Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The paper establishes that in flavored Majorana dark matter with dark minimal flavor violation, flavor observables dominate the surviving parameter space, forcing a strongly hierarchical coupling structure.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 22:24 UTC pith:VWDC7ZK3

load-bearing objection Useful toolbox and two solid scan results, with a real robustness gap in the DMFV truncation at O(1) couplings. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.10490 v2 pith:VWDC7ZK3 submitted 2025-11-13 hep-ph

Toward a Comprehensive Exploration of Flavored Dark Matter Models

Benedetta Belfatto , Monika Blanke , Jan Heisig , Michael Kr\"amer , Lena Rathmann , Felix Wilsch This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords flavored dark matterdark minimal flavor violationMajorana dark matterneutral meson mixinglepton flavor violationrelic densityeffective field theory
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.

This paper tries to establish that in the simplest flavored dark matter models, the surviving parameter space is controlled more by flavor physics than by direct or collider searches. For Majorana dark matter coupled to right-handed charged leptons, it argues that mu -> e gamma is the dominant constraint, while collider searches still leave a sizable viable region. For couplings to right-handed down-type quarks, it argues that neutral-meson mixing, especially epsilon_K and the B-meson CP asymmetries, excludes 85.3% of otherwise surviving points in a general hierarchical scan and 35.6% in a bottom-philic scan. The paper converts these numerical findings into approximate analytic bounds, such as D1D2 < (0.2-4.4) x 10^-2 (M_phi/TeV) from K mixing, so that its results become a reusable rule of thumb. If right, the main consequence is that viable flavored dark matter must have a strongly hierarchical, third-generation-philic flavor structure, and future model building should target that region.

Core claim

Under the Dark Minimal Flavor Violation (DMFV) assumption, the paper claims that for a Majorana flavored dark matter triplet coupled to right-handed down-type quarks, the combination of relic density, direct and indirect detection, collider searches, and a global flavor likelihood leaves only a small fraction of parameter space. The dominant restrictions come from neutral meson mixing, particularly epsilon_K, Delta M_d, Delta M_s, S_psi K_S, and S_psi phi, which exclude 85.3% of otherwise surviving points in the general hierarchical scan and 35.6% in the bottom-philic scan. For leptophilic coupling, the paper finds that flavor-violating decays such as mu -> e gamma dominate the constraints,

What carries the argument

The central object is the DMFV coupling matrix lambda, parameterized as lambda = U diag(D1,D2,D3) O diag(e^{i gamma_1}, e^{i gamma_2}, e^{i gamma_3}), together with the DMFV spurion mass matrix M_chi = M_chi [1 + eta/2 (lambda^dagger lambda + lambda^T lambda*) + O(lambda^4)]. This mass matrix determines the orthogonal rotation W into the dark mass basis, and all meson-mixing amplitudes are computed with the rotated coupling lambda_tilde = lambda W^T. The key mechanism is the interplay between the standard box diagram and the crossed box diagram, which in Majorana theories makes Delta F = 2 amplitudes scale like D_i^2 D_j^2 even when all off-diagonal entries vanish. That product structure is

Load-bearing premise

Everything hangs on the DMFV mass-matrix ansatz of Eq. (4.6): the dark matter mass splittings and the rotation W are derived from lambda^dagger lambda + lambda^T lambda*, and if a UV completion supplies other dark-sector flavor-breaking terms, the translated couplings and the bounds in Eq. (4.10) no longer follow.

What would settle it

The cleanest check is to measure new physics in both the kaon parameter epsilon_K and the B_s mixing phase S_psi phi: DMFV with a single coupling matrix predicts a specific correlated size for these two amplitudes through its standard and crossed box diagrams. A measured correlation that deviates from the one implied by Eq. (B.39), or a future mu -> e gamma rate far larger than the values allowed by the scan's coupling hierarchy, would falsify the paper's claim that these flavor observables dominate the surviving parameter space.

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

If this is right

  • For leptophilic Majorana flavored DM, a sizable region with DM masses above roughly 200 GeV and mediator masses above roughly 500 GeV survives, so future lepton-flavor-violation searches rather than colliders will be the next probe.
  • For quarkphilic flavored DM, the surviving points must obey approximate product bounds such as D1D2 < (0.2-4.4) x 10^-2 (M_phi/TeV), which can be used to reject model points without running a full numerical scan.
  • The bottom-philic texture is significantly less constrained than a general hierarchy, so third-generation-coupled dark matter is the most promising quarkphilic target for future model building.
  • The framework generalizes to all twenty combinations of dark matter and mediator spin and gauge representations, so the same constraint pipeline can be applied to scalar DM, left-handed mediators, and Dirac DM.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the hierarchy argument may apply broadly: any flavored dark matter model without a strong eigenvalue hierarchy in its coupling matrix is likely excluded by neutral-meson mixing, not just the two cases scanned here.
  • A natural extension is to use the derived product bounds as a model-agnostic filter: any DMFV flavored dark matter point with D1D2 exceeding the K-mixing bound should be treated as effectively excluded unless a UV completion changes the mass-matrix relation.
  • A testable extension would be to re-run the quark-philic scan with a more general DMFV mass matrix, allowing independent coefficients for lambda^dagger lambda and lambda^T lambda*, to see how much of the surviving region is an artifact of the one-parameter spurion ansatz.
  • The paper's neglect of three-body annihilation channels such as gamma q qbar and g q qbar suggests that the indirect-detection bounds, currently weak, could tighten for light quarks if those channels are included; this is an obvious next step for the framework.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a modular public toolchain (FeynRules, micrOMEGAs, SModelS, Matchete, smelli) for the phenomenological exploration of flavored dark matter models, and applies it to two previously under-studied Majorana DM scenarios: a triplet coupled to right-handed charged leptons and a triplet coupled to right-handed down-type quarks, both under the DMFV ansatz. For the leptophilic case, the relic-density constraint selects a narrow region and μ→eγ-like LFV observables then exclude about a quarter of the surviving points, while LHC bounds remain weak. For the quarkphilic case, the authors report that relic density, direct detection, LHC, and flavor constraints together leave very few points; in particular, εK, ΔMd,s, SψKS and Sψφ exclude 85.3% (35.6%) of the otherwise surviving points in the general-hierarchical (bottom-philic) scan. Approximate analytic bounds such as D1D2 ≲ (0.2–4.4)×10^-2 (Mφ/TeV) are derived to explain the hierarchies required by neutral-meson mixing.

Significance. If the results are robust, this is a valuable contribution. The paper is the first to combine one-loop SMEFT matching with relic-density, direct/indirect detection, LHC, and global flavor likelihood analyses for flavored DM, and it provides a reusable, open-source framework for all 20 scalar/fermion DM-mediator combinations. The two worked examples fill genuine gaps and produce falsifiable, quantitative statements about allowed coupling hierarchies. The central exclusion fractions, if confirmed, would sharpen the case that flavor observables, not colliders, provide the leading indirect constraints on this class of models. The strengths are the public repository, the automated toolchain, and the clear separation of constraint stages.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (4.6); Tables 3–5; Appendix B.3] The DMFV mass matrix is truncated at O(λ^2), but the scans allow eigenvalues D_i up to 2 and η up to 1. In this regime the correction (η/2)(λ†λ + λ^Tλ*) is not a small perturbation, and O(λ^4) spurion terms—whose coefficients are not specified—can be numerically comparable. The orthogonal matrix W in Eq. (4.7), obtained from this truncated matrix, determines λ̃ = λW^T, which enters every meson-mixing amplitude in Eq. (B.39) and hence the approximate bounds in Eq. (4.10). The reported exclusion fractions (85.3% and 35.6%) and the bounds in Eqs. (4.10)–(4.11) are therefore not robust unless the truncation error is quantified or O(λ^4) terms are demonstrated to be negligible. I ask the authors to add a stability check (e.g., by adding representative O(λ^4) spurion structures with random O(1) coefficients) or to restrict the scan to the region where the expansion is controlled.
  2. [§3.1.3, §4.2.2, §4.3.2] The manuscript states explicitly that three-body final states such as χ̃1χ̃1 → γℓ+ℓ- and χ̃1χ̃1 → γ q qbar / g q qbar are not included in the indirect-detection constraints, while also noting that these channels lift the p-wave suppression and could strengthen the bounds. Since the paper concludes that indirect detection excludes no parameter points in either scenario, this omission is directly load-bearing for that conclusion. The toolchain already uses MadDM for validation of mixed-flavor averaging; a quantitative estimate of the three-body contributions (or a conservative upper limit) should be provided before claiming that ID bounds are irrelevant.
  3. [§3.3.2, Table 6] The flavor likelihood threshold is stated as ΔL < -2 and interpreted as 'approximately 2σ', but Table 6 reports 'pull above 2σ' for individual observables. The relationship between the global likelihood cut and the per-observable pulls is not defined. Since the central flavor-exclusion fractions are the paper's headline quantitative results, the threshold convention should be stated precisely, and the sensitivity of the quoted 85.3%/35.6% fractions to this cut should be checked.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1 and Appendix B.1] The statement that W = O for d=1 is easy to misread as a general result; Appendix B.1 clarifies the dark-flavor basis transformation, but the main text would benefit from a pointer there when introducing the parameterization.
  2. [Eq. (4.10)] The approximate bounds in Eq. (4.10) are presented as ranges ('0.2-4.4') without stating the source of the range. Please specify that the range reflects the CP-violating vs CP-conserving constraints from the K system and quote the corresponding validity conditions (small mixing angles, Mχ ≈ Mφ).
  3. [§4.3.2, Table 6] The numbers in Table 6 are fractions of points passing all non-flavor constraints; the text should make explicit that these are not independent exclusion fractions because the same point can be pulled by several observables simultaneously.
  4. [Fig. 5] The dashed gray lines in the left panel are said to depict the excluded region, but the caption is ambiguous about whether the lines are the boundary of the region excluded by the scan-generation cut or the boundary of the region that fails the relic-density condition. Please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Externally benchmarked constraint scan; no derivation reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a parameter scan against external constraints, not a derivation whose outputs are equivalent to its inputs. Relic density (Planck), direct detection (LZ/XENON1T/CRESST-III/DarkSide-50/PICO-60), LHC searches (via SModelS), and flavor observables (via smelli/flavio/Wilson) are all applied to randomly generated parameter points. The DMFV parameterization of the coupling matrix and mass matrix (Eqs. 4.1-4.6) and the meson-mixing amplitudes (Eqs. B.39-B.44) are taken from the same group's earlier work [33] (and [9] for the DMFV concept), but these are standard model-formalism/loop calculations rather than quantities fitted to the data used in this paper. They can be and have been checked independently, and the paper explicitly states that the DMFV spurion expansion is an assumption. The approximate bounds in Eq. (4.10) are derived from leading box-diagram expressions in Appendix B.3 and then compared with the scan output, rather than being extracted from that output. The bottom-philic scan is deliberately designed to suppress meson mixing, and the paper explicitly notes that the reduced impact in that scenario is 'by construction'; this is transparency about scan priors, not a fitted prediction. The reviewer-flagged concern about truncating the DMFV mass matrix at O(lambda^2) while scanning D_i up to 2 is a robustness/perturbativity caveat, not a circularity: it does not make any output equal to an input by construction. No circular step could be identified, so no specific reduction is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the DMFV parameterization of the coupling and mass matrices, the thermal-freeze-out assumption, and the validity of the SMEFT/LEFT matching for flavor observables. Most analytic tools are inherited from the previous literature, especially Ref. [33]. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced beyond the standard flavored-dark-matter simplified models.

free parameters (8)
  • D1,D2,D3 (eigenvalues of lambda) = Leptophilic scan: [0,2] linear; quarkphilic scans: [10^-4,2] via product/ratio priors
    Set the overall coupling strength of the dark multiplet to SM fermions. They determine both the relic density and the meson-mixing amplitudes, so the central allowed-region results depend on their scan ranges.
  • Mixing angles theta_ij, phi_ij = theta_12, phi_12 down to 10^-6; other angles 10^-4 to pi/4
    Control off-diagonal couplings. The log priors are chosen specifically to make LFV and meson-mixing constraints tractable; the scanned ranges shape the viable parameter space.
  • CP phases delta_ij, gamma_i = [0, 2*pi)
    Absorbed into the coupling matrix and directly affect CP-violating observables such as epsilon_K. They are randomly scanned, not predicted.
  • eta (DM mass-splitting parameter) = [-1,-0.001] union [0.001,1]
    In the DMFV spurion-expanded mass matrix, Eq. (4.6). Determines which dark state couples strongest to the SM and therefore controls relic-density and collider phenomenology.
  • lambda_phiH,1 (Higgs portal coupling of the mediator) = [-1,-0.001] union [0.001,1]
    Shifts the physical mediator mass after electroweak symmetry breaking. Listed as a new ingredient compared with earlier Majorana DMFV analyses [14,33].
  • M_chi (Lagrangian DM mass parameter) = [100,1500] GeV
    Physical DM masses can be shifted by eta and lambda. The lower cutoff of 100 GeV excludes sub-100 GeV regions that would be relevant for the EFT validity and for direct detection.
  • M_phi (mediator mass) = [M_chi1, M_chi1+1600/2000] GeV
    Directly suppresses flavor amplitudes and collision cross sections. The upper boundary of the scan can affect the quoted reach of collider and flavor constraints.
  • epsilon (bottom-philic hierarchy parameter) = [10^-3, 0.5] log
    Defines the bottom-philic texture of the coupling matrix. Chosen by hand to be small enough to evade meson-mixing bounds but large enough to maintain dark-sector thermal equilibrium; the resulting allowed parameter space is partly an artifact of this choice.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption DM mass matrix follows the DMFV spurion expansion M~chi = M_chi[1 + eta/2(lambda^dagger lambda + lambda^T lambda*) + O(lambda^4)] with eta as the only new parameter.
    Invoked in Sec. 4.1 to define the mass-basis rotation W. All meson-mixing bounds in Appendix B.3 depend on lambda_tilde = lambda W^T; if other flavor-breaking spurions exist, those constraints change.
  • domain assumption Thermal freeze-out with standard cosmology, and Omega h^2 within 10% of the Planck value.
    Sec. 3.1.1. Excludes conversion-driven freeze-out and other non-standard production mechanisms, which are acknowledged as opening additional viable regions.
  • domain assumption A Z2 symmetry stabilizes the DM particle; the lightest dark flavor X1 is stable when M_X1 < M_Y.
    Sec. 2. Standard assumption inherited from the flavored DM framework; needed for X1 to be a dark matter candidate.
  • domain assumption SMEFT one-loop matching and RG evolution down to the b-quark scale accurately describe flavor observables for the scanned masses.
    Sec. 3.3.1 and footnote 6. The authors argue E_obs <= 5 GeV << M_NP, but the expansion involves M_NP below the weak scale; remaining low-mass points are claimed already excluded by collider searches.
  • standard math Neutral-meson mixing formulas and the F, G loop functions from Ref. [33] are correct for this model.
    Appendix B.3 Eq. (B.39) etc. Ref. [33] has overlapping authorship, so this is a self-cited result; published and used for the new scans.
  • domain assumption Indirect detection constraints use p-wave suppressed 2-to-2 annihilation; 3-body gamma/g emission channels are not included.
    Sec. 3.1.3 and Sec. 4.2/4.3. The authors state these channels could strengthen the bounds; omitting them makes the indirect detection limits conservative.
  • domain assumption CKM elements are fixed to their SM values in smelli.
    Sec. 4.3.2. NP can bias CKM extraction from B decays; the authors check that crashing/problematic points are rejected by other observables or give consistent results.
  • ad hoc to paper Bottom-philic texture lambda ~ (eps^2 eps^2 eps^2; eps eps eps; 1 1 1) is a toy model for third-generation-dominated couplings.
    Sec. 4.3.1, Eq. (4.9). The texture is constructed specifically to suppress meson-mixing constraints; it is not derived from a UV completion or from a symmetry.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 42916 in / 13767 out tokens · 138962 ms · 2026-08-03T22:24:31.677629+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive framework for the study of flavored dark matter models, combining relic density calculations with direct and indirect detection limits, collider constraints, and a global analysis of flavor observables based on SMEFT matching and renormalization-group evolution. The framework applies to scalar or fermionic dark matter, including both self-conjugate and non-self-conjugate cases. As a proof of principle, we analyze two scenarios with Majorana dark matter coupling to right-handed charged leptons and to right-handed down-type quarks, assuming a thermal freeze-out. In the leptophilic case, flavor-violating decays such as $\mu \to e \gamma$ dominate the constraints, while LHC searches still leave sizable parameter space. For quark couplings, direct detection bounds and meson mixing severely restrict the allowed couplings, favoring hierarchical flavor structures. The toolchain presented in this paper is publicly available on GitHub (https://github.com/lena-ra/Flavored-Dark-Matter).

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Conversion-Driven Baryogenesis in Flavored Dark Matter Models

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Quark-philic flavored dark matter realizes conversion-driven baryogenesis via CP-violating mediator conversions, yielding viable DM masses up to ~1.2 TeV and long-lived-particle LHC signatures.

  2. BSFfast: Rapid computation of bound-state effects on annihilation in the early Universe

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    A public tool with new exact rescaling identities makes bound-state-formation cross sections with up to 100 excited states fast enough for routine dark-matter Boltzmann-solver scans.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 91 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Arina et al.,t-channel dark matter models – a whitepaper,Eur

    C. Arina et al.,t-channel dark matter models – a whitepaper,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025), no. 9 975, [2504.10597]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Bai and J

    Y. Bai and J. Berger,Fermion Portal Dark Matter,JHEP11(2013) 171, [1308.0612]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    DiFranzo, K

    A. DiFranzo, K. I. Nagao, A. Rajaraman, and T. M. P. Tait,Simplified Models for Dark Matter Interacting with Quarks,JHEP11(2013) 014, [1308.2679]. [Erratum: JHEP 01, 162 (2014)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Biondini, L

    S. Biondini, L. Tiberi, and O. Panella,Connecting t-channel dark matter models to the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP10(2025) 060, [2507.00925]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Kile and A

    J. Kile and A. Soni,Flavored Dark Matter in Direct Detection Experiments and at LHC, Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 035016, [1104.5239]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    Batell, J

    B. Batell, J. Pradler, and M. Spannowsky,Dark Matter from Minimal Flavor Violation, JHEP08(2011) 038, [1105.1781]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    Agrawal, S

    P. Agrawal, S. Blanchet, Z. Chacko, and C. Kilic,Flavored Dark Matter, and Its Implications for Direct Detection and Colliders,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 055002, [1109.3516]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Agrawal, Z

    P. Agrawal, Z. Chacko, E. C. F. S. Fortes, and C. Kilic,Skew-Flavored Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 10 103510, [1511.06293]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Agrawal, M

    P. Agrawal, M. Blanke, and K. Gemmler,Flavored dark matter beyond Minimal Flavor Violation,JHEP10(2014) 072, [1405.6709]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    Blanke and S

    M. Blanke and S. Kast,Top-Flavoured Dark Matter in Dark Minimal Flavour Violation, JHEP05(2017) 162, [1702.08457]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Blanke, P

    M. Blanke, P. Pani, G. Polesello, and G. Rovelli,Single-top final states as a probe of top-flavoured dark matter models at the LHC,JHEP01(2021) 194, [2010.10530]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Garny, J

    M. Garny, J. Heisig, B. Lülf, and S. Vogl,Coannihilation without chemical equilibrium, Phys. Rev. D96(2017), no. 10 103521, [1705.09292]. 44

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    R. T. D’Agnolo, D. Pappadopulo, and J. T. Ruderman,Fourth Exception in the Calculation of Relic Abundances,Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017), no. 6 061102, [1705.08450]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Acaroğlu, M

    H. Acaroğlu, M. Blanke, J. Heisig, M. Krämer, and L. Rathmann,Flavoured Majorana Dark Matter then and now: from freeze-out scenarios to LHC signatures,JHEP06(2024) 179, [2312.09274]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Heisig,Conversion-Driven Leptogenesis: A Testable Theory of Dark Matter and Baryogenesis at the Electroweak Scale,Phys

    J. Heisig,Conversion-Driven Leptogenesis: A Testable Theory of Dark Matter and Baryogenesis at the Electroweak Scale,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024), no. 19 191803, [2404.12428]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2250–2300, [1310.1921]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Alguero, G

    G. Alguero, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, S. Chakraborti, A. Goudelis, et al.,micrOMEGAs 6.0: N-component dark matter,Comput. Phys. Commun.299(2024) 109133, [2312.14894]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Alguero, J

    G. Alguero, J. Heisig, C. K. Khosa, S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, et al.,Constraining new physics with SModelS version 2,JHEP08(2022) 068, [2112.00769]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    M. M. Altakach, S. Kraml, A. Lessa, S. Narasimha, T. Pascal, et al.,SModelS v2.3: Enabling global likelihood analyses,SciPost Phys.15(2023), no. 5 185, [2306.17676]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    M. M. Altakach, S. Kraml, A. Lessa, S. Narasimha, T. Pascal, et al.,SModelS v3: going beyondZ 2 topologies,JHEP11(2024) 074, [2409.12942]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    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), no. 7 662, [2212.04510]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Aebischer, J

    J. Aebischer, J. Kumar, P. Stangl, and D. M. Straub,A Global Likelihood for Precision Constraints and Flavour Anomalies,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019), no. 6 509, [1810.07698]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    D. M. Straub,flavio: a Python package for flavour and precision phenomenology in the Standard Model and beyond,1810.08132

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Aebischer, J

    J. Aebischer, J. Kumar, and D. M. Straub,Wilson: a Python package for the running and matching of Wilson coefficients above and below the electroweak scale,Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018), no. 12 1026, [1804.05033]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Acaroğlu, P

    H. Acaroğlu, P. Agrawal, and M. Blanke,Flavoured(g−2)µ with dark lepton seasoning, SciPost Phys.15(2023), no. 4 176, [2212.08142]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Batell, T

    B. Batell, T. Lin, and L.-T. Wang,Flavored Dark Matter and R-Parity Violation,JHEP 01(2014) 075, [1309.4462]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    Blanke, S

    M. Blanke, S. Das, and S. Kast,Flavoured Dark Matter Moving Left,JHEP02(2018) 105, [1711.10493]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Lopez-Honorez and L

    L. Lopez-Honorez and L. Merlo,Dark matter within the minimal flavour violation ansatz, Phys. Lett. B722(2013) 135–143, [1303.1087]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    Mescia, S

    F. Mescia, S. Okawa, and K. Wu,Multi-component dark matter from Minimal Flavor Violation,JHEP11(2024) 114, [2408.16812]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Kilic, M

    C. Kilic, M. D. Klimek, and J.-H. Yu,Signatures of Top Flavored Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D91(2015), no. 5 054036, [1501.02202]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  31. [31]

    Kumar and S

    A. Kumar and S. Tulin,Top-flavored dark matter and the forward-backward asymmetry, Phys. Rev. D87(2013), no. 9 095006, [1303.0332]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    T. Jubb, M. Kirk, and A. Lenz,Charming Dark Matter,JHEP12(2017) 010, [1709.01930]. 45

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Acaroğlu and M

    H. Acaroğlu and M. Blanke,Tasting flavoured Majorana dark matter,JHEP05(2022) 086, [2109.10357]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Agrawal, B

    P. Agrawal, B. Batell, D. Hooper, and T. Lin,Flavored Dark Matter and the Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess,Phys. Rev. D90(2014), no. 6 063512, [1404.1373]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    Bensalem and D

    W. Bensalem and D. Stolarski,Flavor and CP violation from a QCD-like hidden sector, JHEP02(2022) 011, [2111.05515]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    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. D73(2006) 077301, [hep-ph/0601225]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  37. [37]

    K. M. Zurek,Multi-Component Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 115002, [ 0811.4429]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  38. [38]

    Lee and J

    C.-J. Lee and J. Tandean,Lepton-Flavored Scalar Dark Matter with Minimal Flavor Violation,JHEP04(2015) 174, [1410.6803]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  39. [39]

    Agrawal, Z

    P. Agrawal, Z. Chacko, C. Kilic, and C. B. Verhaaren,A Couplet from Flavored Dark Matter,JHEP08(2015) 072, [1503.03057]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    Hamze, C

    A. Hamze, C. Kilic, J. Koeller, C. Trendafilova, and J.-H. Yu,Lepton-Flavored Asymmetric Dark Matter and Interference in Direct Detection,Phys. Rev. D91(2015), no. 3 035009, [1410.3030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    M.-C. Chen, J. Huang, and V. Takhistov,Beyond Minimal Lepton Flavored Dark Matter, JHEP02(2016) 060, [1510.04694]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    Desai, C

    N. Desai, C. Kilic, Y.-P. Yang, and T. Youn,Suppressed flavor violation in Lepton Flavored Dark Matter from an extra dimension,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 075043, [2001.00720]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Herms and A

    J. Herms and A. Ibarra,Production and signatures of multi-flavour dark matter scenarios with t-channel mediators,JCAP10(2021) 026, [2103.10392]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Acaroğlu, P

    H. Acaroğlu, P. Agrawal, and M. Blanke,Lepton-flavoured scalar dark matter in Dark Minimal Flavour Violation,JHEP05(2023) 106, [2211.03809]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Acaroğlu, M

    H. Acaroğlu, M. Blanke, and M. Tabet,Opening the Higgs portal to lepton-flavoured dark matter,JHEP11(2023) 079, [2309.10700]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    A. J. Buras, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, S. Jager, and L. Silvestrini,Universal unitarity triangle and physics beyond the standard model,Phys. Lett. B500(2001) 161–167, [hep-ph/0007085]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  47. [47]

    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) 155–187, [hep-ph/0207036]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  48. [48]

    R. S. Chivukula and H. Georgi,Composite Technicolor Standard Model,Phys. Lett. B188 (1987) 99–104

    1987

  49. [49]

    L. J. Hall and L. Randall,Weak scale effective supersymmetry,Phys. Rev. Lett.65(1990) 2939–2942

    1990

  50. [50]

    Belyaev, N

    A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen, and A. Pukhov,Calchep 3.4 for collider physics within and beyond the standard model,Computer Physics Communications184(July, 2013) 1729–1769

    2013

  51. [51]

    Darmé, C

    L. Darmé, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, M. Goodsell, et al.,Ufo 2.0: the ‘universal feynman output’ format,The European Physical Journal C83(July, 2023)

    2023

  52. [52]

    Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6, [1807.06209]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Kawamura, S

    J. Kawamura, S. Okawa, and Y. Omura,Current status and muong−2explanation of lepton portal dark matter,JHEP08(2020) 042, [2002.12534]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    Abdelhameed, G

    A. Abdelhameed, G. Angloher, P. Bauer, A. Bento, E. Bertoldo, et al.,First results from 46 the cresst-iii low-mass dark matter program,Physical Review D100(Nov., 2019)

    2019

  55. [55]

    Aalbers, D

    J. Aalbers, D. Akerib, C. Akerlof, A. Al Musalhi, F. Alder, et al.,First dark matter search results from the lux-zeplin (lz) experiment,Physical Review Letters131(July, 2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Aprile, J

    E. Aprile, J. Aalbers, F. Agostini, M. Alfonsi, L. Althueser, et al.,Dark matter search results from a one ton-year exposure of xenon1t,Physical Review Letters121(Sept., 2018)

    2018

  57. [57]

    Aprile, J

    E. Aprile, J. Aalbers, F. Agostini, M. Alfonsi, L. Althueser, et al.,Constraining the spin-dependent wimp-nucleon cross sections with xenon1t,Physical Review Letters122 (Apr., 2019)

    2019

  58. [58]

    Agnes, I

    P. Agnes, I. Albuquerque, T. Alexander, A. Alton, G. Araujo, et al.,Low-mass dark matter search with the darkside-50 experiment,Physical Review Letters121(Aug., 2018)

    2018

  59. [59]

    Amole, M

    C. Amole, M. Ardid, I. Arnquist, D. Asner, D. Baxter, et al.,Dark matter search results from the complete exposure of the pico-60 c3f8 bubble chamber,Physical Review D100 (July, 2019)

    2019

  60. [60]

    Archambault, A

    S. Archambault, A. Archer, W. Benbow, R. Bird, E. Bourbeau, et al.,Dark matter constraints from a joint analysis of dwarf spheroidal galaxy observations with veritas, Physical Review D95(Apr., 2017)

    2017

  61. [61]

    Acharyya, C

    A. Acharyya, C. B. Adams, P. Bangale, J. T. Bartkoske, P. Batista, et al.,An indirect search for dark matter with a combined analysis of dwarf spheroidal galaxies from veritas, 2024

    2024

  62. [62]

    Cuoco, J

    A. Cuoco, J. Heisig, M. Korsmeier, and M. Krämer,Constraining heavy dark matter with cosmic-ray antiprotons,JCAP04(2018) 004, [1711.05274]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  63. [63]

    John and T

    I. John and T. Linden,Cosmic-ray positrons strongly constrain leptophilic dark matter, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(Dec., 2021) 007

    2021

  64. [64]

    Cirelli, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  65. [65]

    Albert, B

    A. Albert, B. Anderson, K. Bechtol, A. Drlica-Wagner, M. Meyer, et al.,Searching for dark matter annihilation in recently discovered milky way satellites with fermi-lat,The Astrophysical Journal834(Jan., 2017) 110

    2017

  66. [66]

    M. collaboration,Limits to dark matter annihilation cross-section from a combined analysis of magic and fermi-lat observations of dwarf satellite galaxies,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2016(Feb., 2016) 039–039

    2016

  67. [67]

    Calore, M

    F. Calore, M. Cirelli, L. Derome, Y. Genolini, D. Maurin, et al.,AMS-02 antiprotons and dark matter: Trimmed hints and robust bounds,SciPost Phys.12(2022), no. 5 163, [2202.03076]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  68. [68]

    Armand, E

    C. Armand, E. Charles, M. di Mauro, C. Giuri, J. P. Harding, et al.,Combined dark matter searches towards dwarf spheroidal galaxies with fermi-lat, hawc, h.e.s.s., magic, and veritas, 2021

    2021

  69. [69]

    Abdallah, A

    H. Abdallah, A. Abramowski, F. Aharonian, F. Ait Benkhali, A. Akhperjanian, et al., Search for dark matter annihilations towards the inner galactic halo from 10 years of observations with h.e.s.s.,Physical Review Letters117(Sept., 2016)

    2016

  70. [70]

    Ackermann, A

    M. Ackermann, A. Albert, B. Anderson, W. Atwood, L. Baldini, et al.,Searching for dark matter annihilation from milky way dwarf spheroidal galaxies with six years of fermi large area telescope data,Physical Review Letters115(Nov., 2015)

    2015

  71. [71]

    Aleksić, S

    J. Aleksić, S. Ansoldi, L. Antonelli, P. Antoranz, A. Babic, et al.,Optimized dark matter searches in deep observations of segue 1 with magic,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014(Feb., 2014) 008–008

    2014

  72. [72]

    T. I. Collaboration, R. Abbasi, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, S. K. Agarwalla, et al.,Search 47 for neutrino lines from dark matter annihilation and decay with icecube, 2023

    2023

  73. [73]

    Albert, M

    A. Albert, M. André, M. Anghinolfi, G. Anton, M. Ardid, et al.,Search for dark matter towards the galactic centre with 11 years of antares data,Physics Letters B805(June,

  74. [74]

    Ambrogi, C

    F. Ambrogi, C. Arina, M. Backovic, J. Heisig, F. Maltoni, et al.,MadDM v.3.0: a Comprehensive Tool for Dark Matter Studies,Phys. Dark Univ.24(2019) 100249, [1804.00044]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    Barducci, G

    D. Barducci, G. Belanger, J. Bernon, F. Boudjema, J. Da Silva, et al.,Collider limits on new physics within micrOMEGAs_4.3,Comput. Phys. Commun.222(2018) 327–338, [1606.03834]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  76. [76]

    Carmona, A

    A. Carmona, A. Lazopoulos, P. Olgoso, and J. Santiago,Matchmakereft: automated tree-level and one-loop matching,SciPost Phys.12(2022), no. 6 198, [2112.10787]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    Das Bakshi, J

    S. Das Bakshi, J. Chakrabortty, and S. K. Patra,CoDEx: Wilson coefficient calculator connecting SMEFT to UV theory,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019), no. 1 21, [1808.04403]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler,Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,Nucl. Phys. B268(1986) 621–653

    1986

  79. [79]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085, [1008.4884]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  80. [80]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott,The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory,Phys. Rept.793 (2019) 1–98, [1706.08945]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.