Dark Matter as a Solution to Muonic Puzzles

Maxim Perelstein, Yik Chuen San Laboratory for Elementary Particle Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA (Dated: November 17, 2020) We propose a simple model in which dark matter particle exchanges mediate a new quantum force between muons and nucleons, resolving the proton charge radius puzzle. At the same time, the discrepancy between the measured anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and the Standard Model prediction can be accommodated, and thermal relic abundance of the dark matter candidate is consistent with observations. The dark matter particle mass is in the MeV range. We show that the model is consistent with a variety of experimental and observational constraints.

I. INTRODUCTION

Observational evidence for the existence of dark matter (DM) is overwhelming. While DM comprises most of the matter in today’s universe, and contributes about 20% of the total energy density, there is no known elementary particle that can account for it. Many candidate theories have been proposed, extending the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics to include one or more dark matter particles. In many theories, DM particles have potential experimental or observational signatures going beyond the purely gravitational effects that have been observed. However, no non-gravitational signature of DM has been conclusively established so far. FIG. 1: One loop diagram involving exchange of dark mat- In this paper, we propose that dark matter particles are ter particle χ that induces a new force between muons and directly responsible for explaining a long-standing puzzle protons. in particle physics, the proton charge radius anomaly. The value of the proton charge radius measured us- ing Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen [1, 2] does not of about 10 MeV, an interesting range from the point of agree, at about 5σ level, with the value obtained from view of direct detection experiments. electron-proton scattering and electron hydrogen spec- Another prominent experimental anomaly involving troscopy [3, 4]. A similar discrepancy was observed in the muon is the anomalous magnetic moment aµ, whose muonic deuterium [5]. We note that some recent data measured value differs from the SM prediction by about on ep scattering [6] and H spectroscopy [7, 8] are in bet- 3σ [17–19]. While non-perturbative SM contributions ter agreement with muonic hydrogen results, while oth- may account for some or all of this discrepancy, in this ers [9] confirm the discrepancy. At present, the sources of paper we take the point of view that it is real and requires disagreement among electronic experiments are not un- a BSM explanation. It turns out that in our model, the derstood, and in this paper, we take the point of view effect of DM loops on aµ is subdominant to the shift in- that the anomaly is real and demands an explanation in duced by the mediator particles which connect DM and terms of Beyond-the-SM (BSM) phenomena. (For previ- SM sectors. We show that this shift can indeed account ous works that proposed BSM explanations of the proton for the observed discrepancy, and demonstrate a set of arXiv:2009.09867v2 [hep-ph] 16 Nov 2020 charge radius puzzle, see e.g. [10–14].) parameters for which aµ and proton charge puzzles are The key ingredient of our proposal is the idea that loop simultaneously solved, DM particle is a thermal relic with diagrams involving light dark matter states can induce correct relic density, and all experimental and observa- a new “quantum” force between SM particles [15, 16]. tional constraints are satisfied. It is remarkable that the Since the flavor structure of DM couplings to the SM is simple model presented here can account for such a di- unconstrained, it is plausible that this new force may be verse set of data pointing to physics beyond the SM. felt by muons but not electrons. As will be shown below, such flavor-dependent quantum force can account for the proton charge radius puzzle, without conflict with any II. MODEL existing experimental constraints. At the same time, the dark matter particle responsible for this force can be a We introduce a DM field χ, a Dirac fermion with no thermal relic consistent with the measured cosmological SM gauge charges. DM is coupled to the SM via two DM abundance, as well as with all known bounds on DM real-scalar mediator fields, a leptophilic mediator X and properties. The DM particle is predicted to have a mass a leptophobic mediator X0. Both mediators are also SM 2

0 0 0 mχ mX mX0 g gp gn y y λ 9 MeV 25 MeV 45 MeV 4.5 · 10−4 0.01 0.01 0.5 0.5 10−4

TABLE I: Model parameters at the benchmark point. gauge singlets. At energies below the QCD confinement scale, where all physics relevant for this study takes place, the interaction Lagrangian is given by 0 0 0 0 0 Lint = −gµµX¯ −(gppp¯ +gnnn¯ )X −yχχX¯ −y χχX¯ , (1) where µ, p and n are muon, proton and neutron fields, respectively. Throughout this paper, we will study the regime in which both mediators are much heavier than the DM particle, mX , mX0  mχ, and can be integrated out, leading to an effective Lagrangian FIG. 2: Fit to experimental data indicating non-SM physics (green) in the plane of mediator particle masses, mX and mX0 , 0 0 0 0 yg y gp y g with the other parameters fixed to the values listed in Table I. L = − χχ¯ µµ¯ − χχ¯ pp¯ − n χχ¯ nn¯ + ... (2) eff 2 2 2 Relevant experimental and observational constraints on DM mX mX0 mX0 and mediator particles are also shown; the shaded areas are The quantum force between proton and muon, arising ruled out. from the diagrams in Fig. 1, provides a new contribu- tion to the Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen, resolving the proton charge radius puzzle. A few comments are in order. For simplicity, we as- sumed that the mediator X (and therefore the DM) cou- ples to muon but not to the electron. While the flavor- dependent nature of this coupling is crucial to resolving the proton charge radius puzzle, a non-zero value of elec- tron coupling (for example, a plausible scenario in which g` ∝ m`) can be introduced without altering the basic picture. Further, X0 is generically expected to couple to pions and other mesons. We do not include such cou- plings since they would play no role in our analysis. Fi- nally, while the interactions in Eq. (1) are sufficient to explain the proton charge radius and the aµ anomaly, requiring that χ be a thermal relic with observed cosmo- logical abundance necessitates an additional interaction FIG. 3: Fit to experimental data indicating non-SM physics involving neutrinos ν: in the plane of DM particle mass mχ and the leptophilic me- diator coupling to muons, g, with the other parameters fixed ∆L = −λννX,¯ (3) int to the values listed in Table I. if neutrinos are Dirac, or its Majorana counterpart. This interaction can arise from the operator X(HL)2 above the weak scale, and its strength is a priori unrelated to DM properties. The results of the fit are summarized the coupling of X to charged muons which arises from in Figs. 2, 3 and 4. The model can explain the proton the operator X(HL)µR. charge radius puzzle, the aµ anomaly, and the observed We also note that if X and X0 were replaced with a DM relic density, while maintaining consistency with all single mediator, coupled to both muons and quarks, the known experimental and observational constraints. A dominant new physics effect in muonic hydrogen would sample benchmark point in the model parameter space come from a tree-level exchange of the mediator, rather which satisfies these requirements is shown in Table I. than the DM-induced quantum force. To leading order, Some details of the analysis are presented below. this model would in fact be identical to that already con- Proton Charge Radius: The fact that the proton sidered in [14]. has a finite size (with radius rp) introduces shifts in en- ergy levels of hydrogen-like atoms [1]. In particular, there would be a change in the energy difference between the III. RESULTS 2S and 2P levels, i.e. Lamb shift ∆ELamb. By measur- ing ∆ELamb, one is able to deduce the value of rp. In Using the above model, we performed a fit to rele- our model, the extra non-SM contribution to the Lamb vant experimental data and observational constraints on shift in muonic hydrogen arises at one loop from the dia- 3

FIG. 4: Fit to experimental data indicating non-SM physics in the plane of DM particle mass mχ and the leptophobic 0 mediator coupling to protons, gp, with the other parameters fixed to the values listed in Table I. Relevant experimental and observational constraints on DM and mediator particles FIG. 5: Fit to muonic deuterium data, as well as constraints are also shown. from nuclear physics experiments, in the plan of the mediator 0 0 coupling ratio gn/gp and the DM particle mass mχ. The other parameters are fixed to the values listed in Table I. gram in Fig. 1. In the non-relativistic limit, this interac- tion can be captured by a potential between protons and muons [16]: Muonic Deuterium: After the proton charge radius puzzle was discovered, there has been interest in per-    0 0  2 3 yg y gp mχ forming similar experiments with other muonic atoms, in V (r) = − 3 2 2 2 K2(2mχr), (4) 4π r mX mX0 r particular muonic deuterium µD. It was reported that the deuteron charge radius rd extracted from µD shows where K2 is the modified Bessel function of the second similar discrepancy from world-averaged CODATA 2014 kind of order 2. As a result, there is a new contribution value [5], [4]. When comparing against spectroscopic val- to ∆ELamb in muonic hydrogen, given by ues of rd that involve deuterium only (i.e. independent of rp), this discrepancy is reduced to 3.6σ [20], but is ∆EL = h2S| V |2Si − h2P | V |2P i still statistically significant. We therefore require that 3 yy0gg0 m2 = − p χ J (x , a) . (5) our model produces an extra contribution to Lamb shift 3 2 2 3 0 µD 8π m m 0 a X X in µD [5]: ∆EL = −0.438(59) meV. The Lamb shift in Here µD is due to dark matter-mediated quantum force, and is given by Z ∞ 2 6 (1 − x) + x −x J (x0, a) = dx e K2(2mχax), (6) 0 0 0
2 µD 3 yg y gp + gn mχ x0 6x ∆EL = − 3 2 2 3 J (x0D, aµD) , (7) 8π mX mX0 aµD a is the Bohr radius of muonic hydrogen, and x0 ≈ −1 (aΛQCD) is the short-distance cutoff corresponding to where aµD is the Bohr radius of the muonic deuterium the breakdown of the effective field theory description system, rD is the deuteron radius, and x0D = rD/aµD. 0 0 in Eq. (1) at length scales below O(ΛQCD). We do not The shift depends on both gn and gp, while various com- include the additional contribution to the Lamb shift binations of these couplings are constrained by nuclear from length scales below r0, which can only be calculated physics experiments (see below). As shown in Fig. 5, 0 0 within a specific UV completion of Eq. (1). To estimate isospin-preserving coupling gp = gn is consistent with the associated theoretical uncertainty, we vary the value both the deuteron charge radius and nuclear physics con- of the cutoff by a factor of two around the assumed cen- straints. −1 tral value (aΛQCD) . This uncertainty is reflected in the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment: The lead- width of the “proton charge radius” band in Figs. 2—4. ing new contribution to aµ is given by the one-loop di- Our fit assumes that this effect fully accounts for the agram shown in Fig. 6. Note that this contribution is “extra” Lamb shift measured in the muonic hydrogen, independent of the dark matter candidate χ itself, which compared to the baseline value inferred from electronic only enters at the two-loop level. The shift in aµ is given hydrogen and ep scattering: ∆EL = −0.307(56) meV. by This is appropriate since in our model the electron does not couple to DM and hence is unaffected by the new 2g2 Z 1 (1 − x)2(1 + x) ∆aµ = 2 dx 2 2 . (8) force. (4π) 0 (1 − x) + x(mX /mµ) 4

observations consistent with the SM have to be taken into account: Dark Matter Self-Scattering: Tree-level exchanges of mediator particles X and X0 induce DM short-range self-interactions of the form

 2 02  y y 2 Lself = − 2 + 2 (¯χχ) . (11) mX mX0

FIG. 6: Contribution to muon anomalous magnetic moment DM self-scattering cross sections at low velocities are due to the mediator particle X. bounded by observations of halo shapes [23, 24]: 2 σT /mχ . 1 cm /g, where σT is the momentum-transfer cross section defined by

Z dσ σ ≡ dΩ χχ→χχ (1 − cos θ). (12) T dΩ

This constraint translates into an upper bound on the DM mass:

FIG. 7: Dominant annihilation channel for χ at the time of −2  y2 y02  freeze-out, if coupling to neutrinos are absent. −3 mχ . 8π 2 + 2 × 4600 (GeV) . (13) mX mX0

In our fit we assume that this effect fully accounts for the Dark Matter Direct Detection: Direct detection of −11 experimental discrepancy ∆aµ = 287(80)×10 , within dark matter in the MeV mass range has been the subject 2 standard deviations. of much interest recently [25, 26]. Most techniques rely Relic Density: We assume that χ is a thermal relic on detection of DM scattering on electrons. In our model, and that it accounts for all of the observed cosmological this channel is not available, since by construction DM DM abundance, Ωh2 = 0.120 ± 0.001 [21]. With interac- does not couple to electrons. However, scattering on a tions in Eq. (1) and mχ ∼ O(MeV), the dominant DM nucleon can occur, with cross section annihilation channel at the time of freeze-out is χχ → 2γ,  0 0 2 2 see Fig. 7. The leading (p-wave) contribution to the cross 1 gN y mχmN section in the non-relativistic limit is given by σ(χN → χN) = 2 , (14) π mX0 mχ + mN 2 3e2 yg y0g0 σ = m I(τ ) + m I(τ ) p . (9) where N = n or p. For our benchmark point, this cross 0 3 µ µ 2 p p 2 −32 2 32π mX mX0 section is about 6×10 cm . This is about half an order of magnitude below the strongest current constraint from Here the loop function I(τf ) for a fermion f is defined non-observation of signal due to energetic DM component by generated through collisions with cosmic rays [27, 28], Z 1 Z 1−x 1 − 4xy shown by the XENON-1T curve in Fig. 4. MeV-scale dark I(τ ) = dx dy (10) matter can also be detected using the Migdal effect [29– f τ − xy 0 0 f 33]. However, the recent results from SENSEI collabora- 2 √ tion [34] are not yet sensitive enough to constrain our with τf = m /s, where s is the center-of-mass energy f model. of the scattering process. σ0 can be used to compute the relic density of χ [22] by solving the Boltzmann equation Early-Universe Cosmology: Measurements of Cos- numerically. mic Microwave Backgound (CMB) place strong con- We find that the χχ → 2γ cross section is too small to straints on possible reionization due to DM annihila- provide the observed relic density for model paramaters tions [35]. However in our model, χ annihilation proceeds in p-wave, and thus not subject to this constraint. CMB required to fit the proton charge radius and aµ anomalies. A simple solution is to consider an additional annihilation data together with the Lyman-alpha forest flux power channel, χχ → νν, via the interaction in Eq. (3). The spectrum from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey constrains 2 the elastic scattering of DM on baryons [36, 37]. This 3  yλ  2 cross section is given by σ0 = 2 mχ. Since this 4π mX constraint is shown by the curve labeled "cosmology" final state arises at tree level, it naturally dominates over on Fig. 2. In addition, a scenario where DM freeze-out the 2γ channel. With this addition, all three constraints occurs after neutrinos decouple from the rest of the SM can be satisfied simultaneously, see Figs. 2—4. plasma is constrained by the CMB bound on ∆Neff , since In addition to fits to the data indicating deviations in this case the neutrino temperature at recombination from the SM, a number of constraints from data and would be raised relative to Tγ by the entropy transferred 5 from the DM1. This argument imposes a lower bound is required to be less than 30 keV [14]. It is worth noting > 02 02
mχ ∼ a few MeV [38, 39]. A similar bound is imposed that this contribution is proportional to gp − gn , and by the success of Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) [40– vanishes in the isospin limit, see Fig. 5. 42]. The charge-independence breaking (CIB) scattering Dark Matter Mediator Searches: In addition to length is defined as direct searches for dark matter particles, there are many 1 experiments looking for mediator particles produced at ∆a = (ann + app − 2anp), (17) colliders or in a fixed-target setup [25, 26]. While most 2 analyses present the results in terms of bounds on dark where aN N is the scattering length between two nucle- photons, which couple to both leptons and quarks pro- 1 2 ons N1 and N2. Experimental and theoretical values for portional to their electric charges, the interpretation of ∆a are known to be 5.64 ± 0.60 fm [48] and 5.6 ± 0.5 interest to us is in terms of leptophilic or leptophobic me- fm [49] respectively. Our model gives an extra contribu- diators. Leptophilic mediator searches rely on their pro- tion duction via their interaction with electrons, making them 0 2 2 ! insensitive to our model. (An exception is the recently 3m  y  2 m δath = − N m2 g0 − g0
log χ , (18) reported NA64 search for scalars produced through their 2 χ p n 2 π mX0 Λ coupling to photons [43]. However, this search does not place relevant bounds on our model, since mediator cou- where mN is the nucleon mass and Λ is the cut-off scale plings to photons are loop-suppressed.) Thus we only of the effective theory. We require δath < 1.6 fm to main- consider bounds from leptophobic mediator searches. tain agreement between experimental and theoretical val- With sub-MeV dark matter, the most stringent bound ues of ∆a at 2σ level. This constraint again vanishes in currently comes from the MiniBooNE experiment [26, 44], the isospin limit. which places a bound on the parameter Y related to dark Scattering lengths between cold neutrons and nuclei matter annihilation cross section (see referenced papers can be measured by different methods, such as Bragg for the precise definition). In our model, this parameter diffraction and the transmission method [50]. In our is given by model, this scattering length is given by Eq. (18) by 0 0
2 02 0 0 2 2 2 replacing g − g with g or g g . By comparing g0  g0  m  p n n n p Y = p p χ . (15) the scattering lengths measured by different methods, e 4π mX0 bounds can be placed on contributions from non-contact Note that the mediator X0 in our model is a scalar, while operators. The detailed analysis can be found in [51]. the MiniBooNE bounds were derived using a spin-1 me- Neutron scattering places the most restrictive nuclear- diator. An order-one correction to the bound may arise physics bound on the model in the isospin-symmetric due to the differing kinematic acceptances and spin fac- limit [16]. tors in the two cases, but we do not expect it to affect our conclusions. IV. CONCLUSIONS Nuclear Interactions: Leading non-SM contribu- tions to nucleon-nucleon potential are given by In this paper we presented a simple model of MeV- 0 0 gN gN scale Dirac fermion dark matter χ coupled to nucleons V = − 1 2 e−mX0 r N1N2 4πr and muons, but not electrons. The quantum force due 3  y0 2 m2 to χ loops is responsible for resolving the proton (and − g0 g0 χ K (2m r). (16) 3 2 N1 N2 3 2 χ deutron) charge radius puzzles, while a scalar particle in- 4π m 0 r X troduced to mediate DM-muon interactions can account This extra potential can be probed at various nuclear for the discrepancy between the SM prediction for the physics experiments. It turns out that the second term in anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and the mea- sured value. If an additional interaction between χ and VN1N2 , arising from the DM-loop exchange, is the most relevant for our analysis, since 1/rexp  mχ  mX0 , neutrinos is postulated, the former can be a thermal relic where rexp is the length scale probed by the experiments. responsible for all of the observed DM abundance. We The relevant constraints are summarized in Fig. 5. verified the existence of a region in the paramater space The binding energy difference between 3He and 3H has of the model where all of the above features are obtained been well-established to be caused by Coulomb force and simultaneously, while all known experimental and obser- charge asymmetry of nuclear forces [45], [46], [47]. In or- vational constraints on light DM and mediators are sat- der not to spoil this agreement, the non-SM contribution isfied. New experimental data will soon be available that will test our model on various fronts. Numerous efforts, e.g. MUSE experiment [52], are under way that will hopefully 1 We are grateful to Gordan Krnjaic for bringing this constraint clarify the status of the proton charge radius puzzle. to our attention. Anomalous magnetic moment of the muon measurement 6

will be improved by the Fermilab Muon g − 2 experi- Acknowledgments ment [53]. Experimental exploration of MeV-scale dark matter and dark sectors is an active and expanding area of research [25, 26]. While our model has some amount of freedom in parameter choices, the available parame- We are grateful to Gordan Krnjaic and Philip Tanedo ter space is finite and it is likely that this idea will be for useful comments on the first version of this paper. tested conclusively by the upcoming experiments in the This work is supported by the U.S. National Science near future. Foundation grants PHY-1719877 and PHY-2014071.

[1] R. Pohl et al., The size of the proton, Nature 466, 213 [18] M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, (2010). Reevaluation of the Hadronic Contributions to the, Eur. [2] A. Antognini et al., Proton Structure from the Measurement Phys. J. C 71, 1515 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 72, of 2S − 2P Transition Frequencies of Muonic Hydrogen, 1874 (2012)], 1010.4180. Science 339, 417 (2013). [19] K. Hagiwara, R. Liao, A. D. Martin, D. Nomura, and [3] P. J. Mohr, B. N. Taylor, and D. B. Newell, CODATA T. Teubner, re-evaluated using new precise data, J. Phys. G Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical 38, 085003 (2011), 1105.3149. Constants: 2006, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 633 (2008), [20] R. Pohl, F. Nez, T. Udem, A. Antognini, A. Beyer, 0801.0028. H. Fleurbaey, A. Grinin, T. W. Hansch, L. Julien, [4] P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, and B. N. Taylor, CODATA F. Kottmann, et al., Deuteron charge radius and rydberg Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical constant from spectroscopy data in atomic deuterium, Constants: 2014, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035009 (2016), Metrologia 54, L1 (2017), URL 1507.07956. https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1681-7575%2Faa4e59. [5] R. Pohl et al. (CREMA), Laser spectroscopy of muonic [21] N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. deuterium, Science 353, 669 (2016). Cosmological parameters (2018), 1807.06209. [6] W. Xiong et al., A small proton charge radius from an [22] E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe, Front. electron–proton scattering experiment, Nature 575, 147 Phys. 69, 1 (1990). (2019). [23] A. Kusenko and L. J. Rosenberg, Snowmass-2013 cosmic [7] A. Beyer et al., The Rydberg constant and proton size from frontier 3 (cf3) working group summary: Non-wimp dark atomic hydrogen, Science 358, 79 (2017). matter (2013), 1310.8642. [8] N. Bezginov, T. Valdez, M. Horbatsch, A. Marsman, [24] J. Zavala, M. Vogelsberger, and M. G. Walker, Constraining A. Vutha, and E. Hessels, A measurement of the atomic self-interacting dark matter with the milky way?s dwarf hydrogen Lamb shift and the proton charge radius, Science spheroidals, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical 365, 1007 (2019). Society: Letters 431, L20?L24 (2013), ISSN 1745-3925, URL [9] H. Fleurbaey, S. Galtier, S. Thomas, M. Bonnaud, L. Julien, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/sls053. F. Biraben, F. Nez, M. Abgrall, and J. Guena, New [25] J. Alexander et al., in Dark Sectors 2016 Workshop: Measurement of the 1S-3S Transition Frequency of Community Report (2016), 1608.08632. Hydrogen: Contribution to the Proton Charge Radius Puzzle,[26] M. Battaglieri et al., in U.S. Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 183001 (2018), 1801.08816. Dark Matter (2017), 1707.04591. [10] D. Tucker-Smith and I. Yavin, Muonic hydrogen and MeV [27] T. Bringmann and M. Pospelov, Novel direct detection forces, Phys. Rev. D 83, 101702 (2011), 1011.4922. constraints on light dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, [11] B. Batell, D. McKeen, and M. Pospelov, New 171801 (2019), 1810.10543. Parity-Violating Muonic Forces and the Proton Charge [28] C. Cappiello and J. F. Beacom, Strong New Limits on Light Radius, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 011803 (2011), 1103.0721. Dark Matter from Neutrino Experiments, Phys. Rev. D 100, [12] C. E. Carlson and B. C. Rislow, New Physics and the Proton 103011 (2019), 1906.11283. Radius Problem, Phys. Rev. D 86, 035013 (2012), 1206.3587.[29] M. Ibe, W. Nakano, Y. Shoji, and K. Suzuki, Migdal Effect [13] S. G. Karshenboim, D. McKeen, and M. Pospelov, in Dark Matter Direct Detection Experiments, JHEP 03, 194 Constraints on muon-specific dark forces, Phys. Rev. D 90, (2018), 1707.07258. 073004 (2014), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 079905 (2014)], [30] M. J. Dolan, F. Kahlhoefer, and C. McCabe, Directly 1401.6154. detecting sub-GeV dark matter with electrons from nuclear [14] Y.-S. Liu, D. McKeen, and G. A. Miller, Electrophobic scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 101801 (2018), 1711.09906. Scalar Boson and Muonic Puzzles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, [31] N. F. Bell, J. B. Dent, J. L. Newstead, S. Sabharwal, and 101801 (2016), 1605.04612. T. J. Weiler, Migdal effect and photon bremsstrahlung in [15] S. Fichet, Quantum Forces from Dark Matter and Where to effective field theories of dark matter direct detection and Find Them, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 131801 (2018), coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering, Phys. Rev. D 1705.10331. 101, 015012 (2020), 1905.00046. [16] P. Brax, S. Fichet, and G. Pignol, Bounding Quantum Dark [32] D. Baxter, Y. Kahn, and G. Krnjaic, Electron Ionization via Forces, Phys. Rev. D97, 115034 (2018), 1710.00850. Dark Matter-Electron Scattering and the Migdal Effect, [17] G. Bennett et al. (Muon g-2), Final Report of the Muon Phys. Rev. D 101, 076014 (2020), 1908.00012. E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL, [33] R. Essig, J. Pradler, M. Sholapurkar, and T.-T. Yu, Relation Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006), hep-ex/0602035. between the Migdal Effect and Dark Matter-Electron 7

Scattering in Isolated Atoms and Semiconductors, Phys. Proton Beam Dump with MiniBooNE, Phys. Rev. D 98, Rev. Lett. 124, 021801 (2020), 1908.10881. 112004 (2018), 1807.06137. [34] L. Barak, I. M. Bloch, M. Cababie, G. Cancelo, [45] J. L. Friar and B. F. Gibson, Coulomb energies in s-shell L. Chaplinsky, F. Chierchie, M. Crisler, A. Drlica-Wagner, nuclei and hypernuclei, Phys. Rev. C 18, 908 (1978), URL R. Essig, J. Estrada, et al., Sensei: Direct-detection results https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.18.908. on sub-gev dark matter from a new skipper-ccd (2020), [46] V. Koch and G. A. Miller, Six quark cluster effects and 2004.11378. binding energy differences between mirror nuclei, Phys. Rev. [35] T. R. Slatyer, Indirect dark matter signatures in the cosmic C 31, 602 (1985), URL dark ages. I. Generalizing the bound on s-wave dark matter https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.31.602. annihilation from Planck results, Phys. Rev. D 93, 023527 [47] G. Miller, B. Nefkens, and I. ?laus, Charge symmetry, quarks (2016), 1506.03811. and mesons, Physics Reports 194, 1 (1990), ISSN [36] K. K. Boddy and V. Gluscevic, First Cosmological 0370-1573, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ Constraint on the Effective Theory of Dark Matter-Proton article/pii/0370157390901028. Interactions, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083510 (2018), 1801.08609. [48] T. Ericson and G. Miller, Charge dependence of nuclear [37] W. L. Xu, C. Dvorkin, and A. Chael, Probing sub-GeV Dark forces, Physics Letters B 132, 32 (1983), ISSN 0370-2693, Matter-Baryon Scattering with Cosmological Observables, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ Phys. Rev. D 97, 103530 (2018), 1802.06788. pii/0370269383902162. [38] C. M. Ho and R. J. Scherrer, Limits on MeV Dark Matter [49] R. Machleidt and I. Slaus, The nucleon-nucleon interaction, from the Effective Number of Neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 87, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 27, R69 023505 (2013), 1208.4347. (2001), URL [39] C. Boehm, M. J. Dolan, and C. McCabe, Increasing Neff https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0954-3899%2F27%2F5%2F201. with particles in thermal equilibrium with neutrinos, JCAP [50] L. Koester, H. Rauch, and E. Seymann, Neutron scattering 12, 027 (2012), 1207.0497. lengths: A survey of experimental data and methods, Atomic [40] E. W. Kolb, M. S. Turner, and T. P. Walker, The Effect of Data and Nuclear Data Tables 49, 65 (1991), ISSN Interacting Particles on Primordial Nucleosynthesis, Phys. 0092-640X, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ Rev. D 34, 2197 (1986). article/pii/0092640X9190012S. [41] M. Hufnagel, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and S. Wild, BBN [51] V. Nesvizhevsky, G. Pignol, and K. Protasov, Neutron constraints on MeV-scale dark sectors. Part I. Sterile decays, scattering and extra short range interactions, Phys. Rev. D JCAP 02, 044 (2018), 1712.03972. 77, 034020 (2008), 0711.2298. [42] K. M. Nollett and G. Steigman, BBN And The CMB [52] R. Gilman et al. (MUSE), Technical Design Report for the Constrain Neutrino Coupled Light WIMPs, Phys. Rev. D Paul Scherrer Institute Experiment R-12-01.1: Studying the 91, 083505 (2015), 1411.6005. Proton ”Radius” Puzzle with µp Elastic Scattering (2017), [43] D. Banerjee et al. (NA64), Search for Axionlike and Scalar 1709.09753. Particles with the NA64 Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, [53] J. Grange et al. (Muon g-2), Muon (g-2) Technical Design 081801 (2020), 2005.02710. Report (2015), 1501.06858. [44] A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE DM), Dark Matter Search in Nucleon, Pion, and Electron Channels from a