Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 82 references

2024 TASI Lectures: A Dark Matter Primer

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 These lecture notes argue that dark matter's empirical evidence, cosmological production mechanisms, and direct-detection formalism together give graduate students a correct working picture and a rubric for prioritizing searches.

desk verdict Useful, standard dark matter lecture notes, but the printed Boltzmann equation and a few numerics need fixing before the notes are reliable as a teaching text. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05234 v2 pith:JECTAFWC submitted 2025-06-05 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Tien-Tien Yu This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords darkmatterthermalrelicfreeze-outfreeze-inmisalignmentmechanismdirectdetectionpowerspectrumWIMP
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

These lecture notes argue that a coherent, working picture of dark matter follows from three linked pieces: the empirical evidence that dark matter is a non-relativistic, nearly collisionless fluid; the cosmological production mechanisms that set its abundance; and the direct-detection formalism that turns those properties into observable recoil rates. The notes are a primer, not a review, and their aim is to give an early graduate student the correct benchmarks and the reasoning behind them. A sympathetic reader comes away with the standard targets — a thermal-relic annihilation cross-section near $10^{-9}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$, a perturbative unitarity ceiling near $50$–$100\,\mathrm{TeV}$, and fermionic mass bounds near $180\,\mathrm{eV}$ — and with the understanding that each target inherits assumptions about early-Universe cosmology.

What carries the argument

The Boltzmann equation for the comoving number density, $\frac{dY}{dx} = \frac{x\,s(m_\chi)}{H(m_\chi)}\,\langle\sigma v\rangle\,[(Y^0)^2 - Y^2]$, is the engine of the production discussion: it converts annihilation cross-sections into relic abundances and yields the $10^{-9}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$ benchmark. The matter power spectrum $\Delta^2(k)$ is the observational machine that converts CMB, Lyman-$\alpha$, and large-scale-structure data into the properties 'cold' and 'collisionless'. The direct-detection machinery is the differential rate $dR/dE_R \propto \sigma\, n_\chi\, n_T\, e^{-E_R/E_0}$ for nuclear recoils, together with its generalizations to electron scattering (Eqs. 67–68) and to bosonic absorption via the photoelectric cross-section. These are the three tools that carry the argument from evidence to searches.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier: establish observationally that the pre-BBN Universe underwent a period of early matter domination or significant entropy injection, for example through a measured modification of small-scale CMB damping or a confirmed decay of a long-lived particle into the dark sector. Under the standard history such a period is absent, and if present it changes the freeze-out relation, so the benchmark cross-section $\langle\sigma v\rangle \simeq 10^{-9}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$ would no longer be the required value for $\Omega_\chi h^2 \simeq 0.12$. Alternatively, discovering a thermal dark matter particle with $m_\chi \gtrsim 100\,\mathrm{TeV}$ and perturbative couplings would directly violate the unitarity bound the notes present.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in its opening sentence, is that dark matter is a non-relativistic fluid whose existence is necessary to explain the dynamics and evolution of the Universe. From that starting point the lectures establish a model-independent property list — dark, cold, collisionless on large scales, stable on cosmological timescales, halo-forming — and translate each property into a constraint or mass bound. The production section then asks whether dark matter was ever in thermal equilibrium with the Standard Model, deriving the freeze-out relic abundance, the freeze-in alternative, and the misalignment mechanism, with the Boltzmann equation as the common tool. The direct-detection section closes the loop by giving the rate formulas that connect a dark-matter model to the recoil spectra experiments actually measure. The discovery the author is trying to establish is pedagogical: these ingredients, taken together, give a correct working picture and a rubric for prioritizing searches.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Universe before Big Bang Nucleosynthesis followed the standard history — radiation-dominated expansion, conserved entropy, and a standard reheating temperature — because every relic-abundance benchmark in the notes is derived from that history.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If dark matter is a thermal relic, its present-day annihilation cross-section is pinned near $\langle\sigma v\rangle \simeq 10^{-26}\,\mathrm{cm^3/s}$, giving indirect searches a concrete target to reach or exclude.
  • The perturbative unitarity bound implies that a thermal WIMP heavier than about $50$–$100\,\mathrm{TeV}$ would require non-perturbative couplings or a non-standard cosmological history, not just a larger accelerator.
  • The Lee-Weinberg argument means sub-GeV thermal dark matter needs new light mediators, redirecting direct-detection strategy toward lighter targets and electron recoils.
  • Fermionic dark matter lighter than roughly $180\,\mathrm{eV}$ is excluded by phase-space arguments in dwarf galaxies, while bosonic dark matter can be as light as $10^{-21}\,\mathrm{eV}$.
  • Direct detection experiments face a neutrino floor at low cross-sections, so continued progress requires larger targets, lower thresholds, or new interaction channels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the notes: a confirmed non-standard pre-BBN epoch — early matter domination, late decays, or entropy injection — would shift every mass and cross-section benchmark in these lectures, reordering the search priorities they motivate.
  • Beyond the notes: null results in WIMP direct-detection searches should be read as constraining standard freeze-out cosmology as much as particle physics, a reading the notes' own caveats support.
  • Beyond the notes: a testable extension would be to recompute the same relic benchmarks under explicitly non-standard histories and map how the direct-detection reach contours shift, something the notes identify as necessary but leave to the literature.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. These TASI lecture notes provide an introductory survey of dark matter: the empirical evidence (rotation curves, clusters, structure formation, CMB), inferred particle properties (dark, cold, collisionless, stable, halo-forming), canonical production mechanisms (thermal freeze-out, freeze-in, misalignment), and a detailed treatment of direct detection (nuclear recoils, DM-electron scattering, and bosonic absorption). The declared aim is to give early graduate students a correct working picture of dark matter and its phenomenology, with the standard benchmarks: the thermal relic cross-section, the unitarity bound, the Tremaine-Gunn bound, and the direct detection rate equations.

Significance. If the technical errors identified below are corrected, this will be a useful pedagogical primer. Its strengths are breadth, clear organization, current references, and the explicit caveats in Section 2.4 about the dependence of the production benchmarks on standard cosmological assumptions. The direct detection section accurately reproduces the established rate formulas for DM-nuclear, DM-electron, and absorption processes, and the figures convey the current experimental status well. The paper is explicitly a review and does not claim new results; that is appropriate for TASI lecture notes. The value rests on whether the derivations are reliable enough for a student to reproduce the standard results, which is why the equation-level errors in Sections 1 and 2 matter.

major comments (3)
  1. [2.1, Eqs. (21)-(22)] The printed Boltzmann equation for the comoving yield, dY/dx = x s(mχ)/H(mχ) ⟨σv⟩ [(Y^0)^2 − Y^2], has the wrong scaling in x. Starting from Eq. (11) with Y = n/s and entropy conservation, one obtains dY/dt = s ⟨σv⟩ [(Y^0)^2 − Y^2], dx/dt = H x, s(T) = s(mχ)/x^3, and H(T) = H(mχ)/x^2 in a radiation-dominated universe. Combining these gives dY/dx = [s(mχ)/H(mχ)] ⟨σv⟩ [(Y^0)^2 − Y^2]/x^2. The printed factor x instead of 1/x^2 changes the temperature evolution by an x^3 factor, so a student integrating the printed equation will not obtain the standard scaling Y∞ ∝ x_f/(M_Pl mχ ⟨σv⟩) that underlies Eqs. (19)–(22). The final numerical benchmark is standard, but this is a load-bearing error in the production-mechanism derivation.
  2. [2.1, Eqs. (21)-(22)] The numerical conversion from Eq. (21) to the quoted benchmark does not close as written. Inserting s_today = 2891 cm^-3, ρc = 1.05×10^-5 h^2 GeV cm^-3 with h = 0.68, Ωχ = 0.264, x_f = 10, and g* = 100 into Eq. (21) gives ⟨σv⟩ ≈ 2×10^-8 GeV^-2, not 10^-9 GeV^-2. The printed Eq. (22) appears to omit a factor of 1/g*,s (and is also inconsistent with the Planck mass convention used in Eq. (19)). The final value ⟨σv⟩ ≈ 10^-9 GeV^-2 is the standard result and survives once the missing factors are restored, but the derivation as printed cannot be followed by the target audience.
  3. [1.2, Eq. (6)] The Tremaine–Gunn bound is typeset as mχ^4 ≥ (5/g) M_vir^{-1/2} R_vir^{-4/2} G_N^{-3/2}. The exponent on R_vir is wrong and the expression is dimensionally inconsistent. Using n(x) ≤ g/(8π^3)(4π/3) p_max^3 with p_max = mχ v_esc and v_esc = (2G_N M_vir/R_vir)^{1/2}, the correct expression has R_vir^{-3/2} rather than R_vir^{-4/2}: mχ^4 ≥ (9π/(2^{5/2} g)) M_vir^{-1/2} R_vir^{-3/2} G_N^{-3/2}, which is the coefficient 5/g as intended. The quoted numerical bounds (5 eV, 70 eV, 180 eV) come from the literature and are not in question, but the derivation as printed has a dimensional error that should be corrected.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says "(left)" for both panels; the second panel should be labeled "(right)".
  2. [1.2, text after Eq. (6)] The phrase "an even stronger abound" should read "an even stronger bound".
  3. [2.1, notation] The symbol Ωχ is used both for the present fractional density (Eq. (13), Ωχ = 0.264) and inconsistently in Eq. (22), where the denominator appears to require Ωχ h^2 or an additional factor. Please clarify the notation consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the lectures reproduce standard, externally validated derivations and fit no parameters to the quantities they present.

full rationale

The paper is a pedagogical review, not a new research claim. Its Section 2 relic-abundance formulas (Eqs. 8-22) are standard textbook derivations: they follow from the Boltzmann equation and explicitly stated cosmological assumptions, and the target abundance Omega_chi h^2 ~ 0.120 is an external Planck measurement, not fitted by the notes. Section 3.1.2 and Section 3.1.3 reuse frameworks from the author's prior work (Refs. [68] and [76]), but those are peer-reviewed, experiment-facing papers that are externally validated and falsifiable; the lecture notes reproduce the derivation in-text from non-relativistic scattering amplitudes and atomic form factors rather than citing a conclusion as proof. The Section 2.4 caveats explicitly disclaim the assumptions underlying the benchmarks, reinforcing that the derivations are not constructed to guarantee the outputs. The only evident defect is the printed x-scaling in Eq. (12), which is a correctness/erratum issue, not a circular-reasoning issue: correcting it preserves the standard freeze-out benchmark, so the claimed result is not equivalent to an input by construction. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no empirical pattern is renamed as a derivation. The work is self-contained as a review and relies only on normal, non-circular citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

As a review, the preprint introduces no free parameters fitted to data and postulates no new particles; its only hand-set quantity is the standard freeze-out estimate xf ≈ 10 used in Eq. (22). The teaching content inherits its assumptions from the cited literature: the particle-dark-matter hypothesis, the standard pre-BBN cosmological history, the Planck relic-density target, and the classical Boltzmann framework. These are stated or implicitly assumed in the text and are catalogued below.

free parameters (1)
  • xf ≈ 10, the freeze-out ratio mχ/Tfo = ~10 (standard literature estimate)
    Eq. (22) uses xf ≈ 10 to convert the Boltzmann estimate into the thermal relic benchmark ⟨σv⟩ ≈ 10^-9 GeV^-2 ≈ 10^-26 cm3/s. The value is adopted from the literature, not fitted in this paper, but the benchmark depends on it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Dark matter is a new particle beyond the Standard Model; astrophysical evidence is interpreted within ΛCDM (the MOND alternative is set aside).
    Section 1.1 interprets flat rotation curves, the Bullet Cluster lensing offset, and CMB acoustic peaks as requiring a massive, non-relativistic, collisionless particle; MOND is dismissed in a footnote ('modified gravity theories struggle to explain the observed mass distribution') rather than excluded. The entire primer proceeds from this hypothesis.
  • domain assumption The pre-BBN early universe follows standard cosmology: radiation-dominated expansion, entropy conservation, standard reheating.
    Every benchmark in Section 2 (freeze-out ⟨σv⟩ ≈ 10^-9 GeV^-2, Lee-Weinberg and unitarity bounds, freeze-in yields, misalignment) assumes this history. Section 2.4 concedes: 'Prior to Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), much of our understanding of the physics during this epoch is based on extrapolations from the Standard Model.'
  • domain assumption The measured relic abundance Ωχh² = 0.120 ± 0.001 (Planck 2018) is the target any production mechanism must match.
    Eq. (7) fixes the normalization for all production benchmarks in Section 2; if the Hubble parameter or the DM fraction were revised, the derived cross-section and mass benchmarks would shift (the paper notes the h discrepancy in a footnote citing Ref. [41]).
  • standard math Relic abundances are computed with the classical Boltzmann equation under Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics and zero chemical potential.
    Eqs. (9)-(12) and the freeze-out estimate assume this framework; Section 2.1.3 explicitly lists 'there is no chemical potential' among the assumptions behind the WIMP miracle. This is standard practice in the cited literature (Refs. [42, 43]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 2024 TASI Lectures: A Dark Matter Primer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JECTAFWC

@misc{pith2026250605234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 2024 TASI Lectures: A Dark Matter Primer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JECTAFWC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05234}
}
read the original abstract

These notes are based on a sequence of 4 lectures delivered at the 2024 Theoretical Advanced Study Institute (TASI) and at the Universit\`a degli Studi di Padova. They are intended for graduate students at the early stages of their study of dark matter with some prior exposure to cosmology and quantum field theory. The primary aim is to offer an accessible introduction to dark matter and to lay the groundwork for exploring its phenomenology. These lectures are not intended to serve as a comprehensive review. We begin by motivating the study of dark matter through a discussion of the empirical evidence and the constraints it places on dark matter properties. This is followed by an overview of several canonical mechanisms for the production of cosmological dark matter, and a concluding section that surveys current experimental and observational efforts to detect it with a focus on direct detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05234 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Shown in both panels are green contours of the weak-lensing reconstruction of the mass distri￾bution. The (left) shows the optical image of the background galaxies while the (right) panel shows the X-ray imaging of the baryonic matter of the two galaxy clusters. Figure reproduced with permission from Ref. [15] large distances, counteracting the expected velocity drop. This halo of mass is what we call DM. 2 Moving u… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Planck 2018 temperature power spectrum. The light blue curve is the best fit theoretical ΛCDM spectrum, which gives us the relative abundance of baryonic matter, dark matter, and dark energy in the cosmic energy budget. Figure reproduced with permission from Ref. [20] interact electromagnetically, i.e. DM. Specifically, DM influences the first peak’s height, which is sensitive to the total matter density, and determ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The dimensionless linear matter power spectrum extrapolated to z = 0. The shape of the linear matter power spectrum (colored lines) can inform us about the fundamental nature of DM such as its mass and interactions. The shaded regions indicate the size of the DM halos probed at that scale. The data – from Planck 2018, DES Y1, SDSS DR7 LRG, and eBOSS DR14 – is compiled from Ref. [26]. Figure adapted from Ref. [27]. N… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of rotations curves for (left) a test mass inside a galaxy of constant density and (left) a test mass outside of the galaxy. washed out due to the motion of DM. Therefore, there would be a relative suppression in ∆2 (k) for modes which enter the horizon when D…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Rotation curve of M33 (black dots with error bars) compared to the stellar and gas contributions. The dotted curve labeled NFW halo is the contribution from DM. Figure reproduced with permission from Ref. [29]. To get the average velocity of the DM in our Milky Way hal…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dark Matter mass landscape as determined by the observational evidences described in Sec￾tion 1.1. The thermal (red) and non-thermal (blue) regions denote categories of cosmological production, which are discussed in Section 1.2. The bottom row provides four categories…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (left) Example of an interaction between two SM fermions, f and ¯f, with two fermionic DM particles χ and ¯χ, which proceeds through a vector boson V . (right) Example of a second possible annihi￾lation channel for SM fermions, f and ¯f into two vector bosons V . and Y…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic representation of an experimental direct detection result. The shaded, blue region shows the sensitivity or constraining power of an experiment on the DM-SM scattering cross-section as a function of the DM mass. A major goal for direct detection searches is t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Definition of the kinematic variables for the direct detection of DM, where χ is the DM candidate and T is the target. Primed (′ ) variables denote final states. • Low-mass behavior: At small DM masses, the experiment eventually encounters a kine￾matic threshold determ…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (left) Status of the direct detection spin-independent DM-nuclear scattering as of 2021. (right) future sensitivity. Figures used with permission from the 2021 Snowmass Proceedings [33, 62]. where the second term in the second line comes from the recoil energy of the …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Status of the direct detection spin-dependent DM-nuclear scattering for (top, left) proton and (top, right) neutron couplings as of 2021. (bottom) future sensitivity. Top figures courtesy of Ben Loer. Bottom figure used with permission from the 2021 Snowmass Proceedin…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Status of DM-electron scattering (top) in 2025 and (bottom) future sensitivity. The regions labeled “key milestones” indicate parameter space of specific DM models which gives the correct DM relic abundance. Figures adapted from [33, 74] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Dark photon dark matter absorption (left) status as of 2025 and (right) future sensitivity. Figures adapted from [33, 74] and so the corresponding absorption rate per atom is: Dark photon absorption rate per atom ≃ nV × ϵ 2 effσ1 , (79) where nV is the number density …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and J. Zupan, Dark Matter , 2406.01705

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Lin, Dark matter models and direct detection , PoS 333 (2019) 009 [ 1904.07915]

    T. Lin, Dark matter models and direct detection , PoS 333 (2019) 009 [ 1904.07915]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Profumo, An Introduction to Particle Dark Matter

    S. Profumo, An Introduction to Particle Dark Matter . WORLD SCIENTIFIC (EUROPE), 2017, 10.1142/q0001, [ https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/q0001]

    work page doi:10.1142/q0001 2017

  4. [4]

    H. Murayama, Physics Beyond the Standard Model and Dark Matter , in Les Houches Summer School - Session 86: Particle Physics and Cosmology: The Fabric of Spacetime , 4, 2007, 0704.2276

    arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    Dark Matter and Dark Sector: Theory Part 1

    T. Tait, “Dark Matter and Dark Sector: Theory Part 1.” "https://indico.slac.stanford.edu/event/326/contributions/1341/attachments/ 587/1083/Tait-SSI-1.pdf"

  6. [6]

    Binney and S

    J. Binney and S. Tremaine, Galactic Dynamics. Princeton University Press, 2nd ed., 2008

    2008

  7. [7]

    Bosma, The distribution and kinematics of neutral hydrogen in spiral galaxies of various morphological types, Ph.D

    A. Bosma, The distribution and kinematics of neutral hydrogen in spiral galaxies of various morphological types, Ph.D. Thesis, Groningen Univ. (1978)

    work page 1978

  8. [8]

    V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford, Rotation of the andromeda nebula from a spectroscopic survey of emission regions , Astrophysical Journal 159 (1970) 379

    work page 1970

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    K. G. Begeman, HI rotation curves of spiral galaxies. I. NGC 3198. , Astronomy&Astrophysics 223 (1989) 47

    1989

  2. [10]

    Sofue and V

    Y. Sofue and V. Rubin, Rotation curves of spiral galaxies , Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 39 (2001) 137 [ astro-ph/0010594]

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Salucci, The distribution of dark matter in galaxies , Astron

    P. Salucci, The distribution of dark matter in galaxies , Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 27 (2019) 2 [1811.08843]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Persic, P

    M. Persic, P. Salucci and F. Stel, The universal rotation curve of spiral galaxies — i. the dark matter connection , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 281 (1996) 27

    1996

  5. [13]

    Famaey and S

    B. Famaey and S. McGaugh, Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): Observational Phenomenology and Relativistic Extensions , Living Rev. Rel. 15 (2012) 10 [ 1112.3960]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Famaey and A

    B. Famaey and A. Durakovic, Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) , 2501.17006

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Clowe, M

    D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones et al., A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter , Astrophys. J. Lett. 648 (2006) L109 [astro-ph/0608407]

    2006 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Springel, C

    V. Springel, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, The large-scale structure of the universe , Nature 440 (2006) 1137

    2006

  9. [17]

    Springel and et al., Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars , Nature 435 (2005) 629

    V. Springel and et al., Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars , Nature 435 (2005) 629. REFERENCES 29

    2005

  10. [18]

    SDSS collaboration, D. J. Eisenstein et al., Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies , Astrophys. J. 633 (2005) 560 [ astro-ph/0501171]

    2005 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Davis, G

    M. Davis, G. Efstathiou, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, The Evolution of Large Scale Structure in a Universe Dominated by Cold Dark Matter , Astrophys. J. 292 (1985) 371

    1985

  12. [20]

    Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results

    Planck collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [ 1807.06209]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    WMAP collaboration, D. N. Spergel et al., First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003) 175 [ astro-ph/0302209]

    2003 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dodelson, Modern Cosmology

    S. Dodelson, Modern Cosmology. Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2003

    2003

  15. [23]

    M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt and V. Springel, Testing the accuracy of the hydro-PM approximation in numerical simulations of the Lyman-alpha forest , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 367 (2006) 1655 [ astro-ph/0504641]

    2006 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Irˇ siˇ c, M

    V. Irˇ siˇ c, M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, J. S. Bolton and G. D. Becker,First constraints on fuzzy dark matter from Lyman- α forest data and hydrodynamical simulations , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 031302 [ 1703.04683]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    eBOSS collaboration, S. Alam et al., Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 083533 [ 2007.08991]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Chabanier, M

    S. Chabanier, M. Millea and N. Palanque-Delabrouille, Matter power spectrum: from Ly α forest to CMB scales , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 489 (2019) 2247 [ 1905.08103]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bechtol et al., Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier White Paper: Dark Matter Physics from Halo Measurements, in Snowmass 2021 , 3, 2022, 2203.07354

    K. Bechtol et al., Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier White Paper: Dark Matter Physics from Halo Measurements, in Snowmass 2021 , 3, 2022, 2203.07354

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Tanabashi et al., Review of Particle Physics , Phys

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, M. Tanabashi et al., Review of Particle Physics , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001

    2018

  21. [29]

    Lopez Fune, P

    E. Lopez Fune, P. Salucci and E. Corbelli, Radial dependence of the dark matter distribution in M33 , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 468 (2017) 147 [ 1611.01409]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tulin and H.-B

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure , Phys. Rept. 730 (2018) 1 [ 1705.02358]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    S. W. Randall, M. Markevitch, D. Clowe, A. H. Gonzalez and M. Bradac, Constraints on the Self-Interaction Cross-Section of Dark Matter from Numerical Simulations of the Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E 0657-56 , Astrophys. J. 679 (2008) 1173 [ 0704.0261]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Sagunski, S

    L. Sagunski, S. Gad-Nasr, B. Colquhoun, A. Robertson and S. Tulin, Velocity-dependent Self-interacting Dark Matter from Groups and Clusters of Galaxies , JCAP 01 (2021) 024 [2006.12515]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cooley et al., Report of the Topical Group on Particle Dark Matter for Snowmass 2021, 2209.07426

    J. Cooley et al., Report of the Topical Group on Particle Dark Matter for Snowmass 2021, 2209.07426

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zimmermann, J

    T. Zimmermann, J. Alvey, D. J. E. Marsh, M. Fairbairn and J. I. Read, Dwarf galaxies imply dark matter is heavier than 2.2 × 10−21 eV, 2405.20374

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Alvey, N

    J. Alvey, N. Sabti, V. Tiki, D. Blas, K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky et al., New constraints on the mass of fermionic dark matter from dwarf spheroidal galaxies , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 501 (2021) 1188 [ 2010.03572]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Goerdt, O

    T. Goerdt, O. Y. Gnedin, B. Moore, J. Diemand and J. Stadel, The survival and disruption of CDM micro-haloes: Implications for direct and indirect detection experiments, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 375 (2007) 191 [ astro-ph/0608495]

    2007 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Renault, C

    C. Renault, C. Afonso, E. Aubourg, P. Bareyre, F. Bauer, S. Brehin et al., Observational limits on MACHOS in the Galactic Halo. , Astronomy&Astrophysics 324 (1997) L69. REFERENCES 30

    1997

  30. [38]

    Tisserand, L

    P. Tisserand, L. Le Guillou, C. Afonso, J. N. Albert, J. Andersen, R. Ansari et al., Limits on the Macho content of the Galactic Halo from the EROS-2 Survey of the Magellanic Clouds, Astronomy&Astrophysics 469 (2007) 387 [ astro-ph/0607207]

    2007 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Blaineau et al., New limits from microlensing on galactic black holes in the mass range 10−6 − 102 solar masses , Astronomy & Astrophysics 664 (2022) A53

    T. Blaineau et al., New limits from microlensing on galactic black holes in the mass range 10−6 − 102 solar masses , Astronomy & Astrophysics 664 (2022) A53

    2022

  32. [40]

    S. D. M. White, C. S. Frenk and M. Davis, Clustering in a Neutrino Dominated Universe , Astrophys. J. Lett. 274 (1983) L1

    1983

  33. [41]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri et al., In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions , Class. Quant. Grav. 38 (2021) 153001 [2103.01183]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe , vol. 69. Taylor and Francis, 5, 2019, 10.1201/9780429492860

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Griest and M

    K. Griest and M. Kamionkowski, Unitarity Limits on the Mass and Radius of Dark Matter Particles , Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 615

    1990

  36. [44]

    B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy-Neutrino Masses , Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 165

    1977

  37. [45]

    E. W. Kolb and K. A. Olive, Lee-Weinberg bound reexamined, Phys. Rev. D 33 (1986) 1202

    1986

  38. [46]

    Dasgupta and J

    B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp, Sterile Neutrinos , Phys. Rept. 928 (2021) 63 [ 2106.05913]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. L. Feng, A. Rajaraman and F. Takayama, Superweakly interacting massive particles , Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 011302 [ hep-ph/0302215]

    2003 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. L. Feng, A. Rajaraman and F. Takayama, SuperWIMP dark matter signals from the early universe, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 063504 [ hep-ph/0306024]

    2003 arXiv

  41. [49]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S. M. West, Freeze-In Production of FIMP Dark Matter , JHEP 03 (2010) 080 [ 0911.1120]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bernal, M

    N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuominen and V. Vaskonen, The Dawn of FIMP Dark Matter: A Review of Models and Constraints , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32 (2017) 1730023 [1706.07442]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Elahi, C

    F. Elahi, C. Kolda and J. Unwin, UltraViolet Freeze-in, JHEP 03 (2015) 048 [1410.6157]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise and F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the Invisible Axion , Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 127

    1983

  45. [53]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion , Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 133

    1983

  46. [54]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, The Not So Harmless Axion , Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 137

    1983

  47. [55]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Axion Cosmology, Phys. Rept. 643 (2016) 1 [ 1510.07633]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Chadha-Day, J

    F. Chadha-Day, J. Ellis and D. J. E. Marsh, Axion dark matter: What is it and why now?, Sci. Adv. 8 (2022) abj3618 [ 2105.01406]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Antypas et al., New Horizons: Scalar and Vector Ultralight Dark Matter , 2203.14915

    D. Antypas et al., New Horizons: Scalar and Vector Ultralight Dark Matter , 2203.14915

  50. [58]

    A. S. Chou et al., Snowmass Cosmic Frontier Report, in Snowmass 2021 , 11, 2022, 2211.09978

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    CMB-S4: Next-generation cosmic microwave background experiment

    CMB-S4 Collaboration, “CMB-S4: Next-generation cosmic microwave background experiment.” https://cmb-s4.org/

  52. [60]

    Dark energy spectroscopic instrument (DESI)

    DESI Collaboration, “Dark energy spectroscopic instrument (DESI).” https: //www.cfa.harvard.edu/research/dark-energy-spectroscopic-instrument-desi

  53. [61]

    Besuner et al., The Spectroscopic Stage-5 Experiment, 2503.07923

    Spec-S5 Collaboration, R. Besuner et al., The Spectroscopic Stage-5 Experiment, 2503.07923. REFERENCES 31

  54. [62]

    D. S. Akerib et al., Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier Dark Matter Direct Detection to the Neutrino Fog, in Snowmass 2021 , 3, 2022, 2203.08084

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Schumann, Direct Detection of WIMP Dark Matter: Concepts and Status , J

    M. Schumann, Direct Detection of WIMP Dark Matter: Concepts and Status , J. Phys. G 46 (2019) 103003 [ 1903.03026]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Helm, Inelastic electron scattering from atomic nuclei and the structure of the nucleon , Phys

    R. Helm, Inelastic electron scattering from atomic nuclei and the structure of the nucleon , Phys. Rev. 104 (1956) 1466

    1956

  57. [65]

    Lewin and P

    J. Lewin and P. Smith, Review of mathematics, numerical factors, and corrections for dark matter experiments , Astropart. Phys. 6 (1996) 87

    1996

  58. [66]

    Ellis, K

    J. Ellis, K. Olive and C. Savage, Hadronic uncertainties in the elastic scattering of supersymmetric dark matter , Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 065026

    2008

  59. [67]

    B. S. Hu, J. Padua-Arg¨ uelles, S. Leutheusser, T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg and J. D. Holt, Ab initio structure factors for spin-dependent dark matter direct detection , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 072502

    2022

  60. [68]

    Essig, M

    R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky and T.-T. Yu, Direct Detection of sub-GeV Dark Matter with Semiconductor Targets , JHEP 05 (2016) 046 [1509.01598]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    J. Fan, M. Reece and L.-T. Wang, Non-relativistic effective theory of dark matter direct detection, JCAP 11 (2010) 042 [ 1008.1591]

    2010 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers and Y. Xu, The Effective Field Theory of Dark Matter Direct Detection , JCAP 02 (2013) 004 [ 1203.3542]

    2013 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Catena, T

    R. Catena, T. Emken, N. A. Spaldin and W. Tarantino, Atomic responses to general dark matter-electron interactions, Phys. Rev. Res. 2 (2020) 033195 [ 1912.08204]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Liang, Y

    J.-H. Liang, Y. Liao, X.-D. Ma and H.-L. Wang, Revisiting general dark matter-bound-electron interactions, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) L091701 [ 2405.04855]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Lillard and A

    B. Lillard and A. Radick, Vector Spaces for Dark Matter (VSDM): Fast Direct Detection Calculations with Python and Julia , 2502.17547

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Essig et al., Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark matter direct detection in the next decade , in Snowmass 2021 , 3, 2022, 2203.08297

    R. Essig et al., Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark matter direct detection in the next decade , in Snowmass 2021 , 3, 2022, 2203.08297

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    H. An, M. Pospelov and J. Pradler, Dark Matter Detectors as Dark Photon Helioscopes , Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 041302 [ 1304.3461]

    2013 arXiv

  68. [76]

    I. M. Bloch, R. Essig, K. Tobioka, T. Volansky and T.-T. Yu, Searching for Dark Absorption with Direct Detection Experiments , JHEP 06 (2017) 087 [ 1608.02123]

    2017 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Hochberg, T

    Y. Hochberg, T. Lin and K. M. Zurek, Absorption of light dark matter in semiconductors , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 023013 [ 1608.01994]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Knapen, J

    S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk and T. Lin, Dark matter-electron scattering in dielectrics , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 015031 [ 2101.08275]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, N. Kurinsky, B. V. Lehmann, T. C. Yu and K. K. Berggren, Determining Dark-Matter–Electron Scattering Rates from the Dielectric Function , Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 151802 [ 2101.08263]

    2021 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Catena and N

    R. Catena and N. A. Spaldin, Linear response theory for light dark matter-electron scattering in materials , Phys. Rev. Res. 6 (2024) 033230 [ 2402.06817]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Berlin, A

    A. Berlin, A. J. Millar, T. Trickle and K. Zhou, Determining Spin-Dependent Light Dark Matter Rates from Neutron Scattering , 2504.02927

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Kahn and T

    Y. Kahn and T. Lin, Searches for light dark matter using condensed matter systems , Rept. Prog. Phys. 85 (2022) 066901 [ 2108.03239]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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