pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20385 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Prospects of boosted magnetic dipole inelastic fermion dark matter at ILC-BDX

I. V. Voronchikhin , D. V. Kirpichnikov
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 00:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords inelastic dark mattermagnetic dipole operatorILC-BDXbeam dumpboosted dark matterfermionic dark matterdark matter production
0
0 comments X

The pith

The ILC-BDX beam-dump experiment can probe inelastic fermionic dark matter with an off-diagonal magnetic dipole coupling over relevant parameter space.

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

The paper calculates how electrons hitting a target produce pairs of dark matter particles that differ slightly in mass, with the interaction occurring through a magnetic dipole operator that flips between the two states. These boosted dark matter particles then travel to a downstream detector and scatter off electrons, producing a measurable signal. By considering two small mass differences motivated by early-universe thermal production, the analysis derives projected exclusion limits for one and ten years of running at the stated electron-on-target rate. A sympathetic reader would care because this channel offers a way to test dark matter models that evade many conventional searches due to the inelasticity requirement.

Core claim

We compute the production rate of dark matter states in the bremsstrahlung-like process e^{-} N → e^{-} N γ* (→ χ_{1} χ̄_{0}) induced by high-energy electrons scattering on target nuclei. The resulting boosted dark matter fluxes are propagated to the detector where signal events arise from scattering off detector electrons. The projected exclusion limits for one and ten years of data taking with 4.0 × 10^{21} electrons on target per year show that ILC-BDX can probe inelastic magnetic-dipole dark matter over a phenomenologically relevant region of parameter space for benchmark relative mass splittings Δ = 0.05 and Δ = 0.001.

What carries the argument

The off-diagonal magnetic dipole operator that couples the two dark matter states to the photon, enabling both production via electron-nucleus bremsstrahlung and detection via electron scattering.

Load-bearing premise

Backgrounds can be suppressed sufficiently and the boosted dark matter signal remains observable at the stated electron-on-target rate of 4.0 × 10^{21} per year.

What would settle it

No observed excess events in the ILC-BDX detector after ten years of running at 4.0 × 10^{21} electrons on target per year would exclude the predicted signal rates for the considered dipole strengths and mass splittings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20385 by D. V. Kirpichnikov, I. V. Voronchikhin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Feynman diagrams illustrating the iDM processes of interest: (a) bremsstrahlung-like production of iDM via an off [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Differential cross section of process ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we investigate the projected sensitivity of the Beam-Dump eXperiment at the International Linear Collider (ILC-BDX) to inelastic fermionic dark matter coupled to the Standard Model photon through an off-diagonal magnetic dipole operator. We compute the production rate of dark matter states in the bremsstrahlung like process $e^- N \to e^- N \gamma^* (\to \chi_{1} \bar{\chi}_0)$, induced by the scattering of high-energy electrons on target nuclei. The resulting boosted dark matter fluxes are then propagated to the detector, where the signal events arise from scattering off detector electrons. The projected exclusion limits are derived using the expected numbers of electrons on target (this implies a typical rate of $4.0~\times~10^{21}/\mbox{year}$) corresponding to 1 year and 10 years of data taking. To characterize the impact of inelasticity, we consider two benchmark relative mass splittings, $\Delta=0.05$ and $\Delta=0.001$, motivated by thermal dark matter scenarios. Our results show that ILC-BDX can probe inelastic magnetic-dipole dark matter over a phenomenologically relevant region of parameter space.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper computes the production of boosted inelastic fermionic dark matter states χ₁ and χ₀ via off-diagonal magnetic dipole transitions in electron-nucleus bremsstrahlung-like scattering at the ILC beam dump, propagates the resulting flux to a downstream detector, and derives projected exclusion limits on the dipole coupling strength for two benchmark mass splittings (Δ = 0.05 and Δ = 0.001) using nominal exposures of 4.0 × 10²¹ electrons on target per year for 1 and 10 years of running. The central claim is that ILC-BDX can probe a phenomenologically relevant region of parameter space for this DM model.

Significance. If the background-suppression assumptions hold, the work would furnish concrete sensitivity projections for a new inelastic DM search channel at a future linear-collider beam-dump facility, complementing existing direct-detection and collider bounds on magnetic-dipole operators. The calculation of the production cross section and boosted flux propagation is a standard but useful exercise; the paper does not, however, supply machine-checked proofs, fully reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations that would strengthen its technical contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and projected-limits section] The projected limits rest on the unverified premise that residual backgrounds (beam-related, cosmic, and detector) can be suppressed sufficiently for the inelastic DM-electron scattering signal to be observable at the quoted 4.0 × 10²¹ eot/yr exposure. No quantitative background model, rejection efficiencies after cuts, or Monte Carlo validation is presented; the inelastic kinematics impose an energy threshold that further reduces both signal and the effective background rejection, yet this is not folded into any background estimate. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that ILC-BDX can probe the stated parameter space.
  2. [Benchmark selection and results] The two benchmark values Δ = 0.05 and Δ = 0.001 are motivated by thermal DM scenarios, but the paper does not demonstrate how the derived limits translate to the full (m_χ, Δ, g) parameter space or whether the sensitivity degrades continuously between these points; the exclusion contours therefore remain tied to these discrete choices rather than providing a general mapping.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] Notation for the dark-matter states (χ₁, χ₀) and the relative mass splitting Δ should be defined explicitly at first use rather than introduced only in the abstract.
  2. [Experimental setup] The electron-on-target rate is given as 4.0 × 10²¹ per year; the corresponding integrated luminosity or running time assumptions for the 1-year and 10-year projections should be stated explicitly in a dedicated table or paragraph.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity and transparency where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and projected-limits section] The projected limits rest on the unverified premise that residual backgrounds (beam-related, cosmic, and detector) can be suppressed sufficiently for the inelastic DM-electron scattering signal to be observable at the quoted 4.0 × 10²¹ eot/yr exposure. No quantitative background model, rejection efficiencies after cuts, or Monte Carlo validation is presented; the inelastic kinematics impose an energy threshold that further reduces both signal and the effective background rejection, yet this is not folded into any background estimate. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that ILC-BDX can probe the stated parameter space.

    Authors: We agree that the projections rely on the assumption of sufficient background suppression and that no quantitative background model or Monte Carlo validation is included. The manuscript is a sensitivity study focused on signal production and detection rates rather than a full experimental proposal. In the revised version, we will add explicit discussion in the projected-limits section stating the background-suppression assumptions, noting the impact of the inelastic energy threshold on both signal and potential backgrounds, and clarifying that these are indicative projections pending dedicated background studies. This makes the load-bearing assumption more transparent without altering the central results. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Benchmark selection and results] The two benchmark values Δ = 0.05 and Δ = 0.001 are motivated by thermal DM scenarios, but the paper does not demonstrate how the derived limits translate to the full (m_χ, Δ, g) parameter space or whether the sensitivity degrades continuously between these points; the exclusion contours therefore remain tied to these discrete choices rather than providing a general mapping.

    Authors: The benchmarks were chosen to illustrate sensitivity in two distinct inelastic regimes motivated by thermal relic calculations. The underlying production cross section, flux, and detection rate depend smoothly on Δ, so the sensitivity interpolates continuously between the points. In the revised manuscript we will add explanatory text on this dependence and include a supplementary figure or statement showing how the exclusion limits vary with Δ at fixed masses, thereby providing a clearer mapping to the broader parameter space. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A complete quantitative background model with Monte Carlo validation and rejection efficiencies for the ILC-BDX setup cannot be provided within the scope of this theoretical sensitivity paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; projections use external exposure and standard rates

full rationale

The paper computes DM production via bremsstrahlung-like eN scattering and subsequent DM-electron scattering using standard QED matrix elements and kinematics for given mass splittings. Projected limits are obtained by scaling the computed signal rate to the nominal ILC electron-on-target exposure of 4e21/yr (1 and 10 years). No parameters are fitted inside the paper and then re-used as predictions; no self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems; the derivation chain remains independent of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed interaction operator, standard particle-physics cross-section formulas, and the experimental luminosity figure; no new free parameters are fitted to data within the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • relative mass splitting Delta = 0.05 and 0.001
    Benchmark values 0.05 and 0.001 chosen to represent thermal dark matter scenarios
  • electrons on target per year = 4.0e21
    Assumed rate of 4.0e21 used to scale exposure for 1- and 10-year runs
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Dark matter couples to the SM photon via an off-diagonal magnetic dipole operator
    This defines the interaction used for production and detection calculations
  • domain assumption Signal arises from boosted dark matter scattering off detector electrons
    Standard detection channel assumed for beam-dump experiments
invented entities (1)
  • inelastic fermionic dark matter states chi1 and chi0 no independent evidence
    purpose: To realize the mass splitting and inelastic scattering
    Standard model-building choice in DM phenomenology; no independent evidence supplied in the paper

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5519 in / 1329 out tokens · 30116 ms · 2026-05-10T00:35:01.504684+00:00 · methodology

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

42 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Summary Re- port of the Physics Beyond Colliders Study at CERN,

    R. Alemany Fern´ andezet al.(PBC), “Summary Re- port of the Physics Beyond Colliders Study at CERN,” (2025), arXiv:2505.00947 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Cosmic abun- dances of stable particles: Improved analysis,

    Paolo Gondolo and Graciela Gelmini, “Cosmic abun- dances of stable particles: Improved analysis,” Nucl. Phys. B360, 145–179 (1991)

    1991

  4. [4]

    Direct-detection constraints on inelastic dark matter with a scalar mediator

    I. V. Voronchikhin and D. V. Kirpichnikov, “Direct- detection constraints on inelastic dark matter with a scalar mediator,” (2026), arXiv:2604.06929 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Scalar-Mediated Inelastic Dark Matter as a Solution to Small-Scale Structure Anomalies

    Zihan Wang, “Scalar-Mediated Inelastic Dark Matter as a Solution to Small-Scale Structure Anomalies,” (2025), arXiv:2512.18959 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Analyzing the Discovery Potential for Light Dark Matter,

    Eder Izaguirre, Gordan Krnjaic, Philip Schuster, and Natalia Toro, “Analyzing the Discovery Potential for Light Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 251301 (2015), arXiv:1505.00011 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Probing inelastic sub-GeV dark matter at the DUNE near detector

    Amalia Betancur, Gustavo Castrill´ on, and ´Oscar Za- pata, “Probing inelastic sub-GeV dark matter at the DUNE near detector,” (2026), arXiv:2604.15541 [hep- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Kang and H

    Yoo-Jin Kang and Hyun Min Lee, “Lightening Gravity- Mediated Dark Matter,” Eur. Phys. J. C80, 602 (2020), arXiv:2001.04868 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    The bremsstrahlung-like production of the massive spin-2 dark matter mediator,

    I. V. Voronchikhin and D. V. Kirpichnikov, “The bremsstrahlung-like production of the massive spin-2 dark matter mediator,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1110 (2025), arXiv:2412.10150 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Extend- ing the discovery potential for inelastic-dipole dark mat- ter with FASER,

    Keith R. Dienes, Jonathan L. Feng, Max Fieg, Fei Huang, Seung J. Lee, and Brooks Thomas, “Extend- ing the discovery potential for inelastic-dipole dark mat- ter with FASER,” Phys. Rev. D107, 115006 (2023), arXiv:2301.05252 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Looking forward to inelastic DM with electromagnetic form factors at FASER and beam dump experiments,

    Krzysztof Jod lowski, “Looking forward to inelastic DM with electromagnetic form factors at FASER and beam dump experiments,” Phys. Rev. D108, 115025 (2023), arXiv:2305.16781 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Kling, J.-L

    Felix Kling, Jui-Lin Kuo, Sebastian Trojanowski, and Yu-Dai Tsai, “FLArE up dark sectors with EM form fac- tors at the LHC forward physics facility,” Nucl. Phys. B 987, 116103 (2023), arXiv:2205.09137 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Light dark states with electromagnetic form factors,

    Xiaoyong Chu, Josef Pradler, and Lukas Semmelrock, “Light dark states with electromagnetic form factors,” Phys. Rev. D99, 015040 (2019), arXiv:1811.04095 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Inelastic dark matter at the Fermilab Short Baseline Neutrino Program,

    Brian Batell, Joshua Berger, Luc Darm´ e, and Claudia Frugiuele, “Inelastic dark matter at the Fermilab Short Baseline Neutrino Program,” Phys. Rev. D104, 075026 (2021), arXiv:2106.04584 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Two-component spinor techniques and Feyn- man rules for quantum field theory and supersymmetry,

    Herbi K. Dreiner, Howard E. Haber, and Stephen P. Martin, “Two-component spinor techniques and Feyn- man rules for quantum field theory and supersymmetry,” Phys. Rept.494, 1–196 (2010), arXiv:0812.1594 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2010

  16. [16]

    Magnetic Inelastic Dark Matter,

    Spencer Chang, Neal Weiner, and Itay Yavin, “Magnetic Inelastic Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D82, 125011 (2010), arXiv:1007.4200 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    Testing Light Dark Matter Coan- nihilation With Fixed-Target Experiments,

    Eder Izaguirre, Yonatan Kahn, Gordan Krnjaic, and Matthew Moschella, “Testing Light Dark Matter Coan- nihilation With Fixed-Target Experiments,” Phys. Rev. 6 D96, 055007 (2017), arXiv:1703.06881 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    Con- straining light thermal inelastic dark matter with NA64,

    Martina Mongillo, Asli Abdullahi, Benjamin Banto Oberhauser, Paolo Crivelli, Matheus Hostert, Daniele Massaro, Laura Molina Bueno, and Silvia Pascoli, “Con- straining light thermal inelastic dark matter with NA64,” Eur. Phys. J. C83, 391 (2023), arXiv:2302.05414 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Feng et al.,The Forward Physics Facility at the High-Luminosity LHC,J

    Jonathan L. Fenget al., “The Forward Physics Facility at the High-Luminosity LHC,” J. Phys. G50, 030501 (2023), arXiv:2203.05090 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Missing energy signatures of inelastic magnetic dipole DM at NA64e,

    Sergei N. Gninenko, N. V. Krasnikov, I. V. Voronchikhin, and D. V. Kirpichnikov, “Missing energy signatures of inelastic magnetic dipole DM at NA64e,” (2026), arXiv:2603.28278 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Probing the explanation of the muon (g-2) anomaly and thermal light dark matter with the semi-visible dark photon channel,

    C. Cazzanigaet al.(NA64), “Probing the explanation of the muon (g-2) anomaly and thermal light dark matter with the semi-visible dark photon channel,” Eur. Phys. J. C81, 959 (2021), arXiv:2107.02021 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Examin- ing scalar portal inelastic dark matter with lepton fixed- target experiments,

    I. V. Voronchikhin and D. V. Kirpichnikov, “Examin- ing scalar portal inelastic dark matter with lepton fixed- target experiments,” Phys. Rev. D113, 015031 (2026), arXiv:2505.04290 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    On the physics potential of ILC and CLIC,

    Aleksander Filip Zarnecki (CLICdp, ILD concept group), “On the physics potential of ILC and CLIC,” PoS CORFU2019, 037 (2020), arXiv:2004.14628 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    New physics searches at the ILC positron and electron beam dumps,

    Kento Asai, Sho Iwamoto, Yasuhito Sakaki, and Daiki Ueda, “New physics searches at the ILC positron and electron beam dumps,” JHEP09, 183 (2021), arXiv:2105.13768 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    First evaluation of meson andτlepton spectra and search for heavy neutral leptons at ILC beam dump,

    Mihoko M. Nojiri, Yasuihito Sakaki, Kohsaku Tobioka, and Daiki Ueda, “First evaluation of meson andτlepton spectra and search for heavy neutral leptons at ILC beam dump,” JHEP12, 145 (2022), arXiv:2206.13523 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Sub-GeV dark mat- ter search at ILC beam dumps,

    Kento Asai, Sho Iwamoto, Maxim Perelstein, Ya- suhito Sakaki, and Daiki Ueda, “Sub-GeV dark mat- ter search at ILC beam dumps,” JHEP02, 129 (2024), arXiv:2301.03816 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Batell, R

    Brian Batell, Rouven Essig, and Ze’ev Surujon, “Strong Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Sectors from SLAC Beam Dump E137,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 171802 (2014), arXiv:1406.2698 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  28. [28]

    Fujiiet al., (2017), arXiv:1710.07621 [hep-ex]

    Keisuke Fujiiet al., “Physics Case for the 250 GeV Stage of the International Linear Collider,” (2017), arXiv:1710.07621 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    Collider

    Doojin Kim, Jong-Chul Park, and Seodong Shin, “Dark Matter “Collider” from Inelastic Boosted Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161801 (2017), arXiv:1612.06867 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    Agashe, Y

    Kaustubh Agashe, Yanou Cui, Lina Necib, and Jesse Thaler, “(In)direct Detection of Boosted Dark Matter,” JCAP10, 062 (2014), arXiv:1405.7370 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    CalcHEP 3.4 for collider physics within and beyond the Standard Model

    Alexander Belyaev, Neil D. Christensen, and Alexander Pukhov, “CalcHEP 3.4 for collider physics within and beyond the Standard Model,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1729–1769 (2013), arXiv:1207.6082 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    Con- straints on dark axion portal: missing energy and fermion EDMs,

    Sergei N. Gninenko, N. V. Krasnikov, Valery E. Lyubovitskij, Sergey Kuleshov, Alexey S. Zhevlakov, I. V. Voronchikhin, and D. V. Kirpichnikov, “Con- straints on dark axion portal: missing energy and fermion EDMs,” (2026), arXiv:2602.11405 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Probing millicharged particles with NA64µand LDMX,

    Sergei N. Gninenko, N. V. Krasnikov, Sergey Kuleshov, Valery E. Lyubovitskij, P. Crivelli, D. V. Kirpichnikov, L. Molina Bueno, Alexey S. Zhevlakov, H. Sieber, and I. V. Voronchikhin, “Probing millicharged particles with NA64µand LDMX,” Eur. Phys. J. C86, 140 (2026), arXiv:2505.04295 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Passage of millicharged par- ticles in the electron beam-dump: Refining constraints from SLACmQ and estimating sensitivity of NA64e,

    Nataliya Arefyeva, Sergei Gninenko, Dmitry Gorbunov, and Dmitry Kirpichnikov, “Passage of millicharged par- ticles in the electron beam-dump: Refining constraints from SLACmQ and estimating sensitivity of NA64e,” Phys. Rev. D106, 035029 (2022), arXiv:2204.03984 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Single photon and multiphoton events with missing energy ine +e− collisions at LEP,

    P. Achardet al.(L3), “Single photon and multiphoton events with missing energy ine +e− collisions at LEP,” Phys. Lett. B587, 16–32 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0402002

    work page arXiv 2004

  36. [36]

    Collider Con- straints on Dipole-Interacting Dark Matter,

    Jean-Francois Fortin and Tim M. P. Tait, “Collider Con- straints on Dipole-Interacting Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D85, 063506 (2012), arXiv:1103.3289 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2012

  37. [37]

    Search for Axion Like Par- ticle Production in 400-GeV Proton - Copper Interac- tions,

    F. Bergsmaet al.(CHARM), “Search for Axion Like Par- ticle Production in 400-GeV Proton - Copper Interac- tions,” Phys. Lett. B157, 458–462 (1985)

    1985

  38. [38]

    A Search for Decays of Heavy Neutrinos,

    F. Bergsmaet al.(CHARM), “A Search for Decays of Heavy Neutrinos,” Phys. Lett. B128, 361 (1983)

    1983

  39. [39]

    Light and Darkness: consistently coupling dark matter to photons via effective operators,

    Chiara Arina, Andrew Cheek, Ken Mimasu, and Luca Pagani, “Light and Darkness: consistently coupling dark matter to photons via effective operators,” Eur. Phys. J. C81, 223 (2021), arXiv:2005.12789 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Dis- covering Inelastic Thermal-Relic Dark Matter at Collid- ers,

    Eder Izaguirre, Gordan Krnjaic, and Brian Shuve, “Dis- covering Inelastic Thermal-Relic Dark Matter at Collid- ers,” Phys. Rev. D93, 063523 (2016), arXiv:1508.03050 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Schuster, N

    Philip Schuster, Natalia Toro, and Kevin Zhou, “Prob- ing invisible vector meson decays with the NA64 and LDMX experiments,” Phys. Rev. D105, 035036 (2022), arXiv:2112.02104 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Essig, P

    Rouven Essig, Peiran Li, Zhen Liu, Megan McDuffie, Ryan Plestid, and Hailin Xu, “Probing millicharged par- ticles at an electron beam dump with ultralow-threshold sensors,” JHEP04, 057 (2025), arXiv:2412.09652 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025