The at CMB challenges light gauge boson scenarios
Abstract
Abstract
The relativistic degrees of freedom () is one of the crucial cosmological parameters. The precise measurement of at the time of cosmic microwave background formation, by Planck 2018 can be used to understand the new fundamental interactions, in particular involving light mediators. Presence of any new particle with sufficient energy density and sizeable interactions with Standard Model particles at the temperature around MeV can significantly alter the neutrino decoupling and hence . Thus the bound on can place stringent constraints on various beyond Standard Model paradigms involving light particles. models are among such scenarios and are widely studied in several aspects. In this work, we consider several popular models with light boson like , , , ; being the flavour indices and study their impact on . We also examine the constraints from ground based experiments like Xenon1T, Borexino, trident, etc. Our analysis shows that for light mass the provides the most stringent constraints on the mass and coupling, far exceeding the existing constraints from other experiments.
1 INTRODUCTION
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiations play a crucial role in elucidating the dynamics of the early universe as well as shaping our present understanding of the large-scale structure of the universe. Observations of the CMB, including temperature anisotropies, polarization patterns, matter-energy distribution, reionization phenomena in the early universe, are consistent with both the standard CDM cosmology and the Standard Model of particle physics (SM) [1]. One of the interesting cosmological parameters , which represents the number of relativistic degrees of freedom at the CMB scale ( eV), serves an important role in understanding the dynamics of the thermal history during the epoch MeV to eV. At high temperature of the universe, photons and neutrinos shared the same temperature. As the universe cooled down ( MeV) and the interaction rate fell below the Hubble expansion rate (), neutrinos decoupled from photons, resulting in the formation of two separate baths i.e. neutrino bath and photon bath (combined with electrons). At temperature , the two baths evolve with different temperature [1]. The parameter is then parameterized by the ratio of energy densities in the neutrino and photon baths. In the particle content of the SM, one can expect the neutrino decoupling event to take place around MeV, resulting in at the CMB [2, 3]. Note the slight deviation in from the expected three light neutrino degrees of freedom in SM () is due to non-instantaneous neutrino decoupling, finite temperature QED corrections, and neutrino flavor oscillations [2, 3].
Observations of the CMB by the Planck satellite can also measure the parameter 111Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), large-scale structure (LSS) datasets, and other cosmological probes contribute to determining the value of [4, 5].. The latest Planck 2018 data provides a precise measurement of at the time of the CMB to be with confidence level (CL), under the assumption of standard CDM cosmology [5]. The upper limit of the Planck data suggests an additional contribution (apart from SM) to , extending up to (), providing the hint for BSM physics.
The presence of beyond standard model (BSM) light mediators, interacting with either the photon or neutrino bath at temperatures relevant to neutrino decoupling, introduces additional contributions to the radiation energy density, leading to an increase in [6, 7, 8] 222Note additional contributions to may also come from various other sources like extra radiation [9, 10, 11, 12], models involving early dark energy [10, 13], and relativistic decaying dark matter [14].. The observations of impose constraints on the BSM light mediators, as presented by the red shaded region in the cartoon Fig.1. In certain mass regions of these mediators, turns out to be a severe constraint compared to other existing bounds. models are among such widely studied BSM paradigms with light mediators and their phenomenological consequences have been explored in several contexts333See for example Ref. [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22] and the references therein.. In this work, we consider light gauge boson () originating from different types of gauge extended scenarios, which naturally involve interactions with neutrinos and electron-positron pairs (either at the tree level or loop-induced). The BSM interactions in the presence of light can potentially modify the late-time dynamics between the photon and neutrino baths, prolonging the process of neutrino decoupling and increasing the value. As a result, the upper limit on ( with CL) derived from the CMB can be utilized to constrain both the mass of the light gauge boson () and its corresponding gauge coupling ().
In the context of , various types of gauged scenarios have been explored in the existing literature. These scenarios aim to explain the excess of observed in the CMB, involving [7], [8] or, generic model [23]. A comprehensive discussion on within the generic scenario is presented in Ref. [23], categorizing models into two classes: those with tree-level coupling of with electron and those without tree-level coupling of with electron. The study also highlights that the varying charges for , corresponding to various gauged extended scenarios, notably impact the value of . This work is an extension of Ref. [23], where we consider a variety of models, such as , , , and etc., and study their impact on , assuming the scenario where was initially () in thermal bath (which requires ). The primary objective of this work is to identify the exclusion regions in the plane for each gauged extended model, guided by the upper bound on derived from CMB observations [5].
The gauged extended models are also motivated by their potential detectability across a broad mass range, from eV to TeV, as sketched in Fig.1. For gauge boson with TeV or sub TeV masses, the most severe constraints are derived from collider experiments like LHC [24, 25, 26, 27] and LEP [28]. Whereas, in the mass range spanning from a few MeV to a few GeV, experiments carried out by LHCb [29], Belle[30], BaBar [31], and fixed target experiments [16, 32] are notably more effective in providing constraints. In the sub GeV mass region, with , the low energy neutrino scattering experiments (neutrino electron scattering [18], neutrino-nucleus scattering [33] etc.), provide most stringent constraints. However, in the mass range where (MeV) and , direct searches become less sensitive. Furthermore, as we will show, CMB observations in terms of play a significant role in constraining the parameter space for . In this work, we identify the CMB exclusion region with CL for each scenario and compare it to the other aforementioned existing constraints in the plane. We highlight that in certain regions of and coupling , observations of in the CMB provide more stringent constraints compared to other observations. We present a schematic diagram in Fig.1, where various existing constraints are summarised by different color patches based on the mass and coupling. Our key focus in this study is the red-shaded region, which represents the exclusion region derived from observations in the CMB.
The paper is organized in the following way. In section 2, we provide a brief overview of the evolution of in the presence of a light , with a focus on its dependence on the gauge extension. Then we present the exclusion regions in the plane for various models, determined by the upper bound on derived from CMB observations in section 3. Finally, in section 4 we summarize our results and conclusions.
2 Evaluation of in light Models
Before going to the analysis of light emerging from various symmetries we present a brief and generic overview of the effective models in this section. The discussion in this section is based on our previous work [23] where we have presented a comprehensive analysis of for a generic model. For a generic model, we assume that SM quark doublets () and singlets (), as well as lepton doublets () and singlets () are charged under this symmetry444Note that for now we have left the charges of SM particles as free parameters, whose values depend on the details of the symmetry, see Table 1.. We also need a SM singlet scalar carrying charge to generate the mass of () by acquiring a vacuum expectation value (VEV) to break the symmetry. As pointed out in Ref. [23] that to affect the decoupling has to be in the MeV scale. To keep very light compared to the SM gauge boson (), we consider charge of the SM Higgs doublet and hence does not get any contribution from the SM vev. The charge assignments are shown in Table 1.
Note that to generate the SM quark and charged lepton masses, we take the following charge assignments: and . It is also worth highlighting that although the charges of quark doublet should be the same as that of the up and down quark singlets, the charges may differ across different generations i.e. as shown in Table 1.
Besides the particle mentioned in Table 1, we also need right-handed neutrino (RHN) for anomaly cancellation and light neutrino mass generation [34, 23, 35, 15]. In this work, we consider only Majorana type mass models where, are also too heavy to affect decoupling [36, 37] and we ignore their contribution555In Dirac-type mass models, are relativistic at MeV temperature and can significantly alter [9].. Apart from the minimal particle content of Table 1, most of the popular models studied in literature may also contain additional BSM particles which are typically much heavier than MeV scale and will not take part in our analysis [15].
Models | ||||
The decoupling is governed by only the weak interaction processes in SM scenario and usually takes place at around MeV temperature [6]. The only particles relevant at that temperature are and . The scenario changes drastically in the presence of any light (mass MeV) BSM particles interacting with either of these three sectors [7, 23]. Thus one can easily anticipate that light gauge boson (with mass, MeV) interacting with and will significantly alter the at the time of CMB. In this work we will assume all acquire the same temperature () and consider the case where was initially in a thermal bath () [23]. is parametrised in terms of the temperature ratios of sector and bath [1],
(1) |
at the time of CMB is determined by computing the temperature ratio at . Note that, throughout this paper, whenever we say , we refer at the time of CMB. To evaluate we solve the following coupled equations 666Further details can be found in Appendix A-C of Ref. [23].,
(2) | |||||
(3) | |||||
(4) |
where, and stand for the energy density, pressure density, and temperature of species . On the other hand, signify the energy transfer rate from bath to , deduced by integrating the collision terms [7, 23]. As mentioned earlier, assuming same temperature between 3 sectors, we denote , and . Throughout the paper, by we refer all generation of as a whole. We do not discuss the energy transfer rates here as they are already elaborated in detail in Ref. [23].
It is worth mentioning that the coupling and the coupling are the most crucial parameters in the BSM processes that affect the . However, interactions involving heavier charged leptons and quarks are insignificant here, as their energy densities are suppressed at temperatures nearing MeV. When has coupling to both and () , both the following BSM processes affect decoupling: (i) decaying to both and and (ii) scattering process mediated by . Any increase in the effective coupling () dictating these BSM processes enhances the BSM contribution, thus leading to an increment in . On the other hand in the absence of tree level vertex , all the number density of finally gets diluted to bath (with branching ratio) irrespective of the coupling strength (). Hence for such models (), the final becomes independent of effective couplings . Thus following our argument in Ref. [23] the light models can be broadly classified into two cases: and , depending on whether has tree level coupling with electron or not (see Fig.2).
It is worth highlighting that even in the absence of tree level interaction (), induced coupling with may exist which varies depending on the specific model [38]. We do not delve into the details of induced coupling which may arise from kinetic mixing or can be loop induced. We take the following effective interaction Lagrangian:
(5) |
with a benchmark value , which is very commonly used for models (with )[39, 7]. Needless to say that with the increase in , the energy density of gets suppressed and hence decreases for both of the above mentioned two cases.
The excess in at CMB in the presence of can be used to constrain the parameter space, as the deviation from SM predicted value of is also very precisely constrained from Planck 2018 [5]. We translate this constrain from in the parameter space of plane for previously mentioned two classes of generic models in our previous work [23]. We extend this exercise for all popular models by performing exhaustive numerical scans on the parameter space (for ), in the next section.
3 Specific Symmetries
In this section, we will discuss some phenomenological consequences of various well motivated symmetries. As mentioned earlier, while doing this we consider that the corresponding gauge boson was initially in thermal equilibrium and the RHNs are heavy enough that they do not take part in decoupling. In order to estimate , we find the temperature ratio at by solving eq.(2)-(4) and then plug into eq.(1). As described earlier the value of is strongly dependent on parameters: and , and hence the upper limit on by Planck 2018 [5] leads to strong constraint on the same parameter space. Before going into the details of the results we summarize the existing laboratory-based constraints on light in Table-2. The detailed discussion on existing constraints can be found in Ref. [16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 20]. In addition to the constraints mentioned in the table, the light may also encounter astrophysical constraints like SN1987A [40, 41, 42]. However, this supernova constraint differs depending on the specific gauge model and requires a detailed analysis which is beyond the scope of this work.
Experiments | Process | Observations | Refs. |
EES (elastic electron-neutrino scattering) | incoming particle: solar | recoil rate of | XENON [20, 43], LZ[21], Borexino [18, 44, 19] |
CENS (coherent elastic neutrino -nucleus scattering) | nuclei N: {CsI, Ar} | recoil rate of nucleus | CsI and Ar [45, 33, 39] XENON [20, 21] |
Fixed target experiments | displaced vertex with di-electron | E137 [46], E141 [47], E774 [32] etc. | |
Neutrino trident | di-muon final state | LBNE [48], CCFR [49], DUNE [50] | |
ATLAS and CMS | , | oppositely charged muons final state | [51] [52, 53] |
BaBar, Belle | , | lepton charged tracks with | BaBar [31, 16] Belle [30] |
KLOE | , | charged tracks with | KLOE [54] |
For the ease of readers, we denote the experimental constraints with the same notation for all models shown in Fig.3-6. The bounds from EES and CENS from direct detection experiments (XENON1T) are shown by dark cyan and dark blue solid lines respectively. On the other hand bounds from Borexino and coherent scattering from CsIAr material are depicted by gray hatched region and dark green solid line repectively. The magenta solid line and the light blue hatched region in some figures signify the constraint from oscillation data [17] and fixed target experiments respectively. Finally, the upper limit on at CMB () from Planck 2018 [5] is shown by the red dashed line. To display the variation of we also show two additional contours for and depicted by blue dashed lines. We now discuss each of the models one by one throughout this section. Although two of them have already been discussed in the literature [7, 8], for completeness and comparative analysis, here we discuss all popular models (see Table. 1).
3.1 The Gauged Symmetry
type of model has been studied exhaustively in different contexts [34, 35, 20, 55]. In such gauge extensions, all three generation of leptons are charged with charge . Hence it lies to the first class of models which have tree level coupling of with as discussed in Sec.2. We show various constraints in vs. plane in Fig.3(a). Since, in this model can couple to both leptons and quarks it attracts strong constraints from fixed target experiments in the sub-GeV range of with [47, 46, 32]. A summary of these bounds can be found in Refs. [56, 57]. On the other hand, neutrino scattering experiments like EES and CENS from XENON1T, XENONnT and LZ [20, 43, 21] place stringent constraint in the parameter space. Neutrino electron scattering from Borexino also excludes for MeV [18, 44, 19]. Other experiments like BaBar [31, 58] and KLOE [54] can place constraint at relatively larger couplings (). In spite of these stringent constraints, there is significant parameter space, particularly for low mass and small couplings which remains unconstrained. The constraint coming from the upper limit on from Planck 2018 [5], shown by the red dashed line, can exclude a large portion of this parameter space as shown in Fig.3(a). It excludes MeV at lower couplings () and MeV at higher couplings (). As discussed in Sec.2 with an increase in the relevant collision terms increase leading to an enhancement in . And with an increase in the effect in decreases due to the suppressed energy density of at decoupling. For this reason, we observe the contour for the upper limit on gradually shifts towards the higher with increase in . This phenomenon can also be understood from the contour lines (blue dashed) with values of and .
3.2 The Gauged Symmetry
So far we have considered only the flavour universal symmetry where each generation of quarks and charged leptons carry the same charge under the symmetry. However, there are several flavour dependent symmetries known in the literature [15, 17, 18, 19, 59]. One of such flavour dependent symmetry is the so called gauge symmetries [60]. In this scenario, the charges of all generations of quarks are still the same as that we consider in symmetry, however only one generation of SM leptons carry the charge. There are three types for such symmetries namely the , and gauge symmetries corresponding to the first, second, and third generation of SM leptons respectively. The charges of the SM particles and new particles under these symmetries are given in Table 1.
3.2.1 model:
In the model the light couples to apart from all 3 quark generations [59]. As the has tree level coupling with it will lie in the first class of models in deciding as discussed in Sec.2. Hence, the upper bound on arising from Planck 2018 also constrains this model, as depicted by the tilted red dashed line (similar to ) shown in Fig.3(b). However, in this case charge of , so the constraints will be stronger than model. As the coupling of with is thrice () than that of model, the relevant BSM processes also become larger compared to , leading to larger for the same and . For this reason we notice the contour for the upper limit on shift towards the right (to higher ) as compared to shown in Fig.3(b). For the same reason the constraints like EES and CENS from Xenon1T [20], Borexino [18, 44, 19] become more stringent compared to . Similar argument holds for BaBar [31, 58], KLOE [54] and fixed target experiments [32, 16, 19].
3.2.2 model:
In contrast to the model, in () model the light couples to only second (third) generation of leptons with charge (). As the has no tree level coupling with it will lie in the second class of models in deciding as discussed in Sec.2. If we do not assume any induced coupling between and , then the only BSM process to affect is the decay of to sector with branching ratio (BR). Thus all the density eventually dilutes to sector independent of the coupling () and hence we observe the bound from becomes a straight line in the vs. plane as shown in Fig.3(c). However, the situation changes drastically if we consider some induced coupling 777we pick this benchmark value to compare with the existing literature [39] between and and the corresponding constraint is portrayed in Fig.3(d). The knee like pattern is due to the interplay between decay and scattering and is discussed in great detail in our earlier work [23]. In the presence of the induced coupling both the processes (i) scattering: mediated by and (ii) decay are active in the higher coupling () regime and the effect on becomes almost similar like in this regime. However, in the lower coupling regime the scatterings are suppressed () than the decay (), and hence the BSM process becomes decay dominated [23]. Thus in this regime () the constraint from becomes independent of the coupling . In the absence of tree level coupling with , the experimental constraints in the parameter space are comparatively less stringent than those for . The major constraints come from EES from Xenon1T [20], Borexino [18, 44, 19] and COHERENT data [19]. Additionally, oscillation data also constrains the parameter space as given in Ref. [17].
3.3 The Gauged Symmetry
So far we have been discussing about the gauge symmetries under which at least some of the quarks were always charged. However, anomaly free models can be constructed by assigning charges to even lepton sectors only. Such models are and models. We start our discussion type models due to its wide discussion in the existing literature [7, 39].
3.3.1 model:
The upper limit contour in symmetry also exhibits similar dependence likewise in the model, due to the absence of tree level vertex. The constraints from with and without the induced couplings are shown in Fig.4(a) and Fig.4(b) respectively. In the sub-GeV range the other relevant constraints are EES from Xenon1T [20], Borexino [18, 44, 19]. Fixed target (FT) experiment has very loose constraints due to the absence of both quark coupling and electron coupling [21].
3.3.2 model:
In (or ) model tree level vertex exists in contrast to type model and hence the constraint from is exactly same as model as depicted in Fig.4(c). For the same reason constraints from EES from Xenon1T [21], Borexino [18, 44, 19], Babar [31, 16] and fixed target experiments [16, 32] are found to be stronger than model.
3.4 The Gauged Symmetry
There are also symmetries where the symmetry is flavour dependent in both quarks as well as the lepton sector namely the gauge symmetries [15]. In this class, there are total nine such symmetries: , where correspond to the first, second and third generation of quarks respectively. For all nine cases, the charges of the can be fixed by the anomaly cancellation conditions. Among these nine symmetries, we discussed about symmetry in our previous work [23]. In this work, we will shed light on the remaining six symmetries. The charge assignments of these symmetries are shown in Table 1.
3.4.1 model:
Models like fall in this category where has tree level coupling with and any one generation of quarks. Due to the presence of tree level vertex (with ) the increases with increase in for a fixed . Hence the contour for the upper limit on exhibits a pattern similar to the model. The constraints are shown in Fig.5. For comparison, we also showcase bounds from EES (from Xenon1T) [20], Borexino [44] which are similar to the case in model, since these bound rely only on the lepton coupling. Note that for type of model with the tree level coupling of to first generation quarks (and hence nucleons) may attract constraints from CENS, BaBar, and fixed target experiments. However such analysis has not been yet performed with these types of models in the existing literature and dedicated analysis is beyond the scope of this work. For model due to the presence of coupling bound from mixing is also applicable as shown in Ref. [23].
3.4.2 model:
In contrast to the previous case, in model has no tree level coupling with and thus the contour becomes independent of the coupling as shown in Fig.6(a). However, in presence of induced coupling the contour for follow pattern similar to as shown in Fig.6(b). The knee like pattern of the contour for the upper bound on is due to the interplay between scattering and decay as already discussed earlier. Similar to the earlier case attracts constraints like EES from Xenon1T [20], Borexino [44, 19] which are similar to the case in model. Here also we do not portray the bounds that may come from nuclear interactions. Additionally, type of model attracts strong constrain from neutrino trident experiment [15].
Thus the precise measurement of by Planck 2018 data [5] provides a unique opportunity to probe light gauge bosons realized in various models. In general, most of the terrestrial experiments looking for light lose sensitivity in the sub-GeV mass range of . Although the neutrino scattering experiments can constrain MeV, it can not probe very low couplings (). On the other hand, the upper limit on by Planck 2018 can constrain MeV as well as very small couplings even upto , as shown in this section. The value of relies on the decoupling and in the SM scenario it takes place around MeV [6]. Hence is sensitive to BSM particles with sufficient energy at that temperature as in our case with mass MeV. For the same reason becomes insensitive to slightly heavier with MeV, when the energy density becomes Boltzmann suppressed. Nevertheless the upper limit on can probe the parameter space which is beyond the reach of current ground based experiments. Astrophysical bounds like supernova may constrain very small couplings [61], however, such bounds largely depend on the modeling of the stellar objects [62]. Whereas the bound from is relatively more generic since here the only assumption is to be a thermal bath which is the case for [7].
4 Conclusions
The stringent limit on by Planck 2018 [5] can be used to constrain various BSM paradigms involving light ((MeV)) mediators. In this work, we show that the decoupling is significantly affected in the presence of light particles interacting with (or, ) leading to an enhanced . This in turn leads to constraining the parameter space of light in the mass () vs. coupling () plane using the Planck 2018 data. As the SM decoupling usually takes place at MeV, upper limit puts strong constraint for few MeV. However, the ground based experiments looking for light BSM particles lose sensitivity in the sub-MeV range, and thus the constraint from can be useful in this regard. We consider several popular models like and study the contribution in due to the light realized in this model assuming was initially in thermal bath. In our previous work [23], we showed the signature in due to the light can be broadly classified into two categories depending on whether has tree level coupling with or not. We correctly identify the aforementioned models and display the constraints from along with other existing constraints. For models with tree level coupling (e.g. ), the constraint from becomes stronger with an increase in because of the enhancement in BSM processes with higher values of . In the absence of tree level coupling is dominated by the decay, and hence becomes insensitive to . Thus we observe the constraints to be straight line in vs. plane for such models (e.g. ). However, in the presence of induced couplings, the constraints modify due to the interplay of decay scattering as discussed in Sec.3. We observe that in a significant parameter space, specifically for low mass and small couplings, the constraint from is much more stringent than the experimental searches. In fact in many cases, the provides the only constraint on such parameter space. Thus looking at the footprints in at CMB can be an useful scheme to probe various light BSM particles having interactions with or, .
Acknowledgements.
SJ is funded by CSIR, Government of India, under the NET JRF fellowship scheme with Award file No. 09/080(1172)/2020-EMR-I. PG acknowledges the financial support through the APEX project at the Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar. PG also acknowledges local hospitality at ICTS Bengaluru during the visit for the SATPP 2024.References
- [1] S. Dodelson, Modern Cosmology. Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2003.
- [2] G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pastor, T. Pinto, O. Pisanti, and P. D. Serpico, “Relic neutrino decoupling including flavor oscillations,” Nucl. Phys. B 729 (2005) 221–234, arXiv:hep-ph/0506164.
- [3] E. Grohs, G. M. Fuller, C. T. Kishimoto, M. W. Paris, and A. Vlasenko, “Neutrino energy transport in weak decoupling and big bang nucleosynthesis,” Phys. Rev. D 93 no. 8, (2016) 083522, arXiv:1512.02205 [astro-ph.CO].
- [4] Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade et al., “Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A13, arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO].
- [5] 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)].
- [6] M. Escudero, “Neutrino decoupling beyond the Standard Model: CMB constraints on the Dark Matter mass with a fast and precise evaluation,” JCAP 02 (2019) 007, arXiv:1812.05605 [hep-ph].
- [7] M. Escudero, D. Hooper, G. Krnjaic, and M. Pierre, “Cosmology with A Very Light Lμ Lτ Gauge Boson,” JHEP 03 (2019) 071, arXiv:1901.02010 [hep-ph].
- [8] H. Esseili and G. D. Kribs, “Cosmological Implications of Gauged on in the CMB and BBN,” arXiv:2308.07955 [hep-ph].
- [9] K. N. Abazajian and J. Heeck, “Observing Dirac neutrinos in the cosmic microwave background,” Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 075027, arXiv:1908.03286 [hep-ph].
- [10] V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, “Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 no. 22, (2019) 221301, arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO].
- [11] D. K. Ghosh, S. Jeesun, and D. Nanda, “Long-lived inert Higgs boson in a fast expanding universe and its imprint on the cosmic microwave background,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 11, (2022) 115001, arXiv:2206.04940 [hep-ph].
- [12] D. K. Ghosh, P. Ghosh, and S. Jeesun, “CMB signature of non-thermal Dark Matter produced from self-interacting dark sector,” JCAP 07 (2023) 012, arXiv:2301.13754 [hep-ph].
- [13] V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, D. Grin, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, “Cosmological implications of ultralight axionlike fields,” Phys. Rev. D 98 no. 8, (2018) 083525, arXiv:1806.10608 [astro-ph.CO].
- [14] T. Bringmann, F. Kahlhoefer, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and P. Walia, “Converting nonrelativistic dark matter to radiation,” Phys. Rev. D 98 no. 2, (2018) 023543, arXiv:1803.03644 [astro-ph.CO].
- [15] C. Bonilla, T. Modak, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle, “ gauge symmetry as a simple description of anomalies,” Phys. Rev. D 98 no. 9, (2018) 095002, arXiv:1705.00915 [hep-ph].
- [16] M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer, and J. Jaeckel, “Hunting All the Hidden Photons,” JHEP 07 (2018) 094, arXiv:1803.05466 [hep-ph].
- [17] P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and M. Maltoni, “Neutrino oscillation constraints on U(1)’ models: from non-standard interactions to long-range forces,” JHEP 01 (2021) 114, arXiv:2009.14220 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 115 (2022)].
- [18] P. Coloma, P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, M. Maltoni, J. a. P. Pinheiro, J. a. P. Pinheiro, S. Urrea, and S. Urrea, “Constraining new physics with Borexino Phase-II spectral data,” JHEP 07 (2022) 138, arXiv:2204.03011 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 138 (2022)].
- [19] M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, E. Picciau, C. A. Ternes, and Y. Y. Zhang, “Probing light mediators and through detection of coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering at COHERENT,” JHEP 05 (2022) 109, arXiv:2202.11002 [hep-ph].
- [20] A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, and R. Srivastava, “Dark matter detectors as a novel probe for light new physics,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 1, (2022) 013001, arXiv:2112.03309 [hep-ph].
- [21] V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and C. A. Ternes, “Light vector mediators at direct detection experiments,” arXiv:2402.05506 [hep-ph].
- [22] K. Chakraborty, A. Das, S. Goswami, and S. Roy, “Constraining general U(1) interactions from neutrino-electron scattering measurements at DUNE near detector,” JHEP 04 (2022) 008, arXiv:2111.08767 [hep-ph].
- [23] D. K. Ghosh, P. Ghosh, S. Jeesun, and R. Srivastava, “Hubble Tension and Cosmological Imprints of Gauge Symmetry: as a case study,” arXiv:2312.16304 [hep-ph].
- [24] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Search for narrow resonances in dilepton mass spectra in proton-proton collisions at = 13 TeV and combination with 8 TeV data,” Phys. Lett. B 768 (2017) 57–80, arXiv:1609.05391 [hep-ex].
- [25] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb-1 of collision data collected at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Lett. B 796 (2019) 68–87, arXiv:1903.06248 [hep-ex].
- [26] A. Das, S. Oda, N. Okada, and D.-s. Takahashi, “Classically conformal U(1)’ extended standard model, electroweak vacuum stability, and LHC Run-2 bounds,” Phys. Rev. D 93 no. 11, (2016) 115038, arXiv:1605.01157 [hep-ph].
- [27] E. Accomando, L. Delle Rose, S. Moretti, E. Olaiya, and C. H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, “Extra Higgs boson and Z′ as portals to signatures of heavy neutrinos at the LHC,” JHEP 02 (2018) 109, arXiv:1708.03650 [hep-ph].
- [28] R. Essig, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, “Probing Dark Forces and Light Hidden Sectors at Low-Energy e+e- Colliders,” Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 015003, arXiv:0903.3941 [hep-ph].
- [29] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Search for Dark Photons Produced in 13 TeV Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 no. 6, (2018) 061801, arXiv:1710.02867 [hep-ex].
- [30] G. Inguglia, “Belle II studies of missing energy decays and searches for dark photon production,” PoS DIS2016 (2016) 263, arXiv:1607.02089 [hep-ex].
- [31] BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., “Search for a Dark Photon in Collisions at BaBar,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 no. 20, (2014) 201801, arXiv:1406.2980 [hep-ex].
- [32] A. Bross, M. Crisler, S. H. Pordes, J. Volk, S. Errede, and J. Wrbanek, “A Search for Shortlived Particles Produced in an Electron Beam Dump,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 2942–2945.
- [33] COHERENT Collaboration, D. Akimov et al., “Measurement of the Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering Cross Section on CsI by COHERENT,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 no. 8, (2022) 081801, arXiv:2110.07730 [hep-ex].
- [34] E. Ma and R. Srivastava, “Dirac or inverse seesaw neutrino masses with gauge symmetry and flavor symmetry,” Phys. Lett. B 741 (2015) 217–222, arXiv:1411.5042 [hep-ph].
- [35] E. Ma, N. Pollard, R. Srivastava, and M. Zakeri, “Gauge Model with Residual Symmetry,” Phys. Lett. B 750 (2015) 135–138, arXiv:1507.03943 [hep-ph].
- [36] R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912.
- [37] J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2227.
- [38] D. W. P. d. Amaral, D. G. Cerdeno, P. Foldenauer, and E. Reid, “Solar neutrino probes of the muon anomalous magnetic moment in the gauged ,” JHEP 12 (2020) 155, arXiv:2006.11225 [hep-ph].
- [39] H. Banerjee, B. Dutta, and S. Roy, “Probing L-L models with CENS: A new look at the combined COHERENT CsI and Ar data,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 1, (2021) 015015, arXiv:2103.10196 [hep-ph].
- [40] D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, “Strong Supernova 1987A Constraints on Bosons Decaying to Neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 no. 2, (2023) 021001, arXiv:2209.11773 [hep-ph].
- [41] D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, “Large Neutrino Secret Interactions Have a Small Impact on Supernovae,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 no. 2, (2024) 021002, arXiv:2307.15115 [hep-ph].
- [42] H. T. Janka, “Neutrino Emission from Supernovae,” arXiv:1702.08713 [astro-ph.HE].
- [43] S. K. A., A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, H. Prajapati, and R. Srivastava, “Implications of first LZ and XENONnT results: A comparative study of neutrino properties and light mediators,” Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023) 137742, arXiv:2208.06415 [hep-ph].
- [44] A. N. Khan, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu, “Borexino and general neutrino interactions,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 5, (2020) 055047, arXiv:1906.12102 [hep-ph].
- [45] M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, E. Picciau, and Y. Y. Zhang, “Constraints on light vector mediators through coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering data from COHERENT,” JHEP 01 (2021) 116, arXiv:2008.05022 [hep-ph].
- [46] J. D. Bjorken, S. Ecklund, W. R. Nelson, A. Abashian, C. Church, B. Lu, L. W. Mo, T. A. Nunamaker, and P. Rassmann, “Search for Neutral Metastable Penetrating Particles Produced in the SLAC Beam Dump,” Phys. Rev. D 38 (1988) 3375.
- [47] E. M. Riordan et al., “A Search for Short Lived Axions in an Electron Beam Dump Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 755.
- [48] W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov, and I. Yavin, “Neutrino Trident Production: A Powerful Probe of New Physics with Neutrino Beams,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 091801, arXiv:1406.2332 [hep-ph].
- [49] CCFR Collaboration, S. R. Mishra et al., “Neutrino Tridents and W Z Interference,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 3117–3120.
- [50] W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, J. Martín-Albo, A. Sousa, and M. Wallbank, “Neutrino Tridents at DUNE,” Phys. Rev. D 100 no. 11, (2019) 115029, arXiv:1902.06765 [hep-ph].
- [51] CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Search for a Narrow Resonance Lighter than 200 GeV Decaying to a Pair of Muons in Proton-Proton Collisions at TeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 no. 13, (2020) 131802, arXiv:1912.04776 [hep-ex].
- [52] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurements of Four-Lepton Production at the Z Resonance in pp Collisions at 7 and 8 TeV with ATLAS,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 no. 23, (2014) 231806, arXiv:1403.5657 [hep-ex].
- [53] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Observation of Z Decays to Four Leptons with the CMS Detector at the LHC,” JHEP 12 (2012) 034, arXiv:1210.3844 [hep-ex].
- [54] KLOE-2 Collaboration, A. Anastasi et al., “Combined limit on the production of a light gauge boson decaying into and ,” Phys. Lett. B 784 (2018) 336–341, arXiv:1807.02691 [hep-ex].
- [55] S. Mandal, H. Prajapati, and R. Srivastava, “ model in light of the CDF II result,” arXiv:2301.01522 [hep-ph].
- [56] J. D. Bjorken, R. Essig, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, “New Fixed-Target Experiments to Search for Dark Gauge Forces,” Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 075018, arXiv:0906.0580 [hep-ph].
- [57] R. Harnik, J. Kopp, and P. A. N. Machado, “Exploring nu Signals in Dark Matter Detectors,” JCAP 07 (2012) 026, arXiv:1202.6073 [hep-ph].
- [58] BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., “Search for Invisible Decays of a Dark Photon Produced in Collisions at BaBar,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 no. 13, (2017) 131804, arXiv:1702.03327 [hep-ex].
- [59] V. De Romeri, A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, and R. Srivastava, “XENONnT and LUX-ZEPLIN constraints on DSNB-boosted dark matter,” JCAP 03 (2024) 028, arXiv:2309.04117 [hep-ph].
- [60] E. Ma, “Gauged B - 3L(tau) and radiative neutrino masses,” Phys. Lett. B 433 (1998) 74–81, arXiv:hep-ph/9709474.
- [61] K. Akita, S. H. Im, and M. Masud, “Probing non-standard neutrino interactions with a light boson from next galactic and diffuse supernova neutrinos,” JHEP 12 (2022) 050, arXiv:2206.06852 [hep-ph].
- [62] N. Bar, K. Blum, and G. D’Amico, “Is there a supernova bound on axions?,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 12, (2020) 123025, arXiv:1907.05020 [hep-ph].