Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Connecting $t$-channel Dark Matter Models to the Standard Model Effective Field Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One-loop-suppressed SMEFT bounds can still rule out large Yukawa couplings in leptophilic t-channel dark matter models, notably y ≳ 0.3 for doublet mediators.

desk verdict A genuinely useful one-loop SMEFT dictionary for four leptophilic t-channel models, with headline exclusions that are sign tests on one external global fit and vanish at LO — referee it, but push on the fit dependence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00925 v3 pith:2D7FO2DZ submitted 2025-07-01 hep-ph

Simone Biondini , Lorenzo Tiberi , Orlando Panella This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords darkmattert-channelmediatorSMEFTWarsawbasisone-loopmatchingminimalflavorviolationrelicdensitycoannihilation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether low-energy Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) bounds can rule out parts of the parameter space of simplified dark matter models where a fermionic dark matter particle exchanges a scalar mediator with Standard Model leptons. Because both new fields are odd under the stabilizing $Z_2$ symmetry, their contributions to SMEFT Wilson coefficients start only at one loop, so the exclusions are a priori weak. The paper shows that, after a complete one-loop matching into the Warsaw basis under minimal flavor violation, the four-lepton coefficient $C_{\ell\ell}$ excludes portal couplings $y \gtrsim 0.3$ for the $SU(2)_L$-doublet mediator models over a wide mass range, while the lepton-quark coefficient $C_{ed}$ excludes a band $0.1 \lesssim y \lesssim 0.56$ for the singlet-mediator models with dark matter masses between 3 and 10 TeV. These constraints remain meaningful after coannihilations, Sommerfeld enhancement, and bound-state effects are included in the relic density calculation, and they are competitive with direct detection in the doublet-mediator and high-mass singlet cases. A sympathetic reader would take away that loop-suppressed EFT constraints can still carve out significant regions of otherwise viable dark matter parameter space.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set of one-loop matching coefficients in the Warsaw basis, above all $C_{ee}$, $C_{\ell\ell}$ and $C_{ed}$, written in terms of loop functions $F_1(x)$, $F_2(x)$, $F_3(x)$ of the mass ratio $x = m_\chi/m_\eta$. These functions encode the box, triangle and Majorana-contraction diagrams, and their sign patterns determine where each Wilson coefficient crosses zero. A Fierz identity for Majorana spinor structures converts the non-standard four-lepton term into an ordinary vector-current operator, making the coefficient list complete, and RGE evolution carries the coefficients from the compressed matching scale down to the 4 TeV scale at which the external global fit is defined.

What would settle it

Recompute the global fit at leading order only, as the paper itself notes is possible; the intervals for $C_{\ell\ell}$ and $C_{ed}$ then include negative values and the $y \gtrsim 0.3$ and $0.1 \lesssim y \lesssim 0.56$ exclusion bands vanish. A future global fit with the same data but a different RGE treatment that shifts these intervals to include negative values would similarly erase the paper's main new constraints.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the one-loop-generated dimension-six Wilson coefficients of leptophilic $t$-channel models carry sign information that global SMEFT fits can turn into sharp exclusions. The paper matches four models—Majorana or Dirac fermion dark matter with an $SU(2)_L$ singlet or doublet scalar mediator—onto the Warsaw basis at one loop, treating the dark matter and mediator masses as a single compressed scale. The fully leptonic matching coefficients depend on the Yukawa coupling $y$ through loop functions $F_1$, $F_2$ and $F_3$; for the doublet mediator, $C_{\ell\ell}$ changes sign near $y \simeq 0.3$, and because the RGE-improved global fit only allows positive values, the region $y \gtrsim 0.3$ is excluded almost independently of mass and splitting. For the singlet mediator at masses between 3 and 10 TeV, $C_{ed}$ becomes negative in the window $0.1 \lesssim y \lesssim 0.56$, producing a mass-independent exclusion band. The paper positions this as the first use of a lepton-quark four-fermion operator to constrain leptophilic dark matter, and shows that the new bounds are not always subdominant to direct detection.

Load-bearing premise

The exclusions from $C_{\ell\ell}$ and $C_{ed}$ rely on the NLO- and RGE-improved global SMEFT fit; at leading order the fit intervals for these coefficients include negative values, and the corresponding excluded regions disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the $SU(2)_L$-doublet mediator models S2M and S2D, the global fit on $C_{\ell\ell}$ excludes $y \gtrsim 0.3$ over a wide dark matter mass range, and for the smallest mass splitting the bound becomes more restrictive than the anapole-moment direct detection constraint for $m_\chi \gtrsim 2$ TeV.
  • For the singlet-mediator models S1M and S1D with $3$ TeV $\lesssim m_\chi \lesssim 10$ TeV, $C_{ed}$ excludes the band $0.1 \lesssim y \lesssim 0.56$, a constraint essentially independent of dark matter mass and only mildly dependent on the mass splitting.
  • In the compressed-spectrum regime $\delta m \lesssim 0.1$, coannihilations, thermal mass corrections, Sommerfeld enhancement and bound-state effects change the relic-density prediction by up to about a factor of 20 in the Majorana case, reshaping the regions compatible with the observed dark matter abundance.
  • For the Dirac singlet-mediator model, direct detection bounds from the magnetic dipole moment and charge radius dominate over the SMEFT $C_{ee}$ bound; for Majorana dark matter, $C_{ee}$ and direct detection constrain complementary regions of the $(m_\chi, y)$ plane.
  • The exclusions hold only when the matching coefficient has the sign excluded by the global fit; this is why the leading-order fit would remove them, making the NLO/RGE sign structure essential to the result.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The sign-based exclusion mechanism is generic: any one-loop matching coefficient whose global-fit interval is one-sided can convert a sign change in a coupling into a sharp exclusion. Repeating the same matching for other $t$-channel realizations, such as scalar or vector dark matter with a fermionic mediator, would likely produce analogous rectangular exclusion bands.
  • The MFV assumption forces all lepton flavors to share one coupling. If the mediator coupled to one flavor at a time, flavor-selective global fits would apply, and the $y \gtrsim 0.3$ band for doublet mediators could move, split, or widen per flavor.
  • Because the $C_{ed}$ exclusion is nearly mass-independent between 3 and 10 TeV, higher-energy Drell-Yan data beyond current LHC reach would either extend the band to larger masses or close it, giving a direct way to test the mechanism.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper matches four leptophilic t-channel dark matter models (Majorana/Dirac fermion DM with SU(2)_L-singlet or doublet scalar mediator, called S1M/S1D/S2M/S2D) onto dimension-six SMEFT in the Warsaw basis at one loop, using Matchete with analytic cross-checks. Under a compressed-spectrum assumption (delta_m <= 0.5), the authors compute the relic density including coannihilations, thermal mass corrections, Sommerfeld enhancement, and bound-state effects, and then combine the SMEFT Wilson coefficients with the global MFV SMEFT fit of ref. [94] and with LZ direct-detection limits. The headline results are: (i) for S2M/S2D, the four-lepton coefficient C_ell_ell excludes y >~ 0.3 over a wide mass range down to m_chi ~ 0.5 TeV; (ii) for S1M/S1D at m_chi between 3 and 10 TeV, the lepton-quark coefficient C_ed excludes a band 0.1 <= y <= 0.56; (iii) C_ee bounds for S1D are not competitive with direct detection. The paper concludes that SMEFT bounds, though loop-suppressed, can meaningfully constrain parameter space for m_chi >= 0.5 TeV and O(1) couplings.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful one-loop matching dictionary for four benchmark t-channel DM models, with complete Wilson-coefficient lists in the appendices, and it demonstrates how low-energy SMEFT observables can complement direct and collider searches for leptophilic DM. The strengths are concrete: the matching is automated with Matchete and cross-checked analytically, the operator lists are explicit and complete (24/31 operators for the singlet/doublet models), the Fierz identity in Eq. (3.4) is derived, and the relic-density treatment includes state-of-the-art coannihilation and near-threshold corrections. The predicted exclusion regions in (m_chi, y) are falsifiable. The main fragility, acknowledged by the authors, is that the headline C_ell_ell and C_ed exclusions are sign tests tied to the lower endpoints of one external NLO global fit; at LO the same fit would erase them.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, Figs. 5-6, Eqs. (3.12), (5.1)-(5.3)] The central exclusions from C_ell_ell and C_ed are sign tests against the lower endpoints of the external fit intervals in Eq. (3.12). The manuscript explicitly states at the end of Section 5.2 that the LO global fit gives intervals for C_ell_ll and C_ed that include negative values, which would make the excluded regions in Figs. 5 and 6 disappear. Since the abstract's claim that SMEFT bounds 'can meaningfully constrain the parameter space' rests on these exclusions, the authors should quantify the robustness of the sign constraint: e.g., by how much must the lower endpoints of C_ell_ll and C_ed shift (or the fit covariance change) to remove the exclusion bands? They should also present the LO-based exclusion regions explicitly, not only in prose, and soften the abstract/conclusions to state the conditionality clearly.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Fig. 5] The C_ed bound is extracted from LHC Drell-Yan data with invariant masses up to about 3 TeV (refs. [110,112]), yet the exclusion band in Fig. 5 is plotted for m_chi down to 3 TeV. At m_chi = 3 TeV, the condition Q < Lambda for the validity of the dimension-six SMEFT expansion is only marginally satisfied, and dimension-eight contributions are not parametrically suppressed. Please restrict the C_ed exclusion region to m_chi values clearly above the maximum Drell-Yan scale (e.g., m_chi > 4-5 TeV) or provide an estimate of the EFT truncation uncertainty in the C_ed constraint as a function of m_chi. This directly affects the area of the shown exclusion and the corresponding conclusion for the high-mass singlet models.
  3. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract's claim 'meaningfully constrain the parameter space for m_chi >= 0.5 TeV and O(1) portal couplings' is not uniformly supported by the results presented. For S1M and S1D, the authors find that C_ee bounds are not competitive with direct detection (Section 5.1), and the only non-direct-detection exclusions at m_chi > 0.5 TeV are the C_ed sign test above 3 TeV and the C_ell_ll sign test. Given the acknowledged LO/NLO sensitivity of these sign tests, the wording of the abstract and conclusions should be adjusted to reflect that the meaningful constraints are (a) conditional on the RGE+NLO treatment of ref. [94] and (b) concentrated in specific mass/y regions, rather than a general statement across the full m_chi >= 0.5 TeV range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] The word 'coannihialtion' appears as a typo in several places (e.g., 'coannihialtions processes' in Section 4 and 'Coannihialtion processes' in the same section); it should read 'coannihilation'.
  2. [Section 3.1] The text 'both m_chi and m_chi can be taken as indicative for the high-energy scale' contains a typo; one of the masses should be m_eta.
  3. [Eqs. (5.2)-(5.3) and Appendix A.2] In Eqs. (5.2), (5.3), (A.18) and (A.19), the term 'F 3' should be written as 'F_3' for consistency with the loop-function notation introduced in Section 3.1.
  4. [General] Some inline math lacks spacing in the rendered text (e.g., 'form_chi >= 0.5 TeV', 'Thelargereffectsoforder10%' in footnote 15). Please ensure consistent spacing in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SMEFT matching coefficients are computed independently and compared with an external global fit; the admitted LO-fit fragility is a robustness caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The dimension-six Wilson coefficients in Sec. 3 and appendix A are obtained by one-loop matching of the UV Lagrangians (eqs. 2.4-2.8) with Matchete, cross-checked analytically, and the model parameters (y, m_chi, delta_m, lambda_3) are scanned rather than fitted to the target observables. The headline exclusions from C_ell_ell and C_ed arise from comparing these independently computed coefficients with the external global SMEFT fit of ref. [94]; that fit is model-independent and produced by Bartocci, Biekötter, and Hurth, none of whom are authors of this paper. The paper honestly concedes in Sec. 5.2: 'the RGE+NLO improved global fit ... is crucial to obtain the exclusions from Ced and Cℓℓ. Indeed, the LO results provide ranges for Cℓℓ and Ced that include negative values. This in turn would make the corresponding regions in figures 5 and 6 disappear for the same values of (mχ,δm,y).' This is a limitation of the external input, not a circular reduction: the model coefficients are derived from the matched Lagrangian, not from the fitted intervals, and the exclusions are sign tests against the external fit's one-sided endpoints. Self-citations (e.g., refs. [44] and [117] by one of the present authors) supply thermal masses and relic-density ingredients that are previously published, externally checkable calculations and are not the target claim of this paper. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is repackaged as new. The central claim is therefore supported by an independent matching calculation plus an external global fit, with no load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

These parameters are scanned or fixed by hand, not fitted to the observables that define the constraints. The central exclusions nonetheless depend on the chosen ranges, especially delta_m and y. No new entities beyond the standard simplified-model fields chi and eta are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • y (portal Yukawa coupling) = scanned, 0 ≤ y ≤ sqrt(4*pi)
    Controls all one-loop Wilson coefficients and annihilation rates; it is the parameter against which most exclusion contours are drawn.
  • m_chi (dark matter mass) = scanned, 0.5 TeV ≤ m_chi ≤ 10 TeV
    Sets the new-physics scale and the validity range of the SMEFT constraints; the central claim depends on this range.
  • delta_m (relative mass splitting) = scanned, 0.005 ≤ delta_m ≤ 0.5
    Defines the compressed-spectrum regime and enters the loop functions F_i(x) and the relic density through coannihilation factors.
  • lambda_3 (scalar-Higgs portal) = scanned, 0 ≤ lambda_3 ≤ pi
    Affects scalar-pair annihilation, several Higgs-related Wilson coefficients, and the relic density curves, but not the main C_ee and C_ell_ell exclusions.
  • lambda_4, lambda_5 (S2M scalar quartic couplings) = set to values much less than 1
    Chosen by hand to reduce the parameter space; assumed negligible for the central results.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Minimal Flavor Violation with a U(3)^5 flavor symmetry, broken only by SM Yukawa couplings.
    Determines the operator content and permits use of the MFV global fit; alternative flavor structures would change the bounds.
  • domain assumption A stabilizing Z2 parity under which chi and eta are odd and SM fields are even.
    Selects the one-loop matching and prevents tree-level DM-SM couplings.
  • ad hoc to paper Compressed spectrum with delta_m ≤ 0.5, so chi and eta are integrated out at one common scale Lambda ≈ m_chi ≈ m_eta.
    Working hypothesis for single-scale SMEFT matching and for the coannihilation regime; larger splittings would require a two-step EFT.
  • domain assumption The global SMEFT fit of ref. [94] (RGE improved, NLO) provides valid 2 sigma intervals for C_ee, C_ell_ell and C_ed.
    All exclusions in Section 5 are read off these intervals; the authors note that the C_ell_ell and C_ed exclusions disappear at LO.
  • standard math One-loop, dimension-six truncation is sufficient; two-loop and dimension-eight corrections are negligible.
    Stated in Section 3 with parametric suppression g^2/(4*pi)^2 and v_h^2/Lambda^2; higher-order terms may matter for O(1) couplings.
  • domain assumption Cross sections, thermal masses, Sommerfeld factors and bound-state effects from refs. [18, 44, 80, 117, 119] are correct.
    The relic density calculation in Section 4 adopts these prior results with minor modifications.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Connecting $t$-channel Dark Matter Models to the Standard Model Effective Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2D7FO2DZ

@misc{pith2026250700925,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Connecting $t$-channel Dark Matter Models to the Standard Model Effective Field Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2D7FO2DZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00925}
}
abstract

We investigate the connection between simplified dark matter models featuring a $t$-channel scalar mediator and the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT). We focus on scenarios with fermionic dark matter interacting with leptons, under the assumption of Minimal Flavor Violation. The dimension-six SMEFT Wilson coefficients are computed in the Warsaw basis at one loop, with the aid of Matchete. Assuming a compressed mass spectrum for the dark matter and the mediator, we incorporate coannihilations, Sommerfeld enhancement, and bound-state effects in the relic density calculation. We then analyze the interplay between the dark matter energy density, global SMEFT fits, and direct detection constraints. Our results show that SMEFT bounds, though loop-suppressed, can meaningfully constrain the parameter space for $m_\chi \gtrsim 0.5$ TeV and $\mathcal{O}(1)$ portal couplings.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The Dark Side of a Tera-Z Factory

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Future Tera-Z runs at FCC-ee/CEPC could indirectly probe TeV-scale t-channel dark matter portals through one-loop and two-loop electroweak precision shifts, and in leptophilic models would be the only planned experime...

  2. Toward a Comprehensive Exploration of Flavored Dark Matter Models

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new public toolchain maps the allowed parameter space of flavored Majorana dark matter models under relic density, direct/indirect detection, LHC, and flavor constraints, finding severe limits from mu->e gamma in th...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [17]

    Freitas and S

    A. Freitas and S. Westhoff,Leptophilic Dark Matter in Lepton Interactions at LEP and ILC, JHEP 10 (2014) 116 [1408.1959]

    arXiv 2014

  2. [46]

    Cepedello, F

    R. Cepedello, F. Esser, M. Hirsch and V. Sanz,SMEFT goes dark: Dark Matter models for four-fermion operators, JHEP 09 (2023) 081 [2302.03485]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [94]

    Bartocci, A

    R. Bartocci, A. Biekötter and T. Hurth,Renormalisation group evolution effects on global SMEFT analyses, JHEP 05 (2025) 203 [2412.09674]

    arXiv 2025

  4. [1]

    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]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [2]

    Arcadi, M

    G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre et al.,The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 203 [1703.07364]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [3]

    Cirelli, A

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

    arXiv

  7. [4]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler,Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation, Nucl. Phys. B268 (1986) 621

    1986

  8. [5]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10 (2010) 085 [1008.4884]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 139 references
  1. [6]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott,The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory, Phys. Rept.793 (2019) 1 [1706.08945]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Alwall, P

    J. Alwall, P. Schuster and N. Toro,Simplified Models for a First Characterization of New Physics at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 075020 [0810.3921]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [8]

    LHC New Physics Working Group collaboration, Simplified Models for LHC New Physics Searches, J. Phys. G39 (2012) 105005 [1105.2838]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Morgante,Simplified Dark Matter Models, Adv

    E. Morgante,Simplified Dark Matter Models, Adv. High Energy Phys.2018 (2018) 5012043 [1804.01245]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Arina, B

    C. Arina, B. Fuks and L. Mantani,A universal framework for t-channel dark matter models, Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 409 [2001.05024]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Arina et al.,t-channel dark matter at the LHC, 2504.10597

    C. Arina et al.,t-channel dark matter at the LHC, 2504.10597

  7. [12]

    Garny, A

    M. Garny, A. Ibarra and S. Vogl,Dark matter annihilations into two light fermions and one gauge boson: General analysis and antiproton constraints, JCAP 04 (2012) 033 [1112.5155]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Garny, A

    M. Garny, A. Ibarra, M. Pato and S. Vogl,Internal bremsstrahlung signatures in light of direct dark matter searches, JCAP 12 (2013) 046 [1306.6342]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Bai and J

    Y. Bai and J. Berger,Fermion Portal Dark Matter, JHEP 11 (2013) 171 [1308.0612]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [15]

    DiFranzo, K

    A. DiFranzo, K. I. Nagao, A. Rajaraman and T. M. P. Tait,Simplified Models for Dark Matter Interacting with Quarks, JHEP 11 (2013) 014 [1308.2679]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [16]

    Dreiner, M

    H. Dreiner, M. Huck, M. Krämer, D. Schmeier and J. Tattersall,Illuminating Dark Matter at the ILC, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 075015 [1211.2254]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [18]

    J. Kopp, L. Michaels and J. Smirnov,Loopy Constraints on Leptophilic Dark Matter and Internal Bremsstrahlung, JCAP 04 (2014) 022 [1401.6457]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [19]

    M. J. Baker et al.,The Coannihilation Codex, JHEP 12 (2015) 120 [1510.03434]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Arcadi, L

    G. Arcadi, L. Calibbi, M. Fedele and F. Mescia,Systematic approach to B-physics anomalies and t-channel dark matter, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 115012 [2103.09835]. 30

    2021 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Garny, A

    M. Garny, A. Ibarra, S. Rydbeck and S. Vogl,Majorana Dark Matter with a Coloured Mediator: Collider vs Direct and Indirect Searches, JHEP 06 (2014) 169 [1403.4634]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [22]

    K. A. Mohan, D. Sengupta, T. M. P. Tait, B. Yan and C. P. Yuan,Direct detection and LHC constraints on at-channel simplified model of Majorana dark matter at one loop, JHEP 05 (2019) 115 [1903.05650]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Arina, B

    C. Arina, B. Fuks, J. Heisig, M. Krämer, L. Mantani and L. Panizzi,Comprehensive exploration of t-channel simplified models of dark matter, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 115007 [2307.10367]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Griest and D

    K. Griest and D. Seckel,Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 3191

    1991

  19. [25]

    Edsjo and P

    J. Edsjo and P. Gondolo,Neutralino relic density including coannihilations, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 1879 [hep-ph/9704361]

    1997 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Hisano, S

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri and O. Saito,Non-perturbative effect on dark matter annihilation and gamma ray signature from galactic center, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 063528 [hep-ph/0412403]

    2005 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Iengo,Sommerfeld enhancement: General results from field theory diagrams, JHEP 05 (2009) 024 [0902.0688]

    R. Iengo,Sommerfeld enhancement: General results from field theory diagrams, JHEP 05 (2009) 024 [0902.0688]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Cassel,Sommerfeld factor for arbitrary partial wave processes, J

    S. Cassel,Sommerfeld factor for arbitrary partial wave processes, J. Phys. G37 (2010) 105009 [0903.5307]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [29]

    J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat, H. Tu and H.-B. Yu,Hidden Charged Dark Matter, JCAP 07 (2009) 004 [0905.3039]

    2009 arXiv

  24. [30]

    von Harling and K

    B. von Harling and K. Petraki,Bound-state formation for thermal relic dark matter and unitarity, JCAP 12 (2014) 033 [1407.7874]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Ellis, K

    J. Ellis, K. A. Olive and J. Zheng,The Extent of the Stop Coannihilation Strip, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2947 [1404.5571]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [32]

    J. Harz, B. Herrmann, M. Klasen, K. Kovařík and M. Meinecke,SUSY-QCD corrections to stop annihilation into electroweak final states including Coulomb enhancement effects, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 034012 [1410.8063]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Garny and J

    M. Garny and J. Heisig,Interplay of super-WIMP and freeze-in production of dark matter, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 095031 [1809.10135]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Biondini and S

    S. Biondini and S. Vogl,Coloured coannihilations: Dark matter phenomenology meets non-relativistic EFTs, JHEP 02 (2019) 016 [1811.02581]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Harz and K

    J. Harz and K. Petraki,Radiative bound-state formation in unbroken perturbative non-Abelian theories and implications for dark matter, JHEP 07 (2018) 096 [1805.01200]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Biondini and S

    S. Biondini and S. Vogl,Scalar dark matter coannihilating with a coloured fermion, JHEP 11 (2019) 147 [1907.05766]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Biondini and M

    S. Biondini and M. Laine,Thermal dark matter co-annihilating with a strongly interacting scalar, JHEP 04 (2018) 072 [1801.05821]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Garny and J

    M. Garny and J. Heisig,Bound-state effects on dark matter coannihilation: Pushing the boundaries of conversion-driven freeze-out, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 055004 [2112.01499]. 31

    2022 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Biondini and J

    S. Biondini and J. Ghiglieri,Freeze-in produced dark matter in the ultra-relativistic regime, JCAP 03 (2021) 075 [2012.09083]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Becker, E

    M. Becker, E. Copello, J. Harz and C. Tamarit,Dark matter freeze-in from non-equilibrium QFT: towards a consistent treatment of thermal effects, JCAP 03 (2025) 071 [2312.17246]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Biondini,Interplay between improved interaction rates and modified cosmological histories for dark matter, Front

    S. Biondini,Interplay between improved interaction rates and modified cosmological histories for dark matter, Front. in Phys.11 (2023) 1285986 [2309.00323]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Becker, M

    M. Becker, M. J. F. Lozano, J. Harz and C. Tamarit,Multiple Soft Scatterings in Scalar Dark Matter Freeze-In, 2506.11185

    arXiv

  37. [43]

    Liu, X.-P

    J. Liu, X.-P. Wang and K.-P. Xie,Searching for lepton portal dark matter with colliders and gravitational waves, JHEP 06 (2021) 149 [2104.06421]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Biondini, P

    S. Biondini, P. Schicho and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Strong electroweak phase transition in t-channel simplified dark matter models, JCAP 10 (2022) 044 [2207.12207]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Cepedello, F

    R. Cepedello, F. Esser, M. Hirsch and V. Sanz,Mapping the SMEFT to discoverable models, JHEP 09 (2022) 229 [2207.13714]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Gargalionis, J

    J. Gargalionis, J. Quevillon, P. N. H. Vuong and T. You,Linear Standard Model extensions in the SMEFT at one loop and Tera-Z, 2412.01759

  41. [48]

    Guedes and P

    G. Guedes and P. Olgoso,From the EFT to the UV: the complete SMEFT one-loop dictionary, 2412.14253

    arXiv

  42. [49]

    J. M. Gerard,FERMION MASS SPECTRUM IN SU(2)-L x U(1), Z. Phys. C18 (1983) 145

    1983

  43. [50]

    R. S. Chivukula and H. Georgi,Composite Technicolor Standard Model, Phys. Lett. B188 (1987) 99

    1987

  44. [51]

    L. J. Hall and L. Randall,Weak scale effective supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett.65 (1990) 2939

    1990

  45. [52]

    D’Ambrosio, G

    G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia,Minimal flavor violation: An Effective field theory approach, Nucl. Phys. B645 (2002) 155 [hep-ph/0207036]

    2002 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Falkowski and K

    A. Falkowski and K. Mimouni,Model independent constraints on four-lepton operators, JHEP 02 (2016) 086 [1511.07434]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso and K. Mimouni,Compilation of low-energy constraints on 4-fermion operators in the SMEFT, JHEP 08 (2017) 123 [1706.03783]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso and O. Naviliat-Cuncic,Comprehensive analysis of beta decays within and beyond the Standard Model, JHEP 04 (2021) 126 [2010.13797]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Crivellin, S

    A. Crivellin, S. Davidson, G. M. Pruna and A. Signer,Renormalisation-group improved analysis ofµ→e processes in a systematic effective-field-theory approach, JHEP 05 (2017) 117 [1702.03020]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [57]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for electroweak production of charginos and sleptons decaying into final states with two leptons and missing transverse momentum in√s = 13 TeVpp collisions using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 123 [1908.08215]. 32

    2020 arXiv

  51. [58]

    ATLAScollaboration, Searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles with compressed mass spectra in√s = 13 TeVpp collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 052005 [1911.12606]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Barman, S

    B. Barman, S. Bhattacharya, S. Girmohanta and S. Jahedi,Effective Leptophilic WIMPs at the e+e− collider, JHEP 04 (2022) 146 [2109.10936]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Arina, B

    C. Arina, B. Fuks, L. Mantani, H. Mies, L. Panizzi and J. Salko,Closing in ont-channel simplified dark matter models, Phys. Lett. B813 (2021) 136038 [2010.07559]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Becker, E

    M. Becker, E. Copello, J. Harz, K. A. Mohan and D. Sengupta,Impact of Sommerfeld effect and bound state formation in simplified t-channel dark matter models, JHEP 08 (2022) 145 [2203.04326]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [62]

    LEP, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavor Group collaboration, A Combination of preliminary electroweak measurements and constraints on the standard model, hep-ex/0312023

    arXiv

  56. [63]

    Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of Particle Physics, Chin. Phys. C40 (2016) 100001

    2016

  57. [64]

    VENUS collaboration, Measurement of tau polarization in e+ e- annihilation at s**(1/2) = 58-GeV, Phys. Lett. B403 (1997) 155 [hep-ex/9703003]

    1997 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Rept.532 (2013) 119 [1302.3415]

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak collaboration, Electroweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP, Phys. Rept.532 (2013) 119 [1302.3415]

    2013 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Ma,Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter, Phys

    E. Ma,Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 077301 [hep-ph/0601225]

    2006 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Herrero-Garcia, E

    J. Herrero-Garcia, E. Molinaro and M. A. Schmidt,Dark matter direct detection of a fermionic singlet at one loop, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 471 [1803.05660]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Kraml, A

    S. Kraml, A. Lessa, S. Prakash and F. Wilsch,SUSY meets SMEFT: Complete one-loop matching of the general MSSM, 2506.05201

    arXiv

  62. [69]

    Huo,Effective Field Theory of Integrating out Sfermions in the MSSM: Complete One-Loop Analysis, Phys

    R. Huo,Effective Field Theory of Integrating out Sfermions in the MSSM: Complete One-Loop Analysis, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 075013 [1509.05942]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [70]

    J. D. Wells and Z. Zhang,Effective field theory approach to trans-TeV supersymmetry: covariant matching, Yukawa unification and Higgs couplings, JHEP 05 (2018) 182 [1711.04774]

    2018 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Fuentes-Martin, J

    J. Fuentes-Martin, J. Portoles and P. Ruiz-Femenia,Integrating out heavy particles with functional methods: a simplified framework, JHEP 09 (2016) 156 [1607.02142]

    2016 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Brivio, S

    I. Brivio, S. Bruggisser, E. Geoffray, W. Killian, M. Krämer, M. Luchmann et al.,From models to SMEFT and back?, SciPost Phys.12 (2022) 036 [2108.01094]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Jiang, N

    M. Jiang, N. Craig, Y.-Y. Li and D. Sutherland,Complete one-loop matching for a singlet scalar in the Standard Model EFT, JHEP 02 (2019) 031 [1811.08878]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Gherardi, D

    V. Gherardi, D. Marzocca and E. Venturini,Matching scalar leptoquarks to the SMEFT at one loop, JHEP 07 (2020) 225 [2003.12525]. 33

    2020 arXiv

  68. [75]

    S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, P. N. H. Vuong, T. You and Z. Zhang,The Fermionic Universal One-Loop Effective Action, JHEP 11 (2020) 078 [2006.16260]

    2020 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Haisch, M

    U. Haisch, M. Ruhdorfer, E. Salvioni, E. Venturini and A. Weiler,Singlet night in Feynman-ville: one-loop matching of a real scalar, JHEP 04 (2020) 164 [2003.05936]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Horigome, T

    S.-I. Horigome, T. Katayose, S. Matsumoto and I. Saha,Leptophilic fermion WIMP: Role of future lepton colliders, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 055001 [2102.08645]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Bringmann, L

    T. Bringmann, L. Bergstrom and J. Edsjo,New Gamma-Ray Contributions to Supersymmetric Dark Matter Annihilation, JHEP 01 (2008) 049 [0710.3169]

    2008 arXiv

  72. [79]

    N. F. Bell, J. B. Dent, T. D. Jacques and T. J. Weiler,W/Z Bremsstrahlung as the Dominant Annihilation Channel for Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 013001 [1009.2584]

    2011 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Garny, A

    M. Garny, A. Ibarra and S. Vogl,Signatures of Majorana dark matter with t-channel mediators, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24 (2015) 1530019 [1503.01500]

    2015 arXiv

  74. [81]

    Ibarra, M

    A. Ibarra, M. Reichard and G. Tomar,Probing dark matter electromagnetic properties in direct detection experiments, JCAP 02 (2025) 072 [2408.15760]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [82]

    D. A. Faroughy, G. Isidori, F. Wilsch and K. Yamamoto,Flavour symmetries in the SMEFT, JHEP 08 (2020) 166 [2005.05366]

    2020 arXiv

  76. [83]

    Greljo, A

    A. Greljo, A. Palavrić and A. E. Thomsen,Adding Flavor to the SMEFT, JHEP 10 (2022) 010 [2203.09561]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Greljo and A

    A. Greljo and A. Palavrić,Leading directions in the SMEFT, JHEP 09 (2023) 009 [2305.08898]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [85]

    N. G. Deshpande and E. Ma,Pattern of Symmetry Breaking with Two Higgs Doublets, Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 2574

    1978

  79. [86]

    Barbieri, L

    R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall and V. S. Rychkov,Improved naturalness with a heavy Higgs: An Alternative road to LHC physics, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 015007 [hep-ph/0603188]

    2006 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Lopez Honorez, E

    L. Lopez Honorez, E. Nezri, J. F. Oliver and M. H. G. Tytgat,The Inert Doublet Model: An Archetype for Dark Matter, JCAP 02 (2007) 028 [hep-ph/0612275]

    2007 arXiv

  81. [88]

    Bringmann, X

    T. Bringmann, X. Huang, A. Ibarra, S. Vogl and C. Weniger,Fermi LAT Search for Internal Bremsstrahlung Signatures from Dark Matter Annihilation, JCAP 07 (2012) 054 [1203.1312]

    2012 arXiv

  82. [89]

    Banta, T

    I. Banta, T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu and D. Sutherland,Non-decoupling new particles, Journal of High Energy Physics2022 (2022)

    2022

  83. [90]

    Cohen, N

    T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu and D. Sutherland,Is SMEFT Enough?, JHEP 03 (2021) 237 [2008.08597]

    2021 arXiv

  84. [91]

    Brivio, J

    I. Brivio, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and L. Merlo,The complete heft lagrangian after the lhc run i, The European Physical Journal C76 (2016)

    2016

  85. [92]

    FERUGLIO,The chiral approach to the electroweak interactions, International Journal of Modern Physics A08 (1993) 4937–4972

    F. FERUGLIO,The chiral approach to the electroweak interactions, International Journal of Modern Physics A08 (1993) 4937–4972

    1993

  86. [93]

    de Blas, Y

    J. de Blas, Y. Du, C. Grojean, J. Gu, V. Miralles, M. E. Peskin et al.,Global smeft fits at future colliders, 2024. 34

    2024

  87. [95]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzyński, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-six terms in the standard model lagrangian, Journal of High Energy Physics2010 (2010)

    2010

  88. [96]

    J. J. Ethier, R. Gomez-Ambrosio, G. Magni and J. Rojo,SMEFT analysis of vector boson scattering and diboson data from the LHC Run II, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 560 [2101.03180]

    2021 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Fuentes-Martín, M

    J. Fuentes-Martín, M. König, J. Pagès, A. E. Thomsen and F. Wilsch,A proof of concept for matchete: an automated tool for matching effective theories, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 662 [2212.04510]

    2023 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Fuentes-Martin, M

    J. Fuentes-Martin, M. König, J. Pagès, A. E. Thomsen and F. Wilsch,SuperTracer: A Calculator of Functional Supertraces for One-Loop EFT Matching, JHEP 04 (2021) 281 [2012.08506]

    2021 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Cohen, X

    T. Cohen, X. Lu and Z. Zhang,Functional Prescription for EFT Matching, JHEP 02 (2021) 228 [2011.02484]

    2021 arXiv

  92. [100]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott,Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators I: Formalism and lambda Dependence, JHEP 10 (2013) 087 [1308.2627]

    2013 arXiv

  93. [101]

    A. V. Manohar,The HQET / NRQCD Lagrangian to order alpha / m-3, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 230 [hep-ph/9701294]

    1997 arXiv

  94. [102]

    C. C. Nishi,Simple derivation of general Fierz-like identities, Am. J. Phys.73 (2005) 1160 [hep-ph/0412245]

    2005 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Isidori, F

    G. Isidori, F. Wilsch and D. Wyler,The standard model effective field theory at work, Rev. Mod. Phys.96 (2024) 015006 [2303.16922]

    2024 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Fuentes-Martín, M

    J. Fuentes-Martín, M. König, J. Pagès, A. E. Thomsen and F. Wilsch,Evanescent operators in one-loop matching computations, JHEP 02 (2023) 031 [2211.09144]

    2023 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Bartocci, A

    R. Bartocci, A. Biekötter and T. Hurth,A global analysis of the SMEFT under the minimal MFV assumption, JHEP 05 (2024) 074 [2311.04963]

    2024 arXiv

  98. [106]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for Higgs boson pair production in theγγb¯b final state with 13 TeVpp collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment, JHEP 11 (2018) 040 [1807.04873]

    2018 arXiv

  99. [107]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for pair production of Higgs bosons in theb¯bb¯b final state using proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 01 (2019) 030 [1804.06174]

    2019 arXiv

  100. [108]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for resonant and non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in theb¯bτ +τ − decay channel inpp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 191801 [1808.00336]

    2018 arXiv

  101. [109]

    CMS collaboration, Search for Higgs boson pair production in events with two bottom quarks and two tau leptons in proton–proton collisions at√s =13TeV, Phys. Lett. B778 (2018) 101 [1707.02909]. 35

    2018 arXiv

  102. [110]

    CMS collaboration, Search for resonant and nonresonant new phenomena in high-mass dilepton final states at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 07 (2021) 208 [2103.02708]

    2021 arXiv

  103. [111]

    CMS collaboration, Search for Higgs Boson Pair Production in the Four b Quark Final State in Proton-Proton Collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.129 (2022) 081802 [2202.09617]

    2022 arXiv

  104. [112]

    ATLAScollaboration, Search for heavy Higgs bosons decaying into two tau leptons with the ATLAS detector usingpp collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020) 051801 [2002.12223]

    2020 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Fuentes-Martín, P

    J. Fuentes-Martín, P. Ruiz-Femenía, A. Vicente and J. Virto,Dsixtools 2.0: the effective field theory toolkit, The European Physical Journal C81 (2021)

    2021

  106. [114]

    Di Noi and L

    S. Di Noi and L. Silvestrini,Rgesolver: a c++ library to perform renormalization group evolution in the standard model effective theory, The European Physical Journal C83 (2023)

    2023

  107. [115]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini,Cosmic abundances of stable particles: Improved analysis, Nucl. Phys. B360 (1991) 145

    1991

  108. [116]

    Hambye, F

    T. Hambye, F. S. Ling, L. Lopez Honorez and J. Rocher,Scalar Multiplet Dark Matter, JHEP 07 (2009) 090 [0903.4010]

    2009 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Biondini and M

    S. Biondini and M. Laine,Re-derived overclosure bound for the inert doublet model, JHEP 08 (2017) 047 [1706.01894]

    2017 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Laine and M

    M. Laine and M. Meyer,Standard Model thermodynamics across the electroweak crossover, JCAP 07 (2015) 035 [1503.04935]

    2015 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Kim and M

    S. Kim and M. Laine,On thermal corrections to near-threshold annihilation, JCAP 01 (2017) 013 [1609.00474]

    2017 arXiv

  112. [120]

    J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat and H.-B. Yu,Sommerfeld Enhancements for Thermal Relic Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 083525 [1005.4678]

    2010 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Detmold, M

    W. Detmold, M. McCullough and A. Pochinsky,Dark Nuclei I: Cosmology and Indirect Detection, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 115013 [1406.2276]

    2014 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Petraki, M

    K. Petraki, M. Postma and M. Wiechers,Dark-matter bound states from Feynman diagrams, JHEP 06 (2015) 128 [1505.00109]

    2015 arXiv

  115. [123]

    L. S. Brown and R. F. Sawyer,Nuclear reaction rates in a plasma, Rev. Mod. Phys.69 (1997) 411 [astro-ph/9610256]

    1997 arXiv

  116. [124]

    D’Onofrio and K

    M. D’Onofrio and K. Rummukainen,Standard model cross-over on the lattice, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 025003 [1508.07161]

    2016 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Biondini, M

    S. Biondini, M. Eriksson and M. Laine,Computing singlet scalar freeze-out with plasmon and plasmino states, 2505.05206

    arXiv

  118. [126]

    Mitridate, M

    A. Mitridate, M. Redi, J. Smirnov and A. Strumia,Cosmological Implications of Dark Matter Bound States, JCAP 05 (2017) 006 [1702.01141]

    2017 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Bollig and S

    J. Bollig and S. Vogl,Impact of bound states on non-thermal dark matter production, JCAP 10 (2022) 031 [2112.01491]. 36

    2022 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Rogers, F. J. and Graboske, H. C. and Harwood, D. J.,Bound Eigenstates of the Static Screened Coulomb Potential, Phys. Rev. A1 (1970) 1577

    1970

  121. [129]

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

    2020 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Fukushima and J

    K. Fukushima and J. Kumar,Dipole Moment Bounds on Dark Matter Annihilation, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 056017 [1307.7120]

    2013 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Ibarra, M

    A. Ibarra, M. Reichard and R. Nagai,Anapole moment of Majorana fermions and implications for direct detection of neutralino dark matter, JHEP 01 (2023) 086 [2207.01014]

    2023 arXiv

  124. [132]

    E. E. Radescu,Comments on the Electromagnetic Properties of Majorana Fermions, Phys. Rev. D32 (1985) 1266

    1985

  125. [133]

    Kayser and A

    B. Kayser and A. S. Goldhaber,CPT and CP Properties of Majorana Particles, and the Consequences, Phys. Rev. D28 (1983) 2341

    1983

  126. [134]

    LZ collaboration, First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) 041002 [2207.03764]

    2023 arXiv

  127. [135]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey and H. Müller,Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the standard model, Science 360 (2018) 191–195

    2018

  128. [136]

    Muon g-2 collaboration, Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 127 ppb, 2506.03069

  129. [137]

    M.-C. Chen, J. Huang and V. Takhistov,Beyond Minimal Lepton Flavored Dark Matter, JHEP 02 (2016) 060 [1510.04694]

    2016 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Acaroğlu, P

    H. Acaroğlu, P. Agrawal and M. Blanke,Lepton-flavoured scalar dark matter in Dark Minimal Flavour Violation, JHEP 05 (2023) 106 [2211.03809]

    2023 arXiv

  131. [139]

    Acaroğlu, M

    H. Acaroğlu, M. Blanke and M. Tabet,Opening the Higgs portal to lepton-flavoured dark matter, JHEP 11 (2023) 079 [2309.10700]. 37

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.