Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The neutrino fog—the irreducible solar-neutrino background that caps dark-matter discovery—shifts with the model: a Z-portal with a strong neutron coupling lowers it, a proton-only Scotogenic model raises it.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Isospin-violating dark matter shifts the neutrino fog: in xenon, a Z-portal model (f_n/f_p ≈ -22) lowers the discovery limit while the Scotogenic model (f_n/f_p = 0) raises it.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection The paper's central message is right — the neutrino fog moves with the DM isospin ratio — but the Scotogenic example is computed with elastic kinematics for an inelastic model, and the σχ−n normalization is ambiguous; revision required. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.19784 v2 pith:R6OPNA7A submitted 2025-12-22 hep-ph

Shifting the neutrino fog: studying the Isospin-violating Dark Matter case

Laura Duque , J. M. Lamprea , Omar G. Miranda This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords neutrino fogisospin-violating dark mattercoherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scatteringdirect detectiondiscovery limitZ-portal dark matterScotogenic modelxenon detector
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the neutrino fog—the irreducible solar and atmospheric neutrino background that sets the discovery floor for dark-matter direct detection—is not a universal limit, but moves depending on how a dark-matter model couples to protons versus neutrons. Its central observation is that the DM event rate scales as [Z + (f_n/f_p)(A−Z)]^2 for a nucleus, while the CEνNS neutrino background is fixed and dominated by neutrons, so any model with f_n/f_p far from 1 shifts the discovery limit. Two concrete examples are computed for a xenon target: a Z-portal model with f_n/f_p ≈ −22.2 pushes the fog downward, improving sensitivity, while the Scotogenic model with f_n/f_p = 0 pushes it upward, requiring larger exposures. The authors note that the Z-portal realisation is already ruled out by data, so it serves as an illustrative proof of principle rather than a viable model. The broader point is that quoting a single 'neutrino floor' is model-dependent, and target choice and coupling determination must be analysed together.

Core claim

For a xenon detector, the paper computes 90% discovery limits via a profile-likelihood ratio that treats neutrino flux normalisations as nuisance parameters, for both a Z-portal model and the Scotogenic model. It finds that the Z-portal model, which couples strongly to neutrons, shifts the discovery limit to lower WIMP–nucleon cross-sections than the isospin-conserving case, allowing the experiment to probe deeper before the neutrino background becomes limiting; the Scotogenic model, which couples only to protons, shifts the limit upward. Holding the neutrino spectrum fixed, the entire shift comes from the DM-rate prefactor [Z + (f_n/f_p)(A−Z)]^2, illustrating that the neutrino fog is a dyna

What carries the argument

The central object is the ratio of neutron-to-proton DM couplings, r = f_n/f_p. It controls the DM rate through [Z + r(A−Z)]^2, while the neutrino background enters through the weak charge Q_W^2, which is almost entirely neutron-dominated and independent of r. The contrast between an r-dependent DM signal and an r-independent neutrino background is what moves the discovery limit. The profile-likelihood-ratio test, comparing a background-only hypothesis with a background-plus-DM hypothesis and profiling the neutrino flux uncertainties, converts this shift into a quantified neutrino fog.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument leans on treating every model's dark-matter signal as an elastic, spin-independent recoil whose rate goes as the square of [Z + r(A−Z)] with r fixed; for the Scotogenic model that link is not made, because the interaction defined there is inelastic and momentum-dependent, and the energy gap between the two states never enters the calculation.

What would settle it

Recompute the Scotogenic discovery limit without the elastic-rate shortcut: include the inelastic threshold v_min = sqrt(m_N E_r/2μ_N) + δ/sqrt(2 m_N E_r) for the N1→N2 transition and the q^2-dependent charge-radius operator from Eq. (24). If that changes the low-mass boundary of the r = 0 fog in Figs. 5–6 by more than the exposure variation, the plotted Scotogenic curve is not a prediction of the model as defined. Separately, if future xenon data locate the discovery limit on the isospin-conserving curve, the Z-portal's predicted downward shift would be ruled out.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For a xenon target, the Z-portal model (r ≈ −22.18) lowers the neutrino fog below the standard isospin-conserving curve, so a given exposure tests smaller cross-sections before neutrinos block the search.
  • The Scotogenic model (r = 0) raises the neutrino fog, meaning larger exposures or other strategies are needed to reach the same sensitivity.
  • No single neutrino floor exists: any quoted discovery limit for spin-independent WIMP scattering implicitly assumes a value of f_n/f_p and must be re-derived for the model under study.
  • The relative sensitivity of two targets, such as xenon versus germanium, depends on r, so combining targets can help determine whether dark matter couples preferentially to neutrons or protons.
  • For ratios with |r| much larger than 1, the sign of r is almost irrelevant because the contribution is squared; destructive cancellation matters only near r ≈ −0.7 for xenon.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Extension not pursued in the paper: the same rate-versus-background argument should apply to other nuclear targets and to other scattering operators; wherever the signal scales with a different combination of protons and neutrons than the neutrino weak charge, the fog will shift.
  • If the inelastic structure of the Scotogenic interaction is taken seriously, the r = 0 curve is not yet a full model prediction: the N1→N2 mass splitting enters the minimum velocity and the photon charge-radius operator adds momentum dependence, so recomputing the spectrum could change the low-mass shape of the discovery limit and close off part of the plotted region.
  • The direction and magnitude of the fog shift could themselves be used as a diagnostic: a future measurement localising where the neutrino background dominates in the (mass, cross-section) plane would give direct information on f_n/f_p, complementary to standard rate-normalisation constraints.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper examines how the 'neutrino fog' — the irreducible CEνNS background in dark-matter direct-detection experiments — shifts when the DM-nucleus spin-independent interaction is isospin-violating (fn ≠ fp). The authors compute discovery limits with a profile-likelihood-ratio approach for a xenon target, using standard solar, atmospheric, and DSNB fluxes and a 150-bin recoil energy range. They show that the DM rate scales as [Z + (fn/fp)(A−Z)]^2 (Eq. 30) while the neutrino background is independent of fn/fp, so a large negative ratio (Z-portal model, fn/fp ≈ −22) lowers the fog, whereas a proton-only coupling (Scotogenic model, fn/fp = 0) raises it. A comparison with a germanium target is also provided. The qualitative isospin-scaling argument is simple and sound; the model-specific illustration for the Scotogenic model is, however, computed with elastic kinematics and a contact interaction, despite the model being defined as inelastic N1→N2 scattering with momentum-dependent operators.

Significance. The central observation is secured by the rate formula and is a useful reminder that neutrino-floor limits should be re-derived for each DM model. The paper makes this concrete with a standard PLR treatment, which is more rigorous than the isocurve method. The two examples are well chosen to bracket the effect: a neutron-dominated coupling that lowers the fog and a proton-only coupling that raises it. However, as it stands, the Scotogenic curve in Figs. 5 and 6 is not a prediction of the model defined in Sec. V.A. If the inelastic kinematics and the q^2-dependence of the operators were properly included, the conclusion that the Scotogenic model produces a 'higher neutrino fog' would need to be re-examined, since the accessible mass range and recoil spectrum change. The generic fn/fp = 0 scenario still demonstrates the qualitative effect, but it should be labelled as such.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V.A and Fig. 5 (right)] The Scotogenic model is defined by the inelastic transition N1→N2 through the photon-mediated operators of Eq. (24), with a mass splitting δ=M2−M1 that never appears in the rate calculation. The plotted curve uses the elastic vmin of Eq. (2), the Klein-Nystrand form factor of Eq. (5), and the contact amplitude [Z + (fn/fp)(A−Z)]^2. For δ ≳ 10 keV the correct vmin contains δ/√(2m_N E_r) and most of the low-mass region becomes kinematically forbidden; moreover the c12 operator scales as q^2, changing the recoil shape. Thus the right panel of Fig. 5 and the corresponding statement in the Conclusions are not predictions of the Scotogenic model. Please either perform the full inelastic calculation or relabel the curve as a generic proton-only (fn/fp = 0) benchmark.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (16) and text below] The stated threshold E_th = 10^{-3} eV is unphysical for nuclear-recoil detectors; even if intended as keV, the value needs to be corrected. Because the discovery limits in Figs. 5–6 are absolute cross-section values, an incorrect threshold changes the numerical results, including the exposure at which the fog is reached. Please state the threshold and binning unambiguously (e.g., log-spaced bins from 1 keV to 1 MeV) and rerun the analysis if the computation actually used 10^{-3} eV.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (18)-(19)] In H0 and H1 the same symbol N_obs is assigned hypothesis-dependent values. Since the PLR uses an Asimov dataset, N_obs should be identical in both hypotheses; please rewrite the notation.
  2. [Sec. III vs Sec. V.B] The weak mixing angle is quoted as sin^2θ_W = 0.2368 in Sec. III (around Eq. 14) but 0.23873 in Sec. V.B (around Eq. 29). Since fn/fp = −22.18 depends directly on this value, the two should be made consistent or the running of the angle explained.
  3. [Eq. (12)] E_ν^min = √(m_N E_r/2) is an approximation; the full kinematic expression should be given or a reference cited, especially since low-energy recoils are central to the fog.
  4. [Abstract/Introduction] The phrase 'First observation of solar neutrinos through coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering by dark matter (DM) direct detection experiments' is grammatically unclear; it should read 'by direct detection experiments'.
  5. [Figs. 5-6 and Sec. V.C] If the Scotogenic panel is relabelled as a generic benchmark, the corresponding line styles and text in Fig. 6 and Sec. V.C should be updated consistently to avoid attributing the curve to the Scotogenic model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the IVDM fog shift follows from the stated coupling ratios and standard CEνNS formulas; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. The proportionality R_DM ∝ [Z + (fn/fp)(A−Z)]^2 (Eq. 30) is literally Eq. 4 rewritten for the SI cross-section, and the neutrino background (Eqs. 12–15) has no fn/fp dependence; the discovery-limit shift therefore follows from the stated inputs plus the profile-likelihood procedure (Eqs. 16–22). No quantity in that chain is fitted to the fog curves: fn/fp = −22.18 is computed from SM Z-quark couplings and sin^2θ_W (Eq. 29), and fn/fp = 0 for the Scotogenic illustration is stated from the photon-mediated coupling. The scan over r in Fig. 4 is illustrative rather than a fit to data. The only author-overlapping citation is [21] for the standard CEνNS differential cross-section; because that formula is an independently verifiable standard result, it is real evidence and does not make the argument circular. The skeptic's concern about the Scotogenic curve—that Section V.A defines inelastic N1→N2 scattering with charge-radius and dipole operators (Eqs. 24–27) while the rate computation uses elastic kinematics (Eq. 2), the Klein–Nystrand form factor (Eq. 5), and the contact-SI amplitude of Eq. 4/30, with the mass splitting δ absent—is a physics-correctness/internal-consistency issue, not a circularity: the plotted curve does not reduce to the model's own equations, it omits part of them. Thus no step in the paper's own derivation equals its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central computation rests on standard rate formulas, halo-model and flux inputs, plus one ad hoc assumption specific to this paper (treating the Scotogenic inelastic scattering as elastic SI). No new entities are invented: the models are taken from [35] and [41].

free parameters (3)
  • Isospin ratio f_n/f_p in Figs. 4-6 = scan values: -100, -22.18, -1, 0, 1, 100 (not fitted)
    The scan values are chosen by hand to map the interference pattern of Eq. 30; -22.18 and 0 are model inputs derived from SM couplings and the photon-only coupling, respectively, while the rest are illustrative.
  • Recoil energy threshold E_th = 10^-3 eV as printed
    Sets the lowest bin of the PLR analysis (Section IV); as printed it is physically meaningless for nuclear recoils and likely a typo for keV, and the absolute discovery limits depend on it.
  • Exposure values in Fig. 5 = 10^-2 to 10^7 ton-year
    Chosen to show the fog evolution with exposure; a projection design choice, not fitted to data.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Standard Halo Model truncated Maxwellian velocity distribution (Eqs. 6-9) with v0=220 km/s, vesc=544 km/s, vobs=550 km/s
    Astrophysical input shaping the DM recoil spectrum and hence the discovery limit; standard in the field but not derived here (Section II).
  • domain assumption Equal proton and neutron nuclear form factors
    Stated explicitly in Section II ('we will consider that the proton and neutron form factors are equal'); simplification affecting the recoil shape at large q.
  • standard math Wilk's theorem applies: q0 is asymptotically chi^2 with one degree of freedom
    Invoked in Section IV (Eq. 22) to map the profile likelihood ratio to a significance; requires large-sample validity of the Asimov construction.
  • ad hoc to paper Scotogenic inelastic scattering can be treated as elastic SI scattering
    Section V.A defines N1→N2 inelastic, photon-mediated interactions (Eqs. 24-27), yet Section V.C computes the fog with the elastic v_min of Eq. 2 and the standard [Z + r(A-Z)]^2 rate; the mass splitting δ and the q^2-dependence of the operators are dropped without statement.
  • domain assumption Idealized detector: no energy resolution, no efficiency, no non-neutrino backgrounds
    Section IV defines 150 bins over 10^-3 eV to 1 MeV with only CEνNS backgrounds (Eqs. 16-19); standard for discovery-limit projections but unphysical at the printed threshold.
  • standard math CEνNS weak-charge formula with gV_p, gV_n from low-energy sin^2θ_W = 0.2368
    Eqs. 13-14 from [21]; standard electroweak input with the usual MS-bar low-energy value.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shifting the neutrino fog: studying the Isospin-violating Dark Matter case." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R6OPNA7A

@misc{pith2026251219784,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shifting the neutrino fog: studying the Isospin-violating Dark Matter case},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R6OPNA7A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.19784}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

First observation of solar neutrinos through coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering by dark matter (DM) direct detection (DD) experiments makes the study of the neutrino fog of the most relevance. This irreducible neutrino background depends on the target material as well as other experimental parameters. Recently, it has also been remarked the dependence of the neutrino fog on the DM models under consideration. In this work, we study the case of Isospin-violating dark matter (IVDM) models, discussing specific examples of DM models and making a detailed analysis of the implications of IVDM on the neutrino fog. We also explore the conditions under which this background can be mitigated for specific DM models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19784 by J. M. Lamprea, Laura Duque, Omar G. Miranda.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Feynman diagrams for the SI inelastic scattering process of DM ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Feynman diagram for the DM ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The discovery limit for a Xenon-based detector plotted in the WIMP mass ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Evolution of the neutrino fog in the WIMP-nucleon SI cross-section, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison of the neutrino floor for two target materials in the WIMP-nucleon SI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Sterile Neutrino Mixing Parameters from Solar-Neutrino Coherent Scattering

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Future dark matter detectors with ~3000 ton-yr exposure could probe sterile neutrino mixing with νμ and ντ in parameter space not reached by long-baseline or atmospheric searches.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aprile, J

    E. Aprile, J. Aalbers, F. Agostini, M. Alfonsi, L. Althueser, F. D. Amaro, V. C. Antochi, E. Angelino, F. Arneodo, D. Barge, et al. (XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 251801 (2019), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.251801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.251801 2019

  2. [2]

    Akerib, H

    D. Akerib, H. Ara´ ujo, X. Bai, A. Bailey, J. Balajthy, P. Beltrame, E. Bernard, A. Bernstein, T. Biesiadzinski, E. Boulton, et al., Physical Review Letters116(2016), ISSN 1079-7114, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.161301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.161301 2016

  3. [3]

    Z. Bo, W. Chen, X. Chen, Y. Chen, Z. Cheng, X. Cui, Y. Fan, D. Fang, Z. Gao, L. Geng, et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 011805 (2025), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.011805

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.011805 2025

  4. [4]

    Aalbers, D

    J. Aalbers, D. S. Akerib, C. W. Akerlof, A. K. Al Musalhi, F. Alder, A. Alqahtani, S. K. Alsum, C. S. Amarasinghe, A. Ames, T. J. Anderson, et al. (LUX-ZEPLIN Collaboration), Phys. 18 Rev. Lett.131, 041002 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 131.041002

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2023

  5. [5]

    Aprile, J

    E. Aprile, J. Aalbers, K. Abe, S. A. Maouloud, L. Althueser, B. Andrieu, E. Angelino, D. A. Martin, S. R. Armbruster, F. Arneodo, et al.,Wimp dark matter search using a 3.1 tonne× year exposure of the xenonnt experiment(2025), 2502.18005, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2502.18005

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Abdullah et al

    M. Abdullah et al. (2022), 2203.07361

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D9, 1389 (1974), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.9.1389

    1974

  8. [8]

    Akimov, J

    D. Akimov, J. B. Albert, P. An, C. Awe, P. S. Barbeau, B. Becker, V. Belov, A. Brown, A. Bolozdynya, B. Cabrera-Palmer, et al., Science357, 1123–1126 (2017), ISSN 1095-9203, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0990

    doi:10.1126/science.aao0990 2017

  9. [9]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, Physical Review Letters127(2021), ISSN 1079-7114, URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.251802

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.251802 2021

  10. [10]

    Z. Bo, W. Chen, X. Chen, Y. Chen, Z. Cheng, X. Cui, Y. Fan, D. Fang, Z. Gao, L. Geng, et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 191001 (2024), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.191001

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.191001 2024

  11. [11]

    Aprile, J

    E. Aprile, J. Aalbers, K. Abe, S. Ahmed Maouloud, L. Althueser, B. Andrieu, E. Angelino, D. Ant´ on Martin, F. Arneodo, L. Baudis, et al. (XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 191002 (2024), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.191002

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.191002 2024

  12. [12]

    D. S. Akerib, A. K. A. Musalhi, F. Alder, B. J. Almquist, C. S. Amarasinghe, A. Ames, T. J. Anderson, N. Angelides, H. M. Ara´ ujo, J. E. Armstrong, et al.,Searches for light dark matter and evidence of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering of solar neutrinos with the lux-zeplin (lz) experiment(2025), 2512.08065, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.08065

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    J. L. Feng, J. Kumar, D. Marfatia, and D. Sanford, Physics Letters B703, 124–127 (2011), ISSN 0370-2693, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2011.07.083

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.07.083 2011

  14. [14]

    V. D. Romeri, A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, and R. Srivastava,New light mediators and the neutrino fog: Implications from xenonnt nuclear recoil data(2025), 2512.08853, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.08853

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    V. M. Lozano, S. Pramanik, S. Sadhukhan, and A. Terrones,Neutrino fog in the light dark sector: the role of isospin violation(2025), 2508.05787, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2508. 19 05787

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

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

    1996

  17. [17]

    D. K. Papoulias, T. S. Kosmas, and Y. Kuno, Frontiers in Physics7(2019), ISSN 2296-424X, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2019.00191

    arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    S. R. Klein and J. Nystrand, Physical Review C60(1999), ISSN 1089-490X, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.60.014903

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.60.014903 1999

  19. [19]

    Savage, K

    C. Savage, K. Freese, and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D74, 043531 (2006), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.043531

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.043531 2006

  20. [20]

    Freese, M

    K. Freese, M. Lisanti, and C. Savage, Reviews of Modern Physics85, 1561–1581 (2013), ISSN 1539-0756, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.1561

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.85.1561 2013

  21. [21]

    De Romeri, O

    V. De Romeri, O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Garcia, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, Journal of High Energy Physics2023(2023), ISSN 1029-8479, URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1007/JHEP04(2023)035

    doi:10.1007/jhep04(2023)035 2023

  22. [22]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Erler and R

    J. Erler and R. Ferro-Hern´ andez, JHEP03, 196 (2018), 1712.09146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Baxter, I

    D. Baxter, I. M. Bloch, E. Bodnia, X. Chen, J. Conrad, P. Di Gangi, J. E. Y. Dobson, D. Durnford, S. J. Haselschwardt, A. Kaboth, et al., The European Physical Journal C81 (2021), ISSN 1434-6052, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09655-y

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09655-y 2021

  25. [25]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], 1007.1727

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  26. [26]

    Billard, E

    J. Billard, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, and L. Strigari, Phys. Rev. D89, 023524 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.023524

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.023524 2014

  27. [27]

    Billard, F

    J. Billard, F. Mayet, and D. Santos, Phys. Rev. D85, 035006 (2012), 1110.6079

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Aristizabal Sierra, V

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, V. De Romeri, L. J. Flores, and D. K. Papoulias, JCAP01, 055 (2022), 2109.03247

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Carlin et al

    N. Carlin et al. (COSINE-100), Sci. Adv.11, adv6503 (2025), 2409.13226

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Z. Kang, T. Li, T. Liu, C. Tong, and J. M. Yang, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2011, 028 (2011), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2011/01/028

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/01/028 2011

  31. [31]

    V. M. Lozano, M. Peir´ o, and P. Soler, JHEP04, 175 (2015), 1503.01780

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    J. L. Feng, J. Kumar, D. Marfatia, and D. Sanford, inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi(2013), 1307.1758. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  33. [33]

    M. T. Frandsen, F. Kahlhoefer, S. Sarkar, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JHEP09, 128 (2011), 1107.2118

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  34. [34]

    Drozd, B

    A. Drozd, B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion, and Y. Jiang, JCAP10, 040 (2016), 1510.07053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Schmidt, T

    D. Schmidt, T. Schwetz, and T. Toma, Phys. Rev. D85, 073009 (2012), 1201.0906

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  36. [36]

    Ma, Phys

    E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D73, 077301 (2006), hep-ph/0601225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  37. [37]

    Tao, Phys

    Z.-j. Tao, Phys. Rev. D54, 5693 (1996), hep-ph/9603309

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  38. [38]

    Lopez Honorez, E

    L. Lopez Honorez, E. Nezri, J. F. Oliver, and M. H. G. Tytgat, JCAP02, 028 (2007), hep- ph/0612275

    arXiv 2007

  39. [39]

    Lopez Honorez and C

    L. Lopez Honorez and C. E. Yaguna, JCAP01, 002 (2011), 1011.1411

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  40. [40]

    Ibarra, C

    A. Ibarra, C. E. Yaguna, and O. Zapata, Phys. Rev. D93, 035012 (2016), 1601.01163

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Arcadi, Y

    G. Arcadi, Y. Mambrini, and F. Richard, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015, 018 (2015), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2015/03/018

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/03/018 2015

  42. [42]

    J. L. Feng, J. Kumar, and D. Sanford, Physical Review D88(2013), ISSN 1550-2368, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.015021. 21

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.015021 2013

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.