betaFeedback

WorksPhysics and Astronomy

Nuclear Atomic Dark Matter

Abstract

The matter coincidence, ΩDM≃5ΩbΩ_{\rm DM}\simeq5Ω_b, suggests a common origin for visible and dark matter (DM). We show that this motivates the study of nuclear atomic DM (naDM), which is composed of ∼5 GeV\sim5\,\mathrm{GeV} mirror-neutron DM and a subdominant population of mirror elements. We realize naDM in the Mirror Twin Higgs, employing a twin Froggatt–Nielsen mechanism to generate fermion masses and realize spontaneous Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 symmetry breaking. However, the low-energy mirror framework is more general and can emerge from other ultraviolet completions. naDM gives rise to a novel two-stage dark acoustic oscillation signature, multiple correlated direct-detection signals, and highly exotic twin astrophysics.

Introduction

The nature of dark matter (DM) remains one of the most pressing questions in physics; see Refs. [1, 2] for recent reviews. While minimal candidates such as weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) remain compelling, the matter coincidence problem (ΩDM≃5Ωb\Omega_{\rm DM} \simeq5\Omega_b [3, 4]) points toward richer dark sectors. If visible and dark asymmetries share an ultraviolet (UV) origin, comparable number densities imply DM masses near the hadronic scale and, for a confining dark sector, a confinement scale near that of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). This motivates models in which a symmetry relates the Standard Model (SM) to the dark sector.

The Mirror Twin Higgs (MTH) framework [5, 6, 7] addresses the little hierarchy problem through an approximate Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 symmetry between the SM and a mirror sector, whose breaking is required by cosmological [8, 9, 10] and collider constraints [4, 11, 12, 13, 14]. Baryogenesis above the Z2\mathbb{Z}_2-breaking scale can yield comparable visible and twin asymmetries [15, 16], which, together with related confinement scales, correlate their energy densities. With unbroken twin electromagnetism, charged twin protons (pBp_B) are disfavoured as dominant DM [17, 18, 19], while neutral twin neutrons (nBn_B) remain viable, motivating Z2\mathbb{Z}_2-breaking in the fermion masses that inverts the twin-nucleon spectrum.

A number of mirror-sector models realize such a nBn_B DM scenario, e.g. Refs. [20, 21, 22, 23]. In this work, we consider a concrete realization based on a Froggatt–Nielsen (FN) extension [24] of the MTH framework [25]: a modest difference between the two flavon vacuum expectation values (vevs) spontaneously breaks Z2\mathbb{Z}_2, reshapes the twin-quark spectrum, and makes the nBn_B the lightest dark baryon and a viable DM candidate, realizing twin neutron DM (TNDM). By marrying a solution to the little hierarchy problem (MTH) with one to the fermion hierarchy problem (FN), this model also addresses the matter coincidence problem.

In general, TNDM can be accompanied by a residual population of stable pBp_B, realizing a version of atomic DM (aDM) [26] with nuclear physics that we call nuclear atomic dark matter (naDM). During twin Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), the pBp_B are processed into twin nuclei (from twin deuterium up to twin carbon). If the twin electron is relatively heavy, recombination is inefficient, and the twin nuclei may persist as ions until late times. If recombination is efficient, twin electron capture will destabilize atomic twin hydrogen, while some heavier elements may remain stable. This implies that a twin atomic population, if present, will be composed of only heavier elements. In this work, we initiate the study of the consequences of naDM as a subdominant DM component. These consequences depend primarily on the IR parameters of the twin sector; thus, they could be generated by different UV realizations of the mirror symmetry [20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28].

Twin nuclei are electromagnetically coupled to the twin photon bath, while residual nuclear forces couple them to the dominant TNDM. This produces characteristic two-stage dark acoustic oscillations (DAOs), where in first stage the entire DM population oscillates, followed by an epoch where only the naDM fraction oscillates. This gives rise to distinctive features in the matter power spectrum that may allow it to be distinguished from more conventional DAOs [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34]. The naDM and TNDM components also give rise to a host of correlated direct detection signals, as well as distinctive astrophysical and collider signals, some of which are discussed in our companion paper [35].

Model

We consider an MTH model in which the Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 is broken spontaneously by scalars that also act as FN flavons, making the nBn_B the lightest stable baryon. We assume a Z2\mathbb{Z}_2-symmetric high-temperature baryogenesis and unbroken twin electromagnetism, with some source of late-time asymmetric reheating [8, 9] to ensure ΔNeff≲O(0.1)\Delta N_{\mathrm{eff}} \lesssim\mathcal{O}(0.1). We emphasize that this construction is not unique, and other models, e.g. Ref. [23], could give similar IR phenomenology while also addressing the hierarchy problem.

Under the FN model, fermions are charged under a new global U(1)X\mathrm{U}(1)_X which forbids the Yukawa interactions except for the top quark. The effective low energy Yukawas for the lighter quarks arise when U(1)X\mathrm{U}(1)_X is spontaneously broken by the vev of a scalar field ϕ\phi called the flavon. Without loss of generality, we take the FN charge of ϕ\phi (SM Higgs) to be Xϕ=1X_\phi= 1 (XH=0X_H = 0). The lighter quark Yukawas can then be built out of higher-dimensional operators, yielding

Yiju,d=ciju,dϵ∣XQi−Xu,dj∣,(1)Y_{ij}^{u,d} = c_{ij}^{u,d}\epsilon^{\lvert X_{Q_i}-X_{u,d_j}\rvert}, \tag*{(1)}

where i,ji,j are flavour indices, ϵ≡⟨ϕ⟩/ΛF≪1\epsilon\equiv\langle\phi\rangle/\Lambda_F \ll1, ΛF\Lambda_F is a heavy mass scale, and ciju,dc_{ij}^{u,d} are some O(1)\mathcal{O}(1) coefficients. In the near-diagonal limit, the effective quark Yukawas are yi≃ciiu,dϵ∣XQi−Xu,di∣y_i \simeq c_{ii}^{u,d}\epsilon^{\lvert X_{Q_i}-X_{u,d_i}\rvert}. In the SM sector, this generates the order of magnitude hierarchies for the fermion masses.

If ∣XQ1−Xu1∣=∣XQ1−Xd1∣+1\lvert X_{Q_1}-X_{u_1}\rvert= \lvert X_{Q_1}-X_{d_1}\rvert+ 1, as found in approximately half of the natural charge assignments in Ref. [36], then mu/md≃ϵc11u/c11dm_u/m_d \simeq\epsilon c_{11}^u/c_{11}^d. Thus, to reproduce the SM masses, there must be a modest hierarchy c11d/c11u∼2ϵc_{11}^d/c_{11}^u \sim2\epsilon, which is required for fitting even some of the most natural models to the SM. Assuming a fully Z2\mathbb{Z}_2-symmetric twin extension of the FN setup, spontaneous Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 breaking in the flavon vevs of the twin (B) and visible (A) sector with ϵB∼2ϵA\epsilon_B \sim2\epsilon_A will allow the twin up and down quark masses to become equal, beyond which the neutron is the lightest stable baryon. However, the steep ∼ϵA,B6,7\sim\epsilon_{A,B}^{6,7} dependence of the up and down masses means the light twin quarks become heavier by two orders of magnitude. Since the top quark is neutral under U(1)X\mathrm{U}(1)_X to allow yt∼1y_t \sim1, its mass is barely affected and the twin solution to the little hierarchy problem remains intact. The modified twin quark spectrum affects the twin confinement scale via running effects, enabling a heavy enough stable nBn_B to explain the DM abundance today when we assume equal asymmetric number densities on the two sides.

The low energy phenomenology is largely controlled by a small subset of parameters. The primary quantities of interest are the twin neutron–proton (nBn_B–pBp_B) mass splitting Δmnp,B\Delta m_{np,B}, the twin electron mass me,Bm_{e,B}, the twin Fermi constant GF,BG_{F,B}, and the temperature ratio between the twin and SM sectors ξ≡TB/TA\xi\equiv T_B/T_A. We focus on the case where the average twin nucleon mass is mN,B∼5 GeVm_{N,B} \sim5\,\mathrm{GeV}, so as to most directly solve the coincidence problem. For twin up/down quarks with masses ∼100 MeV\sim100\,\mathrm{MeV} as motivated by the FN construction, the twin pion mass is mπ,B∼2m_{\pi,B} \sim2–2.5 GeV2.5\,\mathrm{GeV}. The usual moderate tuning of the twin Higgs vev f/v∼3f/v \sim3–99 [37], where vv is the physical Higgs vev, implies 10−2≲GF,B/GF,A≲10−110^{-2} \lesssim G_{F,B}/G_{F,A} \lesssim10^{-1}. In our benchmark, we assume asymmetric reheating gives rise to ξ=0.2\xi= 0.2, which corresponds to ΔNeff≃0.01\Delta N_{\mathrm{eff}} \simeq0.01.

In obtaining the naDM abundance from these parameters, the dominant uncertainty is the twin-QCD dependence of nuclear binding energies, particularly BD,BB_{D,B} (deuterium) and BHe,BB_{He,B} (helium) (see Ref. [35] for detailed discussions). To estimate these energies quantitatively, we make use of lattice results at heavier pion masses which suggest values above their SM counterparts [38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43], with 50 MeV≲BD,B≲180 MeV50\,\mathrm{MeV} \lesssim B_{D,B} \lesssim180\,\mathrm{MeV} [44] and 100 MeV≲BHe,B≲350 MeV100\,\mathrm{MeV} \lesssim B_{He,B} \lesssim350\,\mathrm{MeV} [45].6 These values suggest primordial synthesis beyond twin helium, motivating the qualitative discussion of twin-element signatures below.

In addition to the nBn_B, pBp_B or twin atoms can constitute a fraction of the DM if they are stable. Note that depending on the twin baryon mass splitting and the twin electron mass, the pBp_B may be stable or unstable. If the twin electron is charged under the same FN as the quarks, it is likely heavy me,B∼0.1 GeVm_{e,B} \sim0.1\,\mathrm{GeV} [53], making the pBp_B stable for all but the largest mass splittings. However, as in the SM, the proton can be stabilized when bound into a nucleus, so a relic population can also exist in the unstable case.

To calculate the relic abundance of twin atoms, we estimate the twin-BBN relic abundance. For nucleosynthesis to proceed, the twin deuteron must be bound and stable, requiring

BD,B>−Δmnp,B−me,B,(2)B_{D,B} > -\Delta m_{np,B} - m_{e,B}, \tag*{(2)}

where Δmnp,B≡mn,B−mp,B<0\Delta m_{np,B} \equiv m_{n,B} - m_{p,B} < 0 is the nBn_B–pBp_B mass splitting. To characterize the low energy population of DM, we must consider nBn_B–pBp_B freezeout. This process will end when photodissociation of deuterons becomes too slow to prevent nucleosynthesis, and the relic protons are fused into deuteron nuclei. The equilibrium abundance of deuterons is proportional to exp⁡(BD,B/TB)\exp(B_{D,B}/T_B), and we find, to a good approximation, that

TD,BBD,B≃TD,ABD,A,(3)\frac{T_{D,B}}{B_{D,B}} \simeq\frac{T_{D,A}}{B_{D,A}}, \tag*{(3)}

where TDT_D is the temperature at which the deuterium bottleneck resolves and a substantial population of nuclei can form. The binding energy range implied by the lattice results [44] suggests TD,B∼1T_{D,B} \sim1–5 MeV5\,\mathrm{MeV}. We make the approximation that at TD,BT_{D,B}, all remaining relic protons are instantly bound into nuclei.

We follow the treatment of Ref. [54], appropriately rescaled for the twin sector, to determine the nBn_B–$p_B freezeout. If the twin electron is light, twin freezeout proceeds in the same manner as SM freezeout, and the proton population levels off when the weak nucleon-conversion rates drop below the Hubble rate. If the twin electron is heavy, then nucleon-conversion reactions become inefficient as the population of electrons and positrons drops. Freezeout occurs when either the electrons deplete or the weak rate becomes slower than Hubble (see App. § 3.2 for more details), whichever occurs first. The relic pBp_B fraction depends on the twin neutron-proton conversion freeze-out temperature TdecT_{\mathrm{dec}} as Xp,B≡np,B/nb,B≃exp⁡(−∣Δmnp,B∣/Tdec)X_{p,B} \equiv n_{p,B}/n_{b,B} \simeq\exp(-|\Delta m_{np,B}|/T_{\mathrm{dec}}).

Bullet Cluster observations constrain the late-time long-range-interacting naDM fraction to fnaDM≲10f_{\mathrm{naDM}} \lesssim10–20% [17, 18]. We therefore focus on parameters where pBp_B is sufficiently depleted before nucleosynthesis. An appreciable relic fraction, fnaDM∼10%f_{\mathrm{naDM}} \sim10\%, occurs for

∣Δmnp,B∣L∼50 MeV(GF,A/10GF,B)2/3(0.2ξ)2/3,∣Δmnp,B∣H∼me,B/2,(4)|\Delta m_{np,B}|_L \sim50\,\mathrm{MeV}\left(\frac{G_{F,A}/10}{G_{F,B}}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{0.2}{\xi}\right)^{2/3}, \qquad |\Delta m_{np,B}|_H \sim m_{e,B}/2, \tag*{(4)}

where LL and HH denote the light- and heavy-electron regimes. The benchmark freezeout fractions in Figure 1 exhibit these two scalings in the (Δmnp,B,me,B)(\Delta m_{np,B},m_{e,B}) plane.

Twin nuclei DM fraction parameter-space plot

Figure 1. Twin nuclei DM fraction fnaDMf_{\mathrm{naDM}} determined using rescaled SM freezeout expressions from Ref. [54], given in the labelled contours. The overlaid dashed lines indicate regions where twin helium (and deuterium) are stable to decay via electron capture, indicated as (D-)He-X-naDM; X-naDM denotes the region where both are unstable. Green indicates the region where the population is effectively pure TNDM, either because the twin deuteron is unstable to decay via Eq. (2) or because the pBp_B fraction at TD,BT_{D,B} is small, fnaDM<10−4f_{\mathrm{naDM}} < 10^{-4}. The red region is (naively) excluded by self-interaction considerations with fnaDM≳20%f_{\mathrm{naDM}} \gtrsim20\%. In the pink region indicated by fnaDM∗f^*_{\mathrm{naDM}}, atoms may decay after recombination, reducing or eliminating the late-time naDM fraction. In principle, relic ions could be produced in all regions except pure TNDM. The remaining colours indicate the expected value of Zmax⁡Z_{\max}. The grey region is either unphysical or out of scope of this analysis (as we neglect twin Δ\Delta baryons). The parameters at this benchmark are defined in the legend; the exact location of the contours will change as these are varied (see Ref. [35]) but the qualitative picture remains the same.

Lacking a reliable rescaled twin-BBN reaction network, we estimate heavy-nucleus formation using the geometric rates of Refs. [55, 56]. Evaluating the Coulomb barrier of fusing nuclei at TD,BT_{D,B} yields an upper bound on the atomic number Z≤Zmax⁡Z \le Z_{\max} of produced twin nuclei. Taking twin baryons (protons) to constitute 100% (10%) of DM gives

Zmax⁡∼5(BD,B100 MeV)1/5(αAαB)2/5(5 GeVmN,B)1/5,(5)Z_{\max} \sim5\left(\frac{B_{D,B}}{100\,\mathrm{MeV}}\right)^{1/5}\left(\frac{\alpha_A}{\alpha_B}\right)^{2/5}\left(\frac{5\,\mathrm{GeV}}{m_{N,B}}\right)^{1/5}, \tag*{(5)}

up to logarithmic corrections, see App. § 3.2. As the proton freezeout abundance decreases, the reduced reactant density lowers Zmax⁡Z_{\max}, as shown in Figure 1 and Eq. (11). This estimate is only an upper bound, since unbound intermediate states may halt fusion.

The flipped twin neutron-proton mass ordering may make some of the resulting atoms unstable to twin electron capture, ZAXB+eB−→Z−1AYB+νB^{A}_{Z}X_B + e^-_B \to{}^{A}_{Z-1}Y_B + \nu_B. Twin recombination, if it is efficient, can therefore transmute some or all of the atomic subcomponent to lower-ZZ isobars or even entirely into TNDM. If twin electrons are heavy, twin recombination will be inefficient [26] and a sizeable population of relic twin ions (including pB+p_B^+) may persist to late times. In Figure 1, we indicate the regions where only twin D atoms and both twin D and He atoms are unstable. Twin H atoms are always unstable. The stability of heavier atoms in the X-naDM regime has to be established by future studies.

We can therefore imagine two scenarios where the primordial fnaDMf_{\mathrm{naDM}} fraction could be larger than 20%: (1) If the heavy elements are all unstable to electron capture, they do not survive to late times. (2) If the heavy elements are stable, fnaDM≳20%f_{\mathrm{naDM}} \gtrsim20\% implies Zmax⁡≳6Z_{\max} \gtrsim6, possibly resulting in the formation of primordial twin dust. In the former (latter) case, large or dominant early-time (late-time) fractions of naDM might therefore evade the nominal self-interaction bound.

Signals — At early times (before recombination), the massless twin photon is tightly coupled to the charged twin constituents—free twin electrons and protons/twin nuclei—so that radiation pressure supports acoustic waves in the charged naDM component. Unique to the naDM scenario, prior to twin neutron-proton decoupling at Tnp,decT_{np,\mathrm{dec}}, twin strong interactions transfer momentum between the charged nuclei and the electromagnetically neutral nBn_B, dragging the TNDM component with the photon-coupled plasma. This realizes the novel two-step DAO signature, with all the DM oscillating for T≳Tnp,decT \gtrsim T_{np,\mathrm{dec}}, and only the charged component fnaDM≲0.1f_{\mathrm{naDM}} \lesssim0.1 oscillating thereafter until recombination (if efficient) or Compton decoupling. This has no analogue in a single-component collisionless relic, minimal aDM, or previous works on DAO [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34].

For twin hydrogen, the electronic binding energy is BH,Be∼αB2me,B/2B^{e}_{H,B} \sim\alpha_{B}^{2}m_{e,B}/2. We will take as our default assumption that recombination is efficient at depleting the charged population, (as is the case in most of our parameter space); alternative scenarios are considered in our companion paper [35]. Defining TrecT_{\rm rec} as the visible-sector temperature at which the free twin-electron fraction falls below 10%, the Saha equation gives

Trec∼1.5 eV(αB2me,BαA2me,A)(0.2ξ).(6)T_{\rm rec} \sim1.5\,\mathrm{eV}\left(\frac{\alpha_{B}^{2}m_{e,B}}{\alpha_{A}^{2}m_{e,A}}\right)\left(\frac{0.2}{\xi}\right). \tag*{(6)}

If deuterium, helium, or a heavier element dominates naDM, the changes in the Saha prefactors are only O(1)O(1), while the larger ionization energy raises TrecT_{\rm rec}. Note that in general, Trec≪1 keVT_{\rm rec} \ll1\,\mathrm{keV}. The strong interactions keeping nBn_{B} and pBp_{B} in kinetic equilibrium decouple at higher temperatures Tnp,dec∼keV≫TrecT_{np,\rm dec} \sim\mathrm{keV} \gg T_{\rm rec}, meaning the neutron–ion decoupling will generally determine when the dominant TNDM component ceases to oscillate, see App. § 3.2 for details. The corresponding present-day wave number at Tnp,decT_{np,\rm dec} is

knp,dec∼50 h Mpc−1(mN,B5 GeV)(0.05Xp,B)2/3(10 GeV−1LB)4/3(0.2ξ)1/3.(7)k_{np,\rm dec} \sim50\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}\left(\frac{m_{N,B}}{5\,\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{0.05}{X_{p,B}}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{10\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}}{L_{B}}\right)^{4/3}\left(\frac{0.2}{\xi}\right)^{1/3}. \tag*{(7)}

Here Xp,B=0.05X_{p,B}=0.05 corresponds approximately to fnaDM=0.1f_{\rm naDM}=0.1 if nuclei heavier than hydrogen form. The benchmark twin nucleon interaction length LB=10 GeV−1L_{B}=10\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1} is a fm-scale interaction length, as expected for a strong force. The result depends only weakly on ξ\xi but strongly on LBL_{B}, motivating sharper lattice calculations of LBL_{B}. The exact scales involved will also depend on the atomic composition, as the number densities and interaction lengths will differ.

Figure 2 gives a schematic of the resulting DAOs. All of DM undergoes DAOs until nBn_{B}–pBp_{B} decoupling at Tnp,decT_{np,\rm dec}, after which the neutrons behave as (approximately) collisionless DM while the residual naDM continues to oscillate until recombination at TrecT_{\rm rec}. Since the DAO signal arises from the dynamics before recombination, this signal exists for the entire viable naDM region from Figure 1, regardless of whether naDM atoms exist today or decayed to TNDM after recombination.

Figure 2. Schematic DAO evolution and its impact on the small-scale power spectrum. Top: Thermal history on the typical ordering of recombination and kinetic decoupling. Bottom: Corresponding schematic matter-power spectrum, with colors matching the epochs in the top panel. The two-stage DAO in our model gives rise to a unique imprint on the matter power spectrum, potentially detectable in future surveys.

This strong-interaction amplification makes naDM qualitatively different from conventional aDM. If only naDM oscillates, current ultraviolet luminosity function measurements approximately require kDAO≳20 h Mpc−1k_{\rm DAO} \gtrsim20\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1} or fnaDM≲0.07f_{\rm naDM} \lesssim0.07 [34]. When strong interactions drag the neutrons, the corresponding all-DM requirement strengthens to kDAO≳50 h Mpc−1k_{\rm DAO} \gtrsim50\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1} [57]. This approaches galactic scales, which are beyond most standard cosmological probes, but could be explored by, for example, the Milky Way sub-halo mass function and

strong lensing [58, 59]. Our results motivate dedicated analyses of DAOs for these observables, alongside new possible search strategies, e.g. in 21cm astronomy.

In some parts of our parameter space, the pBp_{B} is completely depleted, leaving only TNDM in the bath. Despite no DAO signals, this part of the parameter space still gives rise to Higgs-mediated direct detection signals. The predicted direct detection cross section is given in Figure 3. The neutron signal itself often lies within the solar neutrino fog, making it a particularly well-motivated target for directional detectors, e.g. see Refs. [60, 61, 62, 63]. We note that at the point motivated by the MTH–FN construction, twin quarks are heavy and the TNDM–SM Higgs coupling is at the upper end of the predicted range for a given GF,BG_{F,B}. For twin nuclei, coherent scattering enhances the rate with nucleon number, allowing some deuterium- and helium-like candidates to lie above the neutrino fog even after rescaling by their subdominant abundance. The direct detection prospects for heavier twin nuclei are even more promising.

Figure 3. Top: Predicted Higgs-mediated direct detection cross section for TNDM and some naDM candidates. The effective cross section σN,eff\sigma_{N,\mathrm{eff}} is weighted by the relative abundance of the DM component. The shaded bands arise from scanning a range of values for GF,BG_{F,B} and 0.14≲mπ,B/mN,B≲0.560.14 \lesssim m_{\pi,B}/m_{N,B} \lesssim0.56, where varying mπ,Bm_{\pi,B} modifies the underlying quark masses which set the TNDM-Higgs coupling. Constraints shown are from LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) [76] and the neutrino fog is taken from Ref. [77] for WIMP DM in a SHM velocity distribution. Bottom: LZ constraints on QκQ_\kappa from photon-mediated scattering of atomic naDM, with QQ the nuclear charge, requiring less than three signal events. Red dashed lines show the cosmological bounds on κ\kappa [78] for me,B=0.001m_{e,B}=0.001 GeV and me,B=0.1m_{e,B}=0.1 GeV, assuming Q=1Q=1. The naDM candidates are fixed at 10% of the total DM population for both plots. Dots indicate the coincidence solution points, mN,B≃5m_{N,B}\simeq5 GeV.

A small kinetic mixing κFAμνFB,μν/2\kappa F_{A}^{\mu\nu}F_{B,\mu\nu}/2 [64, 65] between the SM and twin photons gives naDM states an induced nanocharge. Current constraints are shown in Figure 3. For twin electrons me,B≲1 GeVm_{e,B} \lesssim1\,\mathrm{GeV}, the Bohr radius of the twin atom is large enough that the atoms are collisionally trapped within the halo, so the high-velocity tail extends beyond the galactic escape velocity rather than being cut off as in the standard halo model (SHM) [66, 67, 68]. This high energy tail drives the signal at low naDM masses. We assume a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution f(v)∼exp⁡(−v2/v02)f(v) \sim\exp(-v^{2}/v_{0}^{2}) with v0=220 km/sv_{0}=220\,\mathrm{km/s} and reinstate the galactic escape velocity cutoff vesc=544 km/sv_{\rm esc}=544\,\mathrm{km/s} for the case of heavy electrons me,B≳100 MeVm_{e,B} \gtrsim100\,\mathrm{MeV}, where the Bohr radius is small and scattering is suppressed.

For lighter twin electrons, the naDM component may cool efficiently enough to form a dark disk [18, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75]. We consider this and the possibility of a fully ionized halo in our companion paper [35]. Electron recoil signals can be substantial for ionized twin electrons. In the presence of multiple different naDM species we can get a host of different signals at direct detection searches, with masses in intervals of ∼5\sim5 GeV.

The model has several other complementary signals. Like all aDM scenarios, naDM predicts mirror stars [79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85], which may be identifiable in current astrophysical data from surveys such as Gaia [86, 87], but the twin nuclear physics could prolong their life or give them unique properties. The SM Higgs decay branching fraction to twin fermions depends on the full spectrum of twin fermion masses, but we show in our companion paper that HL-LHC in conjunction with FCC-ee [4, 88] will be able to place powerful constraints on MTH-FN twin sectors.

Conclusion

In mirror solutions to the hierarchy problem, incorporating a solution to the flavour problem can naturally invert the twin neutron–proton mass hierarchy. The twin neutron then becomes a viable DM candidate, simultaneously addressing the matter coincidence problem. A generic consequence of these scenarios is a subdominant population of twin nuclei in the dark sector. In this work, we highlighted a particular UV completion, in which the MTH solution to the little hierarchy problem is combined with the FN explanation of the fermion mass hierarchy, making the twin neutron a viable ∼5\sim5 GeV DM candidate. Supplemented by Z2Z_2-symmetric asymmetry generation and the usual asymmetric reheating, this construction correlates the visible and dark matter abundances. The benchmark parameters considered here are motivated by this UV completion. Our companion work [35] maps out the general IR parameter space, making our results applicable to other models which can realize naDM [20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28].

We map the low-energy parameter space in which nBn_B–pBp_B freezeout can yield a viable naDM subfraction and find a preferred band in the me,Bm_{e,B}–Δmnp,B\Delta m_{np,B} plane. Dominant twin-neutron DM can coexist with subdominant naDM, whose residual nuclear interactions can drive a unique two-stage DAO to produce observable small-scale structure suppression and oscillations. Direct detection, invisible Higgs decays, and further astrophysical signatures (e.g. crystallization of twin dust or formation of mirror stars) provide complementary probes. Some aspects of the broader phenomenology and a supersymmetric UV completion are studied in the accompanying work [35].

Our framework solves the matter coincidence problem as a consequence of combining solutions to the little hierarchy and flavour problems. This serendipity, alongside its unusually rich set of predicted signals, motivates future work on its theoretical underpinnings and detailed signatures at all scales.

Acknowledgments

We thank Wolfgang Altmannshofer, Stefania Gori, Michael Luke, Jared Barron, and Nick Rodd for helpful discussions. The work of PA is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy grant number DE-SC0010107. ZC is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number PHY-2514660 and by the Maryland Center for Fundamental Physics. The work of DC is in part supported by Discovery Grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canada Research Chair program, the Ontario Early Researcher Award, and the University of Toronto McLean Award. The work of MM is also supported in part by the NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship-Doctoral. The work of ETN is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant number DE-SC0010005. In our analysis and preparation of this manuscript, Claude and ChatGPT were used to assist with literature searches, resolve stubborn \LaTeX errors, refine the language, and iterative discussions and clarifications of selected physics questions. The authors take full responsibility for the content of the manuscript.

Details of Twin Sector Calculations

Here we briefly derive the relations reported in the main text.

Twin Neutron-Proton Freezeout — In our detailed numerics, we follow Ref. [54] for the interaction rates. Here we show the estimates for the decoupling temperature in the two regimes discussed in the main text.

Twin weak processes such as pB+νˉB↔nB+eB+p_B+\bar{\nu}_B \leftrightarrow n_B+e_B^+ maintain the twin proton abundances at their equilibrium values, Xp,B≃exp⁡(−∣Δmnp,B∣/TB)X_{p,B} \simeq\exp\left(-\lvert\Delta m_{np,B}\rvert/T_B\right) so long as the rates are faster than the Hubble rate. Below asymmetric reheating, the expansion rate is set by the SM bath, H∼TA2/MplH \sim T_A^2/M_{\mathrm{pl}}. If the twin electron is light, the weak rates responsible for converting twin baryons are expected to scale as Γ∼GF,B2TB5\Gamma\sim G_{F,B}^2T_B^5, in direct analogy with the SM. Setting Γ=H\Gamma=H, we find the twin sector decoupling occurs at an SM photon temperature of

TB,dec,1∼(MplGF,B2ξ2)−1/3.(8)T_{B,\mathrm{dec},1} \sim\left(M_{\mathrm{pl}}G_{F,B}^2\xi^2\right)^{-1/3}. \tag*{(8)}

If the twin electron is heavy, then twin nucleon-conversion reactions become inefficient once the eB±e_B^\pm population becomes Boltzmann suppressed, at

TB,dec,2∼me,Bxe,xe∼O(5–10),(9)T_{B,\mathrm{dec},2} \sim\frac{m_{e,B}}{x_e}, \qquad x_e \sim\mathcal{O}(5\text{--}10), \tag*{(9)}

Freezeout occurs at whichever temperature is higher Tdec=max⁡(TB,dec,1,TB,dec,2)T_{\mathrm{dec}}=\max(T_{B,\mathrm{dec},1},T_{B,\mathrm{dec},2}). Setting the abundance Xp,B≃exp⁡(−∣Δmnp,B∣/Tdec)X_{p,B}\simeq\exp\left(-\lvert\Delta m_{np,B}\rvert/T_{\mathrm{dec}}\right) equal to 10% and solving for Δmnp,B\Delta m_{np,B} for each decoupling temperature yields the relations in Eq. (4). Note that if TD,BT_{D,B} exceeds both decoupling temperatures, the proton population relevant for BBN is set by the deuterium temperature, though at our benchmark point this is not the case.

Twin Nucleosynthesis — Once the twin baryons are nonrelativistic, their scattering can be parameterized by the twin nucleon scattering length aBa_B [89, 90, 91]. The cross section scales as σs≃πaB2\sigma_s \simeq\pi a_B^2 for aB≪(mN,Bv)−1a_B \ll(m_{N,B}v)^{-1} and approaches σs≃π/(mN,Bv)2\sigma_s \simeq\pi/(m_{N,B}v)^2 in the opposite limit. We capture both regimes by defining

LB2=min⁡[aB2,(mN,Bξ2TA)−1].(10)L_B^2=\min\left[a_B^2,(m_{N,B}\xi^2T_A)^{-1}\right]. \tag*{(10)}

A more careful determination of this interaction length scale requires convergence on lattice calculations which are not yet settled for these multi-nucleon parameters. For heavier nuclei, the length scale should be rescaled according to the nuclear radius rA∝A1/3r_A\propto A^{1/3}, with AA the atomic mass number.

The freezeout temperature of twin nuclear fusion rates is largely set by the temperature at which the reactants can no longer overcome the Coulomb barrier, determined by the fusion rate [55, 56]

Γfusion≃nA⟨σAvA⟩e−EG/E,≃2Xp,Bnb,B⟨σ1v1⟩Ai5/6e−EG/E,(11)\begin{aligned} \Gamma_{\mathrm{fusion}} &\simeq n_A\langle\sigma_A v_A\rangle e^{-\sqrt{E_G/E}},\\ &\simeq2X_{p,B}n_{b,B}\langle\sigma_1v_1\rangle\mathcal{A}_i^{5/6}e^{-\sqrt{E_G/E}}, \tag*{(11)} \end{aligned}

where nAn_A is the number density, σA\sigma_A is the cross section, and vAv_A is the velocity of incoming nuclei with atomic mass number (proton number) AA (ZZ). Here we have assumed that the interaction length can be rescaled geometrically from the nucleon interaction length LBL_B, the velocity is rescaled according to thermalization of the species in equilibrium, and that a single reactant species A1=A2=Ai≃2Zi\mathcal{A}_1=\mathcal{A}_2=\mathcal{A}_i\simeq2Z_i dominates the abundance at the temperature of interest. E≃3TB/2E\simeq3T_B/2 is the typical energy of the incoming particles and EGE_G is the Gamow energy [92].

EGE≃4π2Zi2αEM,B2mN,B3TB,(12)\frac{E_G}{E}\simeq\frac{4\pi^2Z_i^2\alpha_{E_M,B}^2m_{N,B}}{3T_B}, \tag*{(12)}

with ZiZ_i the proton number of the initial state reactants. The late times number density is set by requiring that the twin baryons comprise all of DM

nb,B=nb,A=η2ζ(3)TA3π2ΩDMΩbmN,AmN,B,(13)n_{b,B}=n_{b,A}=\eta\frac{2\zeta(3)T_A^3}{\pi^2}\frac{\Omega_{\mathrm{DM}}}{\Omega_b}\frac{m_{N,A}}{m_{N,B}}, \tag*{(13)}

where η∼10−10\eta\sim10^{-10} is the measured SM baryon-to-photon ratio [4]. The last two fractions are unity at the benchmark coincidence solution point.

Solving Γfusion≃H\Gamma_{\mathrm{fusion}}\simeq H, with HH again dominated by the SM dof, yields the approximate freezeout temperature

TFO∼3×10−8 GeV Af5(1−0.07ln⁡Af−L)2(αBαA)2(mN,B5 GeV),(14)T_{\mathrm{FO}}\sim\frac{3\times10^{-8}\,\mathrm{GeV}\,\mathcal{A}_f^5}{\left(1-0.07\ln\mathcal{A}_f-\mathcal{L}\right)^2}\left(\frac{\alpha_B}{\alpha_A}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_{N,B}}{5\,\mathrm{GeV}}\right), \tag*{(14)}

where we have used Af=2Ai\mathcal{A}_f=2\mathcal{A}_i and Af=2Zf\mathcal{A}_f=2Z_f. The logarithmic corrections L\mathcal{L} are

L≃0.09ln⁡(g⋆,S10.75)1/2(mN,B5 GeV)(ξ0.2)(0.1XpB)(1 GeV−1LB)2(MeVTFO)3/2.(15)\mathcal{L} \simeq0.09 \ln\left(\frac{g_{\star,S}}{10.75}\right)^{1/2} \left(\frac{m_{N,B}}{5\ \mathrm{GeV}}\right) \left(\frac{\xi}{0.2}\right) \left(\frac{0.1}{X_{p}^{B}}\right) \left(\frac{1\ \mathrm{GeV}^{-1}}{L_{B}}\right)^{2} \left(\frac{\mathrm{MeV}}{T_{FO}}\right)^{3/2}. \tag*{(15)}

Increasing L\mathcal{L} increases the freezeout temperature, disfavouring the fusion reaction. The requirement TFO<TDT_{FO}<T_{D}, with TDT_{D} from Eq. (3), yields the approximate value for Zmax⁡Z_{\max} reported in Eq. (5). The full numerical solution is used for the estimates in Figure 1. In this plot we also use the more careful criteria Z=⌊A/2⌋Z=\lfloor A/2\rfloor and reactant atomic mass numbers A1=⌊Af/2⌋A_{1}=\lfloor A_{f}/2\rfloor, A2=Af−A1A_{2}=A_{f}-A_{1}. The choice of floor identifies neutron-rich isotopes. We set the length scale LBL_{B} to the nuclear radius 1.2 fm and rescale with ΛQCD,A/ΛQCD,B\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD},A}/\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD},B} on dimensional grounds. Details of the determination of ΛQCD\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}} can be found in the companion paper [35].

We comment finally on the fact that, if binding energies in the twin sector are substantially larger than their SM counterparts, then the twin di-neutron state (marginally unbound in the SM) may be bound and stable and can change some of the signals significantly. For instance, they have larger couplings to the Higgs, enhancing the direct detection cross section—see Ref. [35] for more details on this possibility.

Dark Acoustic Oscillations

The twin weak interactions decouple above an MeV and are irrelevant for DAOs, whereas the strong interactions remain efficient much later. Using v2∼TB/mN,Bv^{2}\sim T_{B}/m_{N,B} and the late-time twin-baryon density Eq. (13), the momentum-transfer rate is

Γs,B=np,B⟨σv⟩∼(Xp,BηTA3ΩDMΩbmN,AmN,B)(LB2ξTAmN,B),(16)\begin{aligned} \Gamma_{s,B}=n_{p,B}\langle\sigma v\rangle\\ &\sim\left(X_{p,B}\eta T_{A}^{3}\frac{\Omega_{\mathrm{DM}}}{\Omega_{b}}\frac{m_{N,A}}{m_{N,B}}\right)\left(L_{B}^{2}\sqrt{\frac{\xi T_{A}}{m_{N,B}}}\right), \tag*{(16)} \end{aligned}

with LBL_{B} defined in Eq. (10). Equating Eq. (16) to the Hubble rate gives

Tnp,dec≃0.6 keV(mN,B5 GeV)(0.05Xp,B)2/3(10 GeV−1LB)4/3(0.2ξ)1/3.(17)T_{np,\mathrm{dec}}\simeq0.6\ \mathrm{keV}\left(\frac{m_{N,B}}{5\ \mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{0.05}{X_{p,B}}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{10\ \mathrm{GeV}^{-1}}{L_{B}}\right)^{4/3}\left(\frac{0.2}{\xi}\right)^{1/3}. \tag*{(17)}

For a DAO length scale rDAO−1≃3H(Tdec)r_{\mathrm{DAO}}^{-1}\simeq\sqrt{3}H(T_{\mathrm{dec}}), kDAO≡π/rDAOk_{\mathrm{DAO}}\equiv\pi/r_{\mathrm{DAO}}. The present day scale corresponding to a particular temperature is therefore

kDAO,0≃3πH(Tdec)T0Tdec,(18)k_{\mathrm{DAO},0}\simeq\sqrt{3}\pi H(T_{\mathrm{dec}})\frac{T_{0}}{T_{\mathrm{dec}}}, \tag*{(18)}

which yields Eq. (7), where we again assume that at late times Hubble is dominated by SM dof.

Higgs-Nucleon Couplings

The per-nucleon cross section for Higgs-mediated nuclear recoil is

σN≃μN2πmh,A4cN,B2cN,A2,(19)\sigma_{N}\simeq\frac{\mu_{N}^{2}}{\pi m_{h,A}^{4}}c_{N,B}^{2}c_{N,A}^{2}, \tag*{(19)}

where μN\mu_{N} is the reduced mass of the target species and the TNDM. The couplings cN,A/Bc_{N,A/B} of nucleons to the SM Higgs are related to the quark couplings via

cN,A≡mN,Av∑qfq,A(N),c_{N,A}\equiv\frac{m_{N,A}}{v}\sum_{q}f_{q,A}^{(N)},
cN,B≡(mN,Bf)(vf)∑qfq,B(N)(mπ,B)(20)c_{N,B}\equiv\left(\frac{m_{N,B}}{f}\right)\left(\frac{v}{f}\right)\sum_{q}f_{q,B}^{(N)}(m_{\pi,B}) \tag*{(20)}

The nucleon scalar form factor fq,X(N)f_{q,X}^{(N)} encodes the quark mass contributions to the nucleon mass and can be extracted from the lattice for the SM [93, 94, 95, 96] as well as at heavier than physical pion masses [97]. The SM nucleon effective Yukawa is then cN,A≃1.2×10−3c_{N,A}\simeq1.2\times10^{-3}. The twin neutron coupling to the SM Higgs is suppressed by v/fv/f, but is partially compensated by having heavier quarks and thus a stronger coupling to the twin Higgs,

cN,B≃6×10−4(mN,B5 GeV)(GF,BGF,A/10).(21)c_{N,B}\simeq6\times10^{-4}\left(\frac{m_{N,B}}{5\ \mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{G_{F,B}}{G_{F,A}/10}\right). \tag*{(21)}

For a twin nucleus of mass number AA, we take the coherent coupling AcN,B\mathcal{A}c_{N,B}.

References

References

  1. [1]M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, “Dark Matter,” SciPost Phys. Rev. 6 (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph].arxiv.org/abs/2406.01705
  2. [2]N. Bozorgnia, J. Bramante, J. M. Cline, D. Curtin, D. McKeen, D. E. Morrissey, A. Ritz, S. Viel, A. C. Vincent, and Y. Zhang, “Dark matter candidates and searches,” Can. J. Phys. 103 no. 8, (2025) 671–703, arXiv:2410.23454 [hep-ph].DOI
  3. [3]Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. [Erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)].
  4. [4]Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navas et al. “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 3, (2015) 017, arXiv:1506.03520 [hep-ph] (2024) 030001.
  5. [5]Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, “The Twin Higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 231802, arXiv:hep-ph/0506256.DOI
  6. [6]R. Barbieri, T. Gregoire, and L. J. Hall, “Mirror world at the large hadron collider,” (9, 2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0509242.
  7. [7]Z. Chacko, Y. Nomura, M. Papucci, and G. Perez, “Natural little hierarchy from a partially goldstone twin Higgs,” JHEP 01 (2006) 126, arXiv:hep-ph/0510273.DOI
  8. [8]Z. Chacko, N. Craig, P. J. Fox, and R. Harnik, “Cosmology in Mirror Twin Higgs and Neutrino Masses,” JHEP 07 (2017) 023, arXiv:1611.07975 [hep-ph].DOI
  9. [9]N. Craig, S. Koren, and T. Trott, “Cosmological Signals of a Mirror Twin Higgs,” JHEP 05 (2017) 038, arXiv:1611.07977 [hep-ph].DOI
  10. [10]S. Goldstein and J. C. Hill, “A 2% determination of N_eff from primordial element abundance, cosmic microwave background, and baryon acoustic oscillation measurements,” (3, 2026), arXiv:2603.13226 [astro-ph.CO].arxiv.org/abs/2603.13226
  11. [11]N. Craig, A. Katz, M. Strassler, and R. Sundrum, “Naturalness in the Dark at the LHC,” JHEP 07 (2015) 105, arXiv:1501.05310 [hep-ph].DOI
  12. [12]H.-C. Cheng, S. Jung, E. Salvioni, and Y. Tsai, “Exotic Quarks in Twin Higgs Models,” JHEP 03 (2016) 074, arXiv:1512.02647 [hep-ph].DOI
  13. [13]H.-C. Cheng, E. Salvioni, and Y. Tsai, “Exotic electroweak signals in the twin Higgs model,” Phys. Rev. D 95 no. 11, (2017) 115035, arXiv:1612.03176 [hep-ph].DOI
  14. [14]Z. Chacko, C. Kilic, S. Najjari, and C. B. Verhaaren, “Collider signals of the Mirror Twin Higgs boson through the hypercharge portal,” Phys. Rev. D 100 no. 3, (2019) 035037, arXiv:1904.11990 [hep-ph].DOI
  15. [15]H. Davoudiasl, D. E. Morrissey, K. Sigurdson, and S. Tulin, “Hygienesis: A Unified Origin for Baryonic Visible Matter and Antibaryonic Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 211304, arXiv:1008.2399 [hep-ph].DOI
  16. [16]N. F. Bell, K. Petraki, I. M. Shoemaker, and R. R. Volkas, “Pangenesis in a Baryon-Symmetric Universe: Dark and Visible Matter via the Affleck-Dine Mechanism,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 123505, arXiv:1105.3730 [hep-ph].DOI
  17. [17]N. Markevitch, A. H. Gonzalez, D. Clowe, A. Vikhlinin, L. David, W. Forman, C. Jones, S. Murray, and W. Tucker, “Direct constraints on the dark matter self-interaction cross-section from the merging galaxy cluster 1E0657-56,” Astrophys. J. 606 (2004) 819–824, arXiv:astro-ph/0309303.DOI
  18. [18]J. Fan, A. Katz, L. Randall, and M. Reece, “Double-Disk Dark Matter,” Phys. Dark Univ. 2 (2013) 139–156, arXiv:1303.1521 [astro-ph.CO].DOI
  19. [19]S. W. Randall, M. Markevitch, D. Clowe, A. H. Gonzalez, and M. Bradac, “Constraints on the Self-Interaction Cross-Section of Dark Matter from Numerical Simulations of the Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E 0657-56,” Astrophys. J. 679 (2008) 1173–1180, arXiv:0704.0261 [astro-ph].
  20. [20]M. Farina, “Asymmetric Twin Dark Matter,” JCAP 11 (2015) 017, arXiv:1506.03520 [hep-ph].DOI
  21. [21]S. J. Lonsdale and R. R. Volkas, “Comprehensive asymmetric dark matter model,” Phys. Rev. D 97 no. 10, (2018) 103510, arXiv:1801.05561 [hep-ph].DOI
  22. [22]H. Beauchesne, “Mirror neutrinos as dark matter in the Mirror Twin Two Higgs Doublet Model,” JHEP 09 (2020) 048, arXiv:2007.00052 [hep-ph].arxiv.org/abs/2007.00052
  23. [23]A. Bodas, M. A. Buen-Abad, A. Hook, and R. Sundrum, “A closer look in the mirror: reflections on the matter/dark matter coincidence,” JHEP 06 (2024) 052, arXiv:2401.12286 [hep-ph].arxiv.org/abs/2401.12286
  24. [24]C. Froggatt and H. Nielsen, “Hierarchy of quark masses, cabibbo angles and CP violation,” Nucl. Phys. B 147 no. 3-4, (1979) 277–298.
  25. [25]R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, “Effective Theory of Flavor for Minimal Mirror Twin Higgs,” JHEP 10 (2017) 015, arXiv:1706.05548 [hep-ph].DOI
  26. [26]D. E. Kaplan, G. Z. Krnjaic, K. R. Rehermann, and C. M. Wells, “Atomic Dark Matter,” JCAP 05 (2010) 021, arXiv:0909.0753 [hep-ph].DOI
  27. [27]R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, “Was ordinary matter synthesized from mirror matter? An Attempt to explain why Omega(Baryon) approximately equal to 0.2 Omega(Dark),” Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 021304, arXiv:hep-ph/0304261.DOI
  28. [28]Y. Bai and P. Schwaller, “Scale of dark QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 89 no. 6, (2014) 063522, arXiv:1306.4676 [hep-ph].DOI
  29. [29]F.-Y. Cyr-Racine and K. Sigurdson, “Cosmology of atomic dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 87 no. 10, (2013) 103515, arXiv:1209.5752 [astro-ph.CO].
  30. [30]F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, R. de Putter, A. Raccanelli, and K. Sigurdson, “Constraints on Large-Scale Dark Acoustic Oscillations from Cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D 89 no. 6, (2014) 063517, arXiv:1310.3278 [astro-ph.CO].
  31. [31]M. R. Buckley, J. Zavala, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, K. Sigurdson, and M. Vogelsberger, “Scattering, Damping, and Acoustic Oscillations: Simulating the Structure of Dark Matter Halos with Relativistic Force Carriers,” Phys. Rev. D 90 no. 4, (2014) 043524, arXiv:1405.2075 [astro-ph.CO].
  32. [32]P. Agrawal, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, L. Randall, and J. Scholtz, “Dark Catalysis,” JCAP 08 (2017) 021, arXiv:1702.05482 [astro-ph.CO].DOI
  33. [33]S. Bansal, J. Barron, D. Curtin, and Y. Tsai, “Precision cosmological constraints on atomic dark matter,” JHEP 10 (2023) 095, arXiv:2212.02487 [hep-ph].arxiv.org/abs/2212.02487
  34. [34]J. Barron, D. Curtin, H. Liu, J. Munoz, and S. Roy, “Constraining Dark Acoustic Oscillations with the High-Redshift UV Luminosity Function,” JCAP (12, 2025), arXiv:2512.01998 [astro-ph.CO].DOI
  35. [35]P. Asadi, Z. Chacko, D. Curtin, M. Mellors, and E. Neil, “Cosmology and Phenomenology of Nuclear Atomic Dark Matter,” in preparation.
  36. [36]C. Cornella, D. Curtin, E. T. Neil, and J. O. Thompson, “Mapping and probing Froggatt-Nielsen solutions to the quark flavor puzzle,” Phys. Rev. D 111 no. 1, (2025) 015042, arXiv:2306.08026 [hep-ph].arxiv.org/abs/2306.08026
  37. [37]G. Burdman, Z. Chacko, R. Harnik, L. de Lima, and C. B. Verhaaren, “Colorless Top Partners, a 125 GeV Higgs, and the Limits on Naturalness,” Phys. Rev. D 91 no. 5, (2015) 055007, arXiv:1411.3310 [hep-ph].DOI
  38. [38]NPLQCD Collaboration, S. R. Beane, E. Chang, S. D. Cohen, W. Detmold, H. W. Lin, T. C. Luu, K. Orginos, A. Parreno, M. J. Savage, and A. Walker-Loud, “Light Nuclei and Hypernuclei from Quantum Chromodynamics in the Limit of SU(3) Flavor Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 87 no. 3, (2013) 034506, arXiv:1206.5219 [hep-lat].
  39. [39]T. Yamazaki, K.-i. Ishikawa, Y. Kuramashi, and A. Ukawa, “Helium nuclei, deuteron and dineutron in 2+1 flavor lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 074514, arXiv:1207.4277 [hep-lat].DOI
  40. [40]NPLQCD Collaboration, S. R. Beane et al., “Nucleon-Nucleon Scattering Parameters in the Limit of SU(3) Flavor Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. C 88 no. 2, (2013) 024003, arXiv:1301.5790 [hep-lat].
  41. [41]T. Yamazaki, K.-i. Ishikawa, Y. Kuramashi, and A. Ukawa, “Study of quark mass dependence of binding energy for light nuclei in 2+1 flavor lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 92 no. 1, (2015) 014501, arXiv:1502.04182 [hep-lat].arxiv.org/abs/1502.04182
  42. [42]E. Berkowitz, T. Kurth, A. Nicholson, B. Joo, E. Rinaldi, M. Strother, P. M. Vranas, and A. Walker-Loud, “Two-Nucleon Higher Partial-Wave Scattering from Lattice QCD,” Phys. Lett. B 765 (2017) 285–292, arXiv:1508.00886 [hep-lat].DOI
  43. [43]NPLQCD Collaboration, M. Illa et al., “Low-energy scattering and effective interactions of two baryons at mπ ≈ 450 MeV from lattice quantum chromodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 5, (2021) 054508, arXiv:2009.12357 [hep-lat].
  44. [44]M. J. Savage, “Nuclear Physics from Lattice Quantum Chromodynamics,” in 12th Conference on the Intersections of Particle and Nuclear Physics. 10, 2015. arXiv:1510.01787 [nucl-th].arxiv.org/abs/1510.01787
  45. [45]J. Kirschner, N. Barnea, D. Gazit, F. Pederiva, and U. van Kolck, “Spectra and Scattering of Light Lattice Nuclei from Effective Field Theory,” Phys. Rev. C 92 no. 5, (2015) 054002, arXiv:1506.09048 [nucl-th].
  46. [46]Baryon Scattering Collaboration, J. Bulava et al., “Di-nucleons do not form bound states at heavy pion mass,” Phys. Rev. C 113 no. 2, (2026) 024002, arXiv:2505.05547 [hep-lat].
  47. [47]NPLQCD Collaboration, W. Detmold, A. V. Grebe, D. C. Hackett, M. Illa, R. J. Perry, P. E. Shanahan, and M. L. Wagman, “Excited-state uncertainties in lattice-QCD calculations of multi-hadron systems,” (1, 2026) , arXiv:2601.22272 [hep-lat].
  48. [48]NPLQCD Collaboration, W. Detmold, A. V. Grebe, D. C. Hackett, M. Illa, R. J. Perry, P. E. Shanahan, and M. L. Wagman, “Excited-state uncertainties in lattice-QCD calculations of hadron masses and scattering phase shifts,” arXiv:2601.22273 [hep-lat].
  49. [49]Z.-Y. Wang, X. Feng, B.-H. Jian, L.-C. Jin, and C. Liu, “First-Principles Determination of the Proton-Proton Fusion Matrix Element from Lattice QCD,” (3, 2026) , arXiv:2603.09554 [hep-lat].arxiv.org/abs/2603.09554
  50. [50]D. Chakraborty, N. Chavez, X. Gao, N. Mathur, and S. Mukherjee, “Quark-Mass Dependence of Light-Nuclei Masses from Lattice QCD and Trace-Anomaly Contributions to Nuclear Bindings,” (3, 2026) , arXiv:2603.28872 [hep-lat].arxiv.org/abs/2603.28872
  51. [51]K. Zhang, K. Yu, Y. Geng, C. Liu, L. Liu, P. Sun, J.-J. Wu, and R. Zhu, “Two-nucleon systems at mπ ≈ 292 MeV from lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D (5, 2026) , arXiv:2605.16977 [hep-lat].DOI
  52. [52]Baryon Scattering Collaboration, J. Baeza-Ballesteros et al., “Two-nucleon scattering amplitudes at light quark masses from lattice QCD,” arXiv:2610.23332 [hep-lat].
  53. [53]C. Cornella, D. Curtin, G. Krnjaic, and M. Mellors, “Testing the Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism with lepton flavor and number violating processes,” Phys. Rev. D 112 no. 11, (2025) 115010, arXiv:2501.00629 [hep-ph].DOI
  54. [54]V. F. Mukhanov, “Nucleosynthesis without a computer,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 43 (2004) 669–693, arXiv:astro-ph/0303073.DOI
  55. [55]G. Krnjaic and K. Sigurdson, “Big Bang Darkleosynthesis,” Phys. Lett. B 751 (2015) 464–468, arXiv:1406.1171 [hep-ph].DOI
  56. [56]E. Hardy, R. Lasenby, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, “Weak Bang Synthesis of Nuclear Dark Matter,” JHEP 06 (2015) 011, arXiv:1411.3739 [hep-ph].DOI
  57. [57]Z. Yuan, C. Gemmell, K. K. Rogers, J. Barron, S. Roy, D. Curtin, and N. Murray, “Strongest constraints on dark acoustic oscillations from the Lyman-alpha forest,” arXiv:2606.28482 [astro-ph.CO].arxiv.org/abs/2606.28482
  58. [58]W. Enzi et al., “Joint constraints on thermal relic dark matter from strong gravitational lensing, the Lyα forest, and Milky Way satellites,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 506 no. 4, (2021) 5848–5862, arXiv:2010.13802 [astro-ph.CO].DOI
  59. [59]E. O. Nadler, S. Birrer, D. Gilman, R. H. Wechsler, X. Du, A. Benson, A. M. Nierenberg, and T. Treu, “Dark Matter Constraints from a Unified Analysis of Strong Gravitational Lenses and Milky Way Satellite Galaxies,” Astrophys. J. 917 no. 1, (2021) 7, arXiv:2101.07810 [astro-ph.CO].DOI
  60. [60]P. Grothaus, M. Fairbairn, and J. Monroe, “Directional Dark Matter Detection Beyond the Neutrino Bound,” Phys. Rev. D 90 no. 5, (2014) 055018, arXiv:1406.5047 [hep-ph].DOI
  61. [61]C. A. J. O’Hare, A. M. Green, J. Billard, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, and L. E. Strigari, “Readout strategies for directional dark matter detection beyond the neutrino background,” Phys. Rev. D 92 no. 6, (2015) 063518, arXiv:1505.08061 [astro-ph.CO].DOI
  62. [62]S. E. Vahsen et al., “CYGNUS: Feasibility of a nuclear recoil observatory with directional sensitivity to dark matter and neutrinos,” (8, 2020) , arXiv:2008.12587 [physics.ins-det].
  63. [63]S. Sassi, A. Dinmohammadi, M. Heikinheimo, N. Mirabolfathi, K. Nordlund, H. Safari, and K. Tuominen, “Solar neutrinos and dark matter detection with diurnal modulation,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 6, (2021) 063037, arXiv:2103.08511 [hep-ph].DOI
  64. [64]B. Holdom, “Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,” Phys. Lett. B 166 (1986) 196–198.DOI
  65. [65]T. Gherghetta, J. Kersten, K. Olive, and M. Pospelov, “Evaluating the price of tiny kinetic mixing,” Phys. Rev. D 100 no. 9, (2019) 095001, arXiv:1909.00696 [hep-ph].
  66. [66]J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith, “Review of mathematics, numerical factors, and corrections for dark matter experiments based on elastic nuclear recoil,” Astropart. Phys. 6 (1996) 87–112.
  67. [67]D. Baxter et al., “Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81 no. 10, (2021) 907,DOI
  68. [68]Cohen, W. Detmold, H. W. Lin, T. C. Luu, K. Orginos, A. Parreno, M. J. Savage, and A. Walker-Loud, “Light Nuclei and Hypernuclei from Quantum Chromodynamics in the Limit of SU(3) Flavor Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 87 no. 3, (2013) 034506, arXiv:1206.5219 [hep-lat]. E. Del Nobile, “The Theory of Direct Dark Matter Detection: A Guide to Computations,” Lect. Notes Phys. (4, 2021), arXiv:2104.12785 [hep-ph].
  69. [69]A. Galashian and M. McQuinn, “Exploring the astrophysics of dark atoms,” Phys. Rev. D 97 no. 12, (2018) 123018, arXiv:1712.04779 [astro-ph.GA].
  70. [70]J. H. Chang, D. E. Egana-Ugrinovic, R. Essig, and C. Kouvaris, “Structure Formation and Exotic Compact Objects in a Dissipative Dark Sector,” JCAP 03 (2019) 036, arXiv:1812.07000 [hep-ph].DOI
  71. [71]R. Huo, H.-B. Yu, and Y.-M. Zhong, “The Structure of Dissipative Dark Matter Halos,” JCAP 06 (2020) 051, arXiv:1912.06757 [astro-ph.CO].DOI
  72. [72]X. Shen, P. F. Hopkins, L. Necib, F. Jiang, M. Boylan-Kolchin, and A. Wetzel, “Dissipative dark matter on FIRE – I. Structural and kinematic properties of dwarf galaxies,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 506 no. 3, (2021) 4421–4445, arXiv:2102.09580 [astro-ph.GA].DOI
  73. [73]X. Shen, P. F. Hopkins, L. Necib, F. Jiang, M. Boylan-Kolchin, and A. Wetzel, “Dissipative Dark Matter on FIRE. II. Observational Signatures and Constraints from Local Dwarf Galaxies,” Astrophys. J. 966 no. 1, (2024) 131, arXiv:2206.05327 [astro-ph.GA].arxiv.org/abs/2206.05327
  74. [74]S. Roy, X. Shen, M. Lisanti, D. Curtin, N. Murray, and P. F. Hopkins, “Simulating Atomic Dark Matter in Milky Way Analogs,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 954 no. 2, (2023) L40, arXiv:2304.09878 [astro-ph.GA].arxiv.org/abs/2304.09878
  75. [75]S. Roy, X. Shen, J. Barron, M. Lisanti, D. Curtin, N. Murray, and P. F. Hopkins, “Aggressively Dissipative Dark Dwarfs: The Effects of Atomic Dark Matter on the Inner Densities of Isolated Dwarf Galaxies,” Astrophys. J. 982 no. 2, (2025) 175, arXiv:2408.15317 [astro-ph.GA].arxiv.org/abs/2408.15317
  76. [76]LZ Collaboration, J. Aalbers et al., “Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 no. 1, (2025) 011802, arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex].
  77. [77]C. A. J. O’Hare, “New Definition of the Neutrino Floor for Direct Dark Matter Searches,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 no. 25, (2021) 251802, arXiv:2109.03116 [hep-ph].
  78. [78]H. Vogel and J. Redondo, “Dark Radiation constraints on minicharged particles in models with a hidden photon,” JCAP 02 (2014) 029, arXiv:1311.2600 [hep-ph].DOI
  79. [79]S. I. Blinnikov and M. Y. Khlopov, “ON POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF ’MIRROR’ PARTICLES,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 36 (1982) 472.
  80. [80]M. Y. Khlopov, G. M. Beskin, N. E. Boch karev, L. A. Pustylnik, and S. A. Pustylnik, “Observational Physics of Mirror World,” Sov. Astron. 35 (1991) 21.
  81. [81]R. Foot, A. Y. Ignatiev, and R. R. Volkas, “Physics of mirror photons,” Phys. Lett. B 503 (2001) 355–361, arXiv:astro-ph/0011156DOI
  82. [82]D. Curtin and J. Setford, “Signatures of Mirror Stars,” JHEP 03 (2020) 041, arXiv:1909.04072 [hep-ph].DOI
  83. [83]D. Curtin and J. Setford, “How To Discover Mirror Stars,” Phys. Lett. B 804 (2020) 135391, arXiv:1909.04071 [hep-ph].DOI
  84. [84]I. Armstrong, B. Gurbuz, D. Curtin, and C. D. Matzner, “Electromagnetic Signatures of Mirror Stars,” Astrophys. J. 965 no. 1, (2024) 42, arXiv:2311.18086 [astro-ph.HE].arxiv.org/abs/2311.18086
  85. [85]F. Cabral, S. Williamson, D. Curtin, and C. D. Matzner, “Generalized Predictions for the Electromagnetic Signatures of Mirror Stars,” arXiv:2604.00106 [astro-ph.HE].
  86. [86]A. Howe, J. Setford, D. Curtin, and C. D. Matzner, “How to search for mirror stars with Gaia,” JHEP 07 (2022) 059, arXiv:2112.05766 [hep-ph].arxiv.org/abs/2112.05766
  87. [87]T. Prusti, J. H. J. de Bruijne, et al., “The Gaia mission,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 595 (Nov., 2016) A1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201629272.
  88. [88]J. de Blas et al., “Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders,” JHEP 01 (2020) 139, arXiv:1905.03764 [hep-ph].DOI
  89. [89]H. A. Bethe, “Theory of the Effective Range in Nuclear Scattering,” Phys. Rev. 76 (1949) 38–50.
  90. [90]J. M. Blatt and J. D. Jackson, “On the Interpretation of Neutron-Proton Scattering Data by the Schwinger Variational Method,” Phys. Rev. 76 (1949) 18–37.DOI
  91. [91]X. Chu, C. Garcia-Cely, and H. Murayama, “A Practical and Consistent Parametrization of Dark Matter Self-Interactions,” JCAP 06 (2020) 043, arXiv:1908.06067 [hep-ph].DOI
  92. [92]D. Maoz, Astrophysics in a Nutshell. Princeton University Press, 2016.
  93. [93]Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG) Collaboration, Y. Aoki et al., “FLAG review 2024,” Phys. Rev. D 113 no. 1, (2026) 014508, arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat].
  94. [94]C. Alexandrou, V. Drach, K. Jansen, C. Kallidonis, and G. Koutsou, “Baryon spectrum with N_f = 2 + 1 + 1 twisted mass fermions,” Phys. Rev. D 90 no. 7, (2014) 074501, arXiv:1406.4310 [hep-lat].DOI
  95. [95]R. Gupta, S. Park, M. Hoferichter, E. Mereghetti, B. Yoon, and T. Bhattacharya, “Pion-Nucleon Sigma Term from Lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 no. 24, (2021) 242002, arXiv:2105.12095 [hep-lat].DOI
  96. [96]MILC Collaboration, W. Freeman and D. Toussaint, “Intrinsic strangeness and charm of the nucleon using improved staggered fermions,” Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 054503, arXiv:1204.3866 [hep-lat].
  97. [97]T. DeGrand and E. T. Neil, “Repursuing lattice QCD results for composite phenomenology,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 3, (2020) 034504, arXiv:1910.08561 [hep-ph].DOI

Paper details

vlnc:W_pmsd9jga
Version
v1 · latest
Published
Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days
Added
License
CC BY 4.0
Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

  • Physics and Astronomy

Claude, ChatGPT

View statement
Looking for related papers…
Contents