Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

WIMPs Below the Radar: Blind Spots and Benchmarks Beyond the Neutrino Floor

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 Thermal WIMPs in three benchmark models can sit below the neutrino floor.

desk verdict Useful benchmark mapping of three known WIMP models, but the singlet-doublet+2HDM section leans on an explicitly incomplete loop calculation, so those sub-neutrino-floor points should be read as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19062 v1 pith:RJN7HWQS submitted 2025-06-23 hep-ph

Giorgio Arcadi , Stefano Profumo This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d12.60.Fr
keywords WIMPdarkmatterdirectdetectionneutrinofloorblindspotsloopcorrectionssinglet-doubletmodel2HDM+aSU(3)
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

Standard weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) dark matter normally links the annihilation rate that set the cosmic relic abundance to the scattering rate seen in terrestrial detectors. The paper argues that in three benchmark models—the singlet-doublet fermion model, its two-Higgs-doublet-plus-pseudoscalar extension, and a dark SU(3) gauge model—this link can be broken at special "blind spot" parameter values, so the scattering cross-section drops below current experimental limits and, in some cases, below the neutrino floor. In those regions the thermal relic abundance can still match observations. The upshot is that thermal WIMPs remain meaningful targets for next-generation direct detection even in the gap beyond the neutrino floor.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the loop-corrected spin-independent dark-matter–nucleon cross-section evaluated at each model's suppression point. In the singlet-doublet model the tree-level Higgs coupling vanishes when $m_{\chi_1^0}+m_D\sin 2\theta=0$, and the included triangle, box, and electroweak-gauge-boson loop diagrams determine how deep the cross-section can actually go. In 2HDM+a the pseudoscalar mediator makes the tree-level SI amplitude vanish in the non-relativistic limit, so the triangle and box diagrams involving $h$ and $H$ carry the signal; the formulas used are those of a pseudoscalar-mediator direct-detection calculation. In the dark SU(3) model the scalar component's coupling to nucleons cancels exactly through a relation enforced by the scalar potential, and only the vector component contributes to direct detection.

What would settle it

Compute the complete one-loop spin-independent cross-section for the singlet-doublet plus two-Higgs-doublet framework, including all scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs loop diagrams that the paper leaves for future work. If those omitted terms push a substantial fraction of the claimed sub-threshold points above the current experimental bound or above the neutrino floor, the benchmark regions in that framework would close.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that each of the three frameworks contains viable parameter regions in which the predicted dark matter relic abundance matches observations while the spin-independent scattering cross-section lies below current exclusions, and in some of those regions also below the neutrino floor. The suppression mechanisms differ: a tree-level blind spot in the singlet-doublet model, annihilation through a pseudoscalar portal in 2HDM+a that leaves scattering momentum-suppressed at tree level, and an exact cancellation that makes the scalar component of the dark SU(3) model invisible. In the singlet-doublet cases the paper shows that loop corrections set a lower bound on the scattering cross-section, so the minimal reachable value is not zero even at the blind spot. For the singlet-doublet plus 2HDM case the paper notes explicitly that a complete computation of the extended Higgs-sector loop contributions remains for future work.

Load-bearing premise

The results lean on the assumption that the loop corrections included in the numerical scans—mostly the gauge-boson-mediated terms—are the dominant ones, so that the omitted Higgs-mediated loop diagrams would not move a significant number of the claimed points above current limits or above the neutrino floor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the neutrino floor is not an absolute boundary for thermal WIMPs: blind spots in these models place viable candidates below it.
  • In the minimal singlet-doublet model, most relic-consistent points remain within reach of next-generation detectors, so a null result there would cut into, but not eliminate, the model's parameter space.
  • In the singlet-doublet plus 2HDM setup, a sizable portion of viable points falls inside the neutrino floor, since pseudoscalar interactions can set the relic density without contributing much to scattering.
  • In the 2HDM+a model with strongly suppressed pseudoscalar mixing, viable dark matter masses sit above roughly 100 GeV and most relic-consistent points lie inside the neutrino floor, limiting direct-detection prospects.
  • In the dark SU(3) model, the scalar dark matter component is invisible to direct detection, and next-generation experiments remain sensitive to the vector component down to a relic fraction of about $10^{-3}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that benchmark points for future detectors should be quoted with complete one-loop cross-sections, because a tree-level zero can be radiatively filled to a sizeable rate.
  • A natural extension, not carried out here, is a full one-loop matching of the singlet-doublet plus 2HDM direct-detection cross-section; if the omitted Higgs loops are comparable to the gauge-mediated terms, the claimed sub-threshold regions could shift or close.
  • For multi-component models like dark SU(3), single-component exclusion curves can overstate the reach of direct searches; the relevant target is each component's scattering cross-section weighted by its relic fraction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies spin-independent (SI) direct-detection cross sections in three WIMP frameworks: the minimal singlet-doublet fermion model, the singlet-doublet model extended by a two-Higgs-doublet plus pseudoscalar sector, the 2HDM+a model, and a dark SU(3) gauge model. For each framework, the authors perform parameter scans, impose relic-density, vacuum-stability, unitarity, invisible-width, electroweak precision, and flavor constraints, and compare the resulting SI cross sections with current LZ limits, projected XLZD sensitivity, and the neutrino floor. They find parameter regions that evade current limits and, in some cases, lie below the neutrino floor, and they argue that loop-induced contributions are important near tree-level blind spots. The paper's central message is that thermally produced WIMPs in models with rich scalar/electroweak sectors remain phenomenologically motivated targets for next-generation direct detection.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides useful benchmark scenarios populating the gap between current direct-detection limits and the neutrino floor, and it cleanly contrasts three mechanisms of suppression: accidental tree-level blind spots, pseudoscalar-mediated loop-generated scattering, and an exact cancellation in a non-Abelian dark sector. Strengths include the explicit analytic tree-level couplings, the use of established one-loop results, the systematic treatment of multiple Yukawa structures, and the inclusion of standard phenomenological constraints in the scans. However, two load-bearing points need attention: the singlet-doublet+2HDM analysis draws quantitative conclusions from an explicitly incomplete one-loop computation, and the dark SU(3) 'exact cancellation' appears to fail as printed because of a sign inconsistency. These issues do not invalidate the qualitative theme, but they affect the quantitative benchmark claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (14) and Figs. 2-3] The singlet-doublet+2HDM analysis presents Eq. (14) as the radiatively corrected SI cross section, but the text immediately after Eq. (14) states that 'complete computation of extended Higgs sector loop contributions remains for future work' and that the numerical implementation includes only gauge-boson-mediated terms analogous to the minimal model. Figures 2 and 3 and the following paragraph nonetheless draw the quantitative conclusion that 'a sizable portion lies well inside the neutrino floor.' The omitted charged-Higgs, pseudoscalar, and extended-Higgs triangle/box contributions are precisely the terms that can become largest when the tree-level h/H couplings are tuned near their blind-spot zeros. The quantitative benchmark cross sections for this framework are therefore not established by the calculation shown. The authors should either complete the one-loop computation of Eq. (14) or, failing that, explicitly label the scan results as indicative and remove the quantitative claim of viable below-neutrino-floor regions for the singlet-doublet+2HDM model.
  2. [Section IV, Eqs. (28)-(29)] As printed, the claimed exact cancellation for the CP-odd scalar component Ψ does not hold. Substituting gψψH_i = (g̃ δ_i m_H_i^2)/(2 m_V^2) with δ_1 = sinθ and δ_2 = cosθ into the expression for σSI_ψp gives (g̃/(2 m_V^2))(sinθ cosθ + cosθ sinθ) = g̃ sinθ cosθ / m_V^2, which is nonzero for generic sinθ. The cancellation would require δ_1 = -sinθ, consistent with the combination (-sinθ H_1 + cosθ H_2) in Eq. (26). Either Eq. (28) or the definition of δ_i contains a sign error. Because the invisibility of the scalar component is the basis for interpreting the scalar/vector scan as depending only on the vector component, this sign must be corrected and the consequences for the scan rechecked; if the sign in Eq. (28) is instead correct, then the scalar component contributes to direct detection and the conclusions of Section IV change.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'in some cases, but now always, below the neutrino floor' appears to contain a typo; it should read 'but not always'.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (23)] The notation χ0_1p is inherited from the singlet-doublet sections, but the 2HDM+a dark matter candidate is the Dirac fermion χ defined in Eq. (22); the cross-section formula and surrounding text should use χp for consistency.
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B3)] Several expressions appear to have argument or subscript errors that make verification difficult: for example, G(m_χ^2, 0, M_A^2) - G(m_χ^2, M_A^2, 0) and the X001 arguments mix p^2 and m_χ^2, and 'M2a' should presumably be m_a^2. The authors should proofread these formulas against Ref. [47].
  4. [Section II, Eq. (10)] The sentence introducing the loop functions is grammatically incomplete: 'for which we refer. together with the expressions of the V0,±q , A0,±q , to [21]' should be rewritten as a proper reference sentence.
  5. [Section III, after Eq. (25)] The text reads 'Loop-induced SI scattering remains operative due to nonzero λhaa and λHaa even as sinθ→0'; 'even' should be 'as'. Similar wording issues appear elsewhere in Section III (e.g., 'compared, as customary with the current (projected) limits').
  6. [General] The paper does not state whether the scan code or benchmark data will be made publicly available. Given that the paper's deliverable is a set of benchmark regions and cross sections, a public implementation or data release would materially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the cross-section benchmarks are outputs of parameter scans and relic-density constraints, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its claims. In the minimal singlet-doublet model, the blind-spot condition in Eq. (8) follows algebraically from the analytic coupling in Eq. (7), and the loop-corrected SI cross section in Eq. (9) is evaluated from externally published loop functions (Refs. [20-22]) after scanning {mS, mD, y, tanθ} subject to relic-density, invisible-width, and EWPT constraints; current direct-detection limits and the neutrino floor are used only as comparison curves, not as inputs. In the singlet-doublet+2HDM case, Eq. (14) is presented as the loop-corrected cross section, and the statement immediately after Eq. (14) that 'complete computation of extended Higgs sector loop contributions remains for future work', together with Section V's remark that 'A full computation of eq. 14 it is then crucial', identifies a genuine completeness limitation. That is a correctness risk for the quantitative benchmarks, not a circular reduction, because the plotted sigma_SI values are not equal by construction to any fitted parameter. In the 2HDM+a model, y_chi is 'numerically determined to yield the correct DM relic density' (Fig. 4 caption); fixing a model parameter to the relic target is benchmark construction, and the loop-induced scattering cross section is then computed from independent expressions (Ref. [47]), so scattering is not fitted to scattering data. In the dark SU(3) model, coupled Boltzmann equations are solved and the vector-component cross section is evaluated from scanned couplings; the scalar-component cancellation in Eq. (29) follows from the Lagrangian mixing structure in Eqs. (26)-(28), not from importing the desired result. Self-citations such as Refs. [16], [28], and [42] provide context, model definitions, or prior reviews, but the numerical claims are generated by the present scans and by independent loop-function references [20,21,22,47]. No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation or to a fitted target, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on model parameters scanned by hand, standard freeze-out cosmology, and loop calculations imported from external references. The only genuinely new numerical output is the placement of viable points relative to experimental limits. No code or data are provided.

free parameters (6)
  • mS, mD, y, tanθ (minimal singlet-doublet) = Scanned: 1-5000 GeV, 100-5000 GeV, 1e-3 to 10, -20 to 20
    Model input parameters in Eq. (11), chosen by hand to explore parameter space.
  • tanβ, mA, mH, mH± (singlet-doublet+2HDM) = Scanned ranges in Eq. (19), with mH=mA=mH± in Fig. 2
    Extended scalar sector parameters used for the four Yukawa configurations.
  • mχ, ma, mH, mH±, mA (2HDM+a) = Scanned: 1-1000 GeV, 10-600 GeV, mh-1500 GeV, mW-1500 GeV
    Mass inputs in the scan of Eq. (24).
  • yχ (2HDM+a pseudoscalar Yukawa) = Numerically fixed to reproduce the observed relic density for each point
    The paper states yχ is determined to yield the correct DM relic density, so it is fitted to a target cosmological abundance.
  • sinθ, tanβ, λ3, λ1P, λ2P (2HDM+a) = Scanned: sinθ in [-π/4,π/4], tanβ in [1,60], quartics in [-4π,4π]
    Mixing and quartic couplings in the scan of Eq. (24); small-sinθ runs use 1e-10 to 1e-6.
  • g̃, sinθ, MH2, mV, mΨ (dark SU(3)) = Scanned: g̃ in [1e-2,10], sinθ in [1e-3,0.707], MH2 in [1,1000] GeV, mV and mΨ set by scenario
    Dark gauge coupling and mass parameters in Eq. (30); vector/vector fix mΨ=300 GeV.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard thermal freeze-out relic density computation
    All three models use the conventional freeze-out paradigm with observed Ωh² as a constraint; this assumes standard cosmology and thermal production.
  • domain assumption Subdominant dark matter rescaling by ξ
    Cross-sections are rescaled by ξ=Ωχ/ΩDM,exp on the assumption that the direct detection rate scales linearly with the local DM fraction.
  • domain assumption Alignment limit β−α=π/2 in the singlet-doublet+2HDM analysis
    Used to obtain the analytic Higgs couplings in Eqs. (15)-(18); it simplifies the scalar sector and may not cover the full parameter space.
  • domain assumption Exact cancellation for scalar DM in dark SU(3)
    The vanishing of σSI_ψp in Eq. (29) is asserted from the scalar potential and cited to Refs. [41,42], not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption CP conservation in the dark SU(3) scalar sector
    The pseudoscalar Ψ is stable only if CP is conserved, as stated in footnote 4; this is an extra assumption beyond the gauge structure.
  • domain assumption Validity of one-loop functions from Package-X and Refs. [20,21,22,47]
    Numerical results depend on loop functions and coefficients taken from external references; errors there propagate into the central cross-section predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WIMPs Below the Radar: Blind Spots and Benchmarks Beyond the Neutrino Floor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJN7HWQS

@misc{pith2026250619062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WIMPs Below the Radar: Blind Spots and Benchmarks Beyond the Neutrino Floor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJN7HWQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19062}
}
abstract

We investigate benchmark scenarios for Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) that naturally evade current direct detection constraints by featuring suppressed spin-independent cross-sections. Focusing on three representative models, the Singlet-Doublet fermion model, its extension to a Two-Higgs-Doublet plus pseudoscalar sector (2HDM$+a$), and a dark $SU(3)$ gauge model, we systematically analyze the interplay between thermal freeze-out, direct detection blind spots, and radiative corrections. In each case, we identify viable regions of parameter space where the predicted dark matter relic abundance is consistent with observations while elastic scattering rates lie below current exclusion limits and, in some cases, but now always, below the neutrino floor. Loop-induced effects are shown to play a critical role, particularly in scenarios with suppressed tree-level interactions. Our findings demonstrate that models with rich electroweak and scalar sectors can populate the experimentally challenging, yet phenomenologically motivated parameter space between existing constraints and the ultimate sensitivity of current-technology direct detection experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19062 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Proton scattering cross-section versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Parameter scan results in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Can blind spots save neutralino dark matter in natural supersymmetry models?

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    Direct-detection blind spots fail to rescue stable light higgsino dark matter in electroweak-natural NUHM2/NUHM3 models once LZ, LHC soft-dilepton, and Higgs-mass constraints are imposed.

  2. Inert dark matter in three Higgs doublet model: a blind spot narrative

    hep-ph 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a Z3 x Z2-symmetric three-Higgs-doublet model with one inert doublet, the tree-level dark matter-nucleon scattering cross-section can vanish in a blind spot set by the dark sector mass splitting.

  3. Beyond the Veil: Charting WIMP Territories at the Neutrino Floor

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Freeze-in, early matter domination, and fast-expanding cosmologies keep many WIMP models within reach of next-generation direct detection experiments at the neutrino floor.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Implication of neutrino backgrounds on the reach of next generation dark matter direct detection experiments,

    J. Billard, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, L. Strigari, and L. Strigari, “Implication of neutrino backgrounds on the reach of next generation dark matter direct detection experiments,” 2013. 22

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    = 6X001(m2 χ,m 2 χ,m 2 1,m 2

    work page

  3. [3]

    +m 2 χX111(m2 χ,m 2 χ,m 2 1,m 2 2) Z d4k (2π)4 kµkνkα [(k+p) 2−M 2] (k2−m 2 1)2(k−m 2

    work page

  4. [4]

    = i (4π)2 (gµνpα +gναpµ +gαµpν)X 001(p2,M 2,m 2 1,m 2 2) +pµpνpαX111(p2,M 2,m 2 1,m 2 2) (B4) and: F(m 2) = Z 1 0 dx ( 3Y1 m2 χ,m 2 χ,m 2, m2 q x(1−x) ! −m 2 q 2 + 5x−5x 2 x2(1−x) 2 Y2 m2 χ,m 2 χ,m 2, m2 q x(1−x) ! −2m4 q 1−2x+ 2x 2 x3(1−x) 3 Y3 m2 χ,m 2 χ,m 2 a, m2 q x(1−x) !) (B5) where theYi=1,2,3 are the same given in the previous appendix

    work page

  5. [5]

    The waning of the wimp: Endgame?,

    G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, J. P. Neto, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. Queiroz, “The waning of the wimp: Endgame?,” 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Snowmass2021 cosmic frontier dark matter direct detection to the neutrino fog,

    D. Akerib, P. Cushman, C. Dahl, R. Ebadi, A. Fan, R. Gaitskell, C. Galbiati, G. Giovanetti, G. Gelmini, L. Grandi, S. Haselschwardt, C. Jackson, R. Lang, B. Loer, D. Loomba, M. C. Marshall, A. Mills, C. OHare, C. Savarese, J. Schueler, M. Szydagis, V. Takhistov, T. Tait, Y.-D. Tsai, S. Vahsen, R. Walsworth, and S. Westerdale, “Snowmass2021 cosmic frontier...

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Effective field theory treatment of the neutrino background in direct dark matter detection experiments,

    J. Dent, B. Dutta, J. Newstead, and L. Strigari, “Effective field theory treatment of the neutrino background in direct dark matter detection experiments,” 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Can we overcome the neutrino floor at high masses?,

    C. O‚ÄôHare, “Can we overcome the neutrino floor at high masses?,” 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Neutrino non-standard interactions and dark matter searches with multi-ton scale detectors,

    D. A. Sierra, N. Rojas, and M. Tytgat, “Neutrino non-standard interactions and dark matter searches with multi-ton scale detectors,” 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Casting a wide signal net with future direct dark matter detection experiments,

    G. Gelmini, V. Takhistov, and S. Witte, “Casting a wide signal net with future direct dark matter detection experiments,” 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    How high is the neutrino floor?,

    C. Bœhm, C. no, P. Machado, A. O. Campo, E. Perdomo, and E. Reid, “How high is the neutrino floor?,” 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Direct detections of dark matter in the presence of non-standard neutrino interactions,

    W. Chao, J. guo Jiang, X. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Direct detections of dark matter in the presence of non-standard neutrino interactions,” 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Dark matter vs. neutrinos: the effect of astrophysical uncertainties and timing information on the neutrino floor,

    J. H. Davis, “Dark matter vs. neutrinos: the effect of astrophysical uncertainties and timing information on the neutrino floor,” 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    Readout strategies for directional dark matter detection beyond the neutrino background,

    C. O‚ÄôHare, A. Green, J. Billard, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, and L. Strigari, “Readout strategies for directional dark matter detection beyond the neutrino background,” 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    A review of the discovery reach of directional dark matter detection,

    F. Mayet, A. Green, J. Battat, J. Billard, N. Bozorgnia, G. Gelmini, P. Gondolo, B. Kavanagh, B. Kavanagh, S. C. K. Lee, S. C. K. Lee, D. Loomba, J. Monroe, B. Morgan, C. O‚ÄôHare, A. Peter, N. Phan, and S. Vahsen, “A review of the discovery reach of directional dark matter de...

    2016

  8. [16]

    Solar neutrinos and dark matter detection with diurnal modulation,

    S. Sassi, A. Dinmohammadi, M. Heikinheimo, N. Mirabolfathi, K. Nordlund, H. Safari, and K. Tuominen, “Solar neutrinos and dark matter detection with diurnal modulation,” 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints,

    G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, “The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints,”Eur. Phys. J. C78no. 3, (2018) 203,arXiv:1703.07364 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dark Matter through the Higgs portal,

    G. Arcadi, A. Djouadi, and M. Raidal, “Dark Matter through the Higgs portal,”Phys. Rept.842 (2020) 1–180,arXiv:1903.03616 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The Waning of the WIMP: Endgame?,

    G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, J. P. Neto, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, “The Waning of the WIMP: Endgame?,”arXiv:2403.15860 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Evading Direct Dark Matter Detection in Higgs Portal Models,

    G. Arcadi, C. Gross, O. Lebedev, S. Pokorski, and T. Toma, “Evading Direct Dark Matter Detection in Higgs Portal Models,”Phys. Lett. B769(2017) 129–133,arXiv:1611.09675 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Singlet-doublet dark matter revisited,

    P. N. Bhattiprolu, E. Petrosky, and A. Pierce, “Singlet-doublet dark matter revisited,” arXiv:2505.11607 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Singlet-Doublet Model: Dark matter searches and LHC constraints,

    L. Calibbi, A. Mariotti, and P. Tziveloglou, “Singlet-Doublet Model: Dark matter searches and LHC constraints,”JHEP10(2015) 116,arXiv:1505.03867 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Loop-induced direct detection signatures from CP-violating scalar mediators,

    F. Ertas and F. Kahlhoefer, “Loop-induced direct detection signatures from CP-violating scalar mediators,”JHEP06(2019) 052,arXiv:1902.11070 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Minimal consistent Dark Matter models for systematic experimental characterisation: fermion Dark Matter,

    A. Belyaev, G. Cacciapaglia, D. Locke, and A. Pukhov, “Minimal consistent Dark Matter models for systematic experimental characterisation: fermion Dark Matter,”JHEP10(2022) 014, arXiv:2203.03660 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Direct Detection of Electroweak-Interacting Dark Matter,

    J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata, N. Nagata, and T. Takesako, “Direct Detection of Electroweak-Interacting Dark Matter,”JHEP07(2011) 005,arXiv:1104.0228 [hep-ph]. [23]PlanckCollaboration, N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A...

    2011 arXiv

  18. [26]

    New Definition of the Neutrino Floor for Direct Dark Matter Searches,

    C. A. J. O’Hare, “New Definition of the Neutrino Floor for Direct Dark Matter Searches,”Phys. Rev. Lett.127no. 25, (2021) 251802,arXiv:2109.03116 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Pseudoscalar Portal Dark Matter,

    A. Berlin, S. Gori, T. Lin, and L.-T. Wang, “Pseudoscalar Portal Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 015005,arXiv:1502.06000 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2HDM portal for Singlet-Doublet Dark Matter,

    G. Arcadi, “2HDM portal for Singlet-Doublet Dark Matter,”Eur. Phys. J. C78no. 10, (2018) 864, arXiv:1804.04930 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Generalized Blind Spots for Dark Matter Direct Detection in the 2HDM,

    M. E. Cabrera, J. A. Casas, A. Delgado, and S. Robles, “Generalized Blind Spots for Dark Matter Direct Detection in the 2HDM,”JHEP02(2020) 166,arXiv:1912.01758 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A Renormalizable Model for the Galactic Center Gamma Ray Excess from Dark Matter Annihilation,

    S. Ipek, D. McKeen, and A. E. Nelson, “A Renormalizable Model for the Galactic Center Gamma Ray Excess from Dark Matter Annihilation,”Phys. Rev. D90no. 5, (2014) 055021, arXiv:1404.3716 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Simplified dark matter models with two Higgs doublets: I. Pseudoscalar mediators,

    M. Bauer, U. Haisch, and F. Kahlhoefer, “Simplified dark matter models with two Higgs doublets: I. Pseudoscalar mediators,”JHEP05(2017) 138,arXiv:1701.07427 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Comparing 2HDM+Scalar and Pseudoscalar Simplified Models at LHC,

    G. Arcadi, G. Busoni, T. Hugle, and V. T. Tenorth, “Comparing 2HDM+Scalar and Pseudoscalar Simplified Models at LHC,”JHEP06(2020) 098,arXiv:2001.10540 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    The THDMa Revisited,

    T. Robens, “The THDMa Revisited,”Symmetry13no. 12, (2021) 2341,arXiv:2106.02962 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Two-Higgs-doublet-plus-pseudoscalar model: Collider, dark matter, and gravitational wave signals,

    G. Arcadi, N. Benincasa, A. Djouadi, and K. Kannike, “Two-Higgs-doublet-plus-pseudoscalar model: Collider, dark matter, and gravitational wave signals,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 5, (2023) 055010, arXiv:2212.14788 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Benchmarking LHC searches for light 2HDM+a pseudoscalars,

    S. Argyropoulos and U. Haisch, “Benchmarking LHC searches for light 2HDM+a pseudoscalars,” SciPost Phys.13no. 1, (2022) 007,arXiv:2202.12631 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Novel collider signatures in the type-I 2HDM+a model,

    S. Argyropoulos, U. Haisch, and I. Kalaitzidou, “Novel collider signatures in the type-I 2HDM+a model,”JHEP07(2024) 263,arXiv:2404.05704 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Legacy analysis of dark matter annihilation from the Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies with 14 years of Fermi-LAT data,

    A. McDaniel, M. Ajello, C. M. Karwin, M. Di Mauro, A. Drlica-Wagner, and M. A. Sánchez-Conde, “Legacy analysis of dark matter annihilation from the Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies with 14 years of Fermi-LAT data,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 6, (2024) 063024,arXiv:2311.04982 [astro-...

    2024 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Long-lived particle phenomenology in the 2HDM+a model,

    U. Haisch and L. Schnell, “Long-lived particle phenomenology in the 2HDM+a model,”JHEP04 (2023) 134,arXiv:2302.02735 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Fermion singlet dark matter in a pseudoscalar dark matter portal,

    B. Díaz Sáez, P. Escalona, S. Norero, and A. R. Zerwekh, “Fermion singlet dark matter in a pseudoscalar dark matter portal,”JHEP10(2021) 233,arXiv:2105.04255 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Non-Abelian gauge fields as dark matter,

    C. Gross, O. Lebedev, and Y. Mambrini, “Non-Abelian gauge fields as dark matter,”JHEP08(2015) 158,arXiv:1505.07480 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Multicomponent Dark Matter from Gauge Symmetry,

    G. Arcadi, C. Gross, O. Lebedev, Y. Mambrini, S. Pokorski, and T. Toma, “Multicomponent Dark Matter from Gauge Symmetry,”JHEP12(2016) 081,arXiv:1611.00365 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Scalar One Loop Integrals,

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, “Scalar One Loop Integrals,”Nucl. Phys. B153(1979) 365–401

    1979

  35. [44]

    One Loop Corrections for e+ e- Annihilation Into mu+ mu- in the Weinberg Model,

    G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, “One Loop Corrections for e+ e- Annihilation Into mu+ mu- in the Weinberg Model,”Nucl. Phys. B160(1979) 151–207

    1979

  36. [45]

    Package-X: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals,

    H. H. Patel, “Package-X: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals,” Comput. Phys. Commun.197(2015) 276–290,arXiv:1503.01469 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Package-X 2.0: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals,

    H. H. Patel, “Package-X 2.0: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals,”Comput. Phys. Commun.218(2017) 66–70,arXiv:1612.00009 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Loop corrections to dark matter direct detection in a pseudoscalar mediator dark matter model,

    T. Abe, M. Fujiwara, and J. Hisano, “Loop corrections to dark matter direct detection in a pseudoscalar mediator dark matter model,”JHEP02(2019) 028,arXiv:1810.01039 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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