Light Dark Matter Detection with Sub-eV Transition-Edge Sensors

Kaori Hattori; Kazunori Nakayama; Muping Chen; Volodymyr Takhistov

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Light Dark Matter Detection with Sub-eV Transition-Edge Sensors

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Optical TES sensors could probe dark matter at sub-MeV masses with nanogram-month exposures.

desk verdict Useful first projection for optical TES dark matter detection, but the abstract oversells the background-free reach and the validation claim conflicts with the paper's own Table II. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10070 v1 pith:ADZ4P57L submitted 2025-06-11 hep-ph hep-exphysics.ins-detquant-ph

Muping Chen , Volodymyr Takhistov , Kazunori Nakayama , Kaori Hattori This is my paper

classification hep-phhep-exphysics.ins-detquant-ph

keywords transition-edgesensorslightdarkmattersub-GeVmatter-electronscatteringquantumsensingcryogenicdetectorsphotonabsorptionenergy-lossfunction

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 argues that optical transition-edge sensors—tiny superconducting thermometers that can resolve individual sub-eV energy deposits—could become a viable platform for detecting light dark matter. By modeling the sensors' noise and response, and combining that with realistic in-medium scattering rates in aluminum, the authors project that a detector with only nanogram-scale target mass and one-month exposure could reach dark matter–electron scattering cross sections below $10^{-27}$ cm$^2$ for sub-MeV dark matter, and probe the MeV-scale mass range for dark matter–nucleon couplings. If these projections hold, a small multiplexed array would explore parameter space that existing experiments cannot reach, using a detector technology already demonstrated at the single-pixel level.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the optical TES as a near-ideal quantum calorimeter: a superconducting film biased at the transition edge converts a single sub-eV energy deposition into a measurable current pulse, with energy resolution set by Johnson and thermal-fluctuation noise. Optimal filtering extracts pulse amplitudes whose variance matches the analytic small-signal limit, yielding the $\sim 0.1$ eV threshold used throughout. On the physics side, the in-medium response of the aluminum target is captured by the dynamic structure factor $S(q,\omega)$ and the energy-loss function $\mathrm{Im}[-1/\epsilon(q,\omega)]$, which enter the DM scattering and absorption rate integrals through the fluctuation-dissipation theorem.

What would settle it

Build the proposed 72 mK TES-O device and measure its FWHM energy resolution and dark-count rate in an underground environment: if the resolution exceeds about 30 meV or the background rate is above one event per month per pixel in the 0.1–1 eV window, the projected reach to $\sigma_e < 10^{-27}$ cm$^2$ is not attainable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that high-resolution optical transition-edge sensors, operated near the thermodynamic noise limit with sub-eV energy thresholds, can serve as both target and sensor for light dark matter. The authors show that with the reference device ($T_c = 115$ mK, $\Delta E_{FWHM} \simeq 36$ meV) and an optimized 72 mK variant ($\Delta E \simeq 16$ meV), a $3\sigma$ threshold of roughly 0.1 eV is achievable. Using aluminum as the target and computing the full dynamic structure factor and the energy-loss function with a finite electron collision rate, they find that ng-month exposures reach $\sigma_e \le 10^{-27}$ cm$^2$ for sub-MeV masses via electron scattering, while nucleon scattering can be probed at the MeV scale; dark photon absorption can test kinetic mixing down to $\kappa \sim 10^{-15}$. The same platform covers electron scattering, absorption, nucleon scattering, and Migdal-assisted recoils simultaneously.

Load-bearing premise

The projected sensitivity assumes a background-free detector (zero irreducible backgrounds) and a 0.1 eV threshold derived from an extrapolated 72 mK TES that has not yet been built; if single-event backgrounds or the extrapolated resolution are a few times worse, the claimed unexplored parameter space shrinks or disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single 100 micrometer TES pixel with one month of exposure could already reach $\bar{\sigma}_e \lesssim 10^{-27}$ cm$^2$ for sub-MeV dark matter, a region not yet excluded by any experiment.
An 80-pixel sub-array with aluminum collection blocks, totaling about 220 ng of target, improves the reach by roughly two orders of magnitude in cross section.
Lowering the critical temperature from 115 mK to 72 mK halves the energy resolution and extends sensitivity toward lighter dark matter, including part of the phonon-dominated nucleon-scattering regime.
The same platform can simultaneously probe dark matter–electron scattering, dark photon absorption, and dark matter–nucleon scattering with Migdal ionization, making it a multi-channel dark matter detector.
If the zero-background assumption holds, microgram-month exposures would push electron-scattering reach toward $\bar{\sigma}_e \sim 10^{-40}$ cm$^2$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The zero-background assumption is the single optimistic driver; a dedicated underground site with shielding and active vetoes would be needed to realize the projected reach, and even a few stray-photon events per month could erase it.
The sensitivity scaling with $T_c$ suggests a concrete roadmap: reducing the critical temperature (or the heat capacity) further would extend the reach to still lighter dark matter, provided the excess Johnson noise factor $M$ can be controlled.
The same detector concept could be adapted to other rare-event searches that need sub-eV thresholds, such as coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering or axion-like particle absorption.
Because aluminum's phonon response is suppressed by the 0.1 eV threshold, replacing the target with a material with a smaller energy gap or different phonon spectrum could recover access to the phonon-dominated channel for lighter dark matter.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper is genuinely useful. It is the first end-to-end model of sub-eV optical TES as a dark matter target, covering electron scattering, nucleon scattering, absorption, and the Migdal effect with a realistic noise simulation and optimal filtering. The use of DarkELF for in-medium effects is appropriate, and the comparison with SNSPD and KID projections is fair. The power deposition section, showing that DM-induced power is orders of magnitude below the TES bias power, is a nice sanity check that most papers skip.

The main soft spot is internal. The text says the simulations "reproduce the experimentally measured single-photon resolution of ΔE_FWHM ≃67 meV" from Ref. [33], but Table II lists a simulated 31 meV for the same TES-R configuration with M=1.474. That is a factor of two better than the measurement, not a reproduction. Either the text or the table is wrong; if the table is right, there is unmodeled excess noise that would also affect threshold and rate estimates. This needs to be fixed and explained before the paper can be taken at face value.

The second soft spot is the zero-background assumption. The abstract's headline, that ng-month exposures reach σ_e < 10^-27 cm^2, is computed with N95=3 and no background. The paper is transparent about this in Sec. II.A, but the abstract is not. Any real sub-eV calorimeter will have some single-event backgrounds, and even one event per month in the analysis window weakens the reach by roughly a factor of two. So the lower-exposure curves are best read as an idealized sensitivity ceiling, not a realistic projection. The 0.1 eV threshold is more robust: it is conservative even with the measured 67 meV FWHM.

These are fixable issues. The rate formalism is standard, the target response uses well-established inputs, and the overall logic is coherent. As a projection paper it does not need a full background model, but it does need the headline claim to carry the same caveat as the body, and the validation discrepancy must be resolved.

Who is this for? Anyone working on superconducting quantum sensors for light DM. It deserves referee time. I would send it to review, with the expectation that the authors reconcile the 67 meV claim and soften the abstract. It is not a discovery claim, but a solid, useful addition to the quantum-sensor dark matter literature.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an end-to-end model of optical transition-edge sensors (TESs) as both target and readout for sub-GeV dark matter detection. It adopts the parameters of a 115 mK Au/Ti optical TES from Ref. [33], computes Johnson and thermal-fluctuation noise, simulates pulses with optimal filtering, and uses the aluminum dielectric response and phonon structure factors (via DarkELF) to project 95% C.L. sensitivities for DM-electron scattering, dark-photon absorption, DM-nucleon scattering, and the Migdal effect. The central quantitative claim is that nanogram-month exposures can reach DM-electron cross sections below 10^-27 cm^2 for sub-MeV masses and can probe MeV-scale DM-nucleon couplings, with an 80-pixel array improving the reach by about two orders of magnitude.

Significance. If the projections were realized, a compact optical TES array would open a new window on sub-GeV dark matter, and the paper usefully combines detector noise simulation with standard in-medium rate calculations. The paper is transparent about its parameter inputs, uses the public DarkELF code, and provides a full noise model including excess Johnson noise. The main caveats are that the quoted validation against the measured 67 meV resolution is contradicted by the paper's own Table II, and that the headline reach assumes zero irreducible background and an extrapolated 72 mK device; these make the quoted reach a projection rather than a demonstrated capability. With those caveats stated quantitatively, the study is a valuable roadmap for quantum-sensor dark matter searches.

major comments (4)

[§II.B, Table II] The text in §II.B says 'our simulations reproduce the experimentally measured single-photon resolution of ΔE_FWHM ≃ 67 meV' from Ref. [33], but Table II reports an optimal-filtering resolution of 0.031 eV and analytic estimates of 0.031–0.036 eV for the same TES-R with M = 1.474. The factor-of-two discrepancy means the validation claim is not supported by the paper's own results. This matters because the detection threshold Eth = 0.1 eV and the per-event sensitivity used in all rate projections are set by the energy resolution. The authors should either reconcile the discrepancy (for example, by identifying unmodeled noise or readout contributions, or by clarifying that the 67 meV value corresponds to a different analysis) or remove the validation claim; a side-by-side plot of the measured and simulated pulse-height distributions for TES-R would resolve the issue.
[§II.A, §IV.A, Fig. 6] The headline reach below 10^-27 cm^2 for the 1.6 ng-month exposure is computed from N95 ≃ 3 events under the explicit 'zero irreducible backgrounds' assumption stated in §II.A. With a target mass of order a nanogram, the signal is only a few events in the exposure, so a single background event in the analysis window changes the 95% C.L. bound by a factor comparable to the span of the claimed new parameter space. The paper acknowledges that backgrounds are site-dependent and that mitigation is essential, but it does not quantify the effect. Please add a figure or table showing how the projected curves, in particular the 1.6 ng-month and 220 ng-month curves, shift for expected background rates of 0.1, 1, and 10 counts per month in the 0.1–1 eV range, and explicitly state in the abstract and conclusions that the sub-10^-27 cm^2 claim is a background-free projection.
[§II.A, Table I (TES-O)] The optimized TES-O configuration at Tc = 72 mK is an extrapolation: all Tc-dependent parameters in Table I are rescaled using the assumed ΔE ∝ Tc^{3/2} scaling, while α, β, and the excess Johnson noise factor M = 1.474 are taken from the existing 115 mK device. No sub-100 mK device with these parameters is demonstrated, and the sensitivity curves shown for Eth = 50 meV (Figs. 7 and 9) rely on this hypothetical device. Since the paper's central claim of reaching previously unexplored cross sections is meant to apply to near-term exposures, the authors should separate the demonstrated TES-R reach (with the measured 67 meV resolution and Eth ≃ 0.1 eV) from the extrapolated TES-O reach, and clearly mark which lines in each figure require the 72 mK device.
[§IV.A, Fig. 6 (80 TES + blocks)] The intermediate 220 ng-month benchmark assumes Al collection blocks that increase the target mass by a factor of ~10 per pixel 'without significantly compromising energy resolution' and while 'maintaining thermal coupling,' but no quantitative model of quasiparticle diffusion, thermalization efficiency, or the resulting resolution degradation is provided. If the added absorber volume introduces incomplete collection or increased heat capacity, the effective exposure gain will not be realized. Please either supply a thermal/quasiparticle model for the blocks or label the 220 ng-month curve as an optimistic engineering assumption in the figure and text.

minor comments (5)

[§III.A] The word 'wihtin' should be 'within' in the sentence 'For low momentum transfers wihtin the first Brillouin zone.'
[§II.B, Eq. (13)] The values τ_rise = 50 ns and τ_fall = 4 μs are called 'best fit parameters,' but the fit to the experimental data in Ref. [33] is not shown; please state the source of these values or display the fit.
[Eq. (6), Table II] The excess Johnson noise factor M enters quadratically, and Table II shows that the resolution depends on it (0.026 eV for M = 0 versus 0.031 eV for M = 1.474), yet no uncertainty on M is propagated; please quote the uncertainty from Ref. [33] and show its effect on the projected reach.
[Fig. 6 caption] The captions mention 'Cosmic ray up (PANDAX-4T)' and 'Cosmic ray up (Super-K)' without citing the corresponding papers; these constraints should be referenced in the caption or text.
[§IV.E] The conversion from P ∼ 10^-7 eV (μg s)^-1 to P ∼ 10^-31 W μm^-3 is not shown; please display the assumed absorber volume and density so the power-density comparison is reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity projections are Poisson scalings of independently measured TES resolution and standard DM rate formulas; the main self-citation to the device paper is external measured data, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The TES energy resolution and the 0.1 eV threshold are inputs taken from the measured device of Ref. [33] (co-authored by K. Hattori), including the excess Johnson noise factor M=1.474 inferred from that measured noise spectrum. This is calibration to external data, not a prediction derived from the DM target result. The DM-electron scattering rate uses the independent DarkELF/Mermin dielectric function, the Standard Halo Model velocity distribution, and reference cross-section definitions, and the projected limits are obtained by requiring N_95=3 events under the explicitly stated zero-background assumption. No equation reduces to its own input: the cross section is a free parameter solved from the rate integral (Eqs. 38-39 and 42-43), and the threshold enters only as an integration limit. The zero-background assumption is optimistic but transparently declared, with a note that nonzero backgrounds rescale the reach trivially; this is an assumption, not circularity. I do, however, flag as a non-circular limitation the paper's validation claim in Sec. II.B: the text states that the simulations 'reproduce the experimentally measured single-photon resolution of ΔE_FWHM ≃ 67 meV,' while Table II lists TES-R optimal-filter resolutions of 26-36 meV and the adopted 0.1 eV threshold is looser than the simulated 3-sigma values. That internal inconsistency affects the credibility of the validation but does not make the derivation circular. The only self-citation is the device measurement itself, which is external, reproducible data and is not load-bearing in a way that would force the DM result. Overall circularity is therefore minimal, warranting a low score of 2 rather than a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central sensitivity projections depend on a small set of fitted or hand-chosen detector parameters: the excess Johnson noise factor M fitted to measured data, the extrapolated TES-O critical temperature, the resulting energy threshold, assumed zero background, and assumed absorber mass. The dark matter rate calculation itself uses standard inputs from DarkELF and the Standard Halo Model. The main risk is that the unbuilt TES-O and the zero-background assumption carry the projected reach.

free parameters (6)

Excess Johnson noise factor M = 1.474 (M^2 = 2.17)
Empirically determined from TES noise data in Ref. [33]; used in the Johnson noise term Eq. (6) and in all resolution estimates in Table II.
Optimized TES critical temperature Tc = 72 mK
Hand-chosen to halve the energy resolution relative to the measured 115 mK TES-R. All Tc-dependent parameters such as Geff, I0, tau1, and tau0 are rescaled accordingly in Table I. No such device is reported as built.
Detection energy threshold Eth = 0.1 eV (3 sigma)
Derived from the simulated baseline variance and used in all main sensitivity projections, including Eq. (38). Alternative thresholds from 10 meV to 1 eV are scanned in Fig. 8.
Al collection block mass factor = about 10x per pixel
Assumed to raise the effective target mass to 220 ng for the '80 TES + blocks' benchmark. No thermal coupling or collection efficiency model is provided for these blocks.
Irreducible background rate = 0
The sensitivity curves assume zero irreducible backgrounds, as stated in Sec. II.A. The 95% C.L. reach of N95 approximately 3 events is then a pure Poisson limit with no background term.
Migdal electronic excitation threshold = 5 eV
Chosen conservatively in Sec. IV.D to integrate electronic excitations above the aluminum work function of about 4.1 eV for the Migdal channel.

assumptions (5)

standard math Fluctuation-dissipation theorem connects the electron dynamic structure factor to the energy loss function (Eq. 19).
Invoked in Sec. III.A as the bridge between the microscopic Se(q, omega) and the macroscopic Im[-1/epsilon(q, omega)]. This is a standard linear-response result.
domain assumption Lindhard and Mermin dielectric functions describe aluminum's response over the q and omega range of interest.
Sec. III.B relies on DarkELF and the Mermin model with experimental optical data. The paper itself notes that ELF models diverge for omega above about 15 eV, which affects some absorption rate calculations.
domain assumption The aluminum target is a near-ideal calorimeter with unit detection efficiency for all deposited energy above threshold.
Sec. IV applies the threshold and exposure only, implicitly assuming every true energy deposition is converted to a measurable TES signal. No quasiparticle collection or phonon loss efficiency is modeled.
ad hoc to paper Zero irreducible background in the detector.
Sec. II.A states 'we optimistically consider zero irreducible backgrounds' for the sensitivity projections. This is an idealized assumption rather than a measured property.
ad hoc to paper TES energy resolution scales as Tc^{3/2} and all Tc-dependent parameters can be rescaled to 72 mK.
Sec. II.A derives the scaling from Eqs. (11) and (12) and applies it to define TES-O. The scaling is physically motivated but the optimized device is not experimentally validated.

invented entities (1)

TES-O optimized 72 mK transition-edge sensor configuration
purpose: Assumed to provide roughly half the energy resolution of the measured 115 mK device, enabling the projected 0.1 eV threshold and improved dark matter sensitivity.
No device with Tc = 72 mK and the rescaled parameters in Table I has been reported. The performance is extrapolated from scaling relations and from the measured TES-R device in Ref. [33].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light Dark Matter Detection with Sub-eV Transition-Edge Sensors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ADZ4P57L

@misc{pith2026250610070,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light Dark Matter Detection with Sub-eV Transition-Edge Sensors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ADZ4P57L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10070}
}

abstract

We present a comprehensive analysis of high-resolution transition-edge sensors (TESs) as a quantum sensing platform for detecting dark matter (DM). Operating near the thermodynamic noise limit with sub-eV energy resolution, TESs offer a powerful approach for probing light DM in the sub-GeV mass range. Optical TESs, realized on superconducting films with critical temperatures below 150 mK, achieve energy thresholds below 100 meV and enable precise calorimetric detection of individual energy depositions. We model TES response by incorporating fundamental noise sources and applying optimal filtering techniques, and evaluate their sensitivity across a range of DM interaction channels, accounting for in-medium effects in the target material. We show that even ng-month-scale exposures can reach previously unexplored DM-electron scattering cross sections below $10^{-27}$ cm$^2$ for sub-MeV masses, and can probe the MeV-scale mass range for DM-nucleon couplings. Combining high energy resolution, photon-number sensitivity, and scalability, optical TESs provide a compelling quantum sensing platform for rare-event searches at the intersection of particle physics and quantum metrology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10070 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. [Left] Bias circuit of TES-R. [Right] Thermal model of the TES-R. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Current noise spectrum for TES-R considering funda [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. [Left] Ideal pulse response of TES after the addition of the electronic noise simulated with TFN and Johnson noise for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. [Left] Density plot of the nuclear dynamic structure factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. [Left] Sensitivity projections for TES detection of DM-electron scattering considering heavy mediator at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Sensitivity projections for TES detection of DM ab [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. DM-nucleon coupling with phonon regimes, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. [Left] Sensitivity projections for TES detection of DM-nucleon scattering with heavy mediator at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. [Left] Sensitivity projects for TES detection of DM-nucleon scattering through the Migdal effect with heavy mediator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

New Constraints on Neutrino-Dark Matter Interactions: A Comprehensive Analysis
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Most benchmark neutrino-dark matter couplings adopted in previous studies are excluded when laboratory meson and Z decay bounds are combined with cosmological and astrophysical constraints, leaving only special galact...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[33]

First demonstration of a TES based cryogenic Li$_2$MoO$_4$detector for neutrinoless double beta decay search

G. Bratrudet al., Eur. Phys. J. C85, 118 (2025), arXiv:2406.02025 [hep-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[1]

Intrinsic material properties The space-time correlation function of an operator O(t,x), typically representing the electron or nuclear number density in a material, is defined as SO(ω,x) = 1 VT Z dt Z d3x′eiωt ⟨O(t,x+x ′)O(0,x ′)⟩, (A1) whereV T is the material volume and the expectation value is taken over thermal equilibrium state ensemble ⟨•⟩= P m pm ...
[2]

The initial state|ψI (0)⟩in the interaction picture evolves according to |ψI (t)⟩= T exp −i Z t 0 HI (t) |ψI (0)⟩,(A11) 4 Up to a factor of the electromagnetic couplinge2

DM scattering As an example, let us consider the interaction Hamil- tonian density H1 =ϕ(g χnχ +g ini),(A10) whereϕis a mediator scalar,n χ andn i are number den- sity operators of DM particleχand SM fieldi(electron or nucleon), respectively5. The initial state|ψI (0)⟩in the interaction picture evolves according to |ψI (t)⟩= T exp −i Z t 0 HI (t) |ψI (0)⟩...
[3]

DM absorption Next, let us consider the absorption of dark matter by the material. Focusing for illustration on dark photon DM, the relevant interaction Hamiltonian density is H1 =κeA ′ µJ µ e .(A20) whereκis the kinetic mixing parameter,A ′ µ is the dark photon field, andJµ e is the electromagnetic current of the electrons. In this case, the transition o...
[4]

Essiget al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.08297 [hep-ph]

R. Essiget al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.08297 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2022
[5]

Essig, J

R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D85, 076007 (2012), arXiv:1108.5383 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2012
[6]

Essig, M

R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, 6 Note that the absorption of scalar dark matter cannot be accu- rately captured by the dielectric function formalism [16]. T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP05, 046 (2016), arXiv:1509.01598 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2016
[7]

Hochberg, M

Y. Hochberg, M. Pyle, Y. Zhao, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP 08, 057 (2016), arXiv:1512.04533 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2016

Show all 97 references

[8]

Hochberg, T

Y. Hochberg, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 94, 015019 (2016), arXiv:1604.06800 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[9]

Hochberg, T

Y. Hochberg, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 95, 023013 (2017), arXiv:1608.01994 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[10]

Hochberg, Y

Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, K. M. Zurek, A. G. Grushin, R. Ilan, S. M. Griffin, Z.-F. Liu, S. F. We- 16 ber, and J. B. Neaton, Phys. Rev. D97, 015004 (2018), arXiv:1708.08929 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[11]

Knapen, T

S. Knapen, T. Lin, M. Pyle, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Lett. B785, 386 (2018), arXiv:1712.06598 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[12]

Griffin, S

S. Griffin, S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D98, 115034 (2018), arXiv:1807.10291 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[13]

Trickle, Z

T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, K. M. Zurek, K. Inzani, and S. M. Griffin, JHEP03, 036 (2020), arXiv:1910.08092 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[14]

G. B. Gelmini, V. Takhistov, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Lett. B809, 135779 (2020), arXiv:2006.13909 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[15]

M. Chen, G. B. Gelmini, and V. Takhistov, JCAP12, 048 (2021), arXiv:2105.08101 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[16]

Hochberg, Y

Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, N. Kurinsky, B. V. Lehmann, T. C. Yu, and K. K. Berggren, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151802 (2021), arXiv:2101.08263 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[17]

Knapen, J

S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Phys. Rev. D104, 015031 (2021), arXiv:2101.08275 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[18]

Knapen, J

S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Phys. Rev. D105, 015014 (2022), arXiv:2104.12786 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[19]

Mitridate, T

A. Mitridate, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP09, 123 (2021), arXiv:2106.12586 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[20]

Campbell-Deem, S

B. Campbell-Deem, S. Knapen, T. Lin, and E. Villarama, Phys. Rev. D106, 036019 (2022), arXiv:2205.02250 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[21]

Trickle, Phys

T. Trickle, Phys. Rev. D107, 035035 (2023), arXiv:2210.14917 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[22]

M. Chen, G. B. Gelmini, and V. Takhistov, Phys. Lett. B841, 137922 (2023), arXiv:2209.10902 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[23]

Mitridate, K

A. Mitridate, K. Pardo, T. Trickle, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D109, 015010 (2024), arXiv:2308.06314 [hep- ph]

2024 arXiv
[24]

S. M. Griffin, G. D. Hadas, Y. Hochberg, K. Inzani, and B. V. Lehmann, (2024), arXiv:2412.16283 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[25]

Hochberg, I

Y. Hochberg, I. Charaev, S.-W. Nam, V. Verma, M. Colangelo, and K. K. Berggren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 151802 (2019), arXiv:1903.05101 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[26]

Hochberg, B

Y. Hochberg, B. V. Lehmann, I. Charaev, J. Chiles, M. Colangelo, S. W. Nam, and K. K. Berggren, Phys. Rev. D106, 112005 (2022), arXiv:2110.01586 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[27]

Chileset al., Phys

J. Chileset al., Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 231802 (2022), arXiv:2110.01582 [hep-ex]

2022 arXiv
[28]

J. Gao, Y. Hochberg, B. V. Lehmann, S. W. Nam, P. Szypryt, M. R. Vissers, and T. Xu, (2024), arXiv:2403.19739 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[29]

Transition-edge sensors,

K. Irwin and G. Hilton, “Transition-edge sensors,” inCryogenic Particle Detection, edited by C. Enss (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005) pp. 63–150

2005
[30]

C. L. Changet al.(TESSERACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.03683 [hep-ex]

2025 arXiv
[31]

Baracchiniet al.(PTOLEMY), (2018), arXiv:1808.01892 [physics.ins-det]

E. Baracchiniet al.(PTOLEMY), (2018), arXiv:1808.01892 [physics.ins-det]

2018 arXiv
[32]

Augieret al.(Ricochet), Nucl

C. Augieret al.(Ricochet), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1057, 168765 (2023), arXiv:2304.14926 [physics.ins-det]

2023 arXiv
[34]

B. K. Alpertet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.19920 [hep-ex]

2025
[35]

Manentiet al., Phys

L. Manentiet al., Phys. Rev. Applied22, 024051 (2024), arXiv:2402.03073 [physics.ins-det]

2024
[36]

Hattori, T

K. Hattori, T. Konno, Y. Miura, S. Takasu, and D. Fukuda, Supercond. Sci. Technol.35, 095002 (2022), arXiv:2204.01903 [physics.ins-det]

2022 arXiv
[37]

Knill, R

E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, Nature409, 46 (2001)

2001
[38]

F. E. Becerra, J. Fan, and A. Migdall, Nature Photonics 9, 48 (2015)

2015
[39]

J. C. Matthews, X.-Q. Zhou, H. Cable, P. J. Shadbolt, D. J. Saunders, G. A. Durkin, G. J. Pryde, and J. L. O’Brien, npj Quantum Information2, 16023 (2016)

2016
[40]

von Helversen, J

M. von Helversen, J. Böhm, M. Schmidt, M. Gschrey, J.- H. Schulze, A. Strittmatter, S. Rodt, J. Beyer, T. Hein- del, and S. Reitzenstein, New Journal of Physics21, 035007 (2019)

2019
[41]

Schwemmbauer, Y

C. Schwemmbauer, Y. Hochberg, K.-S. Isleif, F. Januschek, B. V. Lehmann, A. Lindner, M. Meyer, G. Othman, and J. A. Rubiera Gimeno, PoSCOS- MICWISPers, 055 (2024), arXiv:2407.02954 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[42]

K. D. Itwin, S. W. Nam, B. Cabrera, and B. Chugg, Rev. Sci. Instrum.66, 5322 (1995)

1995
[43]

Nakashima, F

Y. Nakashima, F. Hirayama, S. Kohjiro, H. Yamamori, S. Nagasawa, A. Sato, S. Yamada, R. Hayakawa, N. Y. Yamasaki, K. Mitsuda, K. Nagayoshi, H. Akamatsu, L. Gottardi, E. Taralli, M. P. Bruijn, M. L. Ridder, J. R. Gao, , and J. W. A. den Herder, Appl. Phys. Lett.117, 122601 (2020)

2020
[44]

McCammon, , 1 (2005), arXiv:physics/0503045

D. McCammon, , 1 (2005), arXiv:physics/0503045

2005 arXiv
[45]

Nozières and D

P. Nozières and D. Pines, Phys. Rev.113, 1254 (1959)

1959
[46]

Dressel and G

M. Dressel and G. Grüner,Electrodynamics of Solids: Optical Properties of Electrons in Matter(Cambridge University Press, 2002)

2002
[47]

Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. D94, 092001 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 059901 (2017)], arXiv:1605.06262 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[48]

123, 251801 (2019)

E.Aprileet al.(XENONCollaboration),Phys.Rev.Lett. 123, 251801 (2019)

2019
[49]

Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys

E. Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 106, 022001 (2022)

2022
[50]

Chenget al.(PandaX-II Collaboration), Phys

C. Chenget al.(PandaX-II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 211803 (2021)

2021
[51]

Agneset al.(The DarkSide Collaboration), Phys

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

2018
[52]

Arnaudet al.(EDELWEISS Collaboration), Phys

Q. Arnaudet al.(EDELWEISS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 141301 (2020)

2020
[53]

Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(DAMIC Collaboration), Phys

A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(DAMIC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 181802 (2019)

2019
[54]

Agneseet al., Phys

R. Agneseet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 051301 (2018)

2018
[55]

D. W. Amaralet al., Phys. Rev. D102, 091101 (2020)

2020
[56]

Crisleret al.(SENSEI Collaboration), Phys

M. Crisleret al.(SENSEI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 061803 (2018)

2018
[57]

Abramoffet al.(SENSEI Collaboration), Phys

O. Abramoffet al.(SENSEI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 161801 (2019)

2019
[58]

Baraket al.(SENSEI Collaboration), Phys

L. Baraket al.(SENSEI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 171802 (2020)

2020
[59]

N. D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. B1, 2362 (1970)

1970
[60]

A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka,Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems(Dover Publications, 2003)

2003
[61]

J. J. Quinn and K. S. Yi,Solid State Physics: Principles and Modern Applications(Springer, 2018)

2018
[62]

Knapen, T

S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D96, 115021 (2017), arXiv:1709.07882 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[63]

A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, and D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. D33, 3495 (1986)

1986
[64]

Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(DAMIC Collaboration), Phys

A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(DAMIC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 141803 (2017)

2017
[65]

I. M. Bloch, R. Essig, K. Tobioka, T. Volansky, and T.- T. Yu, JHEP06, 087 (2017), arXiv:1608.02123 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[66]

P. G. Staudt, J. S. Bullock, M. Boylan-Kolchin, D. Kirkby, A. Wetzel, and X. Ou, Journal of Cosmology 17 and Astroparticle Physics2024, 022 (2024)

2024
[67]

P. W. Graham, J. Mardon, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D93, 103520 (2016), arXiv:1504.02102 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[68]

Y. Ema, K. Nakayama, and Y. Tang, JHEP07, 060 (2019), arXiv:1903.10973 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[69]

A. J. Long and L.-T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D99, 063529 (2019), arXiv:1901.03312 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[70]

Kitajima and K

N. Kitajima and K. Nakayama, JHEP08, 068 (2023), arXiv:2212.13573 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[71]

Nakayama, JCAP10, 019 (2019), arXiv:1907.06243 [hep-ph]

K. Nakayama, JCAP10, 019 (2019), arXiv:1907.06243 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[72]

Nakayama, JCAP08, 033 (2020), arXiv:2004.10036 [hep-ph]

K. Nakayama, JCAP08, 033 (2020), arXiv:2004.10036 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[73]

Kitajima and K

N. Kitajima and K. Nakayama, JCAP07, 014 (2023), arXiv:2303.04287 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[74]

Agrawal, N

P. Agrawal, N. Kitajima, M. Reece, T. Sekiguchi, and F. Takahashi, Phys. Lett. B801, 135136 (2020), arXiv:1810.07188 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[75]

R. T. Co, A. Pierce, Z. Zhang, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D99, 075002 (2019), arXiv:1810.07196 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[76]

Bastero-Gil, J

M. Bastero-Gil, J. Santiago, L. Ubaldi, and R. Vega- Morales, JCAP04, 015 (2019), arXiv:1810.07208 [hep- ph]

2019 arXiv
[77]

J. A. Dror, K. Harigaya, and V. Narayan, Phys. Rev. D 99, 035036 (2019), arXiv:1810.07195 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[78]

Nakayama and W

K. Nakayama and W. Yin, JHEP10, 026 (2021), arXiv:2105.14549 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[79]

Essig, J

R. Essig, J. Pradler, M. Sholapurkar, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 021801 (2020)

2020
[80]

Huanget al.(PandaX Collaboration), Phys

D. Huanget al.(PandaX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 191002 (2023)

2023
[81]

D. S. Akeribet al.(LUX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 131301 (2019)

2019
[82]

A. H. Abdelhameedet al.(CRESST Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D100, 102002 (2019)

2019
[83]

Agneset al.(DarkSide-50 Collaboration), Phys

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

2023
[84]

Light dark matter search with darkside-50,

D. Franco, “Light dark matter search with darkside-50,” (2023), arXiv:2306.12151 [hep-ex]

2023 arXiv
[85]

E.Armengaudet al.(EDELWEISSCollaboration),Phys. Rev. D99, 082003 (2019)

2019
[86]

E.Armengaudet al.(EDELWEISSCollaboration),Phys. Rev. D106, 062004 (2022)

2022
[87]

Alkhatibet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys

I. Alkhatibet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 061801 (2021)

2021
[88]

M. F. Albakryet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D107, 112013 (2023)

2023
[89]

Adariet al., Physical Review Letters134(2025), 10.1103/physrevlett.134.011804

P. Adariet al., Physical Review Letters134(2025), 10.1103/physrevlett.134.011804

2025 doi
[90]

Shiles, T

E. Shiles, T. Sasaki, M. Inokuti, and D. Y. Smith, Phys. Rev. B22, 1612 (1980)

1980
[91]

Henke, E

B. Henke, E. Gullikson, and J. Davis, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables54, 181 (1993)

1993
[92]

Migdal, Zh

A. Migdal, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.9, 1163 (1939)

1939
[93]

Migdal, J

A. Migdal, J. Phys. (USSR)4, 449 (1941)

1941
[94]

Bernabeiet al., Int

R. Bernabeiet al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A22, 3155 (2007), arXiv:0706.1421 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[95]

M. Ibe, W. Nakano, Y. Shoji, and K. Suzuki, JHEP03, 194 (2018), arXiv:1707.07258 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[96]

Knapen, J

S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 081805 (2021), arXiv:2011.09496 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[97]

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

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [33]

First demonstration of a TES based cryogenic Li$_2$MoO$_4$detector for neutrinoless double beta decay search

G. Bratrudet al., Eur. Phys. J. C85, 118 (2025), arXiv:2406.02025 [hep-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

Intrinsic material properties The space-time correlation function of an operator O(t,x), typically representing the electron or nuclear number density in a material, is defined as SO(ω,x) = 1 VT Z dt Z d3x′eiωt ⟨O(t,x+x ′)O(0,x ′)⟩, (A1) whereV T is the material volume and the expectation value is taken over thermal equilibrium state ensemble ⟨•⟩= P m pm ...

[3] [2]

The initial state|ψI (0)⟩in the interaction picture evolves according to |ψI (t)⟩= T exp −i Z t 0 HI (t) |ψI (0)⟩,(A11) 4 Up to a factor of the electromagnetic couplinge2

DM scattering As an example, let us consider the interaction Hamil- tonian density H1 =ϕ(g χnχ +g ini),(A10) whereϕis a mediator scalar,n χ andn i are number den- sity operators of DM particleχand SM fieldi(electron or nucleon), respectively5. The initial state|ψI (0)⟩in the interaction picture evolves according to |ψI (t)⟩= T exp −i Z t 0 HI (t) |ψI (0)⟩...

[4] [3]

DM absorption Next, let us consider the absorption of dark matter by the material. Focusing for illustration on dark photon DM, the relevant interaction Hamiltonian density is H1 =κeA ′ µJ µ e .(A20) whereκis the kinetic mixing parameter,A ′ µ is the dark photon field, andJµ e is the electromagnetic current of the electrons. In this case, the transition o...

[5] [4]

Essiget al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.08297 [hep-ph]

R. Essiget al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.08297 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2022

[6] [5]

Essig, J

R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D85, 076007 (2012), arXiv:1108.5383 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2012

[7] [6]

Essig, M

R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, 6 Note that the absorption of scalar dark matter cannot be accu- rately captured by the dielectric function formalism [16]. T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP05, 046 (2016), arXiv:1509.01598 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2016

[8] [7]

Hochberg, M

Y. Hochberg, M. Pyle, Y. Zhao, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP 08, 057 (2016), arXiv:1512.04533 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2016