pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.09998 · v1 · pith:LPB5OK67new · submitted 2026-06-08 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.HE

Constraints and Projections for Millicharged Dark Matter in the Sun with Water Cherenkov Neutrino Detectors

Thong T.Q. Nguyen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 15:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.HE
keywords millicharged dark mattersolar capturedark matter annihilationneutrino detectorsSuper-KamiokandeHyper-Kamiokandefractional abundance
0
0 comments X

The pith

Super-Kamiokande and Hyper-Kamiokande can constrain millicharged dark matter at 5-28 GeV masses down to fractional abundances of 5×10^{-6}.

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

This paper proposes using the lower energy threshold of water Cherenkov detectors to search for neutrinos from millicharged dark matter captured and annihilating in the Sun. Super-Kamiokande can reach previously unexplored parameter space for masses between 5 and 28 GeV at a fractional abundance of 10^{-4.5}. Hyper-Kamiokande is projected to improve these bounds and reach abundances as low as about 5×10^{-6}. A reader would care because this extends tests of a motivated dark matter candidate into regimes where direct detection experiments lose sensitivity and complements higher-mass searches with IceCube.

Core claim

The paper establishes that the lower energy threshold of water Cherenkov detectors makes Super-Kamiokande and Hyper-Kamiokande sensitive to neutrinos from the annihilation of lighter millicharged dark matter in the Sun, allowing Super-Kamiokande to constrain new parameter space at m_χ=5-28 GeV for f_χ=10^{-4.5} while Hyper-Kamiokande reaches f_χ≃5×10^{-6}.

What carries the argument

Neutrino signals from solar capture and annihilation of millicharged dark matter, detected via the lower energy threshold of water Cherenkov detectors.

If this is right

  • Super-Kamiokande can set new limits on millicharged dark matter in a mass range inaccessible to IceCube.
  • Hyper-Kamiokande extends sensitivity to fractional abundances nearly an order of magnitude below current IceCube limits.
  • The approach complements high-mass constraints from IceCube with reach to lower masses.
  • Millicharged dark matter can be tested at small abundances where terrestrial experiments lose sensitivity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Combining data across IceCube, Super-Kamiokande, and Hyper-Kamiokande could cover a continuous mass range for millicharged dark matter.
  • The same solar-capture method might apply to other hidden-sector particles that produce neutrinos upon annihilation.
  • Future refinements in solar capture modeling could push the reachable fractional abundances even lower.

Load-bearing premise

Neutrino event rates and backgrounds in Super-Kamiokande and Hyper-Kamiokande are assumed to allow the stated sensitivity to the annihilation signals.

What would settle it

A detailed calculation or measurement showing that the solar capture rate for millicharged particles or the detector response yields fewer events than required for the projected sensitivity would falsify the constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.09998 by Thong T.Q. Nguyen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Millicharged DM with a benchmark mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Solar neutrino constraints for millicharged DM annihilation to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Water Cherenkov detector sensitivities for strongly-coupled millicharged DM for the small fraction of DM abundance, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Millicharged particles are well-motivated dark matter candidates that have been extensively investigated in terrestrial experiments. Recent studies proposed using the IceCube Neutrino Observatory to search for high-energy neutrinos produced by the capture and annihilation of millicharged dark matter in the Sun, deriving new constraints in the strong interaction regime where the millicharge is $q_\chi \sim 10^{-3}$-$10^{-2}$, which extend to small fractional abundances where all existing constraints lose sensitivity. In this work, I point out that the lower energy threshold of water Cherenkov detectors makes Super-Kamiokande and the future Hyper-Kamiokande sensitive to neutrinos from the annihilation of lighter millicharged dark matter, complementing the high-mass reach of IceCube. I find that Super-Kamiokande can constrain previously unexplored parameter space at $m_{\chi}=5$-28 GeV for dark matter fraction of $f_{\chi}=10^{-4.5}$, while Hyper-Kamiokande can improve these constraints and will be sensitive to fractional abundances as small as $f_{\chi}\simeq 5\times 10^{-6}$, nearly an order of magnitude below current IceCube limits.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the lower energy thresholds of water Cherenkov detectors allow Super-Kamiokande and Hyper-Kamiokande to constrain millicharged dark matter (m_χ = 5-28 GeV) via solar capture and annihilation neutrinos at fractional abundances f_χ = 10^{-4.5} (SK) and down to ≃5×10^{-6} (HK), extending beyond IceCube's high-mass reach and filling gaps left by terrestrial experiments.

Significance. If the central projections hold after validation of the capture-annihilation equilibrium, the work would provide a concrete, falsifiable extension of neutrino-telescope constraints into the sub-30 GeV millicharged regime at small f_χ, where direct-detection and collider bounds weaken. It correctly exploits the complementarity between IceCube and lower-threshold detectors and employs standard solar-capture formalism.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3 and §4] §3 (Capture and Annihilation Rates) and the sensitivity projections in §4: the quoted limits assume the neutrino flux equals C/2, which requires equilibrium (τ_ann ≪ 4.5 Gyr). For q_χ ∼ 10^{-3} the electromagnetic ⟨σv⟩ ∝ q_χ^4 α^2 / m_χ^2 yields ⟨σv⟩ ≲ 10^{-40} cm³ s^{-1}, placing the system far from equilibrium and suppressing the rate by an extra factor ∝ ⟨σv⟩. No explicit check or additional annihilation channel is shown to restore equilibrium at the benchmark points.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 2 and §4] Figure 2 caption and §4 text: the energy threshold values used for SK and HK event selection should be stated explicitly with references to the detector papers.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states the f_χ reach but does not mention the equilibrium assumption or the annihilation cross-section scaling; a one-sentence qualifier would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and for highlighting the important issue of capture-annihilation equilibrium. We address this concern directly below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 and §4] §3 (Capture and Annihilation Rates) and the sensitivity projections in §4: the quoted limits assume the neutrino flux equals C/2, which requires equilibrium (τ_ann ≪ 4.5 Gyr). For q_χ ∼ 10^{-3} the electromagnetic ⟨σv⟩ ∝ q_χ^4 α^2 / m_χ^2 yields ⟨σv⟩ ≲ 10^{-40} cm³ s^{-1}, placing the system far from equilibrium and suppressing the rate by an extra factor ∝ ⟨σv⟩. No explicit check or additional annihilation channel is shown to restore equilibrium at the benchmark points.

    Authors: We agree that the equilibrium assumption requires explicit verification and that the purely electromagnetic annihilation cross section for q_χ ∼ 10^{-3} is too small to reach equilibrium within the solar lifetime. The original manuscript adopted the standard C/2 flux assumption common to solar DM neutrino searches without performing this check for the millicharged case. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit calculation of τ_ann at the benchmark points (m_χ = 5–28 GeV, q_χ = 10^{-3}–10^{-2}, f_χ = 10^{-4.5}–5×10^{-6}). We will also discuss possible additional annihilation channels (e.g., via a kinetically mixed dark photon or other portals) that could increase ⟨σv⟩ and restore equilibrium; if such channels are not assumed, we will instead quote the suppressed flux ∝ C × (⟨σv⟩ t_⊙). This revision will make the projections conditional on the annihilation mechanism and improve the paper’s rigor. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; standard forward calculation from capture/annihilation models

full rationale

The abstract and provided context describe a forward projection of neutrino signals from solar capture and annihilation of millicharged DM, using established capture rate formulas and detector thresholds. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted input from the same dataset, no self-citation chain justifies a uniqueness claim, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work by the same author. The sensitivity claims (f_χ = 10^{-4.5} for SK, 5×10^{-6} for HK) follow from applying standard DM solar physics to new detector energy ranges, without re-deriving or renaming the input quantities. This matches the default expectation of a non-circular paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review prevents identification of specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; no numerical fits or new postulated particles are described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5745 in / 1124 out tokens · 22818 ms · 2026-06-27T15:38:41.329218+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

139 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 045002 (2018), arXiv:1605.04909 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Bertone, D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Bertone and T

    G. Bertone and T. Tait, M. P., Nature562, 51 (2018), arXiv:1810.01668 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Cirelli, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Berlin, J

    A. Berlin, J. A. Dror, X. Gan, and J. T. Ruderman, JHEP05, 046 (2023), arXiv:2211.05139 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Goldberg and L

    H. Goldberg and L. J. Hall, Phys. Lett. B174, 151 (1986)

    1986

  7. [7]

    J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat, H. Tu, and H.-B. Yu, JCAP 07, 004 (2009), arXiv:0905.3039 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    De Rujula, S

    A. De Rujula, S. L. Glashow, and U. Sarid, Nucl. Phys. B333, 173 (1990)

    1990

  9. [9]

    A. Haas, C. S. Hill, E. Izaguirre, and I. Yavin, Phys. Lett. B746, 117 (2015), arXiv:1410.6816 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Izaguirre and I

    E. Izaguirre and I. Yavin, Phys. Rev. D92, 035014 (2015), arXiv:1506.04760 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Magill, R

    G. Magill, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov, and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 071801 (2019), arXiv:1806.03310 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    K. J. Kelly and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D100, 015043 (2019), arXiv:1812.03998 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Acciarriet al.(ArgoNeuT), Phys

    R. Acciarriet al.(ArgoNeuT), Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 10 131801 (2020), arXiv:1911.07996 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Harnik, Z

    R. Harnik, Z. Liu, and O. Palamara, JHEP07, 170 (2019), arXiv:1902.03246 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Perezet al.(Oscura), JHEP02, 072 (2024), arXiv:2304.08625 [hep-ex]

    S. Perezet al.(Oscura), JHEP02, 072 (2024), arXiv:2304.08625 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Plestid, V

    R. Plestid, V. Takhistov, Y.-D. Tsai, T. Bringmann, A. Kusenko, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D102, 115032 (2020), arXiv:2002.11732 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    I. M. Bloch, A. Caputo, R. Essig, D. Redigolo, M. Shola- purkar, and T. Volansky, JHEP01, 178 (2021), arXiv:2006.14521 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Foroughi-Abari, F

    S. Foroughi-Abari, F. Kling, and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D104, 035014 (2021), arXiv:2010.07941 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Harnik, R

    R. Harnik, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov, and H. Ramani, Phys. Rev. D103, 075029 (2021), arXiv:2010.11190 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Marocco and S

    G. Marocco and S. Sarkar, SciPost Phys.10, 043 (2021), arXiv:2011.08153 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Berlin, R

    A. Berlin, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, and J. I. Radkovski, JHEP08, 017 (2023), arXiv:2305.05684 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    C.-R. Chen, B. H. Nhung, and C. S. Nugroho, Phys. Lett. B839, 137764 (2023), arXiv:2212.13017 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Budker, P

    D. Budker, P. W. Graham, H. Ramani, F. Schmidt- Kaler, C. Smorra, and S. Ulmer, PRX Quantum3, 010330 (2022), arXiv:2108.05283 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    C. A. Arg¨ uelles Delgado, K. J. Kelly, and V. Mu˜ noz Al- bornoz, JHEP11, 099 (2021), arXiv:2104.13924 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    G. Afek, F. Monteiro, J. Wang, B. Siegel, S. Ghosh, and D. C. Moore, Phys. Rev. D104, 012004 (2021), arXiv:2012.08169 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Berlin, Z

    A. Berlin, Z. Bogorad, P. W. Graham, and H. Ramani, (2025), arXiv:2510.25834 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Berlin, Z

    A. Berlin, Z. Bogorad, P. W. Graham, and H. Ramani, (2025), arXiv:2510.25825 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Berlin, S

    A. Berlin, S. Rajendran, H. Ramani, and E. H. Tanin, JHEP04, 198 (2025), arXiv:2412.03643 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Berlin, R

    A. Berlin, R. Harnik, Y.-Y. Li, and B. Xu, (2024), arXiv:2404.16094 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Berlin and K

    A. Berlin and K. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D105, 095012 (2022), arXiv:2111.01796 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Berlin and A

    A. Berlin and A. Hook, Phys. Rev. D102, 035010 (2020), arXiv:2001.02679 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Prabhu and C

    A. Prabhu and C. Blanco, Phys. Rev. D108, 035035 (2023), arXiv:2211.05787 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    P. Du, R. Essig, B. J. Rauscher, and H. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 051002 (2025), arXiv:2412.13131 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Essig, P

    R. Essig, P. Li, Z. Liu, M. McDuffie, R. Plestid, and H. Xu, JHEP04, 057 (2025), arXiv:2412.09652 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    E. D. Kovetz, V. Poulin, V. Gluscevic, K. K. Boddy, R. Barkana, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D98, 103529 (2018), arXiv:1807.11482 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    de Putter, O

    R. de Putter, O. Dor´ e, J. Gleyzes, D. Green, and J. Meyers, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 041301 (2019), arXiv:1805.11616 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    J. B. Mu˜ noz and A. Loeb, Nature557, 684 (2018), arXiv:1802.10094 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Creque-Sarbinowski, L

    C. Creque-Sarbinowski, L. Ji, E. D. Kovetz, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D100, 023528 (2019), arXiv:1903.09154 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Stebbins and G

    A. Stebbins and G. Krnjaic, JCAP12, 003 (2019), arXiv:1908.05275 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    J. Rich, R. Rocchia, and M. Spiro, Phys. Lett. B194, 173 (1987)

    1987

  41. [41]

    A. L. Erickcek, P. J. Steinhardt, D. McCammon, and P. C. McGuire, Phys. Rev. D76, 042007 (2007), arXiv:0704.0794 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  42. [42]

    Emken, R

    T. Emken, R. Essig, C. Kouvaris, and M. Sholapurkar, JCAP09, 070 (2019), arXiv:1905.06348 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. D87, 092008 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 099903 (2022)], arXiv:1210.2311 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  44. [44]

    Davidson, S

    S. Davidson, S. Hannestad, and G. Raffelt, JHEP05, 003 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0001179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  45. [45]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), JHEP07, 122 (2013), [Er- ratum: JHEP 11, 149 (2022)], arXiv:1305.0491 [hep-ex]

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), JHEP07, 122 (2013), [Er- ratum: JHEP 11, 149 (2022)], arXiv:1305.0491 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  46. [46]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 131802 (2025), arXiv:2402.09932 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Berlin and D

    A. Berlin and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D110, 075018 (2024), arXiv:2407.04768 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Phys

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Phys. Rev. D105, 062004 (2022), arXiv:2111.09970 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    The Dark Photon

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi, (2020), 10.1007/978-3-030-62519-1, arXiv:2005.01515 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62519-1 2020

  50. [50]

    Fayet, Nucl

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

    1981

  51. [51]

    Holdom, Phys

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

    1986

  52. [52]

    Cohen, D

    T. Cohen, D. J. Phalen, A. Pierce, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D82, 056001 (2010), arXiv:1005.1655 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [53]

    Baumgart, C

    M. Baumgart, C. Cheung, J. T. Ruderman, L.-T. Wang, and I. Yavin, JHEP04, 014 (2009), arXiv:0901.0283 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  54. [54]

    S. L. Dubovsky, D. S. Gorbunov, and G. I. Rubtsov, JETP Lett.79, 1 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  55. [55]

    E. D. Kovetz, I. Cholis, and D. E. Kaplan, Phys. Rev. D99, 123511 (2019), arXiv:1809.01139 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    M. A. Buen-Abad, R. Essig, D. McKeen, and Y.-M. Zhong, Phys. Rept.961, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.12377 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Griest and M

    K. Griest and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 615 (1990)

    1990

  58. [58]

    M. S. Mahdawi and G. R. Farrar, JCAP10, 007 (2018), arXiv:1804.03073 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    Blanco, I

    C. Blanco, I. Harris, Y. Kahn, and A. Prabhu, Phys. Rev. D110, 035006 (2024), arXiv:2311.00740 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    W. H. Press and D. N. Spergel, Astrophys. J.296, 679 (1985)

    1985

  61. [61]

    Faulkner and R

    J. Faulkner and R. L. Gilliland, Astrophys. J.299, 994 (1985)

    1985

  62. [62]

    J. Silk, K. A. Olive, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 257 (1985)

    1985

  63. [63]

    Srednicki, K

    M. Srednicki, K. A. Olive, and J. Silk, Nucl. Phys. B 279, 804 (1987)

    1987

  64. [64]

    T. K. Gaisser, G. Steigman, and S. Tilav, Phys. Rev. D34, 2206 (1986)

    1986

  65. [65]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), (2025), arXiv:2507.08457 [hep-ex]

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), (2025), arXiv:2507.08457 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Hooper and F

    D. Hooper and F. Vassallo, Phys. Rev. D112, 035014 (2025), arXiv:2505.06734 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Adri´ an-Mart´ ınezet al.(ANTARES), JCAP05, 016 (2016), arXiv:1602.07000 [hep-ex]

    S. Adri´ an-Mart´ ınezet al.(ANTARES), JCAP05, 016 (2016), arXiv:1602.07000 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  68. [68]

    Widmark, JCAP05, 046 (2017), arXiv:1703.06878 [hep-ph]

    A. Widmark, JCAP05, 046 (2017), arXiv:1703.06878 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  69. [69]

    Catena and A

    R. Catena and A. Widmark, JCAP12, 016 (2016), 11 arXiv:1609.04825 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  70. [70]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), JCAP04, 022 (2016), arXiv:1601.00653 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  71. [71]

    J. F. Acevedo, J. Bramante, A. Goodman, J. Kopp, and T. Opferkuch, JCAP04, 026 (2021), arXiv:2012.09176 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    K.-W. Ng, K. A. Olive, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B188, 138 (1987)

    1987

  73. [73]

    Krishna, R

    D. Krishna, R. Sherpa, A. K. Saha, T. N. Maity, R. Laha, and N. Raj, (2025), arXiv:2503.07713 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    T. N. Maity, A. K. Saha, S. Mondal, and R. Laha, Phys. Rev. D112, 023025 (2025), arXiv:2308.12336 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    N. F. Bell, M. J. Dolan, and S. Robles, JCAP11, 004 (2021), arXiv:2107.04216 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    N. F. Bell and K. Petraki, JCAP04, 003 (2011), arXiv:1102.2958 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  77. [77]

    N. F. Bell, A. J. Brennan, and T. D. Jacques, JCAP 10, 045 (2012), arXiv:1206.2977 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  78. [78]

    J. Kopp, V. Niro, T. Schwetz, and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D80, 083502 (2009), arXiv:0907.3159 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  79. [79]

    Choiet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys

    K. Choiet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 141301 (2015), arXiv:1503.04858 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  80. [80]

    R. K. Leane, K. C. Y. Ng, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D95, 123016 (2017), arXiv:1703.04629 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.