Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 64 references

The Z4 Higgs-portal dark sector stays viable once one or both scalars are allowed to depart from thermal equilibrium; the same cubic interaction then also channels late decays into SuperWIMP, injection, and sequential freeze-in histories.

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 02:35 UTC pith:CYOPSCM5

load-bearing objection A useful non-equilibrium map of the Z4 Higgs portal with a real internal inconsistency: the f_dec << 1 claim in the Lyman-alpha section contradicts the decay-fed scenarios that are central to the paper's claims. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.18564 v2 pith:CYOPSCM5 submitted 2026-02-20 hep-ph hep-th

Mixed Freeze-In and Freeze-Out Histories and Dark-Sector Decays in a mathbb{Z}₄ Two-Scalar Model

J. P. Carvalho-Corr\^ea , B. A. Couto e Silva , B. L. S\'anchez-Vega This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords Z4 symmetrytwo-component dark matterfreeze-infreeze-outHiggs portalsemi-annihilationSuperWIMPsequential freeze-in
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 paper tries to show that the Z4 two-scalar Higgs-portal model (a complex scalar SA and a real scalar SB) is not ruled out by current direct-detection limits once the standard assumption that both dark-matter components thermalise is dropped. It argues that the strong exclusions found in two-WIMP analyses are an artefact of demanding two thermal relics: with one or both scalars produced by freeze-in, the relic density can be shared, and the direct-detection signal is carried only by the thermal fraction. It then shows that, when SB is heavier than twice SA, the Z4-allowed cubic interaction that enables semi-annihilation also enables SB decaying into two SA particles, opening three abundance-transfer mechanisms: SuperWIMP production, injection-assisted freeze-out, and sequential freeze-in. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper turns a model previously thought to be in tension with experiment into a controlled benchmark with distinct, testable cosmological histories.

Core claim

The central claim is that the minimal renormalisable Z4 Higgs portal supports the full range of dark-matter production histories — thermal freeze-out, freeze-in, and mixed WIMP–FIMP — within one framework. In the stable regime (MSB < 2 MSA), FIMP–FIMP and mixed WIMP–FIMP configurations can share the observed relic density; the WIMP-like component remains subject to the usual Higgs-portal correlation between freeze-out and spin-independent scattering, while the FIMP-like component can provide a substantial abundance with a negligible direct-detection rate. In the decay-mediated regime (MSB > 2 MSA), the decay SB -> SA SA transfers parent abundance into the stable daughter, yielding SuperWIMP,

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Z4 charge assignment itself: SA (complex) carries charge 1 and SB (real) carries charge 2, which makes the stable scalars and allows the cubic interaction SA^2 SB (plus conjugate). That single term supplies the semi-annihilation channel SASA -> SB h and, once MSB > 2 MSA, the two-body decay SB -> SASA that converts parent abundance into daughter. Around it sit the dark-sector conversion process in which SA and its antiparticle interconvert with two SB (quartic coupling lambda_AB), the Higgs-portal couplings lambda_HA and lambda_HB that set freeze-out, freeze-in, and direct detection, and a coupled pair of Boltzmann equations in which every collision term is wri

Load-bearing premise

The central results assume the nominal freeze-in component stays far below thermal equilibrium throughout its evolution; if intra-dark conversion or semi-annihilation ever drives it into equilibrium for a scanned point, that point is misclassified and the direct-detection dilution conclusion would need revision.

What would settle it

Pick any claimed viable point in a mixed WIMP–FIMP scenario and integrate the coupled abundance equations; if the ratio Y_FIMP(x)/Y_eq(x) ever reaches about 0.1 before the WIMP component freezes out, the point is not a genuine freeze-in history and the paper's classification — and the dilution of the direct-detection bound — fails for it.

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

If this is right

  • Direct-detection limits apply only to the thermal component, so a FIMP-dominated Z4 dark sector can match the observed relic density while predicting essentially no signal in LZ and similar experiments.
  • Parameter regions excluded under the two-thermal-WIMP assumption are reopened as mixed WIMP–FIMP or FIMP–FIMP configurations, shifting the question from 'is the model ruled out?' to 'which history is realised?'.
  • For MSB > 2 MSA, the surviving relic SA can be produced by SuperWIMP decay, injection-assisted freeze-out, or sequential freeze-in; these histories relax the usual mass–portal correlations, so points that underproduce in single-component pictures become viable.
  • Because SB -> SASA is internal to the dark sector, late decays evade the standard electromagnetic and hadronic BBN injection bounds; the paper instead tracks the parent energy fraction and an equivalent thermal warm-dark-matter mass to show that the decay-produced fraction is too small to violate Lyman-alpha limits.
  • The balanced FIMP–FIMP regime predicts a characteristic portal-coupling correlation (lambda_HA ~ lambda_HB) when both components contribute comparably to the observed relic density.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same logic implies that other Z_N / Z_2n multi-component dark-matter models, whose thermal two-WIMP scans encounter similar direct-detection exclusions, could also retain viability when one component is treated as a freeze-in relic; this is a generic structural point, not specific to this scalar benchmark.
  • If the Z4 model is realised in the SuperWIMP or sequential-freeze-in regime, the daughter population is born with non-thermal momenta; measuring the small-scale matter-power spectrum could in principle distinguish these histories from ordinary cold freeze-out even when direct detection stays silent.
  • The predicted near-degeneracy lambda_HA ~ lambda_HB in the balanced FIMP–FIMP regime gives a quantitative target: a future measurement of one portal coupling (for example through invisible Higgs decays) would imply a narrow preferred range for the other, making the two-component freeze-in hypothesis falsifiable by a single measurement.
  • A scan-point check that the nominal FIMP yield indeed stays far below equilibrium at all temperatures would make the classification robust; without it, some 'freeze-in' points could secretly be dark-freeze-out points, in which case the direct-detection dilution would be overstated.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies a renormalisable Z4 two-scalar dark-matter model, with a complex scalar SA and a real scalar SB, coupled to the SM through the Higgs portal. It solves the coupled Boltzmann equations including Higgs-portal annihilation, dark-sector conversion, semi-annihilation, and the decay SB -> SA SA when kinematically open. The authors scan masses and couplings, impose theoretical constraints (boundedness, unitarity, perturbativity) and experimental constraints (LZ, Higgs invisible decay), and classify the parameter space into six scenarios: stable FIMP-FIMP, two stable mixed WIMP-FIMP arrangements, and three decay-mediated regimes (SuperWIMP, injection-assisted freeze-out, and sequential freeze-in). The central claim is that once mixed and non-thermal histories are treated consistently, the Z4 Higgs-portal model remains broadly viable, and that late dark-sector decays open distinct abundance-transfer mechanisms.

Significance. If the technical claims hold, this is a useful, controlled phenomenological benchmark: it shows that the severe LZ exclusions found in thermal two-WIMP analyses are partly an artefact of assuming both components thermalise, and it maps a richer set of cosmological histories in a minimal renormalisable framework. The paper is generally clearly written, uses a standard numerical tool (micrOMEGAs 6.0), and presents explicit Boltzmann equations and constraints. It also gives falsifiable expectations, such as the effective invisibility of the FIMP component in direct detection and the correlation between portal couplings in the balanced freeze-in regime. However, as discussed below, one load-bearing contradiction concerning the decay-produced fraction must be resolved, and the advertised a posteriori thermalisation check is not actually reported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.D.2 / §IV.B.1] The blanket statement 'fdec << 1 for all viable points' is inconsistent with the decay-mediated scenarios that are central to the paper. For Scenario 4, Eq. (19) gives ΩSA ≈ Ω_freeze-in + (2 MSA/MSB) Ω_freeze-out, so viable points whose abundance is enabled by the parent decay have fdec of order unity. Figure 6 explicitly shows viable points extending below the single-component freeze-in band because of the decay-fed contribution, and Scenario 6 is described as a two-step chain in which the decay sets the final abundance. If fdec is indeed negligible for all viable points, then Scenarios 4–6 are not actually decay-mediated and the abstract's claim that the decay 'opens three distinct abundance-transfer mechanisms' is unsupported. If, instead, points with fdec ~ O(1) exist, the §III.D.2 Lyman-alpha statement is false. Please report the fdec distribution separately for each scenario and re
  2. [Abstract / §IV] The abstract promises an 'a posteriori thermalisation check' of the WIMP/FIMP assignments, but the body does not contain such a check. The only related statement is the 'crucial consistency requirement' in §IV that restricts λAB ≤ 1e-8 and keeps μS1 small. No evidence is shown that Y_FIMP remains well below Y_eq throughout the scan for each viable point. Since intra-dark conversion and semi-annihilation can in principle thermalise a nominal FIMP, this is not a cosmetic omission: if thermalisation occurs for some accepted points, the six-scenario classification, the direct-detection dilution conclusion, and the interpretation of the decay-mediated mechanisms all need revision. I ask the authors to include the promised check (for example, max_i Y_FIMP(x_i)/Y_eq(x_i) for each scan point, or an explicit statement of the criterion used) or to soften the abstract.
  3. [Table II / §IV.B.2] The description of Scenario 6 is internally inconsistent. Table II lists the 'Sequential freeze-in' case as 'SA receives a subleading contribution from the freeze-in and subsequent decay of SB', while §IV.B.2b and the Conclusions state that in the same scenario 'the relic is generated through a two-step non-thermal chain' and that the decay contribution relaxes the usual mass–coupling correlation. If the decay contribution is subleading, it cannot be the mechanism that reopens viable parameter space; if it is not subleading, Table II is wrong. This is not simply wording: the quantitative role of the decay term determines whether Scenario 6 is a distinct mechanism or just a small correction to ordinary freeze-in. Please quantify the parent-decay fraction for the displayed benchmarks and align Table II with the text.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 7 / Fig. 8 captions] The figure captions quote λHB = -1.46e-12 and λAB = -8.41e-11, which are outside the positive scan ranges stated in Table I ([1e-12,1e-8] for both). Please clarify whether negative couplings are allowed and update the stated scan range, or correct the captions.
  2. [§IV.B.2 / Abstract] The terminology is not uniform: 'injection freeze-in' (§IV.B.2a), 'injection-assisted freeze-out' (abstract and Conclusions), and 'injection-assisted freeze-out' versus 'injection freeze-in' may confuse readers. Please choose one term and use it consistently.
  3. [Fig. 7 / Fig. 8 captions] The masses in the captions are formatted as '6 .04 × 101 GeV' etc., which appears to be a typographical artifact of superscripts. Please ensure the correct powers of ten are displayed.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Boltzmann-based parameter maps are computed, not fitted, but two flagged internal gaps (fdec≪1 vs. the decay-mediated scenarios; the unperformed a posteriori thermalization check) weaken parts of the claim without making the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

specific steps
  1. other [Sec. III.D.2 (Lyman-α Forest) vs. Sec. IV.B.1 and Sec. V (Conclusions)]
    "In our numerical scan we find fdec ≪ 1 for all viable points, so any decay-produced non-thermal component is too small to generate an observable suppression of small-scale structure, independently of the decay time or the mass splitting. The dominant contribution to the relic abundance instead arises from early-time production and behaves as standard cold dark matter."

    The decay-mediated pillar of the central claim (Scenarios 4–6: SuperWIMP, injection freeze-in, sequential freeze-in; “the final abundance can receive an essential contribution from SB→SASA decays”; Eq. (19) transferring (2MSA/MSB)Ω_SB^fo into Ω_SA; “This contribution can be numerically important”) is contradicted by the paper’s own scan statement that fdec ≪ 1 for every viable point. If the decay-produced fraction is negligible, the decay-transfer term cannot be the mechanism that relaxes the freeze-in mass–coupling correlations, so the three “abundance-transfer mechanisms” are not realized in the reported numerics; the classification reduces to relabeling ordinary under/over-production regions. If instead decay-fed points with fdec ≈ O(1) exist, the §III.D.2 statement is false and the Lym

  2. other [Abstract vs. Sec. IV (Numerical Analysis), FIMP-like regime]
    "…and an a posteriori thermalisation check of the WIMP/FIMP assignments. … A crucial consistency requirement is to preserve the non-thermal nature of the FIMP component. If intra-dark couplings are too large, reactions involving the WIMP component can populate the feeble sector efficiently enough to drive it towards thermal equilibrium… Concretely, we scan the conversion coupling in the range λAB ∈ [10−12, 10−8] and take the trilinear parameter in µS1 ∈ [10−8, 10−1] GeV."

    The abstract promises an a posteriori thermalisation check of the WIMP/FIMP assignments, but the body replaces it with an a priori coupling restriction (λAB ≤ 10−8, µS1 ≤ 10−1 GeV). No reported verification that Y_FIMP remained far below Y_eq in the scanned points is given. Because the FIMP role is assigned by choosing λHi ∈ [10−12, 10−8], the paper’s conclusion that the FIMP component has a negligible direct-detection rate is true by construction of the scan ranges (σSI ∝ λHi²), not by a checked non-equilibrium condition. The non-trivial part—that the coupled system matches the Planck relic density—is computed rather than fitted. This is an omitted-verification/definitional-input issue, not a fitted-output circularity.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: the coupled Boltzmann system, Eqs. (9)–(10), is solved numerically with micrOMEGAs, with the Planck relic density imposed as a viability filter (Eq. 18) rather than used as a fitted target; LZ, ATLAS Higgs-invisible, BFB, and perturbative-unitarity constraints are external filters. The reported correlations (freeze-in λHA–MSA scaling, Higgs-resonance clustering, ξ-rescaled direct-detection dilution) emerge from solving the fixed scan ranges, and no parameter is fitted to the conclusion. Self-citation is minor: Ref. [24] (overlapping authors Carvalho-Corrêa and Sánchez-Vega) supplies the theoretical-consistency constraints and the motivating thermal two-WIMP analysis; these bounds (copositivity, partial-wave unitarity) are conventional and externally groundable, and there is no imported uniqueness theorem that forces the paper’s choices. The central non-equilibrium viability claim does not reduce to that citation. Flagged but not circular: (i) §III.D.2’s fdec ≪ 1 statement conflicts with the decay-mediated Scenarios 4–6 and Eq. (19), leaving that pillar currently unsupported—a consistency/correctness issue, not a circular derivation; (ii) the promised a posteriori thermalization check is not reported, and the abstract’s equivalent-thermal-WDM warmness diagnostic is not presented in the body; (iii) FIMP invisibility is in part true by scan-range construction. None of these makes the derivation equivalent to its inputs, so by the proportionality rules the score is 2: minor self-citation plus the flagged internal gaps, not a circular derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model's central claim rests on a scan over masses and couplings; these are input parameters, not fitted outputs. The key assumptions are the equilibrium assignments (WIMP vs FIMP), the xi-rescaled direct-detection treatment, and the assertion that late dark-sector decays evade BBN/Lyman-alpha constraints. No new particle or force is introduced beyond the SA/SB fields defined in Ref. [23].

free parameters (7)
  • MSA scan range = 40-2000 GeV
    Mass of the complex scalar; scanned input, not fitted to a data point.
  • MSB scan range = 40-2 MSA (stable) or 40-4000 GeV (unstable)
    Mass of the real scalar/parent; scanned input.
  • lambda_HA range = 1e-4-1 (WIMP) or 1e-12-1e-8 (FIMP)
    Higgs portal coupling of SA; scanned according to assumed thermal history.
  • lambda_HB range = 1e-4-1 (WIMP) or 1e-12-1e-8 (FIMP)
    Higgs portal coupling of SB; scanned according to assumed thermal history.
  • lambda_AB range = 1e-12-1e-8
    Dark-sector conversion coupling; scanned and sometimes negative within BFB bounds.
  • mu_S1 range = Table I says 1e-8-1e-1 GeV; benchmark figures use 1e-12 GeV
    Trilinear semi-annihilation/decay coupling; the stated scan range is internally inconsistent with the examples shown.
  • Fixed self-couplings = (lambda_A, lambda_B, lambda_S4) = (0.03, 0.02, 0.01)
    Chosen by hand as representative values; the paper argues they are subleading for relic-density determination.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption CP conservation in the scalar sector, with real mu_S1 and lambda_S4
    Stated in Sec. II to fix the basis for the scalar potential.
  • domain assumption Z4-preserving vacuum with zero VEVs for SA and SB
    Assumed in Sec. II so that there is no Higgs-dark scalar mixing.
  • domain assumption Zero dark-sector particle-antiparticle asymmetries
    Used in Sec. III.A to reduce the Boltzmann system by setting Y_SA = Y_SAbar.
  • domain assumption Direct detection rate scales with cosmological relic fractions and no spatial segregation
    Used in Eq. (15) to rescale the LZ limit by xi_i.
  • domain assumption The late decay SB -> SA SA has negligible BBN and Lyman-alpha impact because fdec << 1
    Assumed in Sec. III.D without a quantitative transfer-function or lifetime analysis; this assertion is internally inconsistent with Scenario 4 decay-fed abundance.
  • domain assumption micrOMEGAs 6.0 correctly implements the coupled Boltzmann system of Eqs. (9)-(10)
    The numerical results depend on the package's multi-component routines and on a model implementation that is not shipped.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18273 in / 16903 out tokens · 175786 ms · 2026-08-03T02:35:30.792110+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a systematic non-equilibrium analysis of a renormalisable $\mathbb{Z}_4$ Higgs-portal dark sector with a complex scalar $S_A$ and a real scalar $S_B$, including conversion, semi-annihilation, and, when kinematically allowed, the dark-sector decay $S_B\to S_A S_A$. We impose theoretical consistency, Higgs invisible-decay limits, relic-fraction-rescaled LZ bounds, and an a posteriori thermalisation check of the WIMP/FIMP assignments. Allowing one or both dark states to remain out of equilibrium qualitatively enlarges the set of viable cosmological histories. In the stable regime, FIMP--FIMP and mixed WIMP--FIMP configurations can share the observed relic density between the two components, while the WIMP-like state remains subject to the usual Higgs-portal correlation between freeze-out and spin-independent scattering and the FIMP-like state can provide a substantial abundance with a negligible direct-detection rate. For $M_{S_B}>2M_{S_A}$, the decay of the unstable $S_B$ opens three distinct abundance-transfer mechanisms: SuperWIMP production, injection-assisted freeze-out, and sequential freeze-in. Because the decay proceeds entirely within the dark sector, the usual electromagnetic and hadronic BBN energy-injection bounds do not apply; we instead track the parent energy fraction and use an equivalent thermal-WDM mass to diagnose the warmness of the decay-produced daughter population. The minimal $\mathbb{Z}_4$ Higgs portal thus supports thermal, mixed, and fully non-thermal relic histories within the same renormalisable framework, with dark-sector decay linking relic-density production to small-scale structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.18564 by B. A. Couto e Silva, B. L. S\'anchez-Vega, J. P. Carvalho-Corr\^ea.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Key interaction topologies governing production, depletion, and redistribution of the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Parameter space for the FIMP–FIMP regime. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Direct-detection prospects for the mixed stable scenario with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Parameter-space correlations for the stable mixed scenario with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Viable parameter space for the mixed stable scenario with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Injection freeze-in scenario in which an unstable FIMP parent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Sequential freeze-in scenario in which a feebly produced parent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png] 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

64 extracted references · 31 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Big Bang Nucleosynthesis 11

  2. [2]

    Numerical Analysis and Results 12 A

    Lyman-α Forest 12 IV. Numerical Analysis and Results 12 A. Stable Scenarios 15

  3. [3]

    Pure Freeze-in: the FIMP–FIMP Regime 16

  4. [4]

    SB (WIMP) diluted bySA (FIMP) 18

  5. [5]

    Unstable Scenarios 22

    SA (WIMP) diluted bySB (FIMP) 21 B. Unstable Scenarios 22

  6. [6]

    The SuperWIMP mechanism (WIMP parent) 23

  7. [7]

    Conclusions 27 Acknowledgments 28 A

    Injection and sequential freeze-in with late dark-sector decays 24 V. Conclusions 27 Acknowledgments 28 A. Theoretical Constraints 29

  8. [8]

    Perturbative unitarity 29

  9. [9]

    Global bounded-from-below condition 30

  10. [10]

    Perturbativity 30 References 30 3 I. INTRODUCTION A wide range of cosmological and astrophysical observations firmly establishes the existence of non-baryonic dark matter (DM), which dominates the matter budget of the Universe and plays a central role in structure formation, see Refs. [1–4]. Despite this robust gravitational evidence, the microscopic natu...

  11. [11]

    The physical masses areM 2 h = 2λH v2 and M 2 SA = 1 2 λHA v2 − µ2 A, M 2 SB = 1 2 λHB v2 − µ2 B

    We focus on aZ4-preserving vacuum with⟨SA⟩ = ⟨SB⟩ = 0, which prevents mixing between the Higgs and the dark scalars. The physical masses areM 2 h = 2λH v2 and M 2 SA = 1 2 λHA v2 − µ2 A, M 2 SB = 1 2 λHB v2 − µ2 B. (4) In practice, we trade the quadratic terms for the physical masses. Our independent input parameters are the two dark masses(MSA, MSB ), th...

  12. [12]

    Big Bang Nucleosynthesis BBN constraints on long-lived particles typically arise when late decays inject energetic photons and/or hadrons into the primordial plasma, thereby modifying light-element abundances (see e.g. Refs. [28–30] for reviews and classic analyses). In the present Z4 model, however, the decay SB → SASA (and its CP-conjugate) contains no ...

  13. [13]

    dark freeze-out

    Lyman- α Forest Dark matter produced in late decays can carry a non-thermal momentum distribution and behave as a “warm” subcomponent, potentially suppressing the matter power spectrum on small scales. Lyman-α forest data are sensitive to such effects, and the resulting constraints can be phrased in terms of the fractional abundance of the decay-produced ...

    2018

  14. [14]

    Scenario 1 provides a reference case where both components are produced via freeze-in (FIMP+FIMP)

    Stable regime (Scenarios 1–3): For MSB < 2MSA both scalars are stable and can contribute to the present-day density. Scenario 1 provides a reference case where both components are produced via freeze-in (FIMP+FIMP). Scenarios 2 and 3 realise mixed histories (FIMP+WIMP and WIMP+FIMP, respectively), allowing us to test whether direct- detection bounds can b...

  15. [15]

    Nature” column indicates the coupling regime (WIMP/FIMP) ofSA and SB, “Stability

    Decay-mediated regime (Scenarios 4–6):For MSB > 2MSA the decay SB → SASA becomes kinematically allowed (through the same Z4-allowed interaction responsible for semi-annihilation), so that onlySA survives as the asymptotic relic. Scenario 4 corresponds to the classic superWIMP mechanism, in which a WIMP-like parent freezes out and subsequently decays into ...

  16. [16]

    Pure Freeze-in: the FIMP–FIMP Regime We start from the scenario in which both dark scalars behave as feebly interacting massive particles (FIMPs), as in Ref. [36]. In this regime the Higgs-portal couplings satisfyλHA , λHB ≲ 10−8 (within our scan ranges), preventing thermalisation with the SM bath. The relic abundances ofSA and SB are then generated throu...

  17. [17]

    SB (WIMP) diluted bySA (FIMP) In this mixed stable scenario, the real scalarSB is the thermal component, interacting with the Standard Model through the Higgs portal couplingλHB, while the complex scalarSA remains feebly coupled and is produced non-thermally via freeze-in. AlthoughSA never thermalises with the SM bath, the final relic-density composition ...

  18. [18]

    injection freeze-in

    SA (WIMP) diluted bySB (FIMP) We now consider the mixed stable configuration with interchanged roles relative to the previous subsection: the complex scalar SA is the thermal WIMP, coupled to the SM through the Higgs portal λHA, while the real scalarSB remains feebly interacting and is produced via freeze-in through λHB. The viable points displayed in Fig...

  19. [19]

    [40, 41] (see also Refs

    The SuperWIMP mechanism (WIMP parent) In the SuperWIMP regime Refs. [40, 41] (see also Refs. [15, 34] for related mixed WIMP/FIMP model implementations), the parent stateSB has sizeable interactions with the SM bath (λHB ≳ 10−4), thermalises in the early Universe, and undergoes a conventional freeze-out. Unlike a stable WIMP, however,SB is unstable and su...

  20. [20]

    We consider two qualitatively distinct realisations depending on whether the stable daughterSA thermalises with the visible plasma

    Injection and sequential freeze-in with late dark-sector decays When the parent particleSB is feebly coupled to the SM bath, the final dark matter abundance is set by freeze-in production followed by a decay within the dark sector,SB → SASA. We consider two qualitatively distinct realisations depending on whether the stable daughterSA thermalises with the...

    2020

  21. [21]

    Following the conventions of Ref

    Perturbative unitarity Tree-level perturbative unitarity is enforced by requiring that the zeroth partial-wave amplitude for all2 → 2 scalar scattering processes satisfies|ℜ(a0)| ≤1/2. Following the conventions of Ref. [24], we implement this condition through the conservative bound |Mi| ≤8π, (A1) for every eigenvalueMi of the high-energy scalar-scatterin...

  22. [22]

    Global bounded-from-below condition Besides the field-axis and pairwise BFB requirements in Eqs.(5)–(8), the potential must remain bounded from below when all three field directionsH, SA, and SB are simultaneously activated. Using the effective couplingsλij defined in Eqs.(6)–(8), the corresponding copositivity condition can be written as 2λAB p λH + 2λHA...

  23. [23]

    (A9) Points failing any of the conditions listed in this appendix are discarded from the analysis

    Perturbativity Finally, to ensure the validity of the perturbative expansion, we impose the hard cut |λi| ≤4π, λ i ∈ {λH , λA, λB, λHA , λHB , λAB, λS4}. (A9) Points failing any of the conditions listed in this appendix are discarded from the analysis

  24. [24]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N.,et al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,”Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions,

    V. C. Rubin and J. Ford, W. Kent, “Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions,” Astrophys. J. 159 (1970) 379–403

    1970

  26. [26]

    Rotation Curves of Spiral Galaxies,

    Y. Sofue and V. Rubin, “Rotation Curves of Spiral Galaxies,”Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.39 (2001) 137–174, arXiv:astro-ph/0010594

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  27. [27]

    A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter,

    D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky, “A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter,”Astrophys. J. Lett.648 (2006) L109–L113, arXiv:astro-ph/0608407

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  28. [28]

    Review of Particle Physics: Dark Matter

    Particle Data Group, “Review of Particle Physics: Dark Matter.” 2023. https://pdg.lbl.gov/2023/reviews/rpp2022-rev-dark-matter.pdf. PDG review “Dark Matter”

    2023

  29. [29]

    Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints,

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, “Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints,”Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279–390, arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  30. [30]

    Supersymmetric dark matter,

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, “Supersymmetric dark matter,”Phys. Rept. 267 (1996) 195–373, arXiv:hep-ph/9506380. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  31. [31]

    Dark Matter through the Higgs portal,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Complex scalar dark matter in aB − L model,

    B. L. Sánchez-Vega, J. C. Montero, and E. R. Schmitz, “Complex scalar dark matter in aB − L model,” Phys. Rev. D90 no. 5, (2014) 055022,arXiv:1404.5973 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    Fermionic dark matter and neutrino masses in aB − L model,

    B. L. Sánchez-Vega and E. R. Schmitz, “Fermionic dark matter and neutrino masses in aB − L model,” Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 053007, arXiv:1505.03595 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  34. [34]

    Dark matter in the scale-invariant 3-3-1-1 model,

    A. G. Dias, V. Padovani, K. Kannike, N. Koivunen, J. Leite, and B. L. Sánchez-Vega, “Dark matter in the scale-invariant 3-3-1-1 model,”Phys. Rev. D112 no. 11, (2025) 115017,arXiv:2501.17914 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Multicomponent dark matter,

    K. M. Zurek, “Multicomponent dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 115002, arXiv:0811.4429 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  36. [36]

    Multicomponent dark matter systems and their observation prospects,

    M. Aoki, M. Duerr, J. Kubo, and H. Takano, “Multicomponent dark matter systems and their observation prospects,”Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 076015, arXiv:1207.3318 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  37. [37]

    Freeze-in as a complementary process to freeze-out,

    R. Capucha, K. Elyaouti, M. Mühlleitner, J. Plotnikov, and R. Santos, “Freeze-in as a complementary process to freeze-out,”JHEP 2024 no. 9, (2024) 113,arXiv:2407.04809 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    WIMP and FIMP dark matter in the inert doublet plus singlet model,

    G. Bélanger, A. Mjallal, and A. Pukhov, “WIMP and FIMP dark matter in the inert doublet plus singlet model,” Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 095019, arXiv:2205.04101 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Can we discover dual-component thermal WIMP dark matter?,

    S. Profumo, K. Sigurdson, and L. Ubaldi, “Can we discover dual-component thermal WIMP dark matter?,” JCAP 12 (2009) 016, arXiv:0907.4374 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  40. [40]

    A minimal model for two-component dark matter,

    S. Esch, M. Klasen, and C. E. Yaguna, “A minimal model for two-component dark matter,”JHEP 09 (2014) 108, arXiv:1406.0617 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    Direct detection of dynamical dark matter,

    K. R. Dienes, J. Kumar, and B. Thomas, “Direct detection of dynamical dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 055016, arXiv:1208.0336 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  42. [42]

    Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances,

    K. Griest and D. Seckel, “Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances,”Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 3191–3203

    1991

  43. [43]

    Semi-annihilation of dark matter,

    F. D’Eramo and J. Thaler, “Semi-annihilation of dark matter,”JHEP 06 (2010) 109, arXiv:1003.5912 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  44. [44]

    Z3 scalar singlet dark matter,

    G. Bélanger, K. Kannike, A. Pukhov, and M. Raidal, “Z3 scalar singlet dark matter,”JCAP 01 (2013) 022, arXiv:1211.1014 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [45]

    Multi-component scalar dark matter from aZN symmetry: A systematic analysis,

    C. E. Yaguna and Ó. Zapata, “Multi-component scalar dark matter from aZN symmetry: A systematic analysis,” JHEP 03 (2020) 109, arXiv:1911.05515 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Two-component scalar dark matter inZ2n scenarios,

    C. E. Yaguna and Ó. Zapata, “Two-component scalar dark matter inZ2n scenarios,” JHEP 10 (2021) 185, arXiv:2106.11889 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Theoretical and experimental constraints onZ2n multi-component dark matter models,

    J. P. Carvalho-Corrêa, I. M. Pereira, B. L. Sánchez-Vega, and A. C. D. Viglioni, “Theoretical and experimental constraints onZ2n multi-component dark matter models,”Eur. Phys. J. C85 (2025) 1353

    2025

  48. [48]

    Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,

    LZ Collaboration, “Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.135 (2025) 011802, arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex] . 32

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Vacuum stability conditions from copositivity criteria,

    K. Kannike, “Vacuum stability conditions from copositivity criteria,”Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 2093

    2012

  50. [50]

    Combination of searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson using 139 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at√s = 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment,

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Combination of searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson using 139 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at√s = 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment,”Phys. Lett. B 842 (2023) 137963

    2023

  51. [51]

    Big bang nucleosynthesis: Present status,

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, and T.-H. Yeh, “Big bang nucleosynthesis: Present status,” Rev. Mod. Phys.88 (Feb, 2016) 015004

    2016

  52. [52]

    Big-bang nucleosynthesis and hadronic decay of long-lived massive particles,

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, and T. Moroi, “Big-bang nucleosynthesis and hadronic decay of long-lived massive particles,”Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 083502, arXiv:astro-ph/0408426v2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  53. [53]

    Big bang nucleosynthesis constraints on hadronically and electromagnetically decaying relic neutral particles,

    K. Jedamzik, “Big bang nucleosynthesis constraints on hadronically and electromagnetically decaying relic neutral particles,”Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 103509, arXiv:hep-ph/0604251

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  54. [54]

    Lyman-α constraints on freeze-in and superWIMPs,

    J. Decant, J. Heisig, D. Hooper, and L. Lopez-Honorez, “Lyman-α constraints on freeze-in and superWIMPs,” JCAP 03 (2022) 041, arXiv:2111.09321 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Warm dark matter as a solution to the small scale crisis: New constraints from high redshift Lyman-α forest data,

    M. Viel, G. D. Becker, J. S. Bolton, and M. G. Haehnelt, “Warm dark matter as a solution to the small scale crisis: New constraints from high redshift Lyman-α forest data,” Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 043502, arXiv:1306.2314 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  56. [56]

    New constraints on the free-streaming of warm dark matter from intermediate and small scale Lyman-α forest data,

    V. Iršič, M. Viel,et al., “New constraints on the free-streaming of warm dark matter from intermediate and small scale Lyman-α forest data,” Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 023522, arXiv:1702.01764

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    Minimal model of fermion FIMP dark matter,

    C. E. Yaguna and Ó. Zapata, “Minimal model of fermion FIMP dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 015002

    2024

  58. [58]

    micrOMEGAs 6.0: N-component dark matter,

    G. Alguero, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, S. Chakraborti, A. Goudelis, S. Kraml, A. Mjallal, and A. Pukhov, “micrOMEGAs 6.0: N-component dark matter,”Comput. Phys. Commun.299 (2024) 109133, arXiv:2312.14894 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Two Component Feebly Interacting Massive Particle (FIMP) dark matter,

    M. Pandey, D. Majumdar, and K. P. Modak, “Two Component Feebly Interacting Massive Particle (FIMP) dark matter,”JCAP 06 (2018) 023

    2018

  60. [60]

    The singlet scalar as FIMP dark matter,

    C. E. Yaguna, “The singlet scalar as FIMP dark matter,”JHEP 08 (2011) 060, arXiv:1105.1654 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  61. [61]

    Status of the scalar singlet dark matter model,

    P. Athron, C. Balázs, T. Bringmann, A. Buckley, M. Chrzaszcz, J. Conrad,et al., “Status of the scalar singlet dark matter model,”Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 568, arXiv:1705.07931 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    Axion and FIMP dark matter in aU (1) extension of the standard model,

    L. Covi and S. Khan, “Axion and FIMP dark matter in aU (1) extension of the standard model,”JCAP 09 (2022) 064, arXiv:2205.10150 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    Superweakly Interacting Massive Particles,

    J. L. Feng, A. Rajaraman, and F. Takayama, “Superweakly Interacting Massive Particles,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 011302, arXiv:hep-ph/0302215

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  64. [64]

    Superweakly interacting massive particle dark matter signals from the early universe,

    J. L. Feng, A. Rajaraman, and F. Takayama, “Superweakly interacting massive particle dark matter signals from the early universe,”Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 063504

    2003