{"id":"70e380c4-045c-4b86-9e98-c9fbc1e2ff97","arxiv_id":"2504.13089","paper_version":2,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"PICO-60 data set the world's best limits on fermionic dark matter absorption below 23 MeV/c2 and the first limits on spin-dependent absorption via the O4 operator.","lead":"This paper reanalyzes data from the PICO-60 bubble chamber to search for dark matter particles that are absorbed by atomic nuclei rather than scattering off them. It reports the first experimental limits on a spin-dependent absorption channel and leading limits below 23 MeV/c2 for the spin-independent channel.","discovery_kind":"new_method","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The absorption limits rest on an unverified substitution of the elastic NREFT velocity operator; for absorption the final neutrino momentum (q≈mχ) enters lepton-current operators at O(1), so the O1/O4 nuclear responses may be miscalculated.","rationale":"I read the letter in good faith and accept the experimental parts: the PICO-60 exposures, thresholds, event counts, PLR limit-setting, and efficiency treatment follow prior PICO publications and appear internally consistent. The genuinely new element—and the one on which the headline claims rest—is the extension of elastic NREFT to absorption via the replacement of the relative-velocity operator by the average nucleon velocity and the accompanying claim that 'the nuclear responses provoked by each operator change.' This is asserted, not derived, and the modified WIMpy code is not provided. The kinematic situation makes this more than a cosmetic gap: with χ at rest, momentum conservation forces the final neutrino to carry pν≈mχ (Eq. 3), so q/mχ is O(1). A careful non-relativistic reduction of the lepton bilinears therefore generates spatial operators proportional to n=pν/mχ (e.g., vector-current pieces like \\bar{ν}γ^iχ) whose size is not controlled by the small dark-matter velocity. These are not obviously spanned by {1, Sχ·SN, v_N^avg}, since v_N^avg≈q/(2mN) is several orders of magnitude smaller. The paper cites the μ→e NREFT literature [35,36], which is the natural place to do this matching, but it does not show the mapping or compare with it. There is a partial control for O1: the SI absorption rate has been computed in Refs. [20,21] and by CDEX/PandaX/MJD, and a reproduction of Fig. 1 using those established formulas would validate the SI channel. No such external control exists for O4, yet the 'first spin-dependent absorption limits' is a headline result. Thus the load-bearing concern is a missing derivation with a plausible specific failure mode: O(1) lepton-momentum terms in the nuclear response. This does not make the paper's central claim false; it makes it unverified. I agree with the reader's weakest assumption and would keep the verdict conditional: accept only after the NREFT matching for absorption is derived (or shown to coincide with the μ→e reduction), the O1 limit is cross-checked against Dror et al., and the modified code or response tables are released. My recommended verdict is therefore unchanged from the reader's CONDITIONAL.","tokens_in":8105,"tokens_out":9507,"duration_ms":95634,"concrete_test":"Derive the exact non-relativistic reduction of the lepton trace for the axial-vector operator (χγ^μγ^5ν)(Nγ_μγ^5N) with χ at rest and ν carrying momentum q≈mχ, summing over the unobserved neutrino spin, and reduce the nuclear current to the standard shell-model responses for ^19F. Compare the resulting dσ/dE_R to the paper's O4 prediction over E_R=2.45–100 keV and mχ=12–27 MeV/c^2. If the shape or normalization differs beyond nuclear-model uncertainties, the Fig. 2 O4 limits are not substantiated. As a control, recompute the O1 limit with the published Dror et al. cross section; agreement within a few percent would show the velocity substitution is only a kinematic relabeling for the SI channel.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The paper's central claim depends on the assertion in the 'Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter' section that the NREFT operators for χN→νN are obtained from the elastic NREFT by replacing the relative velocity operator with the average nucleon velocity operator v_N^avg=(v_Ni+v_Nf)/2, and that 'the nuclear responses provoked by each operator change' accordingly. No derivation is given, no benchmark exists for O4, and the modified WIMpy code is described but not released. The substitution is not harmless: for a light χ at rest the outgoing neutrino carries momentum pν≈mχ (Eq. 3), so q/mχ is O(1). Non-relativistic reduction of the lepton current then produces unsuppressed spatial components—for example \\bar{ν}γ^iχ contains n_i+iε_ijk n_j σ_k with n=pν/mχ—that are not captured by operators built from 1, Sχ·SN, and v_N^avg≈q/(2mN), which is tiny at these masses. If these O(1) lepton-momentum terms feed into the nuclear response functions, the O4 limits in Fig. 2 and the O1 normalization in Fig. 1 would not correspond to the claimed four-fermion interactions, undermining both the 'first spin-dependent absorption limits' and the leading SI limits below 23 MeV/c^2. The cited μ→e NREFT formalism [35,36] provides the needed framework but is not applied or compared.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"This Letter extends the non-relativistic effective field theory (NREFT) used for elastic dark matter-nucleus scattering to the absorptive neutral-current process χN→νN. The authors state that the extension amounts to replacing the relative-velocity operator of the elastic theory with the average nucleon velocity, with the nuclear response functions modified accordingly, and they use a modified version of the WIMpy code to compute expected rates for the operators O1 (spin-independent) and O4 (spin-dependent). Reanalyzing the PICO-60 C3F8 bubble-chamber data with the profile-likelihood procedure established in earlier PICO analyses, the paper reports 90% C.L. upper limits on the absorption cross section σNC = mχ²/(4πΛ⁴): leading spin-independent limits for dark-matter masses below 23 MeV/c² and the first spin-dependent absorption limits (for O4) over roughly 12-27 MeV/c². The same framework is also applied to the most recent LZ dataset to produce sensitivity projections. The Letter concludes that bubble chambers are competitive probes of MeV-scale fermionic dark matter absorption.","tokens_in":8365,"tokens_out":13888,"duration_ms":126608,"significance":"If the theory input is sound, the result is significant for the direct-detection community: it opens a model-independent NREFT route to absorption searches, adds a spin-dependent channel to what has so far been a largely spin-independent program, and demonstrates the reach of bubble-chamber data at MeV-scale masses. The analysis has real strengths: it reuses the established PICO profile-likelihood machinery including efficiency surfaces and Seitz-threshold uncertainties; the O1 limits are shown in the same figure with CDEX-10, PandaX-4T, and Majorana Demonstrator limits, providing an external check of that channel; and no physics parameter is fitted to data and then re-labeled as a prediction. The weakness is that the new physics ingredient, the mapping from elastic to absorptive NREFT operators and the resulting nuclear responses, is asserted rather than derived, the modified code is not released, and the O4 channel has no external benchmark. The primary claims should therefore be regarded as plausible but not yet supported to the standard the journal requires.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The central mapping from elastic NREFT operators to the absorptive process χN→νN is asserted, not derived. The text states that the only difference from the elastic case is the replacement of the velocity operator with the average nucleon velocity v_N^avg and that 'the nuclear responses provoked by each operator change,' but no explicit absorptive response functions are given anywhere in the Letter. This matters because for a light χ at rest the outgoing neutrino carries momentum p_ν ≈ m_χ (Eq. 3), so p_ν/m_χ is of order unity; a non-relativistic reduction of the leptonic current then produces spatial components that are not suppressed and are not captured by an operator basis built from 1, S_χ·S_N and v_N^avg ≈ q/(2m_N), which is tiny at these masses. If those O(1) terms feed into the nuclear response functions, the normalization of the O1 limits in Fig. 1 and the entire O4 limit in Fig. 2 would not correspond to the four-fermion interactions the paper claims to constrain. The authors cite the μ→e NREFT formalism of refs. [35,36], which was developed for exactly this kinematics, but they neither apply it nor compare with it. A derivation of the absorptive operators and of the resulting nuclear responses, or at least a quantitative argument showing that the neutrino-momentum terms are negligible, is required before the reported limits can be accepted.","section":"Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter (Sec. II)"},{"comment":"The modified WIMpy code and the nuclear response functions used for absorption are not made available, and there is no external benchmark for the O4 channel, so the central calculation is not reproducible as presented. The Letter states that the code 'has been modified to extend its applicability to absorptive interactions by incorporating the changes in velocity dependence and nuclear responses,' but the modified response functions are not listed and the code is not released. For O1 the comparison with CDEX-10, PandaX-4T, and MJD in Fig. 1 provides partial validation of the normalization, but for O4 there is no such check and, being a first limit, no consistency test exists. Given that the O4 limits are a headline result, the authors should provide the explicit response functions (at least for O1 and O4, including the fluorine spin-structure inputs) in an appendix or supplementary material, or release the modified code with documentation.","section":"Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter and PICO-60 Data Analysis (Secs. II-III)"},{"comment":"The relation between the quoted cross section σNC = mχ²/(4πΛ⁴) and the event rate that enters the profile-likelihood analysis is not given, and the normalization conventions of the earlier experiments shown in Fig. 1 are not discussed. The Letter says the σ parameterization follows Dror et al. and other collaborations, but it does not state whether the CDEX-10, PandaX-4T, and MJD limits were recast to the same operator O1 and the same σ definition; if the conventions differ, the claim of leading limits below 23 MeV/c² cannot be assessed from the figure alone. The authors should state the rate formula used in the code (flux, nuclear response, and σ convention) and clarify the convention applied to each comparison dataset.","section":"Results, Eq. (5)"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"Equation (3) is typeset ambiguously ('q = m_N m_χ + m_χ²/2 m_N + m_χ'); please rewrite it with clear parentheses or a displayed fraction, since the formula q ≈ m_χ for m_N ≫ m_χ is used to justify the kinematics of the whole analysis.","section":"Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter, Eq. (3)"},{"comment":"There is a grammatical typo: 'all enclosed within an stainless steel pressure vessel' should read 'a stainless steel pressure vessel.'","section":"PICO-60 C3F8 Bubble Chamber and Data Analysis (Sec. III)"},{"comment":"Reference [27] is listed as 'Zhang et al. (PandaX Collaboration)' without the lead author's initials; please supply the full author list or at least the first author's initials for consistency with the other entries.","section":"References"},{"comment":"The sentence 'The reported limits remain consistent with the absence of a dark matter signal' is the only place where the observed event counts are connected to the limit-setting; a sentence recalling that eight single- and multi-bubble events were observed and taken as background under the maximally conservative assumption would make the section self-contained.","section":"Results and Conclusions"},{"comment":"The LZ sensitivity projection in Fig. 2 is not described: please specify the dataset, exposure, energy threshold, and signal region used in the recast so that the comparison with the PICO-60 limit is meaningful.","section":"Fig. 2 caption"},{"comment":"The phrase 'a unique peaked signature at ER ≈ mχ²/(2mN)' is imprecise: for a cold χ the recoil spectrum is a mono-energetic line, broadened by the target momentum distribution and detector effects; consider stating this explicitly rather than 'peaked.'","section":"Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter (Sec. II)"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The strengths of the paper are the solid reuse of the established PICO limit-setting machinery and the O1 cross-check against three external experiments in the same figure. The decisive question is the NREFT mapping: the Letter asserts the substitution v^⊥→v_N^avg and the corresponding change of nuclear responses without derivation, and the modified WIMpy code is not released. Given the kinematic fact that p_ν/m_χ ≈ 1, I cannot certify the O4 response from the material provided. I would recommend sending the Letter back with a request for a derivation of the absorptive responses (or an explicit comparison to the μ→e formalism of refs. [35,36]) and for at least a reproducible specification of the response functions, before the 'first spin-dependent absorption limits' claim can be evaluated. The manuscript appears to be in scope for the journal, and I saw no signs of citation manipulation or other ethical concerns; the minor formatting issues are easily fixed."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"Two things you should know. First, the experimental result is real: PICO-60's exposure, analyzed with their established profile-likelihood machinery, gives the first spin-dependent absorption limits and competitive spin-independent absorption limits below 23 MeV/c2. Second, the paper's theoretical centerpiece—the extension of elastic NREFT to absorption—is a one-paragraph assertion. The authors replace the relative-velocity operator with the average nucleon velocity and say the nuclear responses change, but they don't derive it, and the cited mu->e NREFT formalism isn't used to justify the substitution.\n\nCredit where due: the limit-setting follows prior PICO work, the calibration and threshold uncertainties are handled consistently, and the O1 comparison with CDEX-10, PandaX-4T, and MJD is a useful cross-check. If the operator mapping is correct, this is a compact and valuable paper for the direct-detection community.\n\nThe soft spot is the theory. The stress-test concern is on target: for a light DM at rest, the outgoing neutrino momentum is of order m_chi, so q/m_chi is not small. The non-relativistic reduction of the lepton current can generate unsuppressed spatial components that the paper's operator list doesn't show. That doesn't make the limits garbage—it makes them conditional on the asserted NREFT mapping. There is no external benchmark for O4, and the modified WIMpy code isn't released. The authors can fix this by supplying the matching derivation, or at minimum by labeling the framework an ansatz and comparing O1 to Dror et al.'s calculation.\n\nMy recommendation: send it to referees. The experimental analysis is serious, and the physics question matters. But the referees should demand the derivation or a clear caveat before the SD limits are printed as constraints on a specific operator. I'd read it, not cite the SD limits yet.","headline":"Real experimental limits on a plausible absorption channel, but the NREFT mapping is asserted rather than derived; the paper should be refereed, with the derivation or a clear caveat required before the spin-dependent limits are taken at face value.","tokens_in":9244,"tokens_out":3567,"would_cite":false,"duration_ms":33499,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The PICO-60 bubble chamber, reanalyzed with a non-relativistic effective field theory for absorption, sets the leading spin-independent absorption limits below 23 MeV/c² and the first spin-dependent absorption limits.","keywords":["dark matter absorption","non-relativistic effective field theory","bubble chamber","PICO-60","spin-dependent absorption","spin-independent absorption","MeV-scale dark matter","neutral current interactions"],"falsifier":"A first-principles nuclear-structure calculation of the $\\mathcal{O}_4$ spin-dependent response in $^{19}\\mathrm{F}$, with the dark-matter velocity contribution removed, would settle the mapping; if the calculated response differs from the code's, the reported spin-dependent absorption limits would not correspond to the claimed process. On the experimental side, a threshold scan that sees a mono-energetic recoil peak at $E_R \\approx m_\\chi^2/(2m_N)$ followed by an abrupt cutoff once the threshold passes that energy would confirm the absorption signal.","tokens_in":7856,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":12935,"duration_ms":115526,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"This paper claims that fermionic dark matter can be absorbed by atomic nuclei through the neutral-current process $\\chi + N \\rightarrow \\nu + N$, and that this process can be described model-independently with a non-relativistic effective field theory (NREFT). Reanalyzing data from the PICO-60 C$_3$F$_8$ bubble chamber with this framework, the paper reports the leading spin-independent absorption limits for dark matter masses below 23 MeV/$c^2$ and the first spin-dependent absorption limits, carried by the operator $\\mathcal{O}_4$. A reader should care because absorption gives bubble chambers a new window onto MeV-scale dark matter, a mass range where ordinary WIMP scattering is kinematically suppressed, and because the operator framework can be reused by other detectors.","feed_headline":"Bubble chamber data set world-leading dark-matter absorption limits","feed_subtitle":"A new operator framework makes bubble chambers leading probes of low-mass dark-matter absorption.","key_machinery":"The carrying machinery is the NREFT operator basis for absorption, with the leading operators $\\mathcal{O}_1 = 1$ (spin-independent) and $\\mathcal{O}_4 = \\vec S_\\chi \\cdot \\vec S_N$ (spin-dependent). The key transformation is the operator substitution $\\vec v \\rightarrow \\vec v_N^{\\,\\mathrm{avg}}$: replacing the relative velocity between dark matter and nucleus with the average nucleon velocity removes the dark-matter velocity from the interaction, altering the nuclear response functions and producing a peaked recoil signature at $E_R \\approx m_\\chi^2/(2m_N)$. On the statistical side, the limits come from a profile-likelihood-ratio test in which neutron-calibration efficiency curves are encoded into likelihood surfaces, convolved with thermodynamic-threshold uncertainties, and used to exclude cross sections at 90% confidence; the recoil-energy window runs from the thermodynamic bubble-nucleation threshold to 100 keV, the upper bound chosen because acoustic calibration above about 100 keV is lacking.","core_discovery":"The paper's central claim is that the non-relativistic effective field theory (NREFT) used for elastic dark-matter–nucleus scattering can be extended to the neutral-current absorption process $\\chi + N \\rightarrow \\nu + N$. The extension consists of replacing the relative-velocity operator in the elastic operators with the average nucleon velocity operator, since the incoming dark matter's velocity is negligible for cold dark matter; this makes the dark-matter side of the interaction velocity-independent and changes the nuclear responses. The resulting recoil spectrum is peaked at $E_R \\approx m_\\chi^2/(2m_N)$, a signature that cuts off abruptly once the detector threshold exceeds that energy. Applying this prescription to PICO-60 C$_3$F$_8$ data with a profile-likelihood analysis, the paper reports 90% confidence level upper limits: the leading spin-independent absorption limits below 23 MeV/$c^2$ for the operator $\\mathcal{O}_1 = 1$, and the first spin-dependent absorption limits for the operator $\\mathcal{O}_4 = \\vec S_\\chi \\cdot \\vec S_N$, with the strongest $\\mathcal{O}_4$ limits in the 12 to 27 MeV/$c^2$ range. The limits are cast as generic cross sections $\\sigma_{NC} = m_\\chi^2/(4\\pi\\Lambda^4)$ to permit direct comparison with existing literature.","pith_inferences":["If the velocity-operator substitution survives scrutiny, the same mapping should extend to other neutral-current absorption processes, so existing direct-detection data could be reinterpreted for sterile-neutrino or other light-fermion absorption models.","The $\\mathcal{O}_4$ limits rest on an unbenchmarked nuclear response; a first-principles calculation of the $^{19}\\mathrm{F}$ spin-dependent response would either confirm the reported bounds or show they need rescaling, making it the sharpest test of the framework.","The predicted mono-energetic peak at $E_R \\approx m_\\chi^2/(2m_N)$ suggests a multi-threshold search: if the same excess appears at thresholds below the peak and vanishes above it, that would be a distinctive absorption signature largely independent of the nuclear-response uncertainty.","Because the peak recoil energy scales as $1/m_N$, even lighter targets such as deuterated liquids could extend absorption sensitivity to sub-MeV dark matter masses, a direction the paper does not explore."],"forward_implications":["Bubble chambers become competitive probes of MeV-scale fermionic dark-matter absorption, because the light C$_3$F$_8$ nucleus pushes the characteristic recoil energy higher than heavier targets would.","The $\\mathcal{O}_1$ limits are the strongest spin-independent absorption constraints reported for dark-matter masses below 23 MeV/$c^2$, so any model predicting such absorption in that mass range must now face these bounds.","The $\\mathcal{O}_4$ limits are the first constraints on spin-dependent absorption, opening the way to constrain magnetic-dipole-mediated dark matter that spin-independent searches cannot see.","Because the signal peaks at $E_R \\approx m_\\chi^2/(2m_N)$ and cuts off abruptly once the threshold exceeds that energy, a threshold scan provides a discriminating signature that separates absorption from ordinary WIMP recoils.","Applying the same framework to the latest dataset from a large xenon-based experiment projects sensitivity for both operators, showing that the method transfers to other detectors."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Establishes the spin-independent absorption channel and defines the generic cross-section parameterization used for the limits.","marker":"[20, 21]"},{"why":"Provides the elastic NREFT operator basis that this work extends to absorption by changing the velocity operator.","marker":"[34]"},{"why":"Develops the analogous NREFT treatment for muon-to-electron conversion, whose kinematics motivate the average-nucleon-velocity replacement.","marker":"[35, 36]"},{"why":"Supplies the PICO-60 exposure, efficiency curves, and the profile-likelihood limit-setting method reused here.","marker":"[18]"},{"why":"Reports the first PICO-60 physics run, contributing the 1167 kg-day exposure included in the analysis.","marker":"[42]"},{"why":"Provides the latest xenon direct-detection dataset on which the paper projects sensitivity for both operators.","marker":"[17]"},{"why":"A germanium-based spin-independent absorption limit compared against the PICO-60 result.","marker":"[26]"},{"why":"A xenon-based spin-independent absorption limit used as a comparison point in the spin-independent exclusion plot.","marker":"[24]"},{"why":"A germanium-based spin-independent absorption limit used as a comparison point in the spin-independent exclusion plot.","marker":"[25]"},{"why":"Supplies the recoil-spectrum simulation code that was modified to implement the absorption kinematics and nuclear responses.","marker":"[37]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["PICO-60 sets world-leading dark-matter absorption limits","Bubble chamber yields first spin-dependent absorption limits","PICO-60 data tighten low-mass dark-matter absorption search","Bubble chambers probe dark-matter absorption at low masses","New absorption limits from PICO-60's bubble chamber data"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The load-bearing premise is that the NREFT operators for the absorption process $\\chi N \\rightarrow \\nu N$ are correctly obtained from elastic scattering by replacing the relative velocity operator with the average nucleon velocity operator, and that the nuclear responses change in the way the modified code implements; the paper gives no derivation or independent benchmark for those changed responses, especially for $\\mathcal{O}_4$.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["PICO-60 sets world-leading dark-matter absorption limits","Bubble chamber yields first spin-dependent absorption limits","PICO-60 data tighten low-mass dark-matter absorption search","Bubble chambers probe dark-matter absorption at low masses","New absorption limits from PICO-60's bubble chamber data"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.000703,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":3160,"prompt_tokens":923,"completion_tokens":2237,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":539,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":2154}},"tokens_in":539,"tokens_out":2237,"duration_ms":15520,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":2154,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-16T12:15:01.768380+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"A first-principles nuclear-structure calculation of the $\\mathcal{O}_4$ spin-dependent response in $^{19}\\mathrm{F}$, with the dark-matter velocity contribution removed, would settle the mapping; if the calculated response differs from the code's, the reported spin-dependent absorption limits would not correspond to the claimed process. On the experimental side, a threshold scan that sees a mono-energetic recoil peak at $E_R \\approx m_\\chi^2/(2m_N)$ followed by an abrupt cutoff once the threshold passes that energy would confirm the absorption signal.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the elastic NREFT operator basis that this work extends to absorption by changing the velocity operator."},{"cited_title":"Amoleetal","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the PICO-60 exposure, efficiency curves, and the profile-likelihood limit-setting method reused here."},{"cited_title":"Amoleet al","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Reports the first PICO-60 physics run, contributing the 1167 kg-day exposure included in the analysis."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"A germanium-based spin-independent absorption limit compared against the PICO-60 result."},{"cited_title":"Gu et al","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"A xenon-based spin-independent absorption limit used as a comparison point in the spin-independent exclusion plot."},{"cited_title":"Lett.132, 041001 (2024)","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"A germanium-based spin-independent absorption limit used as a comparison point in the spin-independent exclusion plot."},{"cited_title":"Kavanagh, Physical Review D92(2015), 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023513","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the recoil-spectrum simulation code that was modified to implement the absorption kinematics and nuclear responses."}],"review_version":1}