Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Relaxed constraints for dark matter with axial coupling to a dark photon

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dark matter with axial coupling to a dark photon evades direct-detection limits because the dominant scattering operator is suppressed by velocity and momentum transfer.

desk verdict The axial dark photon portal is a real way to rescue Dirac WIMPs, but the LZ rescaling in Fig. 1 is off by up to an order of magnitude and should be corrected before the allowed regions are quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.24114 v2 pith:YO5EJEWH submitted 2025-10-28 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-ex

X. G. Wang , A. W. Thomas This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.COhep-ex PACS 95.35.+d
keywords darkmatterphotonaxial-vectorcouplingkineticmixingdirectdetectionthermalrelicdensityeffectivefieldtheoryWIMP
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 claims that Dirac fermion dark matter with an axial-vector coupling to a kinetically-mixed dark photon produces a non-relativistic direct-detection operator, O8, whose rate is suppressed by the dark matter velocity and momentum transfer. As a result, the standard tension between the thermal relic density and direct-detection upper limits is greatly relaxed: for dark photon masses near the s-channel resonance, the coupling required to match the observed relic abundance falls below current experimental exclusions over dark matter masses from about 1 GeV to 1 TeV. The paper argues that this opens considerably wider regions of the dark parameter space than vector-coupled or standard spin-dependent models allow. A sympathetic reader would care because it revives a technically natural WIMP scenario and gives concrete targets for next-generation direct-detection and collider searches.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the axial-vector coupling g_chi of the dark photon to Dirac fermion dark matter and the resulting non-relativistic operator O8 (spin of the dark matter dotted into the transverse relative velocity plus half the momentum transfer divided by the reduced mass). The suppression by v_perp and q makes the direct-detection rate parametrically small relative to vector-coupled dark photons. The argument also relies on a nearly exact cancellation between dark-photon and Z-exchange contributions that kills the spin-dependent operator O4, ensuring O8 dominance.

What would settle it

Direct detection recast: compute the exact O8 event rate for the full xenon isotope composition and nuclear response functions (without rescaling) and compare with public data from current liquid-xenon experiments; if the resulting limit on c_p^8 is more than a factor of a few stronger than the paper's rescaled curve at any mass, the allowed regions shrink significantly. This is a concrete test that can be done with public data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the leading effective operator for elastic scattering of this dark matter off nuclei is O8 = S_chi · (v_perp + q/(2 mu)), not the standard spin-independent or spin-dependent operators. Both v_perp and the momentum transfer q are tiny in direct-detection kinematics, so the expected event rate is far smaller than in models with vector coupling. The spin-dependent operator O4 is strongly suppressed by a cancellation between the dark-photon and Z-boson exchange amplitudes, leaving O8 (with a subleading O9) as the dominant channel. The authors show that for mass ratios R = M_AD/m_chi = 2.05 and 2.3, the dark coupling and kinetic-mixing parameter required by thermal f

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that rescaling published direct-detection exclusion limits with a simple A^2/Z^2 factor and a formula that mixes bounds from different experiments accurately reproduces the true O8 constraints across the full mass range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The allowed relic-density-compatible parameter space for WIMP dark matter extends to dark photon masses near the 2 m_chi resonance and dark matter masses up to 1 TeV.
  • Direct-detection experiments probing O8 will need to account for the v^2 and q^2 suppression; current limits constrain the coupling c_p^8 only weakly.
  • The kinetic-mixing parameter epsilon in the resonant regime is compatible with electroweak precision observables and with relaxed collider limits when the dark photon decays partly to dark matter.
  • Near-resonance masses (R approximately 2.05-2.3) provide the broadest allowed regions, whereas R = 3 still conflicts with electroweak precision bounds over a wide mass range.
  • In this model, existing null results do not exclude a thermal WIMP; the suppression mechanism changes which observables will be most sensitive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If O8 dominance persists at all masses, a full experimental reanalysis of liquid-xenon data using isospin-asymmetric nuclear response functions would sharpen the bounds; the naive A^2/Z^2 rescaling used here could over- or under-estimate the true limits by a factor related to the neutron-to-proton coupling ratio.
  • The cancellation that suppresses O4 may be fragile under radiative corrections or UV completion; a one-loop calculation of the spin-dependent coupling would test whether the relic-density-coupling regions survive beyond tree level.
  • The same velocity/momentum suppression mechanism could be applied to other dark sector models, such as pseudo-Dirac or inelastic dark matter, to relax direct-detection constraints without resonant enhancement.
  • Future detectors with directional sensitivity or lower thresholds could probe the O8 operator's distinctive q-dependence, providing a distinctive signature that distinguishes this model from spin-independent scenarios.
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 proposes a dark sector with a Dirac fermion dark matter particle chi coupled axially to a dark photon A_D that is kinematically mixed with the Standard Model hypercharge boson. After integrating out the heavy states, the low-energy interaction is reduced to non-relativistic effective operators, and the authors argue that O8 dominates direct detection because O4 cancels to leading order and O9 is subleading. For mass ratios R = M_AD/m_chi = 3, 2.3, and 2.05 and dark couplings alpha_D = 0.5, 0.05, 0.005, they set the kinetic mixing epsilon by the thermal relic density and compare the resulting c_p^8 with rescaled XENON100 and LZ limits, and compare epsilon with EWPO and relaxed CMS bounds. They conclude that the allowed parameter space is much broader than in existing vector-portal models.

Significance. If the numerical bounds are reliable, the paper offers an interesting way to evade direct-detection constraints while retaining thermal WIMP dark matter. The O4 cancellation between the dark-photon and Z contributions shown in the Supplemental Material is non-trivial, and the identification of O8 as the leading operator is physically well motivated and potentially useful for future EFT recasts. The paper does not ship code or machine-checked proofs, but the analytic structure of the reduction is clear. The central quantitative claim, however, depends on approximate and, in one place, internally inconsistent rescalings of published direct-detection limits; this is the main obstacle to accepting the stated conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (21)] Equation (21) is internally inconsistent. The left-hand side is the ratio of LZ to XENON100 bounds on (c_p^8)^2, while the right-hand side is the ratio of LZ to XENON1T spin-independent cross-section limits. The denominator on the left is a XENON100 O8 EFT limit and the denominator on the right is a XENON1T SI limit; these are not interchangeable. Since the LZ SI limit is roughly an order of magnitude stronger than XENON1T, and XENON100 is weaker still, the right-hand side is too large, so the LZ curve in Fig. 1 is shifted upward (too weak) by a large factor. The right panels of Fig. 1 are the direct basis for the claim that thermal-relic lower bounds lie below the LZ upper limits for R = 2.3 and R = 3. A corrected rescaling, or preferably a direct recast of LZ data for O8, could close or substantially shrink the claimed allowed regions. This must be fixed before the central result can b
  2. [Supplemental Fig. 3] The dominance of O8 over O9 and over their interference is demonstrated only at m_chi = 40 GeV. The relative rate depends on v_min and q^2 through the nuclear response functions, and therefore on m_chi and the target nucleus. The paper scans m_chi from about 1 GeV to 1 TeV, but no analytic scaling argument or additional mass points are provided to justify that O8 remains dominant over the entire scanned range. Since the comparison of the relic-density prediction with the XENON100 and LZ bounds uses only the O8 rate, this assumption is load-bearing and should be checked explicitly.
  3. [Direct detection rescaling] The conversion of the XENON100 O8 isoscalar limit to a proton-only limit using a single factor A^2/Z^2 assumes a purely coherent response. For O8 the differential rate involves F_M, F_Delta, F_Sigma', and F_Sigma',Delta, which are not all coherent and have different isospin structure. The authors acknowledge that precise treatment is needed, but because the same approximate limits are used as the exclusion curves in Fig. 1, the statement that the corrections are 'far below the accuracy relevant' should be substantiated, e.g. by showing the size of the isovector contamination for the O8 response. As written, the uncertainty in the direct-detection exclusion curves is not quantified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The text states that the allowed regions are consistent with 'both direct and indirect detection', but no indirect-detection constraints (e.g. Fermi-LAT, HESS, or CTA projections) are computed anywhere in the paper. The abstract later correctly lists only direct detection and collider searches. The Introduction should be tempered or the indirect constraints should be added.
  2. [Fig. 2] The relaxed CMS bound is shown only for alpha_D = 0.05 and R = 2.3, 2.05. For alpha_D = 0.5 and 0.005 the consistency with collider bounds is asserted but not displayed; a brief statement or additional panel would make the collider claim complete.
  3. [Summary/Abstract] The phrase 'considerably broader than those found in any existing model' is a strong comparative claim that is not supported by a quantitative comparison with previous models, such as the vector-coupled dark photon or scalar mediator cases. A concrete comparison or a more modest wording would be appropriate.
  4. [Eq. (22)] The rescaling epsilon < epsilon_CMS * sqrt(Gamma_total/Gamma_SM) is reasonable when the dark photon is produced on shell and decays visibly with reduced branching ratio. The conditions under which this estimate is valid, especially when Gamma_AD->chi chi dominates and the dark photon may be long-lived or invisibly decaying, could be stated more explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: thermal-relic input fixes epsilon, direct-detection comparison uses independent XENON/LZ limits.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The observed relic density (PDG) is an external input; for each (alpha_D, R, m_chi) the code adjusts epsilon to match Omega_DM h^2, which yields a lower bound on y. The direct-detection coupling c_p^8 is then evaluated from the model formulas (Eqs. 16, 20) using this same epsilon, and compared with published XENON100 [43] and LZ [12] limits, which are independent of the model and of the relic-density fit. There is no fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction: the DD limits are not used to fix epsilon. The claimed O8 dominance comes from the non-relativistic reduction of Eq. (15) plus a cancellation shown in the Supplement; the cancellation is an O(epsilon) algebraic identity, not an ansatz imported from the authors' prior work. The EWPO bounds are taken from Refs [36,37]; Ref [37] shares two authors but is a public LEP/SLC data analysis, and Ref [36] is external, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The relaxed CMS constraint is a decay-width rescaling of an external CMS limit. The visible weaknesses - Eq. (21) mixes XENON100 with XENON1T in the denominator, and O8-vs-O9 dominance is demonstrated only for m_chi = 40 GeV - are numerical/support defects, not circular reductions. No equation in the paper equals its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim that broad regions of the (m_chi, epsilon, alpha_D) parameter space survive constraints rests on the assumption of a UV-complete anomaly-free model, the validity of the non-relativistic EFT and nuclear response functions, the accuracy of microMEGAs for the resonances, and two approximate rescaling procedures for existing experimental limits (collider and direct detection). The model's free parameters are the gauge coupling, the mass ratio, and epsilon (fixed to match the relic density); the latter is an inferred parameter rather than a prediction, which is standard for thermal WIMP models.

free parameters (3)
  • kinetic mixing epsilon = Varied per (m_chi, alpha_D, R) to match Omega_DM h^2 = 0.1200 +/- 0.0012 (Ref. [41]); typically ~1e-4 - 1e-2
    For each point in the scan, epsilon is adjusted so that the thermal relic density matches observation. All derived direct-detection couplings and collider-relevant widths depend on this choice; it is an input inferred from a measured quantity rather than predicted.
  • dark fine-structure constant alpha_D = 0.5, 0.05, 0.005
    The dark gauge coupling is scanned over three representative values. The qualitative existence of allowed regions is robust across the three values, but the quantitative boundaries (e.g., the EWPO exclusions and the c_p^8 curves) depend on alpha_D.
  • mass ratio R = M_AD / m_chi = 3, 2.3, 2.05
    The dark photon to dark matter mass ratio is chosen by hand: R = 3 (off-resonance), R = 2.3 and 2.05 (near the s-channel resonance). The central 'wide region' conclusion is demonstrated for the two near-resonance values, while R = 3 is heavily constrained by EWPO except for large alpha_D.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A UV completion exists that renders the axial U(1)_D anomaly-free and generates the dark photon and dark fermion masses.
    Footnote 1 states a minimal completion requires an additional fermion species and a dark scalar VEV, and that the details do not affect the phenomenology. If no anomaly-free completion exists, the model is inconsistent.
  • domain assumption The non-relativistic EFT operators O4, O8, O9 and the nuclear response functions of Refs. [42,55] accurately describe DM-nucleus scattering at the momentum transfers of direct detection.
    Used to derive Eq. (18) and the event-rate formula in the Supplemental; the nuclear response functions (F_M, F_Delta, F_Sigma') are taken from the literature and assumed valid for xenon.
  • domain assumption The thermal freeze-out calculation in microMEGAs correctly captures the s-channel annihilation, including the dark photon and Z resonances, for the whole scanned parameter space.
    Relic-density lower bounds on y (Fig. 1) and the epsilon values are computed with the toolchain of Refs. [52-54]; no independent cross-check is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The relaxed collider limits can be obtained by multiplying the CMS upper bound on epsilon by the square root of the ratio of the total dark photon width to its SM decay width (Eq. (22)).
    Adopted from Ref. [23]; this is an approximate rescaling rather than a full recast of the CMS search, and it determines whether the relic-density lower bounds satisfy the collider constraint in Fig. 2.
  • ad hoc to paper The direct-detection limits on c_p^8 can be mapped from published limits by the factors A^2/Z^2 (for XENON100) and Eq. (21) (for LZ), which assume c_n^8 << c_p^8 and a coherent proton response.
    Used to draw the exclusion curves in Fig. 1; the paper acknowledges that exact isotope/nuclear-response corrections are neglected, and Eq. (21) as written is inconsistent in its experimental labels.
invented entities (1)
  • Dark photon A_D with axial-vector coupling to dark Dirac fermion chi independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the mediator of a new U(1)_D that kinetically mixes with the SM hypercharge and whose axial coupling to DM suppresses the direct-detection rate, making the model viable.
    The dark photon itself has well-studied experimental search channels (dilepton resonances, CMS [27], electron beam-dump); the axial coupling produces a distinctive O8 direct-detection signature and velocity-suppressed scattering that is falsifiable at xenon-based experiments. The model does not introduce an entity with no external handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relaxed constraints for dark matter with axial coupling to a dark photon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YO5EJEWH

@misc{pith2026251024114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relaxed constraints for dark matter with axial coupling to a dark photon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YO5EJEWH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.24114}
}
abstract

We present a new model of the dark sector involving Dirac fermion dark matter, with axial coupling to a dark photon which provides a portal to Standard Model particles. In the non-relativistic limit, this implies that the dominant effective operator relevant to direct detection is ${\cal O}_8$. The resulting event rate for direct detection is suppressed by either the dark matter velocity or the momentum transfer. In this scenario there are much wider regions of the dark parameter space that are consistent with all of the existing constraints associated with thermal relic density, direct detection and collider searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.24114 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Left panels): The lower limits on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The lower bounds on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The velocity and time averaged scattering rate, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 45 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Phys. Rept.267, 195 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    arXiv 1996

  4. [4]

    M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D31, 3059 (1985)

    1985

  5. [5]

    A. H. Abdelhameedet al.(CRESST), Phys. Rev. D100, 102002 (2019), arXiv:1904.00498 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    A. H. Abdelhameedet al.(CRESST), (2019), arXiv:1905.07335 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide-50), Phys

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide-50), Phys. Rev. D107, 063001 (2023), arXiv:2207.11966 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    A precise determination should take into account the proportion of the seven most abundant isotopes of Xenon and the isospin asymmetric nuclear response functions

    There- fore, we simply rescale the Xenon100 limits by a factor of A2/Z2 = 1312/542. A precise determination should take into account the proportion of the seven most abundant isotopes of Xenon and the isospin asymmetric nuclear response functions. However, as we will see when the predictions of the present model are compared with the Xenon100 (and LZ) lim...

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 111302 (2018), arXiv:1805.12562 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 091301 (2021), arXiv:2012.02846 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Menget al.(PandaX-4T), Phys

    Y. Menget al.(PandaX-4T), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 261802 (2021), arXiv:2107.13438 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Fuet al.(PandaX-II), Phys

    C. Fuet al.(PandaX-II), Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 071301 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 120, 049902 (2018)], arXiv:1611.06553 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    D. S. Akeribet al.(LUX), Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 251302 (2017), arXiv:1705.03380 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 141301 (2019), arXiv:1902.03234 [astro-ph.CO]. 6

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Amoleet al.(PICO), Phys

    C. Amoleet al.(PICO), Phys. Rev. D100, 022001 (2019), arXiv:1902.04031 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Zheng, Z.-H

    J.-M. Zheng, Z.-H. Yu, J.-W. Shao, X.-J. Bi, Z. Li, and H.-H. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B854, 350 (2012), arXiv:1012.2022 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Yu, J.-M

    Z.-H. Yu, J.-M. Zheng, X.-J. Bi, Z. Li, D.-X. Yao, and H.-H. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B860, 115 (2012), arXiv:1112.6052 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Balanet al., JCAP01, 053, arXiv:2405.17548 [hep-ph]

    S. Balanet al., JCAP01, 053, arXiv:2405.17548 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Izaguirre, G

    E. Izaguirre, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 251301 (2015), arXiv:1505.00011 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. L. Feng and J. Smolinsky, Phys. Rev. D96, 095022 (2017), arXiv:1707.03835 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Krnjaic, (2025), arXiv:2505.04626 [hep-ph]

    G. Krnjaic, (2025), arXiv:2505.04626 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Alonso-Gonz´ alez, D

    D. Alonso-Gonz´ alez, D. Cerde˜ no, P. Foldenauer, and J. M. No, (2025), arXiv:2507.11376 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    X. G. Wang, B. M. Loizos, and A. W. Thomas, (2025), arXiv:2508.08676 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. P. Leeset al., Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 201801 (2014), arXiv:1406.2980 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Aaijet al., Phys

    R. Aaijet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 041801 (2020), arXiv:1910.06926 [hep-ex]

    2020

  20. [28]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 131802 (2020), arXiv:1912.04776 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. P. Leeset al., Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 131804 (2017), arXiv:1702.03327 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS), JHEP11, 153, arXiv:2107.13021 [hep-ex]

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), JHEP11, 153, arXiv:2107.13021 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rept.1115, 448 (2025), arXiv:2405.13778 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Fayet, Phys

    P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B95, 285 (1980)

    1980

  25. [33]

    Fayet, Nucl

    P. Fayet, Nucl. Phys.B187, 184 (1981)

    1981

  26. [34]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  27. [35]

    L. B. Okun, Sov. Phys. JETP56, 502 (1982)

    1982

  28. [36]

    G. D. Kribs, D. McKeen, and N. Raj, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 011801 (2021), arXiv:2007.15655 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Curtin, R

    D. Curtin, R. Essig, S. Gori, and J. Shelton, JHEP02, 157, arXiv:1412.0018 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    B. M. Loizos, X. G. Wang, A. W. Thomas, M. J. White, and A. G. Williams, J. Phys. G51, 075002 (2024), arXiv:2306.13408 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B360, 145 (1991)

    1991

  32. [40]

    Griest and D

    K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D43, 3191 (1991)

    1991

  33. [41]

    Filippi and M

    A. Filippi and M. De Napoli, Rev. Phys.5, 100042 (2020), arXiv:2006.04640 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Anand, A

    N. Anand, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. C. Haxton, Phys. Rev. C89, 065501 (2014), arXiv:1308.6288 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. D96, 042004 (2017), arXiv:1705.02614 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. Hook, E. Izaguirre, and J. G. Wacker, Adv. High En- ergy Phys.2011, 859762 (2011), arXiv:1006.0973 [hep- ph]

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. W. Thomas, X. G. Wang, and A. G. Williams, Phys. Rev. D105, L031901 (2022), arXiv:2111.05664 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Yan, Phys

    B. Yan, Phys. Lett. B833, 137384 (2022), arXiv:2203.01510 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    N. T. Hunt-Smith, W. Melnitchouk, N. Sato, A. W. Thomas, X. G. Wang, and M. J. White (Jeffer- son Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)), JHEP09, 096, arXiv:2302.11126 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Abadaet al.(FCC), Eur

    A. Abadaet al.(FCC), Eur. Phys. J. ST228, 261 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    X. G. Wang and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B866, 139573 (2025), arXiv:2504.06602 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A. M. Abdullahi, M. Hostert, D. Massaro, and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D108, 015032 (2023), arXiv:2302.05410 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    J. R. Felix, A. W. Thomas, and X. G. Wang, Phys. Rev. D112, 035011 (2025), arXiv:2505.03241 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr, Comput. Phys. Com- mun.180, 1614 (2009), arXiv:0806.4194 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2250 (2014), arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Alguero, G

    G. Alguero, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, S. Chakraborti, A. Goudelis, S. Kraml, A. Mjallal, and A. Pukhov, Comput. Phys. Commun.299, 109133 (2024), arXiv:2312.14894 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers, and Y. Xu, JCAP02, 004, arXiv:1203.3542 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Freese, M

    K. Freese, M. Lisanti, and C. Savage, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1561 (2013), arXiv:1209.3339 [astro-ph.CO]. 7 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL Cancellation in the evaluation ofO4 In this section, we demonstrate the strong cancellation in the couplingc N 4 . Substituting Eqs. (6-7) and (9) in...

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.