Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 7 cited by

Sub-GeV Dark Matter Under Pressure from Direct Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ionization data from PandaX-4T nearly rule out dark matter particles in the 20–200 MeV mass range.

desk verdict Independent limits that agree with the collaboration's, but the headline exclusion claims for scalar and asymmetric DM rest on the most favorable charge-yield model and are not robust across the paper's own uncertainty band. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15956 v1 pith:ALWF3T2D submitted 2025-07-21 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-ex

Andrew Cheek , Pablo Figueroa , Gonzalo Herrera , Ian M. Shoemaker This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.COhep-ex
keywords sub-GeVdarkmattermatter-electronscatteringPandaX-4TS2-onlyionizationsearchcoherentelasticneutrino-nucleusthermalrelicasymmetricchargeyield
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

This paper shows that ionization data from a liquid-xenon detector's search for coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering — a measurement aimed at neutrinos, not dark matter — currently set the tightest direct-detection constraints on dark matter particles with masses between roughly 20 and 200 MeV. The authors recompute the dark-matter-electron ionization signal expected in PandaX-4T's S2-only channel and compare it bin-by-bin with the detector's background model, obtaining limits that beat the recent DAMIC-M results for heavy mediators. On those limits, complex scalar dark matter with mediator-to-mass ratio $m_{A'}\gtrsim 3m_\chi$ is fully excluded, and asymmetric Dirac fermion dark matter survives only in a narrow band near 15–20 MeV. The result turns a nuisance measurement — the neutrino background of a dark matter search — into one of the strongest tests of the simplest sub-GeV dark matter models.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the differential dark-matter-electron ionization rate in liquid xenon, $dR/d\ln E_e$, built from the ionization form factor $f_{\rm ion}(\vec k, q)$ using tabulated xenon wavefunctions, the Standard Halo Model velocity distribution, and a model-dependent mediator form factor $F_{\rm DM}(q)$. The load-bearing conversion maps electron ionization energy to the observed number of S2 electrons through $E_e = (n_\gamma + n_{e^-})W$ with $W = 13.8$ eV, implemented as a stochastic draw of primary and secondary electrons whose recombination parameter $f_e \simeq 0.83$ follows the modified Thomas-Imel model. Limits are set by a binned Poisson log-likelihood over the eight bins of the $n_{e^-} = [4,8]$ region of interest, where the dark-matter signal is separated from cathode, micro-discharge, and CEνNS backgrounds by spectral shape. The systematic band on the limits spans three charge-yield choices: the Lindhard quenching model and the nominal and best-fit PandaX-4T charge yields.

What would settle it

A calibration measurement of the xenon charge yield below about 1 keV recoil energy, or a bin-by-bin comparison of the two competing $E_e \to n_{e^-}$ conversion prescriptions (this paper's and the collaboration's) against the same data, would settle whether the 20–200 MeV exclusion regions hold or shift by up to an order of magnitude; the two analyses already differ by a factor of about 2 for light mediators.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the PandaX-4T S2-only ionization search for CEνNS provides the strongest upper limits on the non-relativistic dark-matter-electron scattering cross section $\bar\sigma_e$ for heavy mediators at dark matter masses $m_\chi\sim 20$–$200$ MeV. The authors conclude that complex scalar dark matter with $m_{A'}\gtrsim 3m_\chi$ is fully excluded in this mass range, and that asymmetric Dirac fermion dark matter, previously viable in windows near 15–40 MeV and 150–250 MeV after DAMIC-M, is reduced to a narrow 15–20 MeV survival window. The same analysis cuts into the SIMP/ELDER relic band for $m_\chi\sim 20$–$300$ MeV without reaching its lower edge, approaches the freeze-in relic line within a factor of about 2 for $m_\chi\sim 70$–$130$ MeV, and places $L_\mu-L_\tau$ gauge-coupling limits within a factor of about 2 of the secluded-annihilation relic target. For ultralight mediators the limits are about a factor of 2 weaker than DAMIC-M's, and the paper notes that its treatment of the expected signal differs from the collaboration's own sub-GeV dark matter analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The limits assume the model that converts nuclear-recoil energies into observed ionization-electron counts — the charge-yield and efficiency curve taken from PandaX-4T's own best fit — is correct for both the dark-matter signal and the CEνNS background, even though the paper's reproduced CEνNS rate in its Appendix B shows sizable per-bin discrepancies with the collaboration's expectations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Complex scalar dark matter with a dark-photon mediator and $m_{A'}\gtrsim 3m_\chi$ is excluded as the source of the relic abundance for masses between roughly 20 and 200 MeV.
  • Asymmetric Dirac fermion dark matter loses its 150–250 MeV window and is left only with $m_\chi\sim 15$–20 MeV.
  • The SIMP and ELDER mechanisms remain viable: PandaX-4T cuts well into their relic band for $m_\chi\sim 20$–300 MeV but stays about half an order of magnitude above the ELDER lower edge.
  • For an ultralight mediator, freeze-in dark matter is now directly probed near $m_\chi\sim 70$–130 MeV and survives only below about 3 MeV or above about 400 MeV.
  • For $L_\mu-L_\tau$ dark matter, direct detection approaches the thermal targets, coming within a factor of about 2 of the secluded-annihilation relic line.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The Appendix B mismatch works in a counterintuitive direction: a larger CEνNS background would leave less room for dark-matter events and tighten the limits, so the quoted bounds are conservative in the background normalization — but if the mismatch instead signals a miscalibrated shared conversion, signal and background shift together and the limits could move by up to an order of magnitude.
  • The remaining low-mass windows sit exactly where threshold efficiency and the high-velocity tail of the halo distribution dominate; the same physics the paper discusses for unbound Local Group dark matter suggests these windows could close through a better-understood velocity distribution rather than only through larger detectors.
  • If the scalar and asymmetric exclusions hold, the simplest 'dark-photon plus one dark-matter field' thermal models lose their benchmark status at 20–200 MeV, redirecting attention to resonance-regime parameters, heavier masses, and multi-particle dark sectors such as SIMP/ELDER.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives new upper limits on sub-GeV dark matter-electron scattering from the PandaX-4T S2-only CEνNS search, using a binned Poisson likelihood and a charge-yield conversion model. It claims the limits are world-leading for heavy mediators in the 20–200 MeV mass range, nearly fully exclude asymmetric Dirac dark matter, fully exclude scalar dark matter with mA' ≳ 3mχ, and then discusses implications for SIMP/ELDER, freeze-in, Lμ−Lτ, Majorana, and inelastic models, together with complementary astrophysical, cosmological, and accelerator probes.

Significance. If the central limits are robust, the analysis provides a valuable independent reanalysis of public PandaX-4T data, consistent with the collaboration's concurrent heavy-mediator limits and extending pressure on several thermal and non-thermal sub-GeV dark matter models. The paper is also useful as a broad synthesis of complementary constraints. However, the headline exclusion claims are tied to the most optimistic charge-yield model, and the manuscript itself documents an internal factor-of-2-to-order-of-magnitude spread in the limits, so the significance of the model-exclusion statements depends critically on resolving the charge-yield and CEνNS modeling issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II / Conclusions] The text in Sec. II states that the choice of charge-yield and efficiency model changes the 90% CL curve by 'about an order of magnitude at most', while the Conclusions state a factor of '~2'. This discrepancy is not resolved and is load-bearing: the scalar relic-abundance targets for R=2.5 and R≥3 in Fig. 2 lie inside the 20–200 MeV window where the band is widest, and the unqualified claims in the Conclusions that scalar dark matter with mA' ≳ 3mχ is 'fully excluded' and asymmetric Dirac DM is 'nearly fully excluding' do not hold if the true yield is closer to the Lindhard model. Please report the model comparisons against the full band, or provide a detailed justification for the factor-2 statement, and soften the abstract/conclusions accordingly.
  2. [Appendix B] The paper's own reproduction of the CEνNS rate does not match the collaboration's expectations, with what the authors call 'sizable' per-bin discrepancies. Because the same Ee→ne conversion underlies both the DM signal prediction and the CEνNS background prediction, this disagreement suggests that the detector-response model is not fully validated. Using the collaboration's background table while generating the signal with the authors' own conversion introduces an internal inconsistency. I ask the authors to re-derive limits using their own CEνNS predictions as the background (or to demonstrate that the discrepancy changes the 90% CL curves by less than the quoted uncertainties) and to comment on the origin of the discrepancy.
  3. [Eq. (11), Table I] The binned likelihood treats the background counts bi as fixed at the collaboration's central values, but Table I reports significant uncertainties (e.g., cathode 100±24 and 104±21 in the two runs). Since the analysis exploits spectral shape differences and the DM signal in low-ne bins is comparable to the background, neglecting these normalizations may overstate the sensitivity. I request a profile-likelihood treatment (or an explicit estimate of how much the 90% CL curves broaden when the background normalizations are varied within their 1σ uncertainties), especially for the conclusions drawn in the 20–200 MeV range.
  4. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A4)-(A5)] The Bernoulli distribution for the primary electron count is written with n'=1 occurring with probability fR, but fR is defined in Eqs. (A1)-(A2) as the recombination fraction, with fR=0 corresponding to no recombination (ne = Ni). As written, fR=0 would set the primary electron count to zero, which is inconsistent with the physical picture and with Eq. (A2). Please clarify whether this is a typo (presumably the probability should be 1−fR) and, if the code follows the written formula, assess the impact on the ne conversion and on the resulting limits.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains 'browm band'; this should be 'brown band'.
  2. [Sec. IV A] The text contains 'For intance'; this should be 'For instance'.
  3. [Appendix C] The appendix begins 'Ws derived upper limits'; this should be 'We derived upper limits' or 'We have derived upper limits'.
  4. [References] Reference [98] lists 'arXiv:XXXX.XXXX', a placeholder that must be completed.
  5. [Abstract / Sec. V] The abstract and Sec. V use 'world-leading' and 'best constraints' without the qualifier 'for heavy mediators' that is stated in Sec. V and the Note Added; please add the qualifier to avoid overgeneralization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the limits follow from a binned likelihood over observed PandaX-4T data, with detector-response inputs taken from the collaboration and model targets from independent prior work.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The dark-matter signal is computed from atomic wavefunctions (QEDark), the Standard Halo Model, and a model-dependent form factor, then converted to observable electron counts using detector-calibration inputs (W, recombination fractions, and charge-yield models) that are taken from the PandaX-4T collaboration and the literature rather than fitted to the dark-matter signal. The limit is obtained from a binned Poisson likelihood against the observed event counts, with the collaboration's expected backgrounds adopted conservatively. No parameter in the dark-matter scattering model is fitted to the data, and the relic-abundance targets for scalar and asymmetric dark matter are imported from non-overlapping prior work (Refs. [20] and [31]), not derived from or fitted to the same data. The paper's own caveats — the imperfect reproduction of the CEνNS rate in Appendix B, the order-of-magnitude versus factor-of-~2 spread in quenching-model dependence, and the Note Added describing differences from the concurrent PandaX-4T analysis — are genuine limitations and robustness concerns, but they are not circularity: they concern detector-response uncertainty and comparison conventions, not an equivalence between prediction and input. Self-citations appear in contextual discussions (halo-model uncertainties, Lµ−Lτ phenomenology, neutrino-flux tools), but none is load-bearing for the central exclusion claim, and the decisive model targets are not self-citations. The central claim is therefore an independent reanalysis of public data rather than a renamed input or a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The bounds rely on the SHM halo model, QEDark atomic wavefunctions, the collaboration's background model, and the charge-yield conversion. These are external inputs, not derived in the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Quenching/charge yield model choice = Lindhard, Nominal, and Best-fit Qy(ER) from PandaX-4T [32]
    Limits depend on this conversion; the band spans up to an order of magnitude at low dark matter mass (Appendix A, Figures 2 and 3).
  • Thomas-Imel recombination parameters = fR = 0, Nex/Ni giving fe = 0.83 (Refs. [128,129])
    Used to convert ionization energy to electron count in Appendix A; affects the signal binning.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Standard Halo Model velocity distribution (truncated Maxwell-Boltzmann) for the galactic DM flux.
    Used in Eq. (6) and Section II. Deviations change limits by up to an order of magnitude near threshold (Section IV.B).
  • domain assumption QEDark xenon atomic wavefunctions are accurate for ionization form factor calculations.
    The signal rate relies on tabulated wavefunctions from Refs. [33,34], used in Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption The PandaX-4T collaboration's background model, including the CEνNS expectation, is correct within stated uncertainties.
    The analysis fixes the backgrounds to the collaboration's values even though the authors' Appendix B reproduction finds per-bin discrepancies.
  • domain assumption Local dark matter density rho = 0.4 GeV/cm^3.
    Normalizes the DM flux in Eq. (6), taken from Ref. [35].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sub-GeV Dark Matter Under Pressure from Direct Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ALWF3T2D

@misc{pith2026250715956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sub-GeV Dark Matter Under Pressure from Direct Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ALWF3T2D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15956}
}
abstract

The DAMIC-M collaboration recently reported impressive bounds on sub-GeV dark matter, robustly testing both thermal and non-thermal models for the very first time. In this work we derive novel bounds from the recent PandaX-4T ionization S2-only search for Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering (CE$\nu$NS). We find that the PandaX-4T S2-only data is able to compete with the DAMIC-M results, providing the best constraints for scalar and asymmetric thermal dark matter models for masses between 20 to 200 MeV. We further discuss the implications of recent direct detection results for several other sub-GeV dark matter models, highlighting their complementarity with astrophysical, cosmological and laboratory probes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15956 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Upper limits on the non-relativistic scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Upper limit on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Bounds on Majorana sub-GeV dark matter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Inelastic Scattering Effects on Attenuation of Boosted Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Resonant excitation of nucleons into Δ(1232) during Earth passage is a non-negligible attenuation channel for boosted dark matter at E_χ ≈ 1–2 GeV, lowering the PandaX-4T upper bound on σ̄_n in the heavy-mediator regime.

  2. Direct Detection of Leptophobic Dark Matter with Electronic Collective Excitations

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Leptophobic dark matter can excite plasmons in silicon through hadronic loops, and SENSEI data now constrain its nucleon cross section down to ~1e-31 cm^2 in the sub-MeV mass range.

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

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

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

  4. New benchmarks for direct detection of freeze-in dark matter in vector portal models

    hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Freeze-in at low reheating temperatures allows MeV-scale dark matter in vector portal models to be probed by future direct detection experiments in nuclear recoils for 50-500 MeV masses and via enhanced solar neutrino...

  5. Information-theoretic astrophysical uncertainties in the effective theory of dark matter direct detection

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using an information-theoretic bound on the halo velocity distribution, dark matter direct-detection limits vary from <10x to ~10,000x near threshold depending on the EFT operator, with higher velocity-weighting opera...

  6. New light mediators and the neutrino fog: Implications from XENONnT nuclear recoil data

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Light-mediator couplings are constrained more strongly when they attach to dark matter than to neutrinos, and the neutrinofog in xenon detectors is shifted and deformed under both scenarios.

  7. Cosmic-ray boosted inelastic dark matter from neutrino-emitting active galactic nuclei

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A cosmic-ray boosted, inelastic dark matter flux from two neutrino-emitting AGNs gives new Super-K and XENONnT limits that reach part of the thermal freeze-out target for sub-GeV dark matter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [127]

    Zhang et al

    M. Zhang et al. , (2025), arXiv:2507.11930 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Physical Review D 85 (2012), 10.1103/physrevd.85.076007

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.076007 2012

  3. [2]

    Essig, A

    R. Essig, A. Manalaysay, J. Mardon, P. Sorensen, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 021301 (2012), arXiv:1206.2644 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [3]

    Catena, T

    R. Catena, T. Emken, N. A. Spaldin, and W. Tarantino, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033195 (2020), arXiv:1912.08204

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    Akerib, P

    D. Akerib, P. Cushman, C. Dahl, R. Ebadi, A. Fan, and R. Gaitskell, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08084

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 251801 (2019), arXiv:1907.11485 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    A. H. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST), Phys. Rev. D100, 102002 (2019), arXiv:1904.00498 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON, (XENON Collaboration)**), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 161004 (2025), arXiv:2411.15289 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 134 references
  1. [8]

    Cheng et al

    C. Cheng et al. (PandaX-II), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 211803 (2021), arXiv:2101.07479

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Li et al

    S. Li et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 261001 (2023), arXiv:2212.10067 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Barak et al

    L. Barak et al. (SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 171802 (2020), arXiv:2004.11378

    2020 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Adari et al

    P. Adari et al. (SENSEI), (2023), arXiv:2312.13342

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    M. F. Albakry et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. D 111, 012006 (2025), arXiv:2407.08085 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Balan et al., JCAP 01, 053 (2025), arXiv:2405.17548 [hep-ph]

    S. Balan et al., JCAP 01, 053 (2025), arXiv:2405.17548 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Boehm and P

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

    2004 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Boehm, P

    C. Boehm, P. Fayet, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 69, 101302 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311143

    2004 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 662, 53 (2008), arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Hooper and K

    D. Hooper and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 77, 087302 (2008), arXiv:0801.3686

    2008 arXiv

  11. [18]

    D. E. Kaplan, M. A. Luty, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 79, 115016 (2009), arXiv:0901.4117 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [19]

    M. L. Graesser, I. M. Shoemaker, and L. Vecchi, JHEP 10, 110 (2011), arXiv:1103.2771 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Lin, H.-B

    T. Lin, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 85, 063503 (2012), arXiv:1111.0293

    2012 arXiv

  14. [21]

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

    2010 arXiv

  15. [22]

    G. Elor, R. McGehee, and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 031803 (2023), arXiv:2112.03920 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    P. N. Bhattiprolu, R. McGehee, and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. D 110, L031702 (2024), arXiv:2312.14152 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    K. K. Boddy, K. Freese, G. Montefalcone, and B. Shams Es Haghi, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063537 (2025), arXiv:2405.06226 [hep-ph]

    2025

  18. [25]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171301 (2014), arXiv:1402.5143 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Kuflik, M

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

    2016 arXiv

  20. [27]

    R. T. D’Agnolo, D. Pappadopulo, and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 061102 (2017), arXiv:1705.08450 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Smirnov and J

    J. Smirnov and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 131301 (2020), arXiv:2002.04038 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [29]

    X. Chu, M. Nikolic, and J. Pradler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 2 (2024), arXiv:2401.12283 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Aggarwal et al

    K. Aggarwal et al. (DAMIC-M), (2025), arXiv:2503.14617 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Krnjaic, (2025), arXiv:2505.04626 [hep-ph]

    G. Krnjaic, (2025), arXiv:2505.04626 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [32]

    First indication of solar 8b neutrino flux through coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scatter- ing in pandax-4t,

    P. Collaboration, “First indication of solar 8b neutrino flux through coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scatter- ing in pandax-4t,” (2024), arXiv:2407.10892 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Essig, M

    R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP 05, 046 (2016), arXiv:1509.01598

    2016 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Jelleaalbers/wimprates: v0.5.0,

    J. Aalbers, B. Pelssers, J. R. Angevaare, and K. D. Mor ˚ a, “Jelleaalbers/wimprates: v0.5.0,” (2023)

    2023

  28. [35]

    J. I. Read, J. Phys. G 41, 063101 (2014), arXiv:1404.1938 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Herrera and A

    G. Herrera and A. Ibarra, Physics Letters B820, 136551 (2021)

    2021

  30. [37]

    A. M. Green, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 27, 1230004 (2012), arXiv:1112.0524 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Essig, T

    R. Essig, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, Physical Review D 96 (2017), 10.1103/physrevd.96.043017

    2017 doi

  32. [39]

    Giovanetti, M

    C. Giovanetti, M. Lisanti, H. Liu, and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 021302 (2022), arXiv:2109.03246 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Carew, A

    B. Carew, A. R. Caddell, T. N. Maity, and C. A. J. O’Hare, (2023), arXiv:2312.04303

    2023 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Wyenberg and I

    J. Wyenberg and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D 97, 115026 (2018), arXiv:1803.08146 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Holdom, Physics Letters B 166, 196 (1986)

    B. Holdom, Physics Letters B 166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  36. [43]

    S. W. Randall, M. Markevitch, D. Clowe, A. H. Gon- zalez, and M. Bradac, Astrophys. J. 679, 1173 (2008), arXiv:0704.0261 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Markevitch, A

    M. Markevitch, A. H. Gonzalez, D. Clowe, A. Vikhlinin, L. David, W. Forman, C. Jones, S. Murray, and W. Tucker, Astrophys. J. 606, 819 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0309303

    2004

  38. [45]

    J. M. Cline and G. Herrera, (2024), arXiv:2409.13818 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [47]

    T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D 93, 023527 (2016), arXiv:1506.03811 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, H. Murayama, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 021301 (2015), arXiv:1411.3727 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [49]

    X. G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 43, 22 (1991)

    1991

  43. [50]

    X.-G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 44, 2118 (1991)

    1991

  44. [51]

    Foot, Mod

    R. Foot, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 6, 527 (1991). 11

    1991

  45. [52]

    Foldenauer, Phys

    P. Foldenauer, Phys. Rev. D 99, 035007 (2019), arXiv:1808.03647 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Holst, D

    I. Holst, D. Hooper, and G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 141802 (2022), arXiv:2107.09067 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Hapitas, D

    T. Hapitas, D. Tuckler, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 105, 016014 (2022), arXiv:2108.12440 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Direct de- tection of light dark matter charged under a lµ − lτ symmetry,

    P. Figueroa, G. Herrera, and F. Ochoa, “Direct de- tection of light dark matter charged under a lµ − lτ symmetry,” (2024), arXiv:2404.03090 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muon g-2), (2025), arXiv:2506.03069 [hep-ex]

    2025

  50. [58]

    Li, X.-G

    M.-W. Li, X.-G. He, A. Cheek, and X. Chu, (2025), arXiv:2506.05511 [hep-ph]

    2025

  51. [59]

    Enabling sub-gev dark matter within the vanilla lµ-lτ model,

    N. Bernal, J. P. Neto, J. Silva-Malpartida, and F. S. Queiroz, “Enabling sub-gev dark matter within the vanilla lµ-lτ model,” (2025), arXiv:2507.02048 [hep-ph]

    2025

  52. [60]

    Hapitas, D

    T. Hapitas, D. Tuckler, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 105, 016014 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Y. Kahn, G. Krnjaic, N. Tran, and A. Whit- beck, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018 (2018), 10.1007/jhep09(2018)153

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    Biswas, S

    A. Biswas, S. Choubey, and S. Khan, JHEP 09, 147 (2016), arXiv:1608.04194 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Berlin, N

    A. Berlin, N. Blinov, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D 99, 075001 (2019), arXiv:1807.01730 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Carrillo Gonz´ alez and N

    M. Carrillo Gonz´ alez and N. Toro, JHEP04, 060 (2022), arXiv:2108.13422 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    G. D. V. Garcia, F. Kahlhoefer, M. Ovchynnikov, and T. Schwetz, JHEP 02, 127 (2025), arXiv:2405.08081 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Dalla Valle Garcia, Phys

    G. Dalla Valle Garcia, Phys. Lett. B862, 139320 (2025), arXiv:2411.02147 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Agnese et al

    R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 241302 (2014), arXiv:1402.7137 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  60. [68]

    M. Ibe, W. Nakano, Y. Shoji, and K. Suzuki, JHEP 03, 194 (2018), arXiv:1707.07258 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    M. J. Dolan, F. Kahlhoefer, and C. McCabe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 101801 (2018), arXiv:1711.09906 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Baxter, Y

    D. Baxter, Y. Kahn, and G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. D 101, 076014 (2020), arXiv:1908.00012 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 241803 (2019), arXiv:1907.12771 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 101001 (2023), arXiv:2207.11967 [hep-ex]

    2023

  65. [73]

    Herrera, JHEP 05, 288 (2024), arXiv:2311.17719 [hep-ph]

    G. Herrera, JHEP 05, 288 (2024), arXiv:2311.17719 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    T. N. Maity, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123020 (2025), arXiv:2412.17649 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Granelli, P

    A. Granelli, P. Ullio, and J.-W. Wang, JCAP 07, 013 (2022), arXiv:2202.07598 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Herrera and K

    G. Herrera and K. Murase, Phys. Rev. D 110, L011701 (2024), arXiv:2307.09460 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Vogelsberger, A

    M. Vogelsberger, A. Helmi, V. Springel, S. D. M. White, J. Wang, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, A. D. Ludlow, and J. F. Navarro, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 395, 797 (2009), arXiv:0812.0362 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Schaye et al

    J. Schaye et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 446, 521 (2015), arXiv:1407.7040 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Bozorgnia, F

    N. Bozorgnia, F. Calore, M. Schaller, M. Lovell, G. Bertone, C. S. Frenk, R. A. Crain, J. F. Navarro, J. Schaye, and T. Theuns, JCAP 05, 024 (2016), arXiv:1601.04707 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  72. [80]

    N. W. Evans, C. A. J. O’Hare, and C. McCabe, Phys. Rev. D 99, 023012 (2019), arXiv:1810.11468 [astro- ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Necib, M

    L. Necib, M. Lisanti, and V. Belokurov, apj (2018), 10.3847/1538-4357/ab095b, arXiv:1807.02519 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  74. [82]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, C. McCabe, N. W. Evans, G. Myeong, and V. Belokurov, Phys. Rev. D 98, 103006 (2018), arXiv:1807.09004 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Folsom, C

    D. Folsom, C. Blanco, M. Lisanti, L. Necib, M. Vogels- berger, and L. Hernquist, (2025), arXiv:2505.07924 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Bozorgnia, A

    N. Bozorgnia, A. Fattahi, C. S. Frenk, A. Cheek, D. G. Cerdeno, F. A. G´ omez, R. J. J. Grand, and F. Mari- nacci, JCAP 07, 036 (2020), arXiv:1910.07536 [astro- ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Radick, A.-M

    A. Radick, A.-M. Taki, and T.-T. Yu, JCAP 02, 004 (2021), arXiv:2011.02493 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  78. [86]

    T. N. Maity and R. Laha, JHEP 02, 200 (2023), arXiv:2208.14471 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Hryczuk, E

    A. Hryczuk, E. Karukes, L. Roszkowski, and M. Talia, (2020), 10.1007/JHEP07(2020)081, arXiv:2001.09156 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Herrera and A

    G. Herrera and A. Rappelt, Phys. Rev. D 111, 015013 (2025), arXiv:2403.04959 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Herrera, A

    G. Herrera, A. Ibarra, and S. Shirai, JCAP 04, 026 (2023), arXiv:2301.00870

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Smith-Orlik et al

    A. Smith-Orlik et al. , JCAP 10, 070 (2023), arXiv:2302.04281 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Kakharov and A

    S. Kakharov and A. Loeb, (2025), arXiv:2507.01190 [hep-ph]

    2025

  84. [92]

    DeBrae, P

    A. DeBrae, P. Behroozi, and N. Garavito-Camargo, (2025), arXiv:2502.17565 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Santos-Santos, N

    I. Santos-Santos, N. Bozorgnia, A. Fattahi, and J. F. Navarro, JCAP 03, 046 (2024), arXiv:2308.15388 [astro- ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Reynoso-Cordova, N

    J. Reynoso-Cordova, N. Bozorgnia, and M.-C. Piro, JCAP 12, 037 (2024), arXiv:2409.09119 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Bringmann and M

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

    2019 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Herbermann, M

    T. Herbermann, M. Lindner, and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123023 (2024), arXiv:2408.02721 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    N. F. Bell, J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, S. Ghosh, J. Kumar, J. L. Newstead, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D 104, 076020 (2021), arXiv:2108.00583 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  90. [98]

    A. R. Gustafson, G. Herrera, M. Mukhopadhyay, K. Murase, and I. M. Shoemaker, (2025), arXiv:XXXX.XXXX [hep-ph]

    2025

  91. [99]

    Emken, C

    T. Emken, C. Kouvaris, and N. G. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. D 97, 063007 (2018), arXiv:1709.06573 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  92. [100]

    H. An, H. Nie, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103026 (2021), arXiv:2108.10332 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Emken, R

    T. Emken, R. Essig, and H. Xu, JCAP 07, 023 (2024), arXiv:2404.10066 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Shen et al

    G. Shen et al. (PandaX, (PandaX Collaboration)25,26), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 161003 (2025), arXiv:2412.19970 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  95. [103]

    A. K. Mishra, N. Liu, and C.-T. Lu, (2025), arXiv:2504.03409 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  96. [104]

    A. G. De Marchi, A. Granelli, J. Nava, and F. Sala, (2024), arXiv:2412.07861 [astro-ph.HE]. 12

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    A. G. De Marchi, A. Granelli, J. Nava, and F. Sala, (2025), arXiv:2506.06416 [hep-ph]

    2025

  98. [106]

    Ambrosone, M

    A. Ambrosone, M. Chianese, D. F. G. Fiorillo, A. Marinelli, and G. Miele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 111003 (2023), arXiv:2210.05685 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  99. [107]

    R. A. Gustafson, G. Herrera, M. Mukhopadhyay, K. Murase, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D 111, L121303 (2025), arXiv:2408.08947 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Sabti, J

    N. Sabti, J. Alvey, M. Escudero, M. Fairbairn, and D. Blas, JCAP 01, 004 (2020), arXiv:1910.01649 [hep- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  101. [109]

    M. S. Madhavacheril, N. Sehgal, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D 89, 103508 (2014), arXiv:1310.3815 [astro- ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Essig, E

    R. Essig, E. Kuflik, S. D. McDermott, T. Volansky, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP 11, 193 (2013), arXiv:1309.4091 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Boudaud, J

    M. Boudaud, J. Lavalle, and P. Salati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 021103 (2017), arXiv:1612.07698 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Cirelli, N

    M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo, B. J. Kavanagh, and E. Pinetti, Phys. Rev. D 103, 063022 (2021), arXiv:2007.11493 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Cirelli, N

    M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo, J. Koechler, E. Pinetti, and B. M. Roach, JCAP 07, 026 (2023), arXiv:2303.08854 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Y. M. Andreev et al. (NA64), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 211803 (2024), arXiv:2401.01708 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, M. Papucci, T. Volansky, and Y.-M. Zhong, JHEP 11, 167 (2013), arXiv:1309.5084 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  108. [116]

    ˚Akesson et al

    T. ˚Akesson et al. (LDMX), (2018), arXiv:1808.05219 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  109. [117]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP 09, 051 (2018), arXiv:1803.00993 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  110. [118]

    The oscura experiment,

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo, F. A. Bessia, N. Avalos, D. Bax- ter, X. Bertou, C. Bonifazi, A. Botti, M. Cababie, G. Cancelo, B. A. Cervantes-Vergara, N. Castello-Mor, A. Chavarria, C. R. Chavez, F. Chierchie, J. M. D. Egea, J. C. D‘Olivo, C. E. Dreyer, A. Drlica-Wagner, R. Es- sig, J. ...

    2022 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (XLZD), (2024), arXiv:2410.17137 [hep-ex]

    2024

  112. [120]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Zhao, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 011301 (2016), arXiv:1504.07237 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Schutz and K

    K. Schutz and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 121302 (2016), arXiv:1604.08206 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  114. [122]

    N. A. Kurinsky, T. C. Yu, Y. Hochberg, and B. Cabrera, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123005 (2019), arXiv:1901.07569 [hep- ex]

    2019 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Kahn and T

    Y. Kahn and T. Lin, Rept. Prog. Phys. 85, 066901 (2022), arXiv:2108.03239 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  116. [124]

    B. K. Cogswell, A. Goel, and P. Huber, Phys. Rev. Ap- plied 16, 064060 (2021), arXiv:2104.13926 [physics.ins- det]

    2021 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Zema et al

    V. Zema et al. , Phys. Rev. D 110, 123012 (2024), arXiv:2402.01395 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  118. [126]

    R. K. Leane and J. F. Beacom, (2025), arXiv:2503.09685 [hep-ph]

    2025

  119. [128]

    Aprile, K

    E. Aprile, K. L. Giboni, P. Majewski, K. Ni, and M. Yamashita, Phys. Rev. B 76, 014115 (2007), arXiv:0704.1118 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  120. [129]

    Sorensen and C

    P. Sorensen and C. E. Dahl, Phys. Rev. D 83, 063501 (2011), arXiv:1101.6080 [astro-ph.IM]

    2011 arXiv

  121. [130]

    Lindhard, V

    J. Lindhard, V. Nielsen, M. Scharff, and P. V. Thomsen, Kgl. Danske Videnskab., Selskab. Mat. Fys. Medd. V ol: 33: No. 10 (1963)

    1963

  122. [131]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and C. A. Ternes, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025, 012 (2025)

    2025

  123. [132]

    Clarity through the neutrino fog: Constraining new forces in dark matter detectors,

    P. Blanco-Mas, P. Coloma, G. Herrera, P. Huber, J. Kopp, I. M. Shoemaker, and Z. Tabrizi, “Clarity through the neutrino fog: Constraining new forces in dark matter detectors,” (2024), arXiv:2411.14206 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  124. [133]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and C. A. Ternes, JCAP 05, 012 (2025), arXiv:2411.11749 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  125. [134]

    D. W. P. Amaral, D. Cerdeno, A. Cheek, and P. Folde- nauer, JHEP 07, 071 (2023), arXiv:2302.12846 [hep-ph]. 13 Appendix A: Details on the charge yield, quenching factors and efficiency functions at PandaX-4T Dark matter-electron interactions induce events in electron-equivalen...

    2023 arXiv

  126. [135]

    Within the ROI, the impact is very small

    We then use [131]: ne− = ERQy(ER) (A9) In Figure 6, we display the difference among the nominal and best-fit charge yields at PandaX-4T, and the associated impact on the conversion from nuclear recoil energies to number of electrons. Within the ROI, the impact is very small. 1...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.