Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 65 references

The paper establishes that any weakly coupled scalar dark matter with the benchmark self-interaction cross-section must be lighter than about 0.3 GeV, and only about 26 MeV if it is a derivative-dominated pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson, using

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

2026-08-02 06:07 UTC pith:G4BEYWOZ

load-bearing objection A careful bootstrap bound on SIDM that is much stronger than Hui's 12 GeV, but the strength rides on a gap assumption that may not hold precisely where the bound saturates. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13141 v1 pith:G4BEYWOZ submitted 2026-07-14 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th

S-matrix bootstrap bounds on self-interacting dark matter

Qing Chen , Zhuo-Hui Wang , Shuang-Yong Zhou This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th
keywords self-interacting dark matterS-matrix bootstrappartial-wave unitarityfixed-t dispersion relationthreshold amplitudepseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosonweakly coupled EFTdark matter mass bound
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 claims that once dark-matter self-scattering is strong enough to shape galactic halos, the required low-energy amplitude cannot be arbitrarily large: analyticity, crossing symmetry, locality, and partial-wave unitarity place a sharp ceiling on the threshold amplitude of any weakly coupled scalar whose absorptive spectrum starts only above a cutoff Λ. For the benchmark cross-section σ_self = 10^(-24)(M/GeV) cm^2, the ceiling translates into M ≲ 0.29 GeV for a generic scalar, and into M ≲ 26 MeV for a derivative-dominated pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson with M^2/Λ^2 = 1/10, falling to the MeV range at stronger scale separation. If correct, this is a much tighter bound than the classic 12 GeV partial-wave-unitarity limit, because that limit allows strong coupling at threshold. It would mean that weakly coupled scalar self-interacting dark matter must be light, and that heavier candidates in this class need strong coupling or new degrees of freedom below Λ.

Core claim

Using a dispersive S-matrix bootstrap, the paper shows that the threshold amplitude M_thr = M(4M^2,0) of a weakly coupled scalar satisfying a fixed-t dispersion relation with absorptive part starting at Λ^2 obeys max|M_thr|/(4π)^2 ≈ 1 in the controlled EFT regime. Combined with the SIDM cross-section formula σ_self = |M_thr|^2/(128π M^2), this yields M ≲ 0.289 GeV κ^(-1/3) for a generic scalar, and about 0.34 GeV at M^2/Λ^2 = 1/10. For a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson, the additional null constraint f_0 = (4/3)M^4 f_2 makes the threshold amplitude soft, with max|M_thr|/(4π)^2 ≈ C(M/Λ)^4, giving M ≲ 26 MeV κ^(-1/3) for M^2/Λ^2 = 1/10.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fixed-t dispersion relation with a crossing-symmetric subtraction point, which expresses the real part of the scattering amplitude as a linear functional of the absorptive partial waves Im a_ℓ(µ) for µ ≥ Λ^2. The imaginary parts are parametrized with Legendre polynomials on a compactified variable, making the unitarity constraints and the optimization objective linear; the maximal threshold amplitude is then found by a semidefinite program over these coefficients. The pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone case adds the null condition f_0 = (4/3)M^4 f_2, which forces the leading threshold amplitude to vanish like M^4/Λ^4.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the dark matter being a weakly coupled EFT with no appreciable scattering-channel imaginary parts below the cutoff Λ; if loop corrections open significant imaginary parts at lower energies, the bounds weaken toward the 12 GeV limit.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop (or two-loop) absorptive parts of a weakly coupled scalar theory such as λφ^4 below Λ for couplings that reproduce σ_self = 10^(-24)(M/GeV) cm^2 at M = 1 GeV; if Im a_0(µ) is nonzero and sizeable for µ < Λ^2, the assumed gap is absent and the quoted bounds do not apply. Alternatively, exhibit an explicit weakly coupled scalar EFT with M > 0.3 GeV that satisfies fixed-t dispersion, crossing, and unitarity with the stated gap and the benchmark cross-section.

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

If this is right

  • Weakly coupled scalar self-interacting dark matter cannot exceed about 0.3 GeV for the benchmark cross-section, so heavier candidates must be strongly coupled at threshold or involve additional light states below Λ.
  • Pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone dark matter is forced to MeV-scale masses unless the hierarchy M/Λ is close to 1, making the scale separation the controlling parameter.
  • The bound is mildly sensitive to the astrophysical cross-section, scaling as M_max ∝ κ^(-1/3), so it holds across the usual SIDM range.
  • The same dispersive bootstrap can be applied to dark matter with spin, internal symmetry, or multi-channel systems, with comparable or stronger bounds expected.
  • The result cleanly separates weakly coupled SIDM from strongly coupled scenarios: strong coupling near threshold is the only way to evade the bound.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the 0.3 GeV ceiling is taken literally, the practical question shifts from whether self-interactions are allowed to whether any realistic model can maintain the assumed gap while simultaneously saturating the bootstrap envelope near the boundary.
  • A direct test would be to compute the one-loop absorptive part of a weakly coupled λφ^4 theory below Λ at the coupling levels implied by σ_self; a non-negligible low-energy imaginary part would mean the gap assumption fails and the bound moves toward 12 GeV.
  • The pNGB prediction of a (M/Λ)^4 suppression is a concrete scaling law that could be checked against explicit pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone models once their mass and self-interaction cross-section are specified.
  • The method's reliance on a gap could also be probed by comparing the bootstrap envelope with known weakly coupled UV completions; if any completion sits above the envelope, the boundary would need revision.

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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies a dispersive primal S-matrix bootstrap to scalar dark-matter self-scattering. Assuming that the absorptive spectrum starts only at a scale Λ² (“weakly coupled EFT below Λ”), the authors maximize the threshold amplitude |M(4M²,0)| subject to fixed-t dispersion relations, crossing symmetry, and partial-wave unitarity above Λ. For σ_self = 10^{-24}(M/GeV) cm², they obtain M ≲ 0.29 GeV κ^{-1/3} for a generic scalar and M ≲ 26 MeV κ^{-1/3} at M²/Λ² = 1/10 for a pNGB with the null constraint f_0 = (4/3)M⁴f_2. These are compared to Hui’s 12 GeV partial-wave-unitarity bound.

Significance. If the advertised assumptions are accepted, the paper would substantially sharpen existing SIDM mass constraints and would be of interest to both the SIDM and S-matrix bootstrap communities. The analytic matching leading to Eq. (14) is correct, Eq. (10) is arithmetically consistent with the σ_self benchmark, and the numerical implementation is described in enough detail (grids, cutoffs, solver) to be reconstructed. The central caveat is that the exact-gap condition is identified with weak coupling, but the extremal generic-scalar solution has |a_0| ≈ π, i.e. it is not weakly coupled where the bound is saturated. This must be addressed before the astrophysical claim is fully established.

major comments (1)
  1. [§2 (Eq. (2)); §“Generic weakly coupled scalar” (Eqs. (10)–(12))] The derivation assumes an exact gap Im a_ℓ(μ)=0 for μ<Λ². This is not a consequence of weak coupling: a scalar EFT has a two-particle cut at 4M², and elastic unitarity gives Im a_ℓ(μ)=ρ(μ)|a_ℓ(μ)|² there. At the claimed boundary, Eq. (11) sets |M_thr|/(4π)²≈1, i.e. |a_0|≈π, so loop corrections on this cut are O(1). The extremal solution therefore violates the weak-coupling premise exactly where the bound is quoted. The sub-Λ integrand omitted from Eq. (2) enters the s-wave threshold amplitude with a positive kernel, so the SDP may underestimate the maximal threshold amplitude of a genuine weakly coupled EFT; conversely, imposing |a_0|≤1 in Eq. (10) gives M≲0.14 GeV, undercutting the quoted 0.29 GeV as a weak-coupling statement. Please impose unitarity/perturbativity on 4M²<s<Λ² or explicitly restate the result as a bound on exact-gap amplitudes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] The phrase “weakly coupled EFT below Λ” is used to justify the exact gap, but no quantitative definition of weak coupling is given. At minimum, specify the criterion (e.g. |a_ℓ|≤1 or |M|/(4π)²≤1) and explain how the extremal solution at |a_0|≈π satisfies it.
  2. [§“Pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone scalar” (Eqs. (13)–(17))] The MeV-scale pNGB claim is conditional on the derivative-dominated regime in which the non-derivative ϕ⁴ term is absent or suppressed by F≫Λ²/M. This caveat is stated in the text but not in the abstract or summary; please carry it through the headline claims.
  3. [Fig. 1 and numerical section] The text asserts convergence in ℓ_max and s_max but only kmax-dependence is shown. A small table or additional panel documenting ℓ_max and s_max convergence would make the claimed cutoff-independence easier to verify.
  4. [Eq. (15)] The numerical envelope for the pNGB case corresponds to C_pNGB≈2.7 at M²/Λ²=1/10; calling C_pNGB=O(1) in Eq. (15) is loose. State the fitted value and range of validity of the power law.
  5. [References] Several references lack complete publication data (e.g. [19], [20], [28], [45], [49], [63] have no year or volume in the text). Please complete the bibliographic entries.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No definitional circularity in the SDP bound; one load-bearing self-citation ([19]) supplies the numerical machinery.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [S-matrix bootstrap setup, first paragraph (after Eq. (1)); method used in Eqs. (2)-(6) and Fig. 1]
    "We use the recently developed primal bootstrap method based on fixed-t dispersion relations [19]. Unlike earlier primal implementations [20], this method only uses rigorously established Martin analyticity, and constructs allowed amplitudes in the physical region."

    The decisive numerical premise max|M_thr|/(4π)^2≈1 is produced by the SDP/dispersive construction of [19], whose authors overlap with the present paper (Z.-H. Wang and S.-Y. Zhou). The Letter does not re-derive the method, release code, or benchmark it against a known amplitude; the 'rigorously established Martin analyticity' claim is asserted via the same-group citation. Thus the central computational step rests on an unverified self-citation rather than on a self-contained derivation. This is not a reduction of the final mass bound to its input (the SIDM application is new), but it is a load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

Walking the derivation: Eq. (2) states the gap assumption (Im a_l=0 below Λ²); Eq. (4) parametrizes absorptive data above Λ²; Eq. (5) imposes unitarity; the SDP maximizes M_thr (Eq. (6), Fig. 1). The astrophysical σ_self enters only in Eq. (10), after maximization, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The pNGB null constraint Eq. (14) is an explicit model input; the resulting M/Λ scaling and the 26 MeV bound are outputs of that assumption plus the optimization, not equivalent to the input by construction. The most important caveat is the exact gap Im a_l=0 for 4M²<µ<Λ², stated as 'the dispersive integral over dominant, unresolved absorptive data effectively starts at µ=Λ²'; this is an assumption, not a consequence of weak coupling (at saturation a₀≈π, perturbativity fails). That is a validity/applicability concern, not circularity. The only load-bearing self-citation is [19], which provides the bootstrap machinery; the central SIDM claim still has independent content, hence the moderate score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's inputs are mostly standard S-matrix axioms plus one scenario-defining assumption (the absorptive gap at Λ) and one subclass-specific null constraint (pNGB). The free parameters are the benchmark normalizations (κ, σ_self) and the fitted numerical coefficient C_pNGB; truncation choices are listed for completeness. No new entities are invented; Λ is a standard EFT cutoff and the pNGB is borrowed from the literature.

free parameters (3)
  • κ (observational spread of σ_self/M) = 0.1–10 (varied)
    Parametrizes the target σ_self = κ·10^{-24}(M/GeV) cm²; all quoted mass bounds carry κ^{-1/3} (Eq. 10), so the numbers quoted in Figs. 2–3 use κ=1.
  • C_pNGB (envelope coefficient) = O(1), effectively ~2.7 to give 26 MeV
    'The upper envelope is well described by max|M_thr|/(4π)² ≃ C_pNGB (M/Λ)⁴' (Eq. 15); the quoted 26 MeV at M²/Λ²=1/10 requires C^{2/3} ≈ 1.9, so the pNGB numbers inherit an O(1) fitted constant.
  • Numerical truncation parameters (ℓ_max, k_max, s_max, N_s, N_lin) = 36, 28, 16Λ², 299, 600
    Chosen for convergence; Fig. 1 shows k_max-dependence, and the paper states residual effects are below phenomenological uncertainty, but these choices set the precise quoted numbers.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Analyticity, crossing symmetry and the Froissart–Martin bound justify the twice-subtracted fixed-t dispersion relation (Eqs. 2–3).
    Inherited from axiomatic S-matrix theory and the method paper [19]; not proven in this Letter.
  • standard math Single-channel 2→2 partial-wave unitarity for identical scalars; only even ℓ; positivity matrix (Eq. 5).
    Standard elastic unitarity; assumes no other open channels contribute below Λ.
  • domain assumption Absorptive gap: Im a_ℓ(µ) = 0 for µ < Λ²; the dispersive integral effectively starts at Λ².
    Stated at the start of §2; the load-bearing input that raises the bound from 12 GeV to 0.3 GeV; accuracy unquantified and marginal at the saturation point.
  • domain assumption Weakly coupled EFT below Λ (heavy modes integrated out, no unresolved absorptive content).
    Abstract and §2: 'assuming only a weakly coupled EFT below a scale Λ'; combined with the gap axiom it defines the scenario.
  • domain assumption pNGB null constraint: f_0 − (4/3)M⁴ f_2 = 0 (no/suppressed φ⁴ interaction).
    Eq. (14), from matching the shift-symmetric (∂φ)⁴ amplitude; applies only to derivative-dominated pNGB models with F ≫ Λ²/M.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 179 in / 30934 out tokens · 332919 ms · 2026-08-02T06:07:33.430379+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Self-interacting dark matter turns the structure of galactic halos into a direct requirement on a low-energy scattering amplitude. We show that, for weakly coupled scalar dark matter, this requirement implies a much stronger mass bound on the dark matter particle than partial-wave unitarity alone. Using analyticity, crossing symmetry, locality and partial-wave unitarity, we compute the maximal allowed threshold amplitude with a dispersive primal S-matrix bootstrap, assuming only a weakly coupled EFT below a scale $\Lambda$ and allowing arbitrary UV particle content above $\Lambda$. For the benchmark self-interaction cross section $\sigma_{\rm self}=10^{-24}(M/\mathrm{GeV})\mathrm{cm}^2$, the mass of a generic weakly coupled scalar satisfies $M\lesssim 0.3\,\mathrm{GeV}$ in the controlled EFT regime. If dark matter is a derivative-dominated pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson, the mass bound is lowered to the MeV scale or below, depending on the hierarchy $M/\Lambda$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13141 by Qing Chen, Shuang-Yong Zhou, Zhuo-Hui Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Convergence for the threshold objective. The dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Bootstrap bound for the dark matter mass in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Bootstrap bound for the dark matter mass in pNGB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.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

65 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Moore, Nature370, 629 (1994)

    B. Moore, Nature370, 629 (1994)

    1994

  3. [3]

    R. A. Flores and J. R. Primack, Astrophys. J. Lett.427, L1 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9402004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  4. [4]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J.490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  5. [5]

    J. F. Navarro, A. Ludlow, V. Springel, J. Wang, M. Vo- gelsberger, S. D. M. White, A. Jenkins, C. S. Frenk, and A. Helmi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.402, 21 (2010), arXiv:0810.1522 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    W. J. G. de Blok, Adv. Astron.2010, 789293 (2010), arXiv:0910.3538 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys.55, 343 (2017), arXiv:1707.04256 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    L. V. Sales, A. Wetzel, and A. Fattahi, Nature Astron. 6, 897 (2022), arXiv:2206.05295 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    D. N. Spergel and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 3760 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9909386

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  10. [10]

    Adhikariet al., Rev

    S. Adhikariet al., Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 045004 (2025), arXiv:2207.10638 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    E. O. Nadler, D. Yang, and H.-B. Yu, Astrophys. J. Lett. 958, L39 (2023), arXiv:2306.01830 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    M. S. Fischer, H.-B. Yu, and K. Dolag, Astron. Astro- phys.703, A234 (2025), arXiv:2506.06269 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Yu, Phys

    H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 141001 (2026), arXiv:2510.11006 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Tulin, H.-B

    S. Tulin, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D87, 115007 (2013), arXiv:1302.3898 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    Kaplinghat, S

    M. Kaplinghat, S. Tulin, and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 041302 (2016), arXiv:1508.03339 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    Tulin and H.-B

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rept.730, 1 (2018), arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Hui, Phys

    L. Hui, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 3467 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0102349

    arXiv 2001

  18. [18]

    Griest and M

    K. Griest and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 615 (1990). 6

    1990

  19. [19]

    de Rham, A

    C. de Rham, A. J. Tolley, Z.-H. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, JHEP01, 027, arXiv:2506.22546 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees, and P. Vieira, JHEP12, 040, arXiv:1708.06765 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Guerrieri and A

    A. Guerrieri and A. Sever, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 251601 (2021), arXiv:2106.10257 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Adams, N

    A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi, JHEP10, 014, arXiv:hep-th/0602178

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    de Rham, S

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D96, 081702 (2017), arXiv:1702.06134 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    A. L. Guerrieri, J. Penedones, and P. Vieira, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 241604 (2019), arXiv:1810.12849 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Karateev, S

    D. Karateev, S. Kuhn, and J. Penedones, JHEP07, 035, arXiv:1912.08940 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  26. [26]

    Bellazzini, J

    B. Bellazzini, J. Elias Mir´ o, R. Rattazzi, M. Riem- bau, and F. Riva, Phys. Rev. D104, 036006 (2021), arXiv:2011.00037 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    A. J. Tolley, Z.-Y. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, JHEP05, 255, arXiv:2011.02400 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  28. [28]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang, JHEP 05, 259, arXiv:2012.15849 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    Zhang and S.-Y

    C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D100, 095003 (2019), arXiv:1808.00010 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 081601 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 127, 149901 (2021)], arXiv:2004.02885 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Zhang and S.-Y

    C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 201601 (2020), arXiv:2005.03047 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Gu, L.-T

    J. Gu, L.-T. Wang, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 011805 (2022), arXiv:2011.03055 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    X. Li, H. Xu, C. Yang, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 121601 (2021), arXiv:2101.01191 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Davighi, S

    J. Davighi, S. Melville, and T. You, JHEP02, 167, arXiv:2108.06334 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Alberte, C

    L. Alberte, C. de Rham, S. Jaitly, and A. J. Tolley, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 051602 (2022), arXiv:2111.09226 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    X. Li, K. Mimasu, K. Yamashita, C. Yang, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, JHEP10, 107, arXiv:2204.13121 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Elias Miro, A

    J. Elias Miro, A. Guerrieri, and M. A. Gumus, JHEP05, 001, arXiv:2210.01502 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Q. Chen, K. Mimasu, T. A. Wu, G.-D. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, JHEP03, 180, arXiv:2309.15922 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    He and M

    Y. He and M. Kruczenski, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 191601 (2024), arXiv:2309.12402 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Acanfora, A

    F. Acanfora, A. Guerrieri, K. H¨ aring, and D. Karateev, JHEP03, 028, arXiv:2310.06027 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Eckner, F

    C. Eckner, F. Figueroa, and P. Tourkine, Phys. Rev. D 111, 126005 (2025), arXiv:2401.08736 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Guerrieri, K

    A. Guerrieri, K. H¨ aring, and N. Su, SciPost Phys.20, 034 (2026), arXiv:2410.23333 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Correia, A

    M. Correia, A. Georgoudis, and A. L. Guerrieri, (2025), arXiv:2506.04313 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Z. Dong, J. Jeong, and A. Pomarol, JHEP02, 102, arXiv:2510.12138 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  45. [45]

    Chang, Z.-Y

    F.-M. Chang, Z.-Y. Chen, and S.-Y. Zhou, (2026), arXiv:2604.00107 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Cheung, J

    C. Cheung, J. Jeong, P. Ko, A. Pomarol, G. N. Remmen, and F. Sciotti, (2026), arXiv:2605.21582 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    de Rham, S

    C. de Rham, S. Kundu, M. Reece, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.06805 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Kruczenski, J

    M. Kruczenski, J. Penedones, and B. C. van Rees, (2022), arXiv:2203.02421 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Simmons-Duffin, JHEP06, 174, arXiv:1502.02033 [hep-th]

    D. Simmons-Duffin, JHEP06, 174, arXiv:1502.02033 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    Bai and R

    Y. Bai and R. J. Hill, Phys. Rev. D82, 111701 (2010), arXiv:1005.0008 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  51. [51]

    Frigerio, A

    M. Frigerio, A. Pomarol, F. Riva, and A. Urbano, JHEP 07, 015, arXiv:1204.2808 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    J. M. Cline, Z. Liu, G. D. Moore, and W. Xue, Phys. Rev. D90, 015023 (2014), arXiv:1312.3325 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [53]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, H. Murayama, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 021301 (2015), arXiv:1411.3727 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [54]

    G. D. Kribs and E. T. Neil, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A31, 1643004 (2016), arXiv:1604.04627 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  55. [55]

    Contino, A

    R. Contino, A. Podo, and F. Revello, JHEP02, 091, arXiv:2008.10607 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    Abe and K

    T. Abe and K. Ichiki, Phys. Rev. D111, 055025 (2025), arXiv:2411.15755 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Sheikh, T

    R. Sheikh, T. Toma, and K. Tsumura, JHEP08, 018, arXiv:2504.19886 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [58]

    Gross, O

    C. Gross, O. Lebedev, and T. Toma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 191801 (2017), arXiv:1708.02253 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [59]

    de Rham, S

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, JHEP09, 072, arXiv:1702.08577 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol, and R. Rattazzi, JHEP06, 045, arXiv:hep-ph/0703164

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    Panico and A

    G. Panico and A. Wulzer,The Composite Nambu- Goldstone Higgs, Vol. 913 (Springer, 2016) arXiv:1506.01961 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  62. [62]

    de Boer, M

    T. de Boer, M. Lindner, and A. Trautner, JHEP06, 047, arXiv:2502.09699 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [63]

    Agashe, R

    K. Agashe, R. Contino, and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 719, 165 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  64. [64]

    Frigerio, T

    M. Frigerio, T. Hambye, and E. Masso, Phys. Rev. X1, 021026 (2011), arXiv:1107.4564 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  65. [65]

    Cai and H.-H

    C. Cai and H.-H. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2602.19958 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2026