Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dark Astronomy with Dark Matter Detectors

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A conductor surface can resonantly convert longitudinal dark photons into plasmons, making dark radiation detectable and directional.

desk verdict A genuinely new idea—dark astronomy via longitudinal dark photon detection—but the headline copper plate sensitivities rest on a Drude model that likely breaks down at 10 eV, so the quantitative reach needs a serious material-science pass before the projections are trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06883 v1 pith:FGWM23MP submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Gonzalo Alonso-Álvarez , David Curtin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords darkradiationdissipativematterphotonkineticmixingplasmonresonancedirectdetectiondirectionalastronomy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

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 proposes “dark astronomy”: rather than waiting for dark matter particles to scatter in a detector, one can receive the dark radiation emitted by a dissipative dark sector, in the form of massive dark photons that kinetically mix with ordinary photons. Its central claim is that existing dark matter detectors such as XENON1T and SENSEI are already sensitive to a dark galactic source with luminosity around $10^{16}\,L_\odot$ at 8 kpc, and that a new detector made of thin copper plates exploiting a surface resonant conversion could reach about $10^{13}\,L_\odot$ while knowing the direction the dark photons came from. The key new mechanism is that longitudinal dark photons resonantly convert into plasmons at a conductor surface when their frequency matches the material's plasma frequency, a process enhanced for longitudinal polarization and independent of the dark photon mass when the mass is small. If the paper is right, dark matter detectors become telescopes for dark structures, and solar dark photon emission becomes both a foreground and a calibration source.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is a two-state flavor mixing formalism for the longitudinal dark photon and the longitudinal plasmon, the collective charge oscillation of a conductor. In the dark milli-charged basis, the equations of motion for the photon field $A$ and the sterile state $S$ have off-diagonal mixing $\tilde\epsilon m^2$, where $\tilde\epsilon = \sqrt{Z_L}\,\epsilon$ is the wavefunction-renormalized kinetic mixing and $Z_L = \omega^2/(\omega^2-k^2)$ encodes in-medium renormalization. Diagonalizing yields a mostly plasmon-like state $\tilde A$ and a mostly sterile state $\tilde S$; an incoming vacuum dark photon is a superposition of the two, and the damped $\tilde A$ component produces the surface absorption. The resonance runs through the in-medium mixing angle $\theta_{\omega,k} = \tilde\epsilon m^2/(k^2+m^2-\pi_T)$, which peaks when the dark photon frequency matches the plasma frequency, where $\pi_T$ is the transverse photon self-energy. The conductor is modelled as a Drude-Sommerfeld metal with plasma frequency $\omega_p\simeq 10\,\mathrm{eV}$ and quality factor $Q$, and thin plates make this surface absorption directional.

What would settle it

Two independent checks would settle it: first, measure the longitudinal-to-transverse ratio of solar dark photon emission, since a transverse-dominated solar signal would remove the enhancement the dark-galaxy benchmarks rely on; second, send a monochromatic longitudinal dark photon beam at a thin copper plate tuned near 10 eV and look for the resonant absorption peak at the plasma frequency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that there exists a previously overlooked surface resonant conversion effect for massive kinetically mixed dark photons entering a conductor. A longitudinal dark photon of frequency $\omega$ excites the mostly plasmon-like in-medium propagation eigenstate at the interface, and this excitation is resonantly enhanced when $\omega$ equals the plasma frequency $\omega_p$ of the material; the resulting absorption is localized within a few photon mean free paths of the surface. In a good conductor this surface rate at resonance is comparable to the volumetric absorption rate at the interface, but it falls off sharply with depth and inherits the direction of the incoming flux. Because the resonance is set by frequency matching, not mass matching, no scanning over dark photon mass is needed for $m \ll \omega_p$. With ultra-pure copper plates of thickness $0.1\,\mathrm{mm}$, the detector response is proportional to $\cos\theta$, and a $1\,\mathrm{m}^2\cdot\mathrm{year}$ exposure is claimed to reach about $10^{13}\,L_\odot$ at the galactic centre for emission temperatures of a few solar temperatures.

Load-bearing premise

The sensitivity numbers assume the dark galaxy's dark radiation is mostly longitudinal; the paper's concrete motivation is a toy model the authors admit is unrealistic, and a mostly transverse dark galaxy would lower all the quoted detection reaches by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing XENON1T and SENSEI exposures are claimed to be sensitive to a dark-galaxy luminosity near $10^{16}\,L_\odot$ at 8 kpc, so current data already test dissipative dark sector models.
  • A $1\,\mathrm{m}^2\cdot\mathrm{year}$ copper plate experiment could reach $10^{13}\,L_\odot$ and identify the direction of the dark photon source, allowing the solar dark photon foreground to be subtracted and the galactic emission profile to be mapped.
  • Solar longitudinal dark photon emission becomes both a foreground and a calibration source: exposures just over $1\,\mathrm{m}^2\cdot\mathrm{day}$ would start to probe new kinetic-mixing parameter space.
  • Because resonant surface conversion depends on frequency matching rather than mass matching, the experiment covers dark photon masses up to about 10 eV without scanning.
  • The same physics gives directional rejection of backgrounds, addressing a major obstacle for low-threshold dark matter detectors.
  • A null search would still be scientifically useful: it would put a model-independent upper bound on the longitudinal luminosity of the galactic centre, complementing gravitational probes of dark compact objects.
  • Beyond the paper, stacking thin conducting plates at different orientations would reconstruct the angular distribution of the dark photon sky, effectively turning the detector into a dark-photon camera that can map the galactic centre.
  • A testable extension is to vary the material's plasma frequency through doped semiconductors, superconductors, or other conductors, so the resonance scans the dark radiation spectrum; the paper only lists this as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new observational strategy, “dark astronomy,” based on detecting dark radiation emitted by dissipative dark sectors. It considers light kinetically mixed dark photons and computes their absorption in underground detectors, both through the previously known volumetric process and through a newly identified resonant surface conversion into longitudinal plasmons. The authors recast SENSEI and XENON1T data to constrain solar dark photon emission, parameterize a hypothetical dark-galaxy source by black-body temperature and luminosity, and project sensitivities for both existing dark matter detectors and a proposed array of thin copper plates exploiting the surface effect. The headline quantitative claim is that a 1 m^2·year copper-plate exposure could reach roughly 10^13 solar luminosities from the galactic center for a few-solar-temperature dark galaxy.

Significance. If the surface conversion mechanism and the material-model assumptions hold, the paper opens a genuinely new detection channel for dark radiation and adds directional information that volumetric absorption lacks. The formalism in Sec. II.2 is presented in a transparent two-state mixing language, and the SENSEI/XENON1T recasts in Appendices C and D use published data in a checkable way. The paper is also appropriately explicit that the dark-galaxy flux is parameterized by free inputs rather than fitted, and it flags several of its own limitations. However, the quantitative benchmark for the proposed copper detector rests on a Drude-model assumption at approximately 10 eV that is very likely invalid for real copper, and the dark-galaxy sensitivity applies only to the longitudinal component of the emission. These issues affect the central projections, so the manuscript needs revision before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV.2, Eqs. (19)–(24), Figs. 3 and 4] The copper benchmark assumes a Drude-Sommerfeld conductor with ω_p = 10 eV and quality factor Q = 10^4–10^5 inferred from cryogenic residual resistivity ratios. Real copper at 10 eV has strong d-band interband absorption that sets in near 2–4 eV, so the measured Re σ at 10 eV is dominated by interband transitions and is much larger than ω_p/Q for Q = 10^4–10^5; the loss function Im(−1/ε) is correspondingly broad and only weakly temperature dependent. This invalidates the narrow-resonance and Q ≫ 1 assumptions used to obtain Eq. (23) and the thin-slab limit Eq. (24), which requires ω_p l/Q ≪ 1, i.e. Q ≫ 5 × 10^3 for l = 0.1 mm. If the effective Q at 10 eV is of order 10^2 or smaller, the event rate in Eq. (23) is suppressed by roughly Q/(ω_p l) ≈ 10^2–10^3 relative to the quoted projections, so the claimed 10^13 L☉ reach in Fig. 4 and the corresponding solar limits in Fig. 3 must be rescaled. I recommend recomputing the copper projections with measured optical constants, or choosing a material whose narrow plasmon resonance is below the interband threshold.
  2. [Sec. III.2 and Appendix B] The dark-galaxy luminosity is assumed to be predominantly longitudinally polarized, and the only quantitative motivation is the toy sun-like star calculation in Appendix B, which the authors themselves describe as unrealistic because the predicted luminosity would back-react on stellar structure. Since the absorption rates in Eqs. (14) and (23) are enhanced by (ω/m)^2 relative to transverse modes, the reach in Fig. 4 and the quoted sensitivity to ∼10^13 L☉ from the galactic center apply only to the longitudinal component of the dark radiation. The paper does state this caveat for the formal limits, but the abstract and introduction present the dark-galaxy sensitivity without that qualification. Please state the longitudinal-only nature of the headline reach explicitly, and ideally provide an estimate of how the sensitivity degrades if the emission is purely transverse or mixed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2] The figure label uses mγ′ while the text uses m; please unify the notation.
  2. [Sec. III.2] There is a typo: “expect for small frequencies” should be “except for small frequencies.”
  3. [Appendix B and Sec. IV.2] “O(10^26) watt” should be “watts,” and “SuperCMDS” should be “SuperCDMS.”
  4. [Fig. 1] The copper curve is a Drude-model prediction and should be labeled as such; a direct comparison with measured optical data would help readers assess the relevance of the 10 eV resonance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the surface-conversion rate is derived from in-medium equations of motion with independent inputs, and the dark-galaxy flux is an explicitly varied parameterization rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

I find no circular step that reduces a claimed prediction to an input. The central new result, the surface resonant conversion rate, is derived from the two-state equations of motion in Eqs. (4)-(16); the only inputs are the kinetic mixing epsilon, the dark photon mass m, and the material's complex conductivity, none of which is fitted to the predicted event rate. The detection rate in Eq. (23) then combines this derived absorption rate with the black-body dark-galaxy flux of Eq. (17), whose temperature and luminosity are explicitly varied benchmark parameters, not quantities inferred from the same rate. Thus there is no fitted-input-called-prediction or self-definitional reduction. The longitudinal-polarization assumption in Sec. III.2 is stated plainly as an assumption rather than a derived consequence: the paper says 'we simply assume that the luminosity of the dark galaxy is predominantly longitudinally polarized,' and it explicitly restricts the limits to the longitudinal component for models where this is not the case. The Appendix B toy star is also flagged by the authors as unrealistic ('This of course cannot describe a realistic scenario'), so it is not used as a closed-loop validation of the sensitivity projections. The only self-citations, such as Refs. [48-50] and [60-61] involving D. Curtin, are motivational background for dissipative dark-sector structure formation and mirror stars; they do not supply a uniqueness theorem, a fitted parameter, or a constraint that the detector-side derivation depends on. Those simulations and mirror-star studies are also not the load-bearing basis of the detection calculation, which relies on external solar dark-photon fluxes, published SENSEI and XENON1T data, and independently calculated plasma conductivities. The copper Drude-model concern raised by a skeptic is a physics-robustness issue about whether the assumed quality factor is realistic at omega_p ~ 10 eV, not a circularity issue, because the derivation itself does not presuppose the benchmark reach. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and its projections are parameterized sensitivities rather than circularly derived conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The detector-side physics uses standard kinetic mixing and in-medium propagation from prior literature. The signal existence, its longitudinal polarization, and the copper material response are the main unpaid postulates. There are no newly invented particles. The free parameters are either scanned model parameters or explicit astrophysical and experimental inputs.

free parameters (6)
  • dark galaxy luminosity L = 10^10 to 10^14 L⊙ benchmarks
    Total luminosity of the galactic ensemble of dark sources, a free input in Eq (17).
  • dark galaxy black-body temperature T = T⊙ to 10 T⊙ benchmarks
    Free input characterizing the dark radiation spectrum in Eq (17).
  • dark photon mass m = scanned up to ~10 eV
    Model parameter scanned across Figs 3 and 4.
  • kinetic mixing ϵ = scanned down to ~10^-10
    Model parameter scanned in Fig 3; sensitivity projections maximize it under solar constraints.
  • copper quality factor Q = 400 room temperature, 10^4 to 10^5 for projections
    Assumed material parameter at ωp = 10 eV. Real copper interband losses near 10 eV likely invalidate the Drude value.
  • plate geometry l and A = l = 0.1 mm, A = 10 mm^2 per module
    Chosen experimental geometry used in Eqs (23) through (26).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A dissipative dark matter sector exists, with dark matter charged under a dark U(1) that kinetically mixes with the photon
    The entire dark astronomy signal requires this sector, introduced in Secs I and II.
  • ad hoc to paper The dark galaxy emission is predominantly longitudinally polarized
    Sec III.2: 'we simply assume that the luminosity of the dark galaxy is predominantly longitudinally polarized.' The Appendix B toy model motivation is admitted to be unrealistic.
  • domain assumption The dark photon mass is Stückelberg-type, with no dark Higgs in the spectrum
    Sec II.1 defers the dark Higgs case, which would add a γ' to γs decay channel.
  • ad hoc to paper Copper is a Drude-Sommerfeld conductor up to its plasma frequency, with Reσ(ωp) = ωp/400 at room temperature and Q = 10^4 to 10^5 at cryogenic temperatures
    Sec IV.2. Interband transitions in copper near 10 eV give materially larger losses, which would suppress the resonant conversion.
  • ad hoc to paper The proposed surface conversion detector operates background free
    Sec IV.2: 'we assume the search to be background free.' The actual background at nK calorimetry scales is unknown.
  • standard math Narrow-width resonance, Q >> 1, and m << ωp approximations
    Used to derive Eqs (16), (23), and (24); valid only within the stated Drude model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Astronomy with Dark Matter Detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FGWM23MP

@misc{pith2026241206883,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Astronomy with Dark Matter Detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FGWM23MP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06883}
}
read the original abstract

We present a novel way of probing non-gravitational dark matter interactions: dark astronomy, which leverages the dark radiation emitted by dissipative dark sectors. If the mediator of the dark matter self interactions is a dark photon with a small mass that kinetically mixes with the visible photon, the dark radiation flux becomes accessible to underground experiments. We argue that the emission may be dominantly longitudinally polarized, thereby enhancing the sensitivity of direct detection experiments such as XENON and SENSEI to this signal. We introduce a new detection mechanism based on resonant dark-photon-to-photon conversion at the surface of conducting materials, which offers unique directional sensitivity to dark radiation. This mechanism facilitates the development of experiments that combine dark matter detection techniques with methods of traditional astronomy, opening the possibility to map dark radiation sources within our galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06883 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Surface and volume longitudinal dark photon ab [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Spectrum of dark photons at earth from astro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. 90% C.L. limits on solar dark photon emission from the SENSEI (green) and XENON1T (blue) DM direct detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Existing constraints and ability of proposed searches to detect the longitudinal dark photon emission from a dissipative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dispersion relation (left) and renormalization factor (right) for the longitudinal modes of a massive gauge boson [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Spectral luminosity of longitudinally (solid lines) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Resonant axion and dark photon production in magnetic white dwarfs

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Magnetic fields broaden the resonant conversion of photons to axions and dark photons inside magnetic white dwarfs, enabling emission where none occurred before.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier Dark Matter Direct Detection to the Neutrino Fog,

    D. S. Akerib et al., “Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier Dark Matter Direct Detection to the Neutrino Fog,” in Snowmass 2021. 3, 2022. arXiv:2203.08084 13 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark matter direct detection in the next decade,

    R. Essig et al., “Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark matter direct detection in the next decade,” in Snowmass 2021. 3,

    2021

  3. [3]

    Light Dark Matter: Models and Constraints,

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, “Light Dark Matter: Models and Constraints,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 11, (2017) 115021, arXiv:1709.07882 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2022 Workshop Report,

    C. Antel et al., “Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2022 Workshop Report,” Eur. Phys. J. C83 no. 12, (2023) 1122, arXiv:2305.01715 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Indirect Detection of Dark Matter in the Galaxy,

    R. K. Leane, “Indirect Detection of Dark Matter in the Galaxy,” in 3rd World Summit on Exploring the Dark Side of the Universe, pp. 203–228. 2020. arXiv:2006.00513 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Gravitational wave probes of dark matter: challenges and opportunities,

    G. Bertone et al., “Gravitational wave probes of dark matter: challenges and opportunities,” SciPost Phys. Core 3 (2020) 007, arXiv:1907.10610 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Dark matter annihilation to neutrinos,

    C. A. Arg¨ uelles, A. Diaz, A. Kheirandish, A. Olivares-Del-Campo, I. Safa, and A. C. Vincent, “Dark matter annihilation to neutrinos,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 93 no. 3, (2021) 035007, arXiv:1912.09486 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    An anomalous positron abundance in cosmic rays with energies 1.5-100 GeV,

    P AMELACollaboration, O. Adriani et al., “An anomalous positron abundance in cosmic rays with energies 1.5-100 GeV,” Nature 458 (2009) 607–609, arXiv:0810.4995 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2009

Show all 118 references
  1. [9]

    Dark Matter Annihilation in The Galactic Center As Seen by the Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope,

    D. Hooper and L. Goodenough, “Dark Matter Annihilation in The Galactic Center As Seen by the Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope,” Phys. Lett. B 697 (2011) 412–428, arXiv:1010.2752 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gamma-ray spectroscopy of Positron Annihilation in the Milky Way,

    T. Siegert, R. Diehl, G. Khachatryan, M. G. H. Krause, F. Guglielmetti, J. Greiner, A. W. Strong, and X. Zhang, “Gamma-ray spectroscopy of Positron Annihilation in the Milky Way,” Astron. Astrophys. 586 (2016) A84, arXiv:1512.00325 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Possible dark matter annihilation signal in the AMS-02 antiproton data,

    M.-Y. Cui, Q. Yuan, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and Y.-Z. Fan, “Possible dark matter annihilation signal in the AMS-02 antiproton data,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118 no. 19, (2017) 191101, arXiv:1610.03840 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Novel Dark Matter Constraints from Antiprotons in Light of AMS-02,

    A. Cuoco, M. Kr¨ amer, and M. Korsmeier, “Novel Dark Matter Constraints from Antiprotons in Light of AMS-02,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118 no. 19, (2017) 191102, arXiv:1610.03071 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    V. A. Choutko. AMS Days at La Palma, Spain (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    ETHOS—an effective theory of structure formation: From dark particle physics to the matter distribution of the Universe,

    F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, K. Sigurdson, J. Zavala, T. Bringmann, M. Vogelsberger, and C. Pfrommer, “ETHOS—an effective theory of structure formation: From dark particle physics to the matter distribution of the Universe,” Phys. Rev. D93 no. 12, (2016) 123527, arXiv:1512.05344 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure,

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, “Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure,” Phys. Rept. 730 (2018) 1–57, arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Production Regimes for Self-Interacting Dark Matter,

    N. Bernal, X. Chu, C. Garcia-Cely, T. Hambye, and B. Zaldivar, “Production Regimes for Self-Interacting Dark Matter,” JCAP 03 (2016) 018, arXiv:1510.08063 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Dark Matter and Dark Radiation,

    L. Ackerman, M. R. Buckley, S. M. Carroll, and M. Kamionkowski, “Dark Matter and Dark Radiation,” Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 023519, arXiv:0810.5126 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Constraints on the Self-Interaction Cross-Section of Dark Matter from Numerical Simulations of the Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E 0657-56,

    S. W. Randall, M. Markevitch, D. Clowe, A. H. Gonzalez, and M. Bradac, “Constraints on the Self-Interaction Cross-Section of Dark Matter from Numerical Simulations of the Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E 0657-56,” Astrophys. J. 679 (2008) 1173–1180, arXiv:0704.0261 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Inelastic dark matter,

    D. Tucker-Smith and N. Weiner, “Inelastic dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 043502, arXiv:hep-ph/0101138

    2001 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A Theory of Dark Matter,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, “A Theory of Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 015014, arXiv:0810.0713 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Self-Scattering for Dark Matter with an Excited State,

    K. Schutz and T. R. Slatyer, “Self-Scattering for Dark Matter with an Excited State,” JCAP 01 (2015) 021, arXiv:1409.2867 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Self-interacting inelastic dark matter: A viable solution to the small scale structure problems,

    M. Blennow, S. Clementz, and J. Herrero-Garcia, “Self-interacting inelastic dark matter: A viable solution to the small scale structure problems,” JCAP 03 (2017) 048, arXiv:1612.06681 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Self-interacting Dark Matter Without Direct Detection Constraints,

    Y. Zhang, “Self-interacting Dark Matter Without Direct Detection Constraints,” Phys. Dark Univ.15 (2017) 82–89, arXiv:1611.03492 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Evaporating the Milky Way halo and its satellites with inelastic self-interacting dark matter,

    M. Vogelsberger, J. Zavala, K. Schutz, and T. R. Slatyer, “Evaporating the Milky Way halo and its satellites with inelastic self-interacting dark matter,” MNRAS 484 no. 4, (Apr., 2019) 5437–5452, arXiv:1805.03203 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Astrophysical probes of inelastic dark matter with a light mediator,

    G. Alvarez and H.-B. Yu, “Astrophysical probes of inelastic dark matter with a light mediator,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 4, (2020) 043002, arXiv:1911.11114 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    The impact of inelastic self-interacting dark matter on the dark matter structure of a Milky Way halo,

    K. T. E. Chua, K. Dibert, M. Vogelsberger, and J. Zavala, “The impact of inelastic self-interacting dark matter on the dark matter structure of a Milky Way halo,” MNRAS 500 no. 1, (Jan., 2021) 1531–1546, arXiv:2010.08562 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Endothermic self-interacting dark matter in Milky Way-like dark matter haloes,

    S. O’Neil, M. Vogelsberger, et al., “Endothermic self-interacting dark matter in Milky Way-like dark matter haloes,” MNRAS 524 no. 1, (Sept., 2023) 288–306, arXiv:2210.16328 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Varying primordial state fractions in exo- and endothermic SIDM simulations of Milky Way-mass haloes,

    A. Leonard, S. O’Neil, X. Shen, M. Vogelsberger, O. Rosenstein, H. Shangguan, Y. Teng, and J. Hu, “Varying primordial state fractions in exo- and endothermic SIDM simulations of Milky Way-mass haloes,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.531 no. 1, (2024) 1440–1453, arXiv:2401.13727 [a...

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Dark Nuclei I: Cosmology and Indirect Detection,

    W. Detmold, M. McCullough, and A. Pochinsky, “Dark Nuclei I: Cosmology and Indirect Detection,” Phys. Rev. D90 no. 11, (2014) 115013, arXiv:1406.2276 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Stable Bound States of Asymmetric Dark Matter,

    M. B. Wise and Y. Zhang, “Stable Bound States of Asymmetric Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D90 no. 5, (2014) 055030, arXiv:1407.4121 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 91, 039907 (2015)]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Big Bang Darkleosynthesis,

    G. Krnjaic and K. Sigurdson, “Big Bang Darkleosynthesis,” Phys. Lett. B751 (2015) 464–468, arXiv:1406.1171 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Astrophysical Signatures of Asymmetric Dark Matter Bound States,

    M. I. Gresham, H. K. Lou, and K. M. Zurek, “Astrophysical Signatures of Asymmetric Dark Matter Bound States,” Phys. Rev. D98 no. 9, (2018) 096001, arXiv:1805.04512 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Composite Inelastic Dark Matter,

    D. S. M. Alves, S. R. Behbahani, P. Schuster, and J. G. Wacker, “Composite Inelastic Dark Matter,” Phys. Lett. B692 (2010) 323–326, arXiv:0903.3945 [hep-ph]. 14

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Self-Interacting Dark Matter from a Non-Abelian Hidden Sector,

    K. K. Boddy, J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat, and T. M. P. Tait, “Self-Interacting Dark Matter from a Non-Abelian Hidden Sector,” Phys. Rev. D89 no. 11, (2014) 115017, arXiv:1402.3629 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Composite strongly interacting dark matter,

    J. M. Cline, Z. Liu, G. D. Moore, and W. Xue, “Composite strongly interacting dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 90 no. 1, (2014) 015023, arXiv:1312.3325 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Nonabelian kinetic mixing in a confining phase: a framework for composite dark photons,

    G. Alonso- ´Alvarez, R. Cao, J. M. Cline, K. Moorthy, and T. Xiao, “Nonabelian kinetic mixing in a confining phase: a framework for composite dark photons,” JHEP 02 (2024) 017, arXiv:2309.13105 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Atomic Dark Matter,

    D. E. Kaplan, G. Z. Krnjaic, K. R. Rehermann, and C. M. Wells, “Atomic Dark Matter,” JCAP 05 (2010) 021, arXiv:0909.0753 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Double-Disk Dark Matter,

    J. Fan, A. Katz, L. Randall, and M. Reece, “Double-Disk Dark Matter,” Phys. Dark Univ.2 (2013) 139–156, arXiv:1303.1521 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dissipative hidden sector dark matter,

    R. Foot and S. Vagnozzi, “Dissipative hidden sector dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 023512, arXiv:1409.7174 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Structure Formation and Exotic Compact Objects in a Dissipative Dark Sector,

    J. H. Chang, D. Egana-Ugrinovic, R. Essig, and C. Kouvaris, “Structure Formation and Exotic Compact Objects in a Dissipative Dark Sector,” JCAP 03 (2019) 036, arXiv:1812.07000 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    The Twin Higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror symmetry,

    Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, “The Twin Higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96 (2006) 231802, arXiv:hep-ph/0506256

    2006 arXiv

  34. [42]

    The Shadow World,

    E. W. Kolb, D. Seckel, and M. S. Turner, “The Shadow World,” Nature 314 (1985) 415–419

    1985

  35. [43]

    Positronium Versus the Mirror Universe,

    S. L. Glashow, “Positronium Versus the Mirror Universe,” Phys. Lett. B167 (1986) 35–36

    1986

  36. [44]

    Constraining Dissipative Dark Matter Self-Interactions,

    R. Essig, S. D. Mcdermott, H.-B. Yu, and Y.-M. Zhong, “Constraining Dissipative Dark Matter Self-Interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123 no. 12, (2019) 121102, arXiv:1809.01144 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    The Structure of Dissipative Dark Matter Halos,

    R. Huo, H.-B. Yu, and Y.-M. Zhong, “The Structure of Dissipative Dark Matter Halos,” JCAP 06 (2020) 051, arXiv:1912.06757 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Dissipative dark matter on FIRE – I. Structural and kinematic properties of dwarf galaxies,

    X. Shen, P. F. Hopkins, L. Necib, F. Jiang, M. Boylan-Kolchin, and A. Wetzel, “Dissipative dark matter on FIRE – I. Structural and kinematic properties of dwarf galaxies,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 506 no. 3, (2021) 4421–4445, arXiv:2102.09580 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Dissipative Dark Matter on FIRE. II. Observational Signatures and Constraints from Local Dwarf Galaxies,

    X. Shen, P. F. Hopkins, L. Necib, F. Jiang, M. Boylan-Kolchin, and A. Wetzel, “Dissipative Dark Matter on FIRE. II. Observational Signatures and Constraints from Local Dwarf Galaxies,” Astrophys. J. 966 no. 1, (2024) 131, arXiv:2206.05327 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Simulating Atomic Dark Matter in Milky Way Analogs,

    S. Roy, X. Shen, M. Lisanti, D. Curtin, N. Murray, and P. F. Hopkins, “Simulating Atomic Dark Matter in Milky Way Analogs,” Astrophys. J. Lett.954 no. 2, (2023) L40, arXiv:2304.09878 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Dissipative Dark Substructure: The Consequences of Atomic Dark Matter on Milky Way Analog Subhalos,

    C. Gemmell, S. Roy, X. Shen, D. Curtin, M. Lisanti, N. Murray, and P. F. Hopkins, “Dissipative Dark Substructure: The Consequences of Atomic Dark Matter on Milky Way Analog Subhalos,” Astrophys. J. 967 no. 1, (2024) 21, arXiv:2311.02148 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Aggressively-Dissipative Dark Dwarfs: The Effects of Atomic Dark Matter on the Inner Densities of Isolated Dwarf Galaxies,

    S. Roy, X. Shen, J. Barron, M. Lisanti, D. Curtin, N. Murray, and P. F. Hopkins, “Aggressively-Dissipative Dark Dwarfs: The Effects of Atomic Dark Matter on the Inner Densities of Isolated Dwarf Galaxies,” arXiv:2408.15317 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Molecular Chemistry for Dark Matter,

    M. Ryan, J. Gurian, S. Shandera, and D. Jeong, “Molecular Chemistry for Dark Matter,” ApJ 934 no. 2, (Aug., 2022) 120, arXiv:2106.13245 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Collapsed Dark Matter Structures,

    M. R. Buckley and A. DiFranzo, “Collapsed Dark Matter Structures,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120 no. 5, (2018) 051102, arXiv:1707.03829 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A Lower Bound on the Mass of Compact Objects from Dissipative Dark Matter,

    J. Gurian, M. Ryan, S. Schon, D. Jeong, and S. Shandera, “A Lower Bound on the Mass of Compact Objects from Dissipative Dark Matter,” ApJ 939 no. 1, (Nov., 2022) L12, arXiv:2209.00064 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Massive Black Holes from Dissipative Dark Matter,

    G. D’Amico, P. Panci, A. Lupi, S. Bovino, and J. Silk, “Massive Black Holes from Dissipative Dark Matter,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.473 no. 1, (2018) 328–335, arXiv:1707.03419 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Gravitational Waves from Binary Mergers of Subsolar Mass Dark Black Holes,

    S. Shandera, D. Jeong, and H. S. G. Gebhardt, “Gravitational Waves from Binary Mergers of Subsolar Mass Dark Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120 no. 24, (2018) 241102, arXiv:1802.08206 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Early formation of supermassive black holes via dark matter self-interactions,

    J. Choquette, J. M. Cline, and J. M. Cornell, “Early formation of supermassive black holes via dark matter self-interactions,” JCAP 07 (2019) 036, arXiv:1812.05088 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Black hole formation in the context of dissipative dark matter,

    M. A. Latif, A. Lupi, D. R. G. Schleicher, G. D’Amico, P. Panci, and S. Bovino, “Black hole formation in the context of dissipative dark matter,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485 no. 3, (2019) 3352–3359, arXiv:1812.03104 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Exotic compact objects: The dark white dwarf,

    M. Ryan and D. Radice, “Exotic compact objects: The dark white dwarf,” Phys. Rev. D105 no. 11, (2022) 115034, arXiv:2201.05626 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Mirror neutron stars,

    M. Hippert, J. Setford, H. Tan, D. Curtin, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, “Mirror neutron stars,” Phys. Rev. D106 no. 3, (2022) 035025, arXiv:2103.01965 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Signatures of Mirror Stars,

    D. Curtin and J. Setford, “Signatures of Mirror Stars,” JHEP 03 (2020) 041, arXiv:1909.04072 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    How To Discover Mirror Stars,

    D. Curtin and J. Setford, “How To Discover Mirror Stars,” Phys. Lett. B804 (2020) 135391, arXiv:1909.04071 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Structures in the mirror universe,

    R. N. Mohapatra and V. L. Teplitz, “Structures in the mirror universe,” Astrophys. J. 478 (1997) 29–38, arXiv:astro-ph/9603049

    1997 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Have mirror stars been observed?,

    R. Foot, “Have mirror stars been observed?,” Phys. Lett. B 452 (1999) 83–86, arXiv:astro-ph/9902065

    1999 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Mirror world and its cosmological consequences,

    Z. Berezhiani, “Mirror world and its cosmological consequences,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19 (2004) 3775–3806, arXiv:hep-ph/0312335

    2004 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,

    B. Holdom, “Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,” Phys. Lett. B166 (1986) 196–198

    1986

  58. [66]

    Dark Matter Detectors as Dark Photon Helioscopes,

    H. An, M. Pospelov, and J. Pradler, “Dark Matter Detectors as Dark Photon Helioscopes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 041302, arXiv:1304.3461 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Absorption of light dark matter in semiconductors,

    Y. Hochberg, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, “Absorption of light dark matter in semiconductors,” Phys. Rev. D95 no. 2, (2017) 023013, arXiv:1608.01994 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Searching for Dark Absorption with Direct 15 Detection Experiments,

    I. M. Bloch, R. Essig, K. Tobioka, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, “Searching for Dark Absorption with Direct 15 Detection Experiments,” JHEP 06 (2017) 087, arXiv:1608.02123 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    New limits on dark photons from solar emission and keV scale dark matter,

    H. An, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, “New limits on dark photons from solar emission and keV scale dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 115022, arXiv:2006.13929 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    SENSEI: Direct-Detection Results on sub-GeV Dark Matter from a New Skipper-CCD,

    SENSEI Collaboration, L. Barak et al., “SENSEI: Direct-Detection Results on sub-GeV Dark Matter from a New Skipper-CCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125 no. 17, (2020) 171802, arXiv:2004.11378 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    The XENON1T Dark Matter Experiment,

    XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., “The XENON1T Dark Matter Experiment,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77 no. 12, (2017) 881, arXiv:1708.07051 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter,

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, “Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 076007, arXiv:1108.5383 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  65. [73]

    WISPy Cold Dark Matter,

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, “WISPy Cold Dark Matter,” JCAP 06 (2012) 013, arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  66. [74]

    The Dark Photon,

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi, “The Dark Photon,” arXiv:2005.01515 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Atlas of solar hidden photon emission,

    J. Redondo, “Atlas of solar hidden photon emission,” JCAP 07 (2015) 024, arXiv:1501.07292 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  68. [76]

    New stellar constraints on dark photons,

    H. An, M. Pospelov, and J. Pradler, “New stellar constraints on dark photons,” Phys. Lett. B725 (2013) 190–195, arXiv:1302.3884 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Direct Detection of the Millicharged Background,

    E. Iles, S. Heeba, and K. Schutz, “Direct Detection of the Millicharged Background,” arXiv:2407.21096 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    Interaction energy in electrodynamics and in the field theory of nuclear forces,

    E. C. G. Stueckelberg, “Interaction energy in electrodynamics and in the field theory of nuclear forces,” Helv. Phys. Acta11 (1938) 225–244

    1938

  71. [79]

    Plausible constraints and inflationary production for dark photons,

    J. M. Cline and G. Herrera, “Plausible constraints and inflationary production for dark photons,” arXiv:2409.13818 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Signals of millicharged dark matter in light-shining-through-wall experiments,

    A. Berlin, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, and J. I. Radkovski, “Signals of millicharged dark matter in light-shining-through-wall experiments,” JHEP 08 (2023) 017, arXiv:2305.05684 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Millicharged relics reveal massless dark photons,

    A. Berlin, J. A. Dror, X. Gan, and J. T. Ruderman, “Millicharged relics reveal massless dark photons,” JHEP 05 (2023) 046, arXiv:2211.05139 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Solar constraints on hidden photons re-visited,

    J. Redondo and G. Raffelt, “Solar constraints on hidden photons re-visited,” JCAP 08 (2013) 034, arXiv:1305.2920 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Helioscope Bounds on Hidden Sector Photons,

    J. Redondo, “Helioscope Bounds on Hidden Sector Photons,” JCAP 07 (2008) 008, arXiv:0801.1527 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Prospects on the detection of solar dark photons by the International Axion Observatory,

    T. O’Shea, M. Giannotti, I. G. Irastorza, L. M. Plasencia, J. Redondo, J. Ruz, and J. K. Vogel, “Prospects on the detection of solar dark photons by the International Axion Observatory,” JCAP 06 (2024) 070, arXiv:2312.10150 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Light from the hidden sector,

    M. Ahlers, H. Gies, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, “Light from the hidden sector,” Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 115005, arXiv:0706.2836 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Parametrically enhanced hidden photon search,

    P. W. Graham, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, and Y. Zhao, “Parametrically enhanced hidden photon search,” Phys. Rev. D90 no. 7, (2014) 075017, arXiv:1407.4806 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Direct Detection Constraints on Dark Photon Dark Matter,

    H. An, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, “Direct Detection Constraints on Dark Photon Dark Matter,” Phys. Lett. B747 (2015) 331–338, arXiv:1412.8378 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Photon self-energy at all temperatures and densities in all of phase space,

    H. Sch´ erer and K. Schutz, “Photon self-energy at all temperatures and densities in all of phase space,” arXiv:2405.18466 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    Dressel and G

    M. Dressel and G. Gr¨ uner,Electrodynamics of Solids: Optical Properties of Electrons in Matter. Cambridge University Press, 2002

    2002

  82. [90]

    G. G. Raffelt, Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics. 5, 1996

    1996

  83. [91]

    Solar neutrino limit on axions and keV-mass bosons,

    P. Gondolo and G. G. Raffelt, “Solar neutrino limit on axions and keV-mass bosons,” Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 107301, arXiv:0807.2926 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Light Dark Matter Search with Ionization Signals in XENON1T,

    XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., “Light Dark Matter Search with Ionization Signals in XENON1T,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123 no. 25, (2019) 251801, arXiv:1907.11485 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Emission of single and few electrons in XENON1T and limits on light dark matter,

    XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., “Emission of single and few electrons in XENON1T and limits on light dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D106 no. 2, (2022) 022001, arXiv:2112.12116 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  86. [94]

    First results of the CERN Resonant Weakly Interacting sub-eV Particle Search (CROWS),

    M. Betz, F. Caspers, M. Gasior, M. Thumm, and S. W. Rieger, “First results of the CERN Resonant Weakly Interacting sub-eV Particle Search (CROWS),” Phys. Rev. D88 no. 7, (2013) 075014, arXiv:1310.8098 [physics.ins-det]

    2013 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Search for Dark Photons with Superconducting Radio Frequency Cavities,

    A. Romanenko et al., “Search for Dark Photons with Superconducting Radio Frequency Cavities,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130 no. 26, (2023) 261801, arXiv:2301.11512 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Cosmological evolution of light dark photon dark matter,

    S. D. McDermott and S. J. Witte, “Cosmological evolution of light dark photon dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 6, (2020) 063030, arXiv:1911.05086 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Dark Photon Oscillations in Our Inhomogeneous Universe,

    A. Caputo, H. Liu, S. Mishra-Sharma, and J. T. Ruderman, “Dark Photon Oscillations in Our Inhomogeneous Universe,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125 no. 22, (2020) 221303, arXiv:2002.05165 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Revisiting Dark Photon Constraints from CMB Spectral Distortions,

    J. Chluba, B. Cyr, and M. C. Johnson, “Revisiting Dark Photon Constraints from CMB Spectral Distortions,” arXiv:2409.12115 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  91. [99]

    Shaping Dark Photon Spectral Distortions,

    G. Arsenadze, A. Caputo, X. Gan, H. Liu, and J. T. Ruderman, “Shaping Dark Photon Spectral Distortions,” arXiv:2409.12940 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  92. [100]

    Spectroscopy as a test of Coulomb’s law: A Probe of the hidden sector,

    J. Jaeckel and S. Roy, “Spectroscopy as a test of Coulomb’s law: A Probe of the hidden sector,” Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 125020, arXiv:1008.3536 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Constraining hidden photons via atomic force microscope measurements and the Plimpton-Lawton experiment,

    D. Kroff and P. C. Malta, “Constraining hidden photons via atomic force microscope measurements and the Plimpton-Lawton experiment,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 9, (2020) 095015, arXiv:2008.02209 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  94. [102]

    SENSEI: First Direct-Detection Results on sub-GeV Dark Matter from SENSEI at SNOLAB,

    SENSEI Collaboration, P. Adari et al., “SENSEI: First Direct-Detection Results on sub-GeV Dark Matter from SENSEI at SNOLAB,” arXiv:2312.13342 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  95. [103]

    SENSEI at SNOLAB: Single-Electron Event Rate and Implications for Dark Matter,

    SENSEI Collaboration, I. M. Bloch et al., “SENSEI at SNOLAB: Single-Electron Event Rate and Implications for Dark Matter,” arXiv:2410.18716 [astro-ph.CO]

  96. [104]

    The Oscura Experiment,

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo, F. Alcalde Bessia, et al., “The Oscura Experiment,” arXiv e-prints (Feb., 2022) 16 arXiv:2202.10518, arXiv:2202.10518 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Mizutani, Introduction to the Electron Theory of Metals

    U. Mizutani, Introduction to the Electron Theory of Metals. Cambridge University Press, 2001

    2001

  98. [106]

    Projected Sensitivity of the SuperCDMS SNOLAB experiment,

    SuperCDMS Collaboration, R. Agnese et al., “Projected Sensitivity of the SuperCDMS SNOLAB experiment,” Phys. Rev. D95 no. 8, (2017) 082002, arXiv:1610.00006 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Transition Edge Sensor Chip Design of a Modular CEνNS Detector for the Ricochet Experiment,

    Ricochet Collaboration, R. Chen, H. D. Pinckney, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, Z. Hong, and B. Schmidt, “Transition Edge Sensor Chip Design of a Modular CEνNS Detector for the Ricochet Experiment,” J. Low Temp. Phys.211 no. 5-6, (2023) 237–247, arXiv:2111.05757 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Results from a prototype TES detector for the Ricochet experiment,

    Ricochet Collaboration, C. Augier et al., “Results from a prototype TES detector for the Ricochet experiment,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1057 (2023) 168765, arXiv:2304.14926 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  101. [109]

    EXCESS workshop: Descriptions of rising low-energy spectra,

    P. Adari et al., “EXCESS workshop: Descriptions of rising low-energy spectra,” SciPost Phys. Proc.9 (2022) 001, arXiv:2202.05097 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Results from the Solar Hidden Photon Search (SHIPS),

    M. Schwarz, E.-A. Knabbe, A. Lindner, J. Redondo, A. Ringwald, M. Schneide, J. Susol, and G. Wiedemann, “Results from the Solar Hidden Photon Search (SHIPS),” JCAP 08 (2015) 011, arXiv:1502.04490 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Array programming with NumPy,

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, et al., “Array programming with NumPy,” Nature 585 no. 7825, (Sept., 2020) 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  104. [112]

    SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python,

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, et al., “SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python,” Nature Methods17 (2020) 261–272

    2020

  105. [113]

    Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment,

    J. D. Hunter, “Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment,” Computing in Science & Engineering9 no. 3, (2007) 90–95

    2007

  106. [114]

    Neutrino energy loss from the plasma process at all temperatures and densities,

    E. Braaten and D. Segel, “Neutrino energy loss from the plasma process at all temperatures and densities,” Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) 1478–1491, arXiv:hep-ph/9302213

    1993 arXiv

  107. [115]

    A new Generation of Standard Solar Models,

    N. Vinyoles, A. M. Serenelli, F. L. Villante, S. Basu, J. Bergstr¨ om, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, C. Pe˜ na Garay, and N. Song, “A new Generation of Standard Solar Models,” Astrophys. J. 835 no. 2, (2017) 202, arXiv:1611.09867 [astro-ph.SR]

    2017 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Solar neutrino emission deduced from a seismic model,

    S. Turck-Chieze et al., “Solar neutrino emission deduced from a seismic model,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 555 (2001) L69–L73

    2001

  109. [117]

    Absolute measurement of the Fano factor using a Skipper-CCD,

    D. Rodrigues et al., “Absolute measurement of the Fano factor using a Skipper-CCD,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1010 (2021) 165511, arXiv:2004.11499 [physics.ins-det]. Appendix A: In-medium massive photon dispersion relations The propagation of a massive gauge field in a bath of ch...

    2021 arXiv

  110. [2022]

    arXiv:2203.08297 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.