Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 87 references

The paper proposes that the high-energy neutrinos seen by telescopes could come from dark matter annihilating through a Z' boson, and it derives bounds that in some regions beat collider limits.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Bounds on Z'-mediated dark matter are derived from neutrino telescopes, freeze-in, and cosmic strings, but the telescope bounds rest on comparing a Galactic-center flux to faraway sources.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection The model-building is careful but the headline neutrino bounds compare a Milky Way Galactic-center spike flux to extragalactic point sources with no J-factor or distance rescaling, which kills the main claim. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.07570 v3 pith:YHWLYVT2 submitted 2025-09-09 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Indirect dark matter searches with neutrino telescopes via energetic cosmic showers

Arindam Basu , Basabendu Barman , Arindam Das This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords dark matter annihilationneutrino telescopesZ' gauge bosonU(1)_X extensionfreeze-incosmic stringsGalactic-center spikeneutrino flux
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the energetic neutrinos observed by current neutrino telescopes—including the excess toward the active galaxy NGC 1068 and the blazar TXS 0506+056—can be produced by dark matter annihilation in the dense spike around the Milky Way's central black hole, with the annihilation mediated entirely by a new Z' gauge boson. If true, the same instruments act as dark-matter detectors: the observed flux translates directly into exclusion bounds on the coupling g_X and mediator mass M_Z', and for M_Z' near 1 TeV those bounds are stronger than collider limits. The paper also shows that producing the dark matter through freeze-in, rather than thermal freeze-out, narrows the allowed coupling to a window around 10^-8 to 10^-4 for mediator masses between 1 GeV and 10^4 GeV, and that cosmic-string gravitational waves can probe the symmetry-breaking scale behind the Z'. A careful reader should notice that the flux calculation is performed for the Galactic-center spike and compared directly with events from distant sources.

Core claim

The paper argues that the high-energy neutrino events observed toward the active galaxy NGC 1068, the blazar TXS 0506+056, and by ANTARES, Baikal-GVD and KM3NeT can be produced by annihilation of a Dirac dark matter particle into neutrino pairs through a new Z' boson, with the emission coming from the dense dark-matter spike around the Milky Way's central black hole. Comparing the predicted monochromatic neutrino flux, smeared by a Gaussian detector resolution, with observed fluxes yields exclusion curves in the [g_X, M_Z'] plane; for M_Z' near 1 TeV the allowed coupling g_X is forced into the range 10^-4 to 10^-3, and these neutrino-telescope bounds can be stronger than collider limits. Req

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the differential neutrino flux from dark-matter annihilation in the Galactic-center spike, Eq. (12): d phi/dE = <σv>/(8π m_chi^2) (1/3) dN/dE × the integral over solid angle and line of sight of ρ_chi^2(r), with ρ_chi given by an NFW profile that develops a Gondolo–Silk spike around a 10^7 M_sun black hole. This single formula converts the particle-physics parameters (g_X, M_Z', m_chi, n_chi) into an observable count; the paper evaluates the line-of-sight integral over the Milky Way halo, broadens the monochromatic neutrino line with a Gaussian resolution, and compares the result with the observed fluxes. Freeze-in relic-density contours and cosmic-string gravitati

Load-bearing premise

The observed neutrino events from distant sources are treated as coming from a dark-matter spike around the Milky Way's own central black hole, with no per-source distance or halo scaling; if they instead come from the sources' own halos or from ordinary astrophysical emission, the exclusion bounds do not apply.

What would settle it

Compute the J-factor for NGC 1068 itself, using its distance and a plausible dark-matter halo or spike profile, and evaluate the same flux formula; if the predicted neutrino flux is orders of magnitude below the observed TeV excess, then the Galactic-center comparison the bounds rely on is the wrong target. A null gamma-ray search toward the Galactic center at the level implied by the same Z'-mediated annihilation would also rule the model out.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Neutrino telescopes become direct probes of a TeV-scale Z'-mediated dark sector; for M_Z' near 1 TeV the coupling is pinned between about 10^-4 and 10^-3, a region accessible to current and near-future searches.
  • Collider limits no longer define the frontier for this model: for a wide range of mediator masses the neutrino-derived bounds are comparable or stronger than dilepton and dijet searches.
  • Freeze-in relic abundance is more restrictive than the telescope flux itself, narrowing g_X to roughly 10^-8–10^-4 for M_Z' between about 1 GeV and 10^4 GeV.
  • Cosmic-string gravitational-wave observatories can reach the same U(1) breaking scale for M_Z' ≳ 1 TeV, giving an independent cosmological handle on the model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension not pursued in the paper is to recompute Eq. (12) with each source's own distance and dark-matter distribution; the resulting couplings could differ by orders of magnitude from the Galactic-center comparison.
  • The monochromatic line prediction suggests a stacking search for line-like features in neutrino-telescope data could test the model without assuming a particular source; a null result would push the interpretation away from observed event energies.
  • Because the Z' also couples to charged fermions, a cross-check is to compare the neutrino-derived couplings with gamma-ray upper limits from the Galactic center; this is not done in the paper.
  • The benchmark m_chi = 3 M_Z' forbids Z' decay into dark matter; opening that channel would change both the freeze-in yield and the annihilation spectrum, so the bounds are specific to this kinematic regime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a minimal U(1)_X extension of the Standard Model with a Dirac dark-matter particle chi that annihilates through a Z' gauge boson into neutrino pairs. It computes the expected neutrino flux from dark-matter spikes around supermassive black holes using Eq. (12), convolves it with a Gaussian detector resolution, and compares it with observed high-energy neutrino events/excesses (IceCube NGC 1068 and TXS 0506+056, ANTARES, Baikal-GVD, KM3NeT KM3-230213A, and Pierre Auger Observatory). It then derives exclusion contours in the g_X-M_Z' plane, adds freeze-in relic-density constraints, and uses cosmic-string gravitational-wave predictions to constrain the U(1)_X breaking scale. The paper claims that neutrino-telescope bounds can be stronger than collider bounds for M_Z' ~ O(1) TeV, with the strongest bounds coming from freeze-in.

Significance. The model-building part is standard and internally consistent: the U(1)_X framework, the seesaw mechanism, the Z'-mediated annihilation cross section, and the spike density profile are all standard tools, and the paper gives enough benchmark parameters to reproduce Eq. (12). The freeze-in and cosmic-string sections, however, are largely adopted from the authors' earlier work [70,71], and the central astronomical comparison is invalid: Eq. (12) computes a Milky Way Galactic-center l.o.s. integral, while Fig. 2 applies it to distant extragalactic sources with no distance or J-factor rescaling. In addition, no likelihood or test statistic is defined, so the claimed exclusion limits are not statistically grounded. If the source-matching issue were corrected, the framework could be of interest, but the main quantitative claims as presented do not follow from the calculation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (12), Fig. 2] Eq. (12) is a Milky Way Galactic-center l.o.s. integral: it uses R_sun = 8.5 kpc, R_vir = 200 kpc, r^2 = l^2 + R_sun^2 - 2 l R_sun cos(theta), and theta in [0,10 deg] around the Galactic center. The exclusion curves labeled ICNGC, ICTXS, KM3, and PAO in Fig. 2 correspond to extragalactic sources/events: NGC 1068 at ~14 Mpc, TXS 0506+056 at z ~ 0.336, and KM3-230213A with no identified Milky Way counterpart. No source-specific J-factor or 1/D^2 suppression is introduced anywhere. For a source at 14 Mpc the distance suppression relative to the kpc-scale Galactic-center region is ~10^-6, and for TXS it is orders of magnitude larger; even the diffuse ANTARES/Baikal-GVD comparisons lack an angular-acceptance/exposure model. The neutrino-telescope bounds in Fig. 2 are therefore misplaced.
  2. [Results and discussions / Fig. 2] No test statistic or likelihood is defined. The text says that bounds are obtained using the 'best-fit values' of each dataset, but it never specifies the event counts, backgrounds, exposure, energy thresholds, or the statistical procedure that converts a predicted flux into an exclusion. Reading contours directly from the 'best-fit' of a single event or a diffuse flux is not a statistically valid way to derive limits. This affects every claimed neutrino-telescope exclusion contour in Fig. 2.
  3. [Freeze-in, Eq. (21)] The freeze-in constraints are advertised as providing 'the strongest bounds,' but the cross sections and the constants C in Eq. (21) are taken from the authors' own previous work [70,71] without derivation, and the asymptotic scalings quoted after Eq. (21) are not shown. No independent benchmark of the freeze-in calculation is given. The freeze-in curves in Fig. 2 are therefore not reproducible from the information in this paper, which is a load-bearing issue for the strongest-bound claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (7)] The Schwarzschild radius is written as R_S = 2 G M_BH; the factor c^2 should appear (or the paper should explicitly state units with c=1).
  2. [Eq. (16)] The resolution function contains an extra energy-independent factor exp[-(w ln10)^2/2] in the numerator. For a log-normal detector resolution this constant should not appear; the normalization should be 1/(sqrt(2 pi) w ln10 E') and the exponent should be -(log10(E_nu/E'))^2/(2 w^2).
  3. [Fig. 2] The figure is overcrowded: many labels overlap, and the gray GW contours and dashed neutrino-telescope lines are difficult to distinguish. Separate panels or larger fonts would greatly improve readability.
  4. [Introduction / Fig. 2] PAO (Pierre Auger Observatory) is a cosmic-ray observatory, not a neutrino telescope. The paper should clarify how PAO data are used—e.g., through cosmogenic neutrino limits—and avoid describing all datasets as neutrino-telescope measurements.
  5. [Framework section] The phrase 'n_chi to be even and fractional' is confusing, since the numerical choices n_chi = 100 and 10000 are integers. The charge-quantization argument should be stated more precisely.
  6. [References] Reference [68] (arXiv:2507.16539) appears to be directly relevant to dark-matter explanations of the NGC 1068 neutrino excess, but its results are neither compared nor discussed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the neutrino-telescope bounds come from a standard first-principles flux integral compared with external experimental data.

full rationale

The central derivation is Eq. (12), a standard line-of-sight integral of the squared DM density with fixed benchmark halo parameters (R_sp = 0.7 kpc, M_BH = 10^7 M_sun, r_s = 13 kpc, R_vir = 200 kpc, R_sun = 8.5 kpc). These inputs are set externally, not chosen to reproduce the neutrino observations. The model parameters (g_X, M_Z') are scanned, and the resulting predicted flux is compared with measured or best-fit experimental fluxes; drawing an exclusion contour where the prediction crosses the observed value is the normal indirect-detection logic, not a circular fit. The paper does not fit any parameter to the quantity it then 'predicts.' The freeze-in and cosmic-string sections cite the authors' earlier works [70,71] for cross-sections and analysis details, but those are prior independent calculations, and the central neutrino-telescope bounds do not reduce to them. The possible astrophysical mismatch between the Milky Way l.o.s. integral and extragalactic sources such as NGC 1068 or TXS 0506+056 is a physical validity concern about J-factors and distance rescaling, not a circularity: the computed flux is still independent of the data with which it is compared. No equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 5 invented entities

The model has many hand-set parameters, and the central flux calculation depends on astrophysical benchmarks that are chosen rather than measured. The source-distance issue amplifies the impact of these choices: without source-specific J-factors, the derived g_X-M_Z' bounds are not trustworthy.

free parameters (6)
  • n_chi = 100 and 10000
    The dark matter U(1)_X charge is fixed to two large even integers to prevent decays into RHNs and to avoid higher-dimensional operators; all annihilation and freeze-in rates scale as n_chi^2.
  • m_chi / M_Z' = 3
    The dark matter mass is set to three times the Z' mass to kinematically forbid Z' -> chi chi, which removes the on-shell decay contribution to freeze-in and changes the annihilation kinematics.
  • x_H = {-1, 0, 1, 2}
    The U(1)_X charge mixing parameter is scanned over four discrete values, producing the four panels of Fig. 2.
  • Spike benchmarks: R_sp, M_BH, rho_s, gamma, r_s, t_BH = 0.7 kpc, 10^7 M_sun, 0.35 GeV/cm^3, 7/3, 13 kpc, 10^9 yr
    These astrophysical inputs fix the J-factor in Eq. (12) and therefore control every telescope bound; they are adopted as benchmarks from [64,65] without a systematic scan.
  • Opening angle theta = 0 to 10 degrees
    The l.o.s. integral is restricted to a 10-degree cone around the Galactic center, an arbitrary choice that affects the total flux.
  • Detector energy resolution width w = 0.25 in log10(E/GeV)
    The Gaussian detector response width is taken as a fixed value from [67,68] to smear the monochromatic neutrino line.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption U(1)_X is an anomaly-free linear combination of U(1)_Y and U(1)_{B-L}, with x_Phi = 1.
    The model starts from this standard U(1)_X construction; the anomaly-free condition is asserted rather than derived.
  • domain assumption Three RHNs with Majorana masses from the U(1)_X-breaking VEV generate light neutrino masses via the type-I seesaw.
    The seesaw formula is invoked after Eq. (1) to explain neutrino masses, but no explicit calculation or benchmark is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The DM is stable because n_chi is chosen even and fractional, and the decay channels to RHNs are forbidden.
    Stability is enforced by charge selection, not by a new symmetry; this is a model-building tuning.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way SMBH produced a Gondolo-Silk adiabatic spike with the stated benchmark parameters.
    The spike profile in Eqs. (6)-(9) and the benchmark values from [64,65] are assumed; the J-factor is extremely sensitive to them.
  • ad hoc to paper The observed neutrino fluxes from NGC 1068, TXS0506+056, ANTARES, Baikal-GVD, KM3NeT and PAO are treated as originating from DM annihilation in the same spike model.
    This is the central hypothesis, and it is implemented by comparing the Milky Way GC flux with extragalactic event fluxes without source-specific J-factors.
  • domain assumption Freeze-in production with the cross sections reported in [70,71] reproduces the observed relic abundance.
    The standard freeze-in Boltzmann equation is used, with scattering rates imported from the authors' prior papers.
  • ad hoc to paper The U(1)_X breaking yields a cosmic string network whose GW emission follows [71].
    The presence of cosmic strings is an additional assumption beyond the particle model; the GW constraints are derived by following [71] rather than from the particle content alone.
invented entities (5)
  • Z' gauge boson independent evidence
    purpose: Mediates dark matter annihilation into neutrinos and SM fermions; defines the model portal.
    The Z' is constrained by many existing collider, beam-dump and scattering experiments cited in the paper, so it has external falsifiable handles.
  • Dirac dark matter chi no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the dark matter candidate that annihilates into neutrino pairs.
    The chosen charge n_chi and mass 3 M_Z' are set by hand; no new independent prediction distinguishes this candidate from other Z'-portal DM options.
  • Right-handed neutrinos N_R no independent evidence
    purpose: Generate light neutrino masses via the seesaw mechanism.
    The RHNs have no observable consequence in this paper beyond the seesaw; no mass or mixing benchmark is given.
  • Singlet scalar Phi no independent evidence
    purpose: Breaks U(1)_X, giving mass to the Z' and Majorana masses to RHNs.
    The scalar VEV v_Phi is tied to M_Z' and g_X, but the paper does not provide an independent probe of Phi itself.
  • Cosmic string network from U(1)_X breaking no independent evidence
    purpose: Produces a stochastic gravitational-wave background used to constrain v_Phi.
    The existence of a cosmic string network is assumed, not derived; the GW constraints are prospective and depend on that assumption.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Indirect dark matter searches with neutrino telescopes via energetic cosmic showers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHWLYVT2

@misc{pith2026250907570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Indirect dark matter searches with neutrino telescopes via energetic cosmic showers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHWLYVT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07570}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We explore the possibility that the high energy neutrino flux observed by terrestrial telescopes originates from dark matter (DM) annihilation. Specifically, we study a minimal, UV-complete $U(1)$ extension of the Standard Model with a Dirac DM candidate, whose annihilation into neutrinos proceeds exclusively through a $Z^\prime$ boson. By computing the annihilation cross section and comparing with the observed flux, we derive bounds on the model parameters. Additional constraints are obtained within the freeze-in framework, where the observed relic abundance is reproduced, leading to the strongest bounds. Considering cosmic string vibrations as a source of gravitational waves, we further constrain the vacuum expectation value of the $U(1)$ breaking. All results are contrasted with perturbativity limits and existing constraints from low- and high-energy experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07570 by Arindam Basu, Arindam Das, Basabendu Barman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Production of neutrinos from DM annihilation via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Limits on gX − MZ′ plane from DM annihilation into energetic neutrino events observed by IceCube (IC) from AGN NGC1068 (ICNGC) [20], cosmic blazar TXS0506+056 (ICTXS) [20] at IceCube, ANTARES [24, 28], Baikal-GVD (Baikal) [27, 28], IceCube 12.6 years sensitivity (IC12 yrs) [87], prospective IceCube Gen2 (Gen2) [87, 88] for nχ = 100 (solid), 10000 (dashed) for different U(1)X charges like xH = −1, 0 (B−L), … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Supersymmetric dark matter,

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, “Supersymmetric dark matter,”Phys. Rept.267 (1996) 195–373,arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  2. [2]

    WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects,

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, “WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects,”Rept. Prog. Phys.81 no. 6, (2018) 066201,arXiv:1707.06277 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    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. C78 no. 3, (2018) 203,arXiv:1703.07364 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    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?,”Eur. Phys. J. C85no. 2, (2025) 152,arXiv:2403.15860 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Freeze-In Production of FIMP Dark Matter,

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, “Freeze-In Production of FIMP Dark Matter,” JHEP03(2010) 080,arXiv:0911.1120 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    The Dawn of FIMP Dark Matter: A Review of Models and Constraints,

    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. A32no. 27, (2017) 1730023, arXiv:1706.07442 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    The First Three Seconds: a Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe,

    R. Allahverdiet al., “The First Three Seconds: a Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe,”Open J. Astrophys.4(2021) astro.2006.16182,arXiv:2006.16182 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    LHC-friendly minimal freeze-in models,

    G. B´ elangeret al., “LHC-friendly minimal freeze-in models,”JHEP02(2019) 186,arXiv:1811.05478 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    LightZ ′ and dark matter from U(1) X gauge symmetry,

    N. Okada, S. Okada, and Q. Shafi, “LightZ ′ and dark matter from U(1) X gauge symmetry,”Phys. Lett. B 810(2020) 135845,arXiv:2003.02667 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Collider fingerprints of freeze-in dark matter produced during the fast expansion phase of Universe,

    A. Ghosh, P. Konar, and S. Show, “Collider fingerprints of freeze-in dark matter produced during the fast expansion phase of Universe,” arXiv:2411.09464 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  11. [11]

    Lepton collider as a window to reheating via freezing in dark matter detection. Part II,

    B. Barman, S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi, D. Pradhan, and A. Sarkar, “Lepton collider as a window to reheating via freezing in dark matter detection. Part II,”JHEP07(2025) 157,arXiv:2410.18198 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Thermally modified sterile neutrino portal dark matter and gravitational waves from phase transition: The Freeze-in case,

    L. Bian and Y.-L. Tang, “Thermally modified sterile neutrino portal dark matter and gravitational waves from phase transition: The Freeze-in case,”JHEP12 (2018) 006,arXiv:1810.03172 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Two-step strongly first-order electroweak phase transition modified FIMP dark matter, gravitational wave signals, and the neutrino mass,

    L. Bian and X. Liu, “Two-step strongly first-order electroweak phase transition modified FIMP dark matter, gravitational wave signals, and the neutrino mass,”Phys. Rev. D99no. 5, (2019) 055003, arXiv:1811.03279 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Impact of first-order phase transitions on dark matter production in the scotogenic model

    H. Shibuya and T. Toma, “Impact of first-order phase transitions on dark matter production in the scotogenic model,”JHEP11(2022) 064, arXiv:2207.14662 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Dark matter direct detection is testing freeze-in,

    T. Hambye, M. H. G. Tytgat, J. Vandecasteele, and L. Vanderheyden, “Dark matter direct detection is testing freeze-in,”Phys. Rev. D98no. 7, (2018) 075017,arXiv:1807.05022 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Strongly self-interacting vector dark matter via freeze-in

    M. Duch, B. Grzadkowski, and D. Huang, “Strongly self-interacting vector dark matter via freeze-in,” JHEP01(2018) 020,arXiv:1710.00320 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Minimal dark matter freeze-in with low reheating temperatures and implications for direct detection,

    K. K. Boddy, K. Freese, G. Montefalcone, and B. Shams Es Haghi, “Minimal dark matter freeze-in with low reheating temperatures and implications for direct detection,”Phys. Rev. D111(Mar, 2025) 063537.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063537

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.063537 2025

  18. [18]

    Sub-MeV dark matter 8 detection with bilayer graphene,

    A. Das, J. Jang, and H. Min, “Sub-MeV dark matter 8 detection with bilayer graphene,”Phys. Rev. D110 no. 4, (2024) 043020,arXiv:2312.00866 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Z’-mediated dark matter freeze-in at stronger coupling,

    G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, and O. Lebedev, “Z’-mediated dark matter freeze-in at stronger coupling,”Phys. Lett. B861(2025) 139268, arXiv:2409.02191 [hep-ph]. [20]IceCubeCollaboration, R. Abbasiet al., “Evidence for neutrino emission from the nearby active galaxy NGC 1068,”Science378no. 6619, (2022) 538–543, arXiv:2211.09972 [astro-ph.HE]. [21]IceCube, F ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [22]

    Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center,

    P. Gondolo and J. Silk, “Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center,”Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999) 1719–1722,arXiv:astro-ph/9906391

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  21. [23]

    The Effect of Stars on the Dark Matter Spike Around a Black Hole: A Tale of Two Treatments

    S. L. Shapiro and D. C. Heggie, “Effect of stars on the dark matter spike around a black hole: A tale of two treatments,”Phys. Rev. D106no. 4, (2022) 043018, arXiv:2209.08105 [astro-ph.GA]. [24]ANT ARESCollaboration, A. Albertet al., “Constraints on the energy spectrum of the diffuse cosmic neutrino flux from the ANTARES neutrino telescope,”JCAP08(2024) 0...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [33]

    Clash of the Titans: ultra-high energy KM3NeT event versus IceCube data,

    S. W. Li, P. Machado, D. Naredo-Tuero, and T. Schwemberger, “Clash of the Titans: ultra-high energy KM3NeT event versus IceCube data,” arXiv:2502.04508 [astro-ph.HE]. [34]KM3NeTCollaboration, O. Adrianiet al., “The ultra-high-energy event KM3-230213A within the global neutrino landscape,”arXiv:2502.08173 [astro-ph.HE]. [35]LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRACol...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [36]

    Detection of early-universe gravitational-wave signatures and fundamental physics,

    R. Caldwellet al., “Detection of early-universe gravitational-wave signatures and fundamental physics,”Gen. Rel. Grav.54no. 12, (2022) 156, arXiv:2203.07972 [gr-qc]. [37]NANOGravCollaboration, G. Agazieet al., “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background,”Astrophys. J. Lett. 951no. 1, (2023) L8,arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [39]

    Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,

    H. Xuet al., “Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,”Res. Astron. Astrophys.23no. 7, (2023) 075024,arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]. [40]EPT A, InPT A:Collaboration, J. Antoniadiset al., “The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravita...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [42]

    Vortex Line Models for Dual Strings,

    H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, “Vortex Line Models for Dual Strings,”Nucl. Phys. B61(1973) 45–61

    1973

  26. [43]

    Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings,

    T. W. B. Kibble, “Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings,”J. Phys. A9(1976) 1387–1398

    1976

  27. [44]

    Classically conformalU(1) ′ extended standard model and Higgs vacuum stability,

    S. Oda, N. Okada, and D.-s. Takahashi, “Classically conformalU(1) ′ extended standard model and Higgs vacuum stability,”Phys. Rev.D92no. 1, (2015) 015026,arXiv:1504.06291 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [45]

    Classically conformal U(1) extended standard model, electroweak vacuum stability, and LHC Run-2 bounds,

    A. Das, S. Oda, N. Okada, and D.-s. Takahashi, “Classically conformal U(1) extended standard model, electroweak vacuum stability, and LHC Run-2 bounds,”Phys. Rev.D93no. 11, (2016) 115038, arXiv:1605.01157 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [46]

    µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,

    P. Minkowski, “µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,”Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 421–428

    1977

  30. [47]

    Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,

    T. Yanagida, “Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,”Conf. Proc.C7902131(1979) 95–99

    1979

  31. [48]

    Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, “Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,”Conf. Proc. C790927 9 (1979) 315–321,arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  32. [49]

    Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,”Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 912. [,231(1979)]

    1980

  33. [50]

    Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,”Phys. Rev.D22(1980) 2227

    1980

  34. [51]

    Status of the Higgs Singlet Extension of the Standard Model after LHC Run 1,

    T. Robens and T. Stefaniak, “Status of the Higgs Singlet Extension of the Standard Model after LHC Run 1,”Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 104, arXiv:1501.02234 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  35. [52]

    The Higgs singlet extension at LHC Run 2,

    G. Chalons, D. Lopez-Val, T. Robens, and T. Stefaniak, “The Higgs singlet extension at LHC Run 2,”PoSICHEP2016(2016) 1180, arXiv:1611.03007 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [53]

    Two-component scalar and fermionic dark matter candidates in a generic U(1) X model,

    A. Das, S. Gola, S. Mandal, and N. Sinha, “Two-component scalar and fermionic dark matter candidates in a generic U(1) X model,” arXiv:2202.01443 [hep-ph]. [54]LEP W orking Group for Higgs boson searches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OP ALCollaboration, R. Barateet al., “Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP,”Phys. Lett. B565(2003) 61–75, arXiv:hep-ex/0306033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  37. [55]

    ILD Benchmark: Search for Extra Scalars Produced in Association with a $Z$ boson at $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV

    Y. Wang, M. Berggren, and J. List, “ILD Benchmark: Search for Extra Scalars Produced in Association with aZboson at √s= 500 GeV,”arXiv:2005.06265 [hep-ex]. [56]CLICCollaboration, J. de Blaset al., “The CLIC Potential for New Physics,”CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.3(2018) 1–282,arXiv:1812.02093 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  38. [57]

    ZZ' Mixing and Radiative Corrections at LEP I

    A. Leike, S. Riemann, and T. Riemann, “Z Z-prime mixing and radiative corrections at LEP-1,”Phys. Lett. B291(1992) 187–194,arXiv:hep-ph/9507436

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  39. [58]

    Z′ gauge bosons at the Tevatron,

    M. Carena, A. Daleo, B. A. Dobrescu, and T. M. P. Tait, “Z′ gauge bosons at the Tevatron,”Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 093009,arXiv:hep-ph/0408098 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  40. [59]

    Sawada and A

    O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, eds.,Proceedings: Workshop on the Unified Theories and the Baryon Number in the Universe: Tsukuba, Japan, February 13-14, 1979. Natl.Lab.High Energy Phys., Tsukuba, Japan, 1979

    1979

  41. [60]

    Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation,”Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 165

    1981

  42. [61]

    The Structure of cold dark matter halos,

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, “The Structure of cold dark matter halos,”Astrophys. J. 462(1996) 563–575,arXiv:astro-ph/9508025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  43. [62]

    A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering,

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, “A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering,” Astrophys. J.490(1997) 493–508, arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  44. [63]

    Models of Galaxies with Central Black Holes: Adiabatic Growth in Spherical Galaxies,

    G. D. Quinlan, L. Hernquist, and S. Sigurdsson, “Models of Galaxies with Central Black Holes: Adiabatic Growth in Spherical Galaxies,”Astrophys. J.440(1995) 554–564,arXiv:astro-ph/9407005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  45. [64]

    Star distribution around a massive black hole in a globular cluster,

    J. N. Bahcall and R. A. Wolf, “Star distribution around a massive black hole in a globular cluster,” Astrophys. J.209(1976) 214–232

    work page 1976

  46. [65]

    Probing chiral and flavoredZ ′ from cosmic bursts through neutrino interactions,

    S. K. A., A. Das, G. Lambiase, T. Nomura, and Y. Orikasa, “Probing chiral and flavoredZ ′ from cosmic bursts through neutrino interactions,”Eur. Phys. J. C84no. 11, (2024) 1224,arXiv:2308.14483 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [66]

    Dark matter spikes around Sgr A* inγ-rays,

    S. Balaji, D. Sachdeva, F. Sala, and J. Silk, “Dark matter spikes around Sgr A* inγ-rays,”JCAP08 (2023) 063,arXiv:2303.12107 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [67]

    Model-independent bound on the dark matter lifetime,

    S. Palomares-Ruiz, “Model-independent bound on the dark matter lifetime,”Phys. Lett. B665(2008) 50–53, arXiv:0712.1937 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  49. [68]

    Dark matter explanations for the neutrino emission from the Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068,

    K. Akita, A. Ibarra, and R. Zimmermann, “Dark matter explanations for the neutrino emission from the Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068,”arXiv:2507.16539 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [69]

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

    2019

  51. [70]

    Dark matter-electron scattering and freeze-in scenarios in the light of Z’ mediation,

    B. Barman, A. Das, and S. Mandal, “Dark matter-electron scattering and freeze-in scenarios in the light of Z’ mediation,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 5, (2024) 055029,arXiv:2407.00969 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [71]

    Hunting for heavy $Z^\prime$ with IceCube neutrinos and gravitational waves

    B. Barman, A. Das, S. Jyoti Das, and M. Merchand, “Hunting for heavyZ ′ with IceCube neutrinos and gravitational waves,”arXiv:2502.13217 [hep-ph]. [72]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, R. L. Workman et al., “Review of Particle Physics,”PTEP2022 (2022) 083C01. [73]PlanckCollaboration, N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,”Ast...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [74]

    Cosmological evolution of cosmic string loops,

    C. Ringeval, M. Sakellariadou, and F. Bouchet, “Cosmological evolution of cosmic string loops,”JCAP 02(2007) 023,arXiv:astro-ph/0511646

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  54. [75]

    Large parallel cosmic string simulations: New results on loop production,

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, K. D. Olum, and B. Shlaer, “Large parallel cosmic string simulations: New results on loop production,”Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 083514, arXiv:1101.5173 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  55. [76]

    Gravitational radiation from cosmic strings,

    A. Vilenkin, “Gravitational radiation from cosmic strings,”Phys. Lett. B107(1981) 47–50

    1981

  56. [77]

    Gravitational Radiation from Cosmic Strings,

    T. Vachaspati and A. Vilenkin, “Gravitational Radiation from Cosmic Strings,”Phys. Rev. D31 (1985) 3052

    1985

  57. [78]

    The number of cosmic string loops,

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, K. D. Olum, and B. Shlaer, “The number of cosmic string loops,”Phys. Rev. D89no. 2, (2014) 023512,arXiv:1309.6637 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  58. [79]

    Stochastic gravitational wave background from smoothed cosmic string loops,

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado and K. D. Olum, “Stochastic gravitational wave background from smoothed cosmic string loops,”Phys. Rev. D96no. 10, (2017) 104046, arXiv:1709.02693 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [80]

    Quantitative string evolution,

    C. J. A. P. Martins and E. P. S. Shellard, “Quantitative string evolution,”Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 2535–2556,arXiv:hep-ph/9602271

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  60. [81]

    Extending the velocity dependent one scale string evolution model,

    C. J. A. P. Martins and E. P. S. Shellard, “Extending the velocity dependent one scale string evolution model,”Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 043514, arXiv:hep-ph/0003298

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  61. [82]

    Probing the gravitational wave background from cosmic strings with LISA,

    P. Auclairet al., “Probing the gravitational wave background from cosmic strings with LISA,”JCAP04 (2020) 034,arXiv:1909.00819 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [83]

    Gravitational wave bursts from cusps and kinks on cosmic strings,

    T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, “Gravitational wave bursts from cusps and kinks on cosmic strings,”Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 064008,arXiv:gr-qc/0104026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  63. [84]

    Beyond the Standard Models with Cosmic Strings,

    Y. Gouttenoire, G. Servant, and P. Simakachorn, “Beyond the Standard Models with Cosmic Strings,” JCAP07(2020) 032,arXiv:1912.02569 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  64. [85]

    Cosmic string dynamics with friction,

    A. Vilenkin, “Cosmic string dynamics with friction,” Phys. Rev. D43(1991) 1060–1062

    work page 1991

  65. [86]

    CMB constraints on cosmic strings and superstrings,

    T. Charnock, A. Avgoustidis, E. J. Copeland, and 10 A. Moss, “CMB constraints on cosmic strings and superstrings,”Phys. Rev. D93no. 12, (2016) 123503, arXiv:1603.01275 [astro-ph.CO]. [87]IceCubeCollaboration, M. Meier, “Recent cosmogenic neutrino search results with IceCube and prospects with IceCube-Gen2,” in58th Rencontres de Moriond on Very High Energy...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  66. [89]

    Probing for chiral Z’ gauge boson through scattering measurement experiments,

    K. Asai, A. Das, J. Li, T. Nomura, and O. Seto, “Probing for chiral Z’ gauge boson through scattering measurement experiments,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 7, (2024) 075026,arXiv:2307.09737 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [90]

    Probing the minimalU(1) X model at future electron-positron colliders via the fermion pair-production channel,

    A. Das, P. S. B. Dev, Y. Hosotani, and S. Mandal, “Probing the minimalU(1) X model at future electron-positron colliders via the fermion pair-production channel,”arXiv:2104.10902 [hep-ph]. [91]LHCbCollaboration, R. Aaijet al., “Search for A′ →µ +µ− Decays,”Phys. Rev. Lett.124no. 4, (2020) 041801,arXiv:1910.06926 [hep-ex]. [92]CMSCollaboration, A. Hayrapet...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  68. [96]

    Precision measurement of the 7Be solar neutrino interaction rate in Borexino,

    G. Belliniet al., “Precision measurement of the 7Be solar neutrino interaction rate in Borexino,”Phys. Rev. Lett.107(2011) 141302,arXiv:1104.1816 [hep-ex]. [97]TEXONOCollaboration, M. Denizet al., “Measurement of Nu(e)-bar -Electron Scattering Cross-Section with a CsI(Tl) Scintillating Crystal Array at the Kuo-Sheng Nuclear Power Reactor,” Phys. Rev. D81(...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  69. [98]

    Upper limit on the neutrino magnetic moment from three years of data from the GEMMA spectrometer,

    A. G. Beda, V. B. Brudanin, V. G. Egorov, D. V. Medvedev, V. S. Pogosov, M. V. Shirchenko, and A. S. Starostin, “Upper limit on the neutrino magnetic moment from three years of data from the GEMMA spectrometer,”arXiv:1005.2736 [hep-ex]. [99]CHARM-IICollaboration, P. Vilainet al., “Measurement of differential cross-sections for muon-neutrino electron scatt...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  70. [104]

    Chiral Z’ in F ASER, F ASER2, DUNE, and ILC beam dump experiments,

    K. Asai, A. Das, J. Li, T. Nomura, and O. Seto, “Chiral Z’ in F ASER, F ASER2, DUNE, and ILC beam dump experiments,”Phys. Rev. D106no. 9, (2022) 095033,arXiv:2206.12676 [hep-ph]. [105]NOMADCollaboration, P. Astieret al., “Search for heavy neutrinos mixing with tau neutrinos,”Phys. Lett. B506(2001) 27–38,arXiv:hep-ex/0101041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  71. [106]

    Limits on neutral light scalar and pseudoscalar particles in a proton beam dump experiment,

    J. Blumleinet al., “Limits on neutral light scalar and pseudoscalar particles in a proton beam dump experiment,”Z. Phys. C51(1991) 341–350

    1991

  72. [107]

    The ’IHEP-JINR Neutrino Detector’ at neutrino beams of the U-70 accelerator,

    L. S. Barabashet al., “The ’IHEP-JINR Neutrino Detector’ at neutrino beams of the U-70 accelerator,” Instrum. Exp. Tech.46no. 3, (2003) 300–326. [108]CHARMCollaboration, F. Bergsmaet al., “A Search for Decays of Heavy Neutrinos in the Mass Range 0.5-GeV to 2.8-GeV,”Phys. Lett. B166(1986) 473–478. [109]F ASERCollaboration, H. Abreuet al., “Search for dark ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  73. [114]

    Search for Neutrino Decay,

    G. Bernardiet al., “Search for Neutrino Decay,”Phys. Lett. B166(1986) 479–483

    work page 1986

  74. [115]

    A Search for Short Lived Axions in an Electron Beam Dump Experiment,

    E. M. Riordanet al., “A Search for Short Lived Axions in an Electron Beam Dump Experiment,”Phys. Rev. Lett.59(1987) 755

    work page 1987

  75. [116]

    Search for Neutral Metastable Penetrating Particles Produced in the SLAC Beam Dump,

    J. D. Bjorken, S. Ecklund, W. R. Nelson, A. Abashian, C. Church, B. Lu, L. W. Mo, T. A. Nunamaker, and P. Rassmann, “Search for Neutral Metastable Penetrating Particles Produced in the SLAC Beam Dump,”Phys. Rev. D38(1988) 3375

    1988

  76. [117]

    A Search for Shortlived Particles Produced in an Electron Beam Dump,

    A. Bross, M. Crisler, S. H. Pordes, J. Volk, S. Errede, and J. Wrbanek, “A Search for Shortlived Particles Produced in an Electron Beam Dump,”Phys. Rev. Lett.67(1991) 2942–2945

    1991

  77. [118]

    An Unambiguous 11 Search for a Light Higgs Boson,

    M. Davier and H. Nguyen Ngoc, “An Unambiguous 11 Search for a Light Higgs Boson,”Phys. Lett. B229 (1989) 150–155

    work page 1989

  78. [119]

    Search for Neutral Particles in Electron Beam Dump Experiment,

    A. Konakaet al., “Search for Neutral Particles in Electron Beam Dump Experiment,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 57(1986) 659

    work page 1986

  79. [120]

    Beyond LISA: Exploring future gravitational wave missions,

    J. Crowder and N. J. Cornish, “Beyond LISA: Exploring future gravitational wave missions,”Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 083005,arXiv:gr-qc/0506015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  80. [121]

    Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer,

    V. Corbin and N. J. Cornish, “Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer,”Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 2435–2446, arXiv:gr-qc/0512039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.