pith. sign in

arxiv: 2503.03683 · v2 · submitted 2025-03-05 · ✦ hep-ex · physics.ins-det

First Limits on Light Dark Matter Interactions in a Low Threshold Two Channel Athermal Phonon Detector from the TESSERACT Collaboration

C.L. Chang , Y.-Y. Chang , L. Chaplinsky , C.W. Fink , M. Garcia-Sciveres , W. Guo , S.A. Hertel , X. Li
show 40 more authors
J. Lin M. Lisovenko R. Mahapatra W. Matava D.N. McKinsey V. Novati P.K. Patel B. Penning H.D. Pinckney M. Platt M. Pyle Y. Qi M. Reed G.R.C Rischbieter R.K. Romani B. Sadoulet B. Serfass P. Sorensen A. Suzuki V. Velan G. Wang Y. Wang S.L. Watkins M.R. Williams J.K. Wuko T. Aramaki P. Cushman N.N. Gite A. Gupta M.E. Huber N.A. Kurinsky J.S. Mammo B. von Krosigk A.J. Mayer J. Nelson S.M. Oser L. Pandey A. Pradeep W. Rau T. Saab
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 01:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex physics.ins-det
keywords dark matterdirect detectionathermal phonon detectorsiliconlight dark matterbackground rejectiontwo-channel readout
0
0 comments X

The pith

A 0.233-gram silicon athermal phonon detector sets the most stringent limits on dark matter masses from 44 to 87 MeV/c².

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper describes operating a small silicon detector that reads out athermal phonons through two channels to search for interactions with light dark matter. The setup reaches an rms energy resolution of 361.5 MeV/c² and applies two-channel cuts to remove events tied to single sensors. After 0.233 grams times 12 hours of exposure above ground and a conservative salting procedure, the analysis excludes cross sections down to 4 × 10^{-32} cm² at 87 MeV/c². These bounds are presented as the tightest available in the stated mass window and the lowest mass yet reached by any direct-detection experiment. The two-channel rejection is the feature that enables the background control needed for the result.

Core claim

With an exposure of 0.233 g × 12 hours, the detector places the most stringent constraints on dark matter masses between 44 and 87 MeV/c², with the lowest unexplored cross section of 4 × 10^{-32} cm² at 87 MeV/c². This limit is reached by rejecting low-energy backgrounds coupled to individual sensors while preserving efficiency for bulk interactions, combined with a conservative salting technique that allows the lowest dark matter mass ever probed via direct detection.

What carries the argument

Two-channel athermal phonon readout that rejects events coupled to single sensors while retaining bulk-interaction signals.

If this is right

  • The result constitutes the most stringent constraint on spin-independent dark matter-nucleon interactions for masses 44–87 MeV/c².
  • The exposure reaches the lowest dark matter mass yet explored by any direct-detection experiment.
  • The two-channel rejection technique suppresses sensor-coupled backgrounds sufficiently to set limits from a small, above-ground detector.
  • The quoted cross-section floor of 4 × 10^{-32} cm² at 87 MeV/c² is the lowest unexplored value in the reported range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Larger versions of the same two-channel architecture could translate the same background-rejection performance into stronger limits at comparable or lower masses.
  • The ground-based operation demonstrates that low-threshold phonon detectors need not rely on deep underground shielding to control sensor-related backgrounds for light dark matter searches.
  • The reported baseline resolution of 361.5 MeV/c² sets a benchmark that future athermal-phonon devices can target when scaling exposure.

Load-bearing premise

The two-channel sensor rejection correctly identifies and removes low-energy backgrounds coupled to individual sensors while preserving signal efficiency for bulk interactions.

What would settle it

An independent calibration or Monte Carlo study that shows the two-channel cuts remove a substantially larger fraction of true bulk dark matter events than assumed when deriving the published cross-section limits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2503.03683 by A. Gupta, A.J. Mayer, A. Pradeep, A. Suzuki, B. Penning, B. Sadoulet, B. Serfass, B. von Krosigk, C.L. Chang, C.W. Fink, D.N. McKinsey, G.R.C Rischbieter, G. Wang, H.D. Pinckney, J.K. Wuko, J. Lin, J. Nelson, J.S. Mammo, L. Chaplinsky, L. Pandey, M.E. Huber, M. Garcia-Sciveres, M. Lisovenko, M. Platt, M. Pyle, M. Reed, M.R. Williams, N.A. Kurinsky, N.N. Gite, P. Cushman, P.K. Patel, P. Sorensen, R.K. Romani, R. Mahapatra, S.A. Hertel, S.L. Watkins, S.M. Oser, T. Aramaki, T. Saab, V. Novati, V. Velan, W. Guo, W. Matava, W. Rau, X. Li, Y. Qi, Y. Wang, Y.-Y. Chang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The TESSERACT 1 cm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. A candidate shared event (left panel) and a candidate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Some of this nominally excluded parameter space has a DM interaction rate that would lead to significant signal pileup. In this regime, the dR/dE′ does not scale linearly with σSI , rendering any linear interaction model incor￾rect [37]. To account for this, we further restrict the exclusion region to include only DM masses and cross￾sections that would not produce significant pileup. To estimate the rate … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The 90 % C.L. limits on spin-independent DM below [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present results of a search for spin-independent dark matter-nucleon interactions in a 1 cm$^2$ by 1 mm thick (0.233 gram) high-resolution silicon athermal phonon detector operated above ground. For interactions in the substrate, this detector achieves a r.m.s. baseline energy resolution of 361.5 $\pm$ 0.4 MeV/$c^2$, the best for any athermal phonon detector to date. With an exposure of 0.233g $\times$ 12 hours, we place the most stringent constraints on dark matter masses between 44 and 87 MeV/$c^2$, with the lowest unexplored cross section of 4 $\times 10^{-32}$ cm$^2$ at 87 MeV/$c^2$. We employ a conservative salting technique to reach the lowest dark matter mass ever probed via direct detection experiment. This constraint is enabled by two-channel rejection of low-energy backgrounds that are coupled to individual sensors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents results from a search for spin-independent dark matter-nucleon interactions using a 0.233 g silicon athermal phonon detector with two-channel readout operated above ground. It reports an rms baseline energy resolution of 361.5 ± 0.4 MeV/c² (best for any athermal phonon detector) and, with an exposure of 0.233 g × 12 hours and conservative salting, claims the most stringent constraints on DM masses 44–87 MeV/c², reaching a cross section of 4 × 10^{-32} cm² at 87 MeV/c². The result is enabled by two-channel rejection of low-energy backgrounds coupled to individual sensors, allowing the lowest DM mass ever probed via direct detection.

Significance. If the two-channel bulk-signal efficiency and background model are validated with the required detail, the result would be significant for light dark matter direct detection by extending the mass reach to 44 MeV/c² and demonstrating competitive performance with a small exposure and high resolution. The conservative salting approach and resolution claim are methodological strengths that support the technical advance in athermal phonon detectors.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and implied results section: the headline limits (44–87 MeV/c², 4×10^{-32} cm²) and claim of lowest DM mass probed rest on two-channel rejection preserving high efficiency for bulk interactions. No measured acceptance curves, in-situ calibration, or Monte Carlo validation for bulk events at the relevant energies are provided, leaving the effective exposure and mass reach unverified.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states a measured resolution of 361.5 ± 0.4 MeV/c² and reports limits after conservative salting but provides no details on efficiency curves, systematic uncertainties, or validation of the background model, rendering the central claim plausible yet not fully verifiable.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify the energy resolution units (MeV/c²) and whether this is a mass-equivalent convention or requires additional explanation for readers outside the collaboration.
  2. The exposure value (0.233 g × 12 hours) is stated without comparison to prior experiments; a brief contextualization would aid assessment of the reach.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the result's significance and for highlighting the strengths of the conservative salting and resolution claims. We address the two major comments below by committing to expand the manuscript with the requested validation details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and implied results section: the headline limits (44–87 MeV/c², 4×10^{-32} cm²) and claim of lowest DM mass probed rest on two-channel rejection preserving high efficiency for bulk interactions. No measured acceptance curves, in-situ calibration, or Monte Carlo validation for bulk events at the relevant energies are provided, leaving the effective exposure and mass reach unverified.

    Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of bulk-event efficiency is required to substantiate the quoted mass reach and exposure. The manuscript describes the two-channel coincidence cut used to select bulk interactions while rejecting single-sensor backgrounds, but does not yet include the supporting curves or simulations. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection with measured acceptance versus energy (derived from the two-channel data), Monte Carlo validation of the bulk efficiency at low energies, and any available in-situ checks. This will allow independent verification of the 44 MeV/c² threshold. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract states a measured resolution of 361.5 ± 0.4 MeV/c² and reports limits after conservative salting but provides no details on efficiency curves, systematic uncertainties, or validation of the background model, rendering the central claim plausible yet not fully verifiable.

    Authors: The rms resolution is obtained directly from baseline noise samples and is already quantified in the text; we will add a cross-reference in the results discussion. For efficiency curves, systematic uncertainties, and background-model validation we acknowledge the current manuscript is insufficiently detailed. The revision will incorporate explicit efficiency curves, a table of systematic uncertainties on the limit, and a description of how the two-channel data constrains the background model. These additions will be placed in the results and methods sections. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental upper limits from measured exposure and resolution

full rationale

The paper reports an experimental search result: an upper limit on DM-nucleon cross sections derived from a measured exposure (0.233 g × 12 h), baseline energy resolution (361.5 ± 0.4 MeV/c²), and observed event rate after two-channel cuts. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are presented that reduce the quoted bounds (44–87 MeV/c², 4 × 10^{-32} cm²) to quantities defined or fitted from the same dataset by construction. The two-channel rejection is invoked as an enabling technique whose efficiency is asserted from detector characterization, but this is an empirical premise rather than a self-referential derivation. The result is self-contained against external benchmarks and contains no load-bearing self-citation chains or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the measured baseline resolution and the assumption that two-channel coincidence correctly tags sensor-coupled backgrounds; both are determined from calibration data rather than derived from first principles.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The phonon response to nuclear recoils from dark matter is adequately modeled by the same energy scale calibrated with the baseline resolution measurement.
    Invoked when converting observed events into dark matter cross-section limits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5954 in / 1409 out tokens · 45931 ms · 2026-05-23T01:13:30.255600+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Novel Constraints on Spin-Dependent Light Dark Matter Scattering

    hep-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    SNO data combined with CANDU reactor production excludes spin-dependent χ-nucleon cross sections above ~10^{-33} cm² for m_χ ≤ 1.5 MeV.

  2. The SWEET project: probing sugar crystals for direct dark matter searches

    physics.ins-det 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Sucrose crystals function as a phonon detector with scintillation for particle detection in sub-GeV dark matter searches.

  3. Dive deeper with SUBMARINE: SUB-Mev dArk matter diRect detectIon using bilayer grapheNE

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Bilayer graphene enables sub-MeV dark matter detection via electronic excitations with small exposure and sidereal modulation signatures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 9 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LZ Collaboration), Nucl. In- strum. Meth. A 953, 163047 (2020), arXiv:1910.09124 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041003 (2023), arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide-50), Phys. Rev. D 107, 063001 (2023), arXiv:2207.11966 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Meng et al

    Y. Meng et al. (PandaX-4T Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 261802 (2021), arXiv:2107.13438 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, Physical Review Letters 113, 171301 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, H. Murayama, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, Physical Review Letters 115, 021301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Kuflik, M

    E. Kuflik, M. Perelstein, N. R.-L. Lorier, and Y.-D. Tsai, Journal of High Energy Physics 2017, 78 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    A. H. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST), Phys. Rev. D 100, 102002 (2019), arXiv:1904.00498 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Angloher et al

    G. Angloher et al. (CRESST), Phys. Rev. D 107, 122003 (2023), arXiv:2212.12513 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Searching for low-mass dark matter particles with a massive Ge bolometer operated above-ground

    E. Armengaud et al. (EDELWEISS), Phys. Rev. D 99, 082003 (2019), arXiv:1901.03588 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Alkhatib et al

    I. Alkhatib et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 061801 (2021), arXiv:2007.14289 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Arnquist, N

    I. Arnquist, N. Avalos, D. Baxter, X. Bertou, N. Castell´ o- Mor, A. Chavarria, J. Cuevas-Zepeda, J. C. Guti´ errez, J. Duarte-Campderros, A. Dastgheibi-Fard, et al., Phys- ical Review Letters 130, 171003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    SENSEI: Direct-Detection Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Matter from a Shallow Underground Run Using a Prototype Skipper-CCD

    O. Abramoff et al. (SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 161801 (2019), arXiv:1901.10478 [hep-ex]. 8

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Elastically Decoupling Dark Matter

    E. Kuflik, M. Perelstein, N. R.-L. Lorier, and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221302 (2016), arXiv:1512.04545 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171301 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, JHEP 03, 080 (2010), arXiv:0911.1120 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    Scalar Dark Matter candidates

    C. Boehm and P. Fayet, Nucl. Phys. B 683, 219 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0305261

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  18. [18]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. Voloshin, Physics Letters B 662, 53 (2008)

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek, Physics Letters B 651, 374 (2007)

    work page 2007

  20. [20]

    D. E. Kaplan, M. A. Luty, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 79, 115016 (2009)

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    J. L. Feng and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 231301 (2008)

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

    Hooper and K

    D. Hooper and K. M. Zurek, Physical Review D 77 (2008), 10.1103/physrevd.77.087302

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.087302 2008

  23. [23]

    Adari et al., SciPost Physics Proceedings , 001 (2022)

    P. Adari et al., SciPost Physics Proceedings , 001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Anthony-Petersen et al., Nature Communications 15 (2024), 10.1038/s41467-024-50173-8

    R. Anthony-Petersen et al., Nature Communications 15 (2024), 10.1038/s41467-024-50173-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-50173-8 2024

  25. [25]

    R. K. Romani, Journal of Applied Physics 136 (2024), 10.1063/5.0222654

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0222654 2024

  26. [26]

    Defect recombina- tion origin of low energy excess in semiconductor detec- tors,

    K. Nordlund, F. Kong, F. Djurabekova, M. Heikinheimo, K. Tuominen, and N. Mirabolfathi, “Defect recombina- tion origin of low energy excess in semiconductor detec- tors,” (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    P. Du, D. Egana-Ugrinovic, R. Essig, and M. Shola- purkar, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011009 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Low energy backgrounds and excess noise in a two-channel low-threshold calorime- ter,

    R. Anthony-Petersen et al. , “Low energy backgrounds and excess noise in a two-channel low-threshold calorime- ter,” (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Doubletes detectors to investigate the cresst low energy background: results from above- ground prototypes,

    G. Angloher et al. , “Doubletes detectors to investigate the cresst low energy background: results from above- ground prototypes,” (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    A transition edge sensor operated in coinci- dence with a high sensitivity phonon veto for photon coupled rare event searches,

    R. K. Romani, Y.-Y. Chang, R. Mahapatra, M. Platt, M. Reed, I. Rydstrom, B. Sadoulet, B. Serfass, and M. Pyle, “A transition edge sensor operated in coinci- dence with a high sensitivity phonon veto for photon coupled rare event searches,” (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    K. D. Irwin, Applied Physics Letters 66, 1998–2000 (1995)

    work page 1998

  32. [32]

    K. D. Irwin, S. W. Nam, B. Cabrera, B. Chugg, and B. A. Young, Review of Scientific Instruments 66, 5322 (1995)

    work page 1995

  33. [33]

    Photo courtesy of Marilyn Sargent/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

    work page

  34. [34]

    S. R. Golwala, Exclusion limits on the WIMP nucleon elastic scattering cross-section from the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search, Ph.D. thesis, UC, Berkeley (2000)

    work page 2000

  35. [35]

    S. L. Watkins, Athermal Phonon Sensors in Searches for Light Dark Matter , Ph.D. thesis, UC, Berkeley (main) (2022), arXiv:2301.08699 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Irwin and G

    K. Irwin and G. Hilton, in Cryogenic Particle Detection, Topics in Applied Physics, edited by C. Enss (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005) pp. 63–150

    work page 2005

  37. [37]

    Modeling the dif- ferential rate for signal interactions in coincidence with noise fluctuations or large rate backgrounds,

    X. Li, M. Pyle, and B. Sadoulet, “Modeling the dif- ferential rate for signal interactions in coincidence with noise fluctuations or large rate backgrounds,” (2024), arXiv:2411.10671 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Lewin and P

    J. Lewin and P. Smith, Astropart. Phys. 6, 87 (1996)

    work page 1996

  39. [39]

    Finding an Upper Limit in the Presence of Unknown Background

    S. Yellin, Phys. Rev. D 66, 032005 (2002), arXiv:physics/0203002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  40. [40]

    Extending the optimum interval method

    S. Yellin, (2008), arXiv:0709.2701 [physics.data-an]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  41. [41]

    Angloher et al

    G. Angloher et al. (CRESST), Phys. Rev. D 110, 083038 (2024), arXiv:2405.06527 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    B. J. Kavanagh, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123013 (2018), arXiv:1712.04901 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    bradkav/verne: Version 2.0,

    B. J. Kavanagh, “bradkav/verne: Version 2.0,” (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    A. Das, N. Kurinsky, and R. K. Leane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 121801 (2024), arXiv:2210.09313 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Constrain dark matter interactions with noise power,

    work in progress, “Constrain dark matter interactions with noise power,”

    work page

  46. [46]

    S. A. Hertel, A. Biekert, J. Lin, V. Velan, and D. N. McKinsey, Phys. Rev. D 100, 092007 (2019)

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Anthony-Petersen et al

    R. Anthony-Petersen et al. (SPICE, HeRALD), Phys. Rev. D 110, 072006 (2024), arXiv:2307.11877 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    C. V. Cappiello and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103011 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 104, 069901 (2021)], arXiv:1906.11283 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Novel direct detection constraints on light dark matter

    T. Bringmann and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 171801 (2019), arXiv:1810.10543 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    E. O. Nadler et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 091101 (2021), arXiv:2008.00022 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    K. K. Rogers, C. Dvorkin, and H. V. Peiris, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 171301 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    Gluscevic and K

    V. Gluscevic and K. K. Boddy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 081301 (2018)

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    Yen et al., Applied Physics Letters 105, 163504 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4899130

    J. Yen et al., Applied Physics Letters 105, 163504 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4899130

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4899130 2014

  54. [54]

    M. C. Pyle, Optimizing the design and analysis of cryo- genic semiconductor dark matter detectors for maximum sensitivity, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford U. (2012)

    work page 2012