Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

The paper reports the first experimental search for two-neutrino double electron capture in 36Ar and sets a lower limit of 9.2×10^19 years on its half-life at 90% confidence.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 06:53 UTC pith:IL5LTXFG

load-bearing objection First limit on 2EC2ν in 36Ar from DarkSide-50: solid null result, but the signal-model validation is weaker than claimed. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11476 v2 pith:IL5LTXFG submitted 2026-07-13 nucl-ex hep-ex

Search for two-neutrino double electron capture in ³⁶Ar with the DarkSide-50 detector

DarkSide-50 Collaboration: P. Agnes , I.F.M. Albuquerque , T. Alexander , A.K. Alton , M. Ave Pernas , H.O. Back , G. Batignani , W.M. Bonivento
show 77 more authors
B. Bottino S. Bussino M. Cadeddu M. Cadoni A. Caminata N. Canci M. Caravati N. Cargioli M. Carlini S. Chashin A. Chepurnov S. Davini S. De Cecco A. Derbin D. D\'iaz Mairena F. Dordei G. Fiorillo D. Franco F. Gabriele C. Galbiati G.K. Giovanetti M. Gromov M. Gulino B.R. Hackett F. Hubaut A. Ianni V. Ippolito F. Karpeshin D. Korablev G. Korga M. Kuss M. La Commara M. Lai M. Lissia O. Lychagina I. Machulin S.M. Mari J. Maricic R. Milincic M. Morrocchi V. Muratova P. Musico M. Pallavicini L. Pandola E. Pantic E. Paoloni K. Pelczar V. Pesudo A. Pocar S. Pordes P. Pralavorio M. Razeti A.L. Renshaw M. Rescigno D. Sablone O. Samoylov S. Sanfilippo R. Santorelli C. Savarese D. Semenov A. Sheshukov M. Skorokhvatov O. Smirnov A. Sotnikov S. Stracka Y. Suvorov R. Tartaglia G. Testera E. Unzhakov A. Vishneva B. Vogelaar M. Wada Y. Wang S. Westerdale M.M. Wojcik C. Yang G. Zuzel
This is my paper
classification nucl-ex hep-ex
keywords double electron capture36ArDarkSide-50liquid argon TPChalf-life limitrare nuclear decayunderground argonprofile likelihood
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.

This paper reports the first search for two-neutrino double electron capture (2EC2ν) in 36Ar, using the underground-argon data from the DarkSide-50 detector. The process would leave a two-vacancy atomic de-excitation cascade of about 4.8 keV total energy, which the authors model as a monoenergetic energy deposit. No statistically significant excess is observed above background in the ~12 ton-day exposure, and the authors translate this null result into a lower limit on the half-life of 9.2×10^19 years at 90% confidence. They also project that the upcoming DarkSide-20k experiment could extend sensitivity by about two orders of magnitude. This matters because 36Ar is one of only a dozen isotopes where double electron capture is the sole allowed double-beta channel, and the measurement provides a new experimental anchor for nuclear matrix element calculations.

Core claim

The central claim is that the two-neutrino double electron capture of 36Ar has not been observed, and the first experimental lower limit on its half-life is T_{1/2} > 9.2×10^19 yr (90% C.L.). The result comes from a binned profile likelihood analysis of 633.5 live-days of DarkSide-50 data with a 19.4 kg fiducial liquid argon target, using underground argon whose 36Ar isotopic abundance was measured to be (7.32±0.13)×10^-3%. The signal model treats the full energy release of the KK and KL capture de-excitation cascades as a single monoenergetic deposit, a total-energy approach validated against 37Ar electron-capture calibration data. No signal events are found; the best-fit number of signal e

What carries the argument

The central object is the total-energy approximation for the atomic de-excitation cascade: the entire energy release from the double-vacancy cascade (~4.9 keV for KK capture and ~2.6 keV for KL capture) is collapsed into a single monoenergetic interaction point in the detector response model. This approximation is validated against the 37Ar electron-capture K and L lines and is carried over to 36Ar. The second key ingredient is the measured depletion factor of 36Ar in underground argon (45.6±0.8 relative to atmospheric argon), which enters the half-life formula. The profile likelihood ratio with asymptotic formulae converts the observed event count into an upper limit.

Load-bearing premise

The signal model assumes that the entire double-vacancy de-excitation cascade of 36Ar can be treated as a single monoenergetic energy deposit, an approximation the paper itself notes is not feasible to derive from first principles; if this total-energy response is wrong for the overlapping double-vacancy electron clouds, the extracted half-life limit could change.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier would be a measurement of the 36Ar double-vacancy de-excitation spectrum that shows the energy deposition is not monoenergetic in the way assumed—for example, an atomic-physics measurement of the KK and KL cascade in 36S that predicts a significantly different ionization response distribution (e.g., a peak shift larger than the ±2 electron systematic) in liquid argon. Alternatively, a reanalysis of the same DarkSide-50 data using a first-principles cascade simulation, if it produced a statistically significant excess in the 25–90 electron ROI, would directly contradict the

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the limit is correct, any claimed observation of 36Ar 2EC2ν in future experiments would have to involve half-lives longer than 9.2e19 yr, or point to new physics or a nuclear-model breakdown.
  • The projected sensitivity of DarkSide-20k (~1e22 yr) could either discover the decay or push the constraint closer to the theoretical prediction of 1.7e29 yr, helping to test the USD shell-model matrix elements.
  • The total-energy modeling validated on 37Ar provides a template for low-energy rare-decay searches in liquid argon TPCs.
  • The null result adds a new data point to the set of double electron capture half-life limits, complementing measurements in 124Xe and 78Kr.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the monoenergetic total-energy approximation fails for overlapping double-vacancy clouds in a way not covered by the ±2 electron systematic shift, the true signal could be broader or shifted, and the limit could be biased; a dedicated atomic-cascade measurement (e.g., with a trapped 36Ar source or a high-resolution microcalorimeter) could test this.
  • The measured 36Ar depletion factor in underground argon means other underground argon experiments (like DarkSide-20k and ARGO) inherit the same abundance; if the depletion varies by source, their sensitivity projections may need adjustment.
  • An independent measurement of the 36Ar 2EC2ν half-life using a different technique, such as a bolometric detector or a gaseous TPC with enriched 36Ar, would provide a cross-check of the dark-matter detector-based result.
  • Should theoretical NME calculations improve and predict a half-life closer to current sensitivity, the same dataset could be re-analyzed with a reoptimized ROI, potentially yielding a stronger limit or a hint.

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. The paper reports the first experimental search for two-neutrino double electron capture (2EC2ν) in 36Ar using the DarkSide-50 liquid argon detector. With a 12.3 ton-day underground argon exposure, no statistically significant excess is observed, and a 90% C.L. lower limit on the half-life is set at T1/2 > 9.2×10^19 yr. The signal is modeled by collapsing the full atomic de-excitation cascade into a single monoenergetic energy deposit, validated against 37Ar calibration data. The analysis uses a binned profile likelihood with background components from 39Ar, 85Kr, PMTs, and the cryostat, and the 36Ar isotopic abundance is measured via ICP-MS. A projected sensitivity for DarkSide-20k is also discussed.

Significance. If accepted, this paper provides the first experimental constraint on 2EC2ν in 36Ar, a decay whose predicted half-life (~1.7×10^29 yr) is far beyond current sensitivity, making the limit a first step rather than a test of nuclear matrix element calculations. The analysis benefits from a well-established detector, a previously validated background model, and a standard profile likelihood treatment. The external measurement of the 36Ar abundance and the transparent conversion to a half-life limit are strengths. The main risk is the signal model: the total-energy approximation is an acknowledged simplification, and its validation against 37Ar shows a statistically poor fit, which could affect the central limit.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 6, Fig. 3] The validation fit of the total-energy model to the 37Ar spectrum reports χ²/ndf = 87.75/59. With 59 degrees of freedom, this corresponds to p ≈ 0.008, i.e. a statistically significant discrepancy, rather than 'well within the statistical uncertainties' as stated in the text. Since the 36Ar signal model relies on the same total-energy approximation, this poor goodness-of-fit is directly relevant to the central limit. The ±2 Ne systematic shift tests only an overall energy-scale offset; it does not cover shape distortions (e.g., broadening or altered recombination in the double-vacancy cascade). I request a quantitative treatment of signal-shape uncertainty (e.g., an additional broadening parameter or a conservative alternative shape) and its propagation to the final half-life limit.
  2. [Sec. 8, Eq. (6)] The half-life limit is obtained from the fitted signal-strength limit multiplied by the signal model s_i. If the true 36Ar cascade response is broader than the monoenergetic total-energy model, the profile-likelihood ratio for a given signal strength changes, and the 90% C.L. bound on N_2EC2ν (278 events) could move. Since this is the first constraint on 2EC2ν in 36Ar, the validity of the headline T1/2 limit rests on the signal-shape assumption. The statement that a ±2 Ne shift leaves the limit unchanged addresses only one systematic axis. Please demonstrate robustness to shape variations or incorporate them as nuisance parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 6] Typo: 'we we employ a similar approach' should read 'we employ a similar approach'.
  2. [Sec. 8] Typo: 'the active mass ... is givern by' should read 'is given by'.
  3. [Abstract / Sec. 9 / Sec. 10] The projected DarkSide-20k sensitivity is stated inconsistently: the abstract says a factor ~100, Sec. 9 says 'two to three orders of magnitude', and Sec. 10 says 'about two orders of magnitude'. Please harmonize.
  4. [Fig. 5] The legend text appears garbled (' yr) 1910×>9.21/22EC2v (TPMTs'); the formatting should be corrected for clarity.
  5. [Sec. 1] Minor grammatical issue: 'offering a unique pathway to determination the absolute neutrino mass scale' should read 'to determining the absolute neutrino mass scale'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the half-life limit follows from an external abundance measurement, a null event count, and a signal model validated on an independent calibration source.

full rationale

No circular steps found. The claimed result T_{1/2} > 9.2 × 10^19 yr is a null-search upper limit, not a prediction derived from the signal model. The derivation chain is: (i) an ICP-MS relative measurement gives the UAr depletion factor R_36Ar = 45.6 ± 0.8, combined with the atmospheric abundance 0.334% to obtain η_UAr = (7.32 ± 0.13) × 10^-3% (Sec. 4); (ii) the 2EC2ν signal is simulated from RAINE atomic-structure calculations and a detector response function whose total-energy treatment is validated against the independent 37Ar K/L-capture spectrum (Sec. 6); (iii) a profile-likelihood fit to the DS-50 data yields N_2EC2ν = 0 and an upper limit N_2EC2ν < 278 (Sec. 8); (iv) Eq. (6), a standard half-life relation, converts this count limit into T_{1/2} > 9.2 × 10^19 yr. No equation defines the fitted limit in terms of the signal model itself, and no fitted parameter of the 2EC2ν search is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to prior DarkSide-50 analyses [34,46] supply the detector calibration, data selection, and background model; these are prior, separately validated experimental results and do not smuggle in the target claim. The paper's own limitation statements — “A detailed, first-principles modeling of their individual complex de-excitation cascades is not feasible”, the ±2 Ne shift, and the quoted χ²/ndf = 87.75/59 — are modeling-accuracy issues that could affect the robustness of the limit, but they are not circularity: the limit is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central limit depends on a handful of measured or theoretically assumed quantities (abundance, exposure, signal model, background model). No free parameters are fitted to the data for the central result beyond the signal strength itself, which is the parameter of interest. The ±2 e- shift is a hand-chosen systematic. The axioms are standard statistical methods and domain assumptions from atomic physics and the prior DarkSide-50 analysis.

free parameters (1)
  • Systematic shift in signal spectrum (ΔN_e) = ±2 e-
    Ad hoc systematic to cover residual uncertainty in cascade modeling; paper states it does not affect the final limit (Sec. 6).
axioms (4)
  • standard math Profile likelihood asymptotic formulae are valid for this fit
    Used to derive the 90% C.L. upper limit via the test statistic in Sec. 7, following Cowan et al. [48].
  • domain assumption The background model from Ref. [34] accurately describes the ROI after the same selection criteria
    The analysis reuses the background model and calibration from the DarkSide-50 low-mass WIMP analysis; validated by background-only fits in Sec. 7.
  • domain assumption Atomic de-excitation energies and branching ratios for 36Ar double-vacancy cascades from RAINE/Dirac-Fock are correct to the stated precision
    Signal model construction in Sec. 2 and Sec. 6; energies from RAINE [29] and references [28] are not independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption Electron capture from shells other than K and L is negligible (<1%)
    Sec. 2 states probabilities of KK and KL are 74%/26%, others below 1%, so only KK and KL are considered.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14663 in / 11009 out tokens · 100803 ms · 2026-08-02T06:53:20.694828+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for two-neutrino double electron capture in $^{36}$Ar with the DarkSide-50 detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IL5LTXFG

@misc{pith2026260711476,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for two-neutrino double electron capture in $^36$Ar with the DarkSide-50 detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IL5LTXFG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.11476}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Two-neutrino double electron capture is a rare nuclear decay where two electrons are simultaneously captured from the atomic shells and two neutrinos are emitted. We report on the first search for two-neutrino double electron capture in the $\textit{KK}$- and $\textit{KL}$-shells of $^{36}$Ar using the low-radioactivity liquid argon target from underground sources in the DarkSide-50 experiment. No statistically significant excess was observed with approximately 12 ton-day exposure of underground argon (UAr) and, taking into account the $^{36}$Ar isotopic abundance in UAr (0.007%), we set a limit on the half-life of the two-electron capture process in $^{36}$Ar of $T_{1/2} > 9.2 \times 10^{19}$ yr at 90% C.L. The sensitivity of the DarkSide-20k experiment, which will become operational in the next few years, was also evaluated and is expected to increase by a factor $\sim$100 with 10 years of expected operation and assuming the same $^{36}$Ar abundance as in the DarkSide-50 underground argon target.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11476 by A. Caminata, A. Chepurnov, A. Derbin, A. Ianni, A.K. Alton, A.L. Renshaw, A. Pocar, A. Sheshukov, A. Sotnikov, A. Vishneva, B. Bottino, B.R. Hackett, B. Vogelaar, C. Galbiati, C. Savarese, C. Yang, DarkSide-50 Collaboration: P. Agnes, D. D\'iaz Mairena, D. Franco, D. Korablev, D. Sablone, D. Semenov, E. Pantic, E. Paoloni, E. Unzhakov, F. Dordei, F. Gabriele, F. Hubaut, F. Karpeshin, G. Batignani, G. Fiorillo, G.K. Giovanetti, G. Korga, G. Testera, G. Zuzel, H.O. Back, I.F.M. Albuquerque, I. Machulin, J. Maricic, K. Pelczar, L. Pandola, M. Ave Pernas, M. Cadeddu, M. Cadoni, M. Caravati, M. Carlini, M. Gromov, M. Gulino, M. Kuss, M. La Commara, M. Lai, M. Lissia, M. Morrocchi, M.M. Wojcik, M. Pallavicini, M. Razeti, M. Rescigno, M. Skorokhvatov, M. Wada, N. Canci, N. Cargioli, O. Lychagina, O. Samoylov, O. Smirnov, P. Musico, P. Pralavorio, R. Milincic, R. Santorelli, R. Tartaglia, S. Bussino, S. Chashin, S. Davini, S. De Cecco, S.M. Mari, S. Pordes, S. Sanfilippo, S. Stracka, S. Westerdale, T. Alexander, V. Ippolito, V. Muratova, V. Pesudo, W.M. Bonivento, Y. Suvorov, Y. Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Feynman diagram for 2EC2ν process. shells (L, M, etc.) end up in a slightly different energy state and distribution than in an ordinary atom [9]. Electrons are predominantly captured from the K-shell. This is not only because the K-shell is spatially clos￾est to the nucleus, but more fundamentally because the probability density of the K-shell electrons at the nu￾clear site, |ψ(0)| 2 , is the largest among… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Energy distribution of the 2EC2ν decay in 36Ar. The stacked histogram represents the absolute prob￾abilities of the KK-capture (orange) and KL-capture (blue) channels. The KL channel shows a peak at 2.59 keV (0.2), while the KK channel distributes its prob￾ability across multiple peaks, with the highest at 4.91 keV (0.222). Gran Sasso (LNGS) of the INFN, in Italy. The rock overburden of the underground lab… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Detector response spectrum for the K- and L￾captures in 37Ar. The black dots represent the experi￾mental data obtained during the calibration of the de￾tector after background subtraction. The red line indi￾cates the detector response spectrum obtained from the total-energy approach described in the text. The light￾green and magenta shaded histograms show the system￾atic variation of the simulated spectrum… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated detector response spectrum for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Data and background model compared to ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R. G. Winter, Phys. Rev.100, 142 (1955)

    1955

  2. [2]

    Primakoff and S

    H. Primakoff and S. P. Rosen, Rep. Prog. Phys.22, 121 (1959)

    1959

  3. [3]

    M. Doi, T. Kotani, and E. Takasugi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.83, 1 (1985)

    1985

  4. [4]

    Suhonen and O

    J. Suhonen and O. Civitarese, Phys. Rep.300, 123 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    Niţescu, S

    O. Niţescu, S. Ghinescu, V. A. Sevestrean,et al., Universe10, 98 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Niţescu, S

    O. Niţescu, S. Ghinescu, V. A. Sevestrean,et al., J. Phys. G51, 125103 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Rodin, A

    V. Rodin, A. Faessler, F. Šimkovic, and P. Vogel, Nuclear Physics A766, 107 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    V. I. Tretyak and Y. G. Zdesenko, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables80, 83 (2002)

    2002

  9. [9]

    S. S. Ratkevich, A. M. Gangapshev, Y. M. Gavri- lyuk,et al., Phys. Rev. C96, 065502 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Y. M. Gavrilyuk, A. M. Gangapshev, V. V. Kazalov,et al., Phys. Rev. C87, 035501 (2013)

    2013

  11. [11]

    Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Nature 568, 532 (2019), arXiv:1904.11002 [nucl-ex]

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Nature 568, 532 (2019), arXiv:1904.11002 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C106, 024328 (2022), arXiv:2205.04158 [hep- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 161805 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Aalberset al.(The LZ Collaboration), J

    J. Aalberset al.(The LZ Collaboration), J. Phys. G52, 015103 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Boet al.(PandaX-4T, PandaX Collaborations), JHEP2025(5), 119

    Z. Boet al.(PandaX-4T, PandaX Collaborations), JHEP2025(5), 119

  16. [16]

    Brown and B

    B. Brown and B. Wildenthal, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.38, 29 (2003)

    2003

  17. [17]

    Nakada, T

    H. Nakada, T. Sebe, and T. Otsuka, Nucl. Phys. A 571, 467 (1994)

    1994

  18. [18]

    R. R. Whitehead, Moment Methods and Lanc- zos Methods, inTheory and Applications of Mo- ment Methods in Many-Fermion Systems,editedby B. J. Dalton, S. M. Grimes, J. P. Vary, and S. A. Williams (Springer, Boston, 1980) pp. 235–255

    1980

  19. [19]

    Nakada, T

    H. Nakada, T. Sebe, and K. Muto, Nucl. Phys. A 607, 235 (1996). 12

    1996

  20. [20]

    Vogel and M

    P. Vogel and M. R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 3148 (1986)

    1986

  21. [21]

    Suhonen, J

    J. Suhonen, J. Phys. G40, 075102 (2013)

    2013

  22. [22]

    Agostiniet al.(GERDA Collaboration), Eur

    M. Agostiniet al.(GERDA Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C76, 652 (2016)

    2016

  23. [23]

    Agostiniet al.(GERDA Collaboration), Eur

    M. Agostiniet al.(GERDA Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C84, 34 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    M. O. Krause, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data8, 307 (1979)

    1979

  25. [25]

    M. H. Chen, Phys. Rev. A44, 239 (1991)

    1991

  26. [26]

    Crawford, D

    J. Crawford, D. Cohen, G. Doherty, and A. Atana- cio,CalculatedK-,L- andM-shell X-Ray line in- tensities for light line impact on selected targets from Z = 6 to 100,Tech.Rep.ANSTO/E-774(Aus- tralian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisa- tion, 2011)

    2011

  27. [27]

    S. G. Gagarin and A. P. Kovtun, J. Struct. Chem. 21, 1573 (1981)

    1981

  28. [28]

    I. M. Band and M. B. Trzhaskovskaya, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables35, 1 (1986)

    1986

  29. [29]

    F. F. Karpeshin, M. B. Trzhaskovskaya, and V. V. Kuz’minov, Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. Phys.76, 884 (2012)

    2012

  30. [30]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 111303 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 081307 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 101001 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 101002 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide-50 Collaboration), Phys

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide-50 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D107, 063001 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide-50 Collaboration), Eur

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide-50 Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C83, 322 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Acerbiet al.(DarkSide Collaboration) (2025), arXiv:2511.13629

    F. Acerbiet al.(DarkSide Collaboration) (2025), arXiv:2511.13629

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Belliniet al.(Borexino Collaboration), JCAP 2013(8), 049

    G. Belliniet al.(Borexino Collaboration), JCAP 2013(8), 049

    2013

  38. [38]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B743, 456 (2015)

    2015

  39. [39]

    Begemann, H

    F. Begemann, H. Weber, and H. Hintenberger, As- trophys. J.203, L155 (1976)

    1976

  40. [40]

    F. H. B. Atreya, S. K. Trainer M. G.et al., Geo- phys. Res. Lett.40, 5605 (2013)

    2013

  41. [41]

    Marty, Earth Planet

    B. Marty, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.313-314, 56 (2012)

    2012

  42. [42]

    Adhikariet al.(DEAP Collaboration), Eur

    P. Adhikariet al.(DEAP Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C85, 728 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    Sarda, T

    P. Sarda, T. Staudacher, and C. J. Allègre, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.72, 357 (1985)

    1985

  44. [44]

    Anbar and D

    Y.HuandF.Moynier,inTreatise on Geochemistry, edited by A. Anbar and D. Weis (Elsevier, Oxford,

  45. [45]

    Santorelli, A

    R. Santorelli, A. I. B. Olmedo, E. C. Vilda, M. F. Diaz, V. Pesudo, and L. Romero, AIP Conf. Proc. 2908, 080003 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D104, 082005 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    Cranmer, G

    K. Cranmer, G. Lewis,et al.,HistFactory: A tool for creating statistical models for use with RooFit and RooStats, Tech. Rep. (2012)

    2012

  48. [48]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011)

    2011

  49. [49]

    C. E. Aalsethet al.(DarkSide-20k Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. Plus133, 131 (2018)

    2018

  50. [50]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide-20k Collaboration), Eur

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide-20k Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C81, 359 (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide-50 Collaboration) (2025), arXiv:2507.23003

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide-50 Collaboration) (2025), arXiv:2507.23003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Acerbiet al.(DarkSide-20k Collaboration), Commun

    F. Acerbiet al.(DarkSide-20k Collaboration), Commun. Phys.7, 260 (2024)

    2024

  53. [2025]

    3rd ed., pp. 497–545