, and A. U. Ramachandran, Phys. Rev. D105, 055016 (2022), arXiv:2112.00758 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[36]

Johns and G

L. Johns and G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. D100, 023533 (2019), arXiv:1903.08296 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[37]

Bringmann, P

T. Bringmann, P. F. Depta, M. Hufnagel, J. Kersten, J. T. Ruderman, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, Phys. Rev. D 107, L071702 (2023), arXiv:2206.10630 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[38]

M. D. Astros and S. Vogl, JHEP03, 032, arXiv:2307.15565 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[39]

K. S. Babu and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Lett. B275, 112 (1992)

1992
[40]

D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. Miele, S. Morisi, and N. Saviano, Phys. Rev. D101, 083024 (2020), arXiv:2002.10125 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[41]

D. F. G. Fiorillo, S. Morisi, G. Miele, and N. Saviano, Phys. Rev. D102, 083014 (2020), arXiv:2007.07866 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[42]

Dutta, S

B. Dutta, S. Ghosh, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. D102, 055017 (2020), arXiv:2006.01319 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[43]

Abazajian, G

K. Abazajian, G. M. Fuller, and M. Patel, Phys. Rev. D64, 023501 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101524

2001 arXiv
[44]

N. F. Bell, R. R. Volkas, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. D59, 113001 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9809363. 7

1999 arXiv
[45]

C. T. Kishimoto and G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. D78, 023524 (2008), arXiv:0802.3377 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[46]

Johns, Phys

L. Johns, Phys. Rev. D100, 083536 (2019), arXiv:1908.04244 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[47]

Merle, A

A. Merle, A. Schneider, and M. Totzauer, JCAP04, 003, arXiv:1512.05369 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[48]

Asaka, M

T. Asaka, M. Laine, and M. Shaposhnikov, JHEP 01, 091, [Erratum: JHEP 02, 028 (2015)], arXiv:hep- ph/0612182

2015
[49]

N¨ otzold and G

D. N¨ otzold and G. Raffelt, Nucl. Phys. B307, 924 (1988)

1988
[50]

J. C. D’Olivo, J. F. Nieves, and M. Torres, Phys. Rev. D46, 1172 (1992)

1992
[51]

Abazajian, Phys

K. Abazajian, Phys. Rev. D73, 063506 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0511630

2006 arXiv
[52]

Dasgupta and J

B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 031803 (2014), arXiv:1310.6337 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[53]

Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[54]

Barret, A

D. Barret, A. Decourchelle, A. Fabian, M. Guainazzi, K. Nandra, R. Smith, and J.-W. d. Herder, Astron. Nachr.341, 224 (2020), arXiv:1912.04615 [astro-ph.IM]

2020 arXiv
[55]

Merloniet al.(eROSITA), (2012), arXiv:1209.3114 [astro-ph.HE]

A. Merloniet al.(eROSITA), (2012), arXiv:1209.3114 [astro-ph.HE]

2012 arXiv
[56]

Malyshev, C

D. Malyshev, C. Thorpe-Morgan, A. Santangelo, J. Jochum, and S.-N. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D101, 123009 (2020), arXiv:2001.07014 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[57]

Boyarsky, O

A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, D. Iakubovskyi, and J. Franse, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 251301 (2014), arXiv:1402.4119 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[58]

Bulbul, M

E. Bulbul, M. Markevitch, A. Foster, R. K. Smith, M. Loewenstein, and S. W. Randall, Astrophys. J.789, 13 (2014), arXiv:1402.2301 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[59]

Cappelluti, E

N. Cappelluti, E. Bulbul, A. Foster, P. Natarajan, M. C. Urry, M. W. Bautz, F. Civano, E. Miller, and R. K. Smith, Astrophys. J.854, 179 (2018), arXiv:1701.07932 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[60]

Dessert, J

C. Dessert, J. W. Foster, Y. Park, and B. R. Safdi, Astrophys. J.964, 185 (2024), arXiv:2309.03254 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[61]

Mertenset al.(KATRIN), J

S. Mertenset al.(KATRIN), J. Phys. G46, 065203 (2019), arXiv:1810.06711 [physics.ins-det]

2019 arXiv
[62]

C. J. Martoffet al., Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 024008 (2021)

2021
[63]

M.-Y. Wang, J. F. Cherry, S. Horiuchi, and L. E. Stri- gari, (2017), arXiv:1712.04597 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[64]

E. O. Nadleret al.(DES), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 091101 (2021), arXiv:2008.00022 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[65]

I. A. Zelko, T. Treu, K. N. Abazajian, D. Gilman, A. J. Benson, S. Birrer, A. M. Nierenberg, and A. Kusenko, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 191301 (2022), arXiv:2205.09777 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[66]

Newton, M

O. Newton, M. R. Lovell, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenk- ins, J. C. Helly, S. Cole, and A. J. Benson, (2024), arXiv:2408.16042 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[67]

C. Y. Tan, A. Dekker, and A. Drlica-Wagner, Phys. Rev. D111, 063079 (2025), arXiv:2409.18917 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[68]

Garzilli, A

A. Garzilli, A. Magalich, O. Ruchayskiy, and A. Bo- yarsky, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, 2356 (2021), arXiv:1912.09397 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[69]

Tremaine and J

S. Tremaine and J. E. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 407 (1979)

1979
[70]

Boyarsky, O

A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, and D. Iakubovskyi, JCAP 03, 005, arXiv:0808.3902 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[71]

Bezrukov, D

F. Bezrukov, D. Gorbunov, and E. Koreshkova, (2024), arXiv:2412.20585 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[72]

Brdar, M

V. Brdar, M. Lindner, S. Vogl, and X.-J. Xu, Phys. Rev. D101, 115001 (2020), arXiv:2003.05339 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[73]

P. S. B. Dev, D. Kim, D. Sathyan, K. Sinha, and Y. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2407.12738 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[74]

P. S. B. Dev, D. Kim, D. Sathyan, K. Sinha, and Y. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2507.01000 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[75]

Anet al.(JUNO), J

F. Anet al.(JUNO), J. Phys. G43, 030401 (2016), arXiv:1507.05613 [physics.ins-det]

2016 arXiv
[76]

Abeet al.(Hyper-Kamiokande), (2018), arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]

K. Abeet al.(Hyper-Kamiokande), (2018), arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]

2018 arXiv
[77]

Abiet al.(DUNE), (2020), arXiv:2002.03005 [hep- ex]

B. Abiet al.(DUNE), (2020), arXiv:2002.03005 [hep- ex]

2020
[78]

M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), JINST12(03), P03012, [Erratum: JINST 19, E05001 (2024)], arXiv:1612.05093 [astro-ph.IM]

2024 arXiv
[79]

Adrian-Martinezet al.(KM3Net), J

S. Adrian-Martinezet al.(KM3Net), J. Phys. G43, 084001 (2016), arXiv:1601.07459 [astro-ph.IM]

2016 arXiv
[80]

K. C. Y. Ng and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D90, 065035 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 089904 (2014)], arXiv:1404.2288 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[81]

J. M. Cline, S. Gao, F. Guo, Z. Lin, S. Liu, M. Puel, P. Todd, and T. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 091402 (2023), arXiv:2209.02713 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[82]

Ferrer, G

F. Ferrer, G. Herrera, and A. Ibarra, JCAP05, 057, arXiv:2209.06339 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[83]

D¨ oring and S

C. D¨ oring and S. Vogl, JCAP07, 015, arXiv:2304.08533 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[84]

Bert´ olez-Mart ´ ınez, G

T. Bert´ olez-Mart ´ ınez, G. Herrera, P. Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, and J. Terol Calvo, (2025), arXiv:2506.08993 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[85]

Mondol, S

R. Mondol, S. Bouri, A. K. Saha, and R. Laha, (2025), arXiv:2506.19910 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[86]

Y. He, J. Liu, X.-P. Wang, and Y.-M. Zhong, (2025), arXiv:2504.20163 [hep-ph]

2025
[87]

Shi and G

X. Shi and G. Sigl, Phys. Lett. B323, 360 (1994), [Er- ratum: Phys.Lett.B 324, 516–516 (1994)], arXiv:hep- ph/9312247

1994
[88]

G. G. Raffelt and S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D83, 093014 (2011), arXiv:1102.5124 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[89]

C. A. Arg¨ uelles, V. Brdar, and J. Kopp, Phys. Rev. D 99, 043012 (2019), arXiv:1605.00654 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[90]

A. M. Suliga, I. Tamborra, and M.-R. Wu, JCAP12, 019, arXiv:1908.11382 [astro-ph.HE]

1908 arXiv
[91]

Ray and Y.-Z

A. Ray and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D108, 063025 (2023), arXiv:2306.08209 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[92]

Syvolap, O

V. Syvolap, O. Ruchayskiy, and A. Boyarsky, Phys. Rev. D106, 015017 (2022), arXiv:1909.06320 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[93]

A. M. Suliga, I. Tamborra, and M.-R. Wu, JCAP08, 018, arXiv:2004.11389 [astro-ph.HE]

2004 arXiv
[94]

Ray and Y.-Z

A. Ray and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D110, 043007 (2024), arXiv:2404.14485 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[95]

C. A. Manzari, J. Martin Camalich, J. Spinner, and R. Ziegler, Phys. Rev. D108, 103020 (2023), arXiv:2307.03143 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[96]

C. V. Cappiello, P. S. B. Dev, and A. V. Patwardhan, (2025), arXiv:2503.09691 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[97]

Y. S. Jeong, S. Palomares-Ruiz, M. H. Reno, and I. Sarcevic, JCAP06, 019, arXiv:1803.04541 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[98]

De Gouvˆ ea, I

A. De Gouvˆ ea, I. Martinez-Soler, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D102, 123012 (2020), arXiv:2007.13748 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[99]

A. B. Balantekin, G. M. Fuller, A. Ray, and 8 A. M. Suliga, Phys. Rev. D108, 123011 (2023), arXiv:2310.07145 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[100]

Chauhan, R

G. Chauhan, R. A. Gustafson, G. Herrera, T. Johnson, and I. Shoemaker, (2025), arXiv:2505.03882 [hep-ph]

2025
[101]

Harada, Review of diffuse sn neutrino background, talk at Neutrino 2024 (2024)

M. Harada, Review of diffuse sn neutrino background, talk at Neutrino 2024 (2024)

2024
[102]

Castelvecchi, Nature 10.1038/d41586-024-02221-y (2024)

D. Castelvecchi, Nature 10.1038/d41586-024-02221-y (2024)

2024 doi
[103]

Benso, T

C. Benso, T. Schwetz, and D. Vatsyayan, JCAP04, 054, arXiv:2410.23926 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[104]

A. Das, P. S. B. Dev, C. Gao, S. Ghosh, and T. Kim, (2025), arXiv:2506.08085 [hep-ph]

2025
[105]

Cannoni, Phys

M. Cannoni, Phys. Rev. D89, 103533 (2014), arXiv:1311.4494 [astro-ph.CO]. Supplemental Material Collision terms The collision terms appearing in the Boltzmann equation (3) are given explicitly below [43]: Cνa↔νs (p) = Γtot 4 ω2(p) sin2(2θ) ω2(p) sin2(2θ) +D 2(p) + [ω(p) cos(2θ...

2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Arcadi, D

G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, J. P. Neto, M. Pierre, S. Pro- fumo, and F. S. Queiroz, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 152 (2025), arXiv:2403.15860 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

Baer, K.-Y

H. Baer, K.-Y. Choi, J. E. Kim, and L. Roszkowski, Phys. Rept.555, 1 (2015), arXiv:1407.0017 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2015

[3] [3]

J. L. Feng and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 231301 (2008), arXiv:0803.4196 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2008

[4] [4]

L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, JHEP03, 080, arXiv:0911.1120 [hep-ph]

arXiv

[5] [5]

C. B. Adamset al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.14923 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2022

[6] [6]

K. N. Abazajian, Phys. Rept. , 1 (2017), arXiv:1705.01837 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2017

[7] [7]

Hui, Ann

L. Hui, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.59, 247 (2021), arXiv:2101.11735 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2021

[8] [8]

Birdet al., Phys

S. Birdet al., Phys. Dark Univ.41, 101231 (2023), arXiv:2203.08967 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2023