arxiv: 2510.01927 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-02 · ✦ hep-ex

Constraints on sub-GeV dark matter scattering on electrons with COSINE-100

N. Carlin , J. Y. Cho , S. J. Cho , S. Choi , A. C. Ezeribe , L. E. Franca , O. Gileva , C. Ha

show 54 more authors

I. S. Hahn S. J. Hollick E. J. Jeon H. W. Joo W. G. Kang M. Kauer B. H. Kim D. Y. Kim H. J. Kim J. Kim K. W. Kim S. H. Kim S. K. Kim W. K. Kim Y. D. Kim Y. H. Kim B. R. Ko Y. J. Ko D. H. Lee E. K. Lee H. Lee H. S. Lee H. Y. Lee I. S. Lee J. Lee J. Y. Lee M. H. Lee S. H. Lee S. M. Lee Y. J. Lee D. S. Leonard N. T. Luan V. H. A. Machado B. B. Manzato R. H. Maruyama S. L. Olsen H. K. Park H. S. Park J. C. Park J. S. Park K. S. Park K. Park S. D. Park R. L. C. Pitta H. Prihtiadi S. J. Ra C. Rott K. A. Shin D. F. F. S. Cavalcante M. K. Son N. J. C. Spooner L. T. Truc L. Yang G. H. Yu (COSINE-100 Collaboration)

This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 10:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex

keywords sub-GeV dark matterelectron scatteringCOSINE-100NaI(Tl)upper limitsvector mediatordark matter constraints

0 comments p. Extension

The pith

COSINE-100 data exclude dark matter-electron scattering cross sections above 6.4 × 10^{-33} cm² for 0.25 GeV dark matter with a light mediator.

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

The paper reports results from a dedicated search for interactions between sub-GeV dark matter particles and electrons in the sodium iodide crystals of the COSINE-100 detector. With 2.82 years of data and a total exposure of 172.9 kg-year, the analysis found no events in excess of the predicted background. This null result is used to derive 90% confidence level upper limits on the DM-electron scattering cross section under two benchmark scenarios, one with a light vector boson mediator and one with a heavy vector boson mediator. The limits are presented as the strongest constraints achieved so far with a NaI(Tl) target. The work also notes plans to push the search to lower energies with an annual modulation analysis.

Core claim

With a total exposure of 172.9 kg-year, the COSINE-100 experiment observed no excess events over the expected background in its search for sub-GeV dark matter scattering on electrons. This null result translates to 90% CL upper limits that exclude DM-electron scattering cross sections above 6.4 × 10^{-33} cm² for a 0.25 GeV DM mass assuming a light mediator, and above 3.4 × 10^{-37} cm² for a 0.4 GeV DM mass assuming a heavy mediator.

What carries the argument

Low-energy event selection and background modeling applied to NaI(Tl) scintillator data in two benchmark models of vector-boson-mediated DM-electron scattering.

Load-bearing premise

The background model accurately predicts all non-DM events in the low-energy region, with no unaccounted systematics or signal-like fluctuations that could mimic or mask a dark matter contribution.

What would settle it

A statistically significant excess of low-energy events above the predicted background rate, at a level consistent with the excluded cross sections, would invalidate the null-result limits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.01927 by A. C. Ezeribe, B. B. Manzato, B. H. Kim, B. R. Ko, C. Ha, C. Rott, D. F. F. S. Cavalcante, D. H. Lee, D. S. Leonard, D. Y. Kim, E. J. Jeon, E. K. Lee, G. H. Yu (COSINE-100 Collaboration), H. J. Kim, H. K. Park, H. Lee, H. Prihtiadi, H. S. Lee, H. S. Park, H. W. Joo, H. Y. Lee, I. S. Hahn, I. S. Lee, J. C. Park, J. Kim, J. Lee, J. S. Park, J. Y. Cho, J. Y. Lee, K. A. Shin, K. Park, K. S. Park, K. W. Kim, L. E. Franca, L. T. Truc, L. Yang, M. H. Lee, M. Kauer, M. K. Son, N. Carlin, N. J. C. Spooner, N. T. Luan, O. Gileva, R. H. Maruyama, R. L. C. Pitta, S. Choi, S. D. Park, S. H. Kim, S. H. Lee, S. J. Cho, S. J. Hollick, S. J. Ra, S. K. Kim, S. L. Olsen, S. M. Lee, V. H. A. Machado, W. G. Kang, W. K. Kim, Y. D. Kim, Y. H. Kim, Y. J. Ko, Y. J. Lee.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Feynman diagram that represents the DM-electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Computed spectra in NaI considering the non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Expected event rate in COSINE-100 NaI(Tl) de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Measured data for the 2.82 years data-set used in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Normalized posterior distribution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Upper limits for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Sensitivity prospects for the COSINE-100U experiment (red) considering the light mediator model (left) and heavy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Comparison between different methods for perform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present results of the search for sub-GeV dark matter interaction with electrons in the NaI(Tl) crystals of the COSINE-100 experiment. The two benchmark scenarios of a heavy and a light vector boson as mediator of the interaction were studied. We found no excess events over the expected background in a data-set of 2.82 years, with a total exposure of 172.9 kg-year. The derived 90% confidence level upper limits exclude a DM-electron scattering cross section above 6.4 $\times$ 10$^{-33}$ cm$^2$ for a DM mass of 0.25 GeV, assuming a light mediator; and above 3.4 $\times$ 10$^{-37}$ cm$^2$ for a 0.4 GeV DM, assuming a heavy mediator, and represent the most stringent constraints for a NaI(Tl) target to date. We also briefly discuss a planned analysis using an annual modulation method below the current 0.7 keV threshold of COSINE-100, down to few photoelectrons yield.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

COSINE-100 gives the first solid NaI(Tl) limits on sub-GeV DM-electron scattering from 172.9 kg-year with no excess, but the result rests on how well the low-energy background is controlled.

read the letter

The key point is that this COSINE-100 paper reports no excess in their NaI(Tl) data and sets new 90% CL upper limits on DM-electron scattering cross sections for both light and heavy mediator cases. The numbers are 6.4 × 10^{-33} cm² at 0.25 GeV for the light mediator and 3.4 × 10^{-37} cm² at 0.4 GeV for the heavy one, and they claim these are the tightest yet for a NaI target. The exposure is 172.9 kg-year over 2.82 years, which is respectable for this kind of search. They also flag a planned modulation analysis that could push below the current 0.7 keV threshold down to a few photoelectrons. That future direction is worth noting even if it is not yet done. The work follows the usual direct-detection playbook for electron recoils and applies it to a target that has not had these specific limits before, so the numerical results are genuinely new for NaI(Tl). The collaboration has a track record with this detector, which helps. The main soft spot is the background model in the sub-keV region. The no-excess statement and the resulting limits depend on accurately predicting events from internal radioactivity, PMT noise, surface effects, and cosmogenic activation. If the model relies mostly on Monte Carlo or sidebands without enough in-situ constraints or floating parameters at the lowest energies, small mismodeling could move the limits by an amount comparable to the quoted values. The abstract does not give the details on how they validated this, so that part needs checking. This paper is mainly for people running or comparing direct-detection experiments that target light dark matter via electron recoils, especially those using scintillators or NaI. A reader who needs concrete numbers for this target or who follows the annual-modulation angle will get something useful out of it. It has enough new data and a clear analysis path to deserve a serious referee, even if the background section will probably need more scrutiny during review. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports results from the COSINE-100 NaI(Tl) experiment searching for sub-GeV dark matter scattering on electrons. Using 172.9 kg-year of data over 2.82 years, no excess events are observed above the expected background for benchmark heavy and light vector mediator scenarios. 90% CL upper limits are set excluding DM-electron cross sections above 6.4 × 10^{-33} cm² at 0.25 GeV (light mediator) and 3.4 × 10^{-37} cm² at 0.4 GeV (heavy mediator), claimed as the most stringent for a NaI(Tl) target. Plans for a future annual modulation analysis below the current 0.7 keV threshold are briefly discussed.

Significance. If the background model holds, the result provides competitive new constraints on sub-GeV DM-electron interactions using a NaI(Tl) target, which is of interest for models with electron-philic DM. The exposure and low-energy reach are strengths, and the limits are directly derived from new data rather than circular fits. The outlined modulation search could extend sensitivity, but the current limits' robustness depends on low-energy background fidelity.

major comments (1)

[Background model and statistical analysis] The central claim of no excess and the derived limits rest on the background model in the sub-keV region. The abstract asserts 'no excess events over the expected background' after 172.9 kg-year but provides no details on estimation method (e.g., sideband constraints, Monte Carlo, or floating nuisance parameters below ~0.7 keV). Small unaccounted systematics here would directly shift the quoted 90% CL limits by amounts comparable to the reported values.

minor comments (1)

[Outlook] The discussion of the planned annual modulation analysis below 0.7 keV is brief; adding a short quantitative estimate of expected sensitivity improvement would strengthen the outlook section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and for identifying the need for greater clarity on the background model. We address the major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript to improve the description of our methods while preserving the original scientific content.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Background model and statistical analysis] The central claim of no excess and the derived limits rest on the background model in the sub-keV region. The abstract asserts 'no excess events over the expected background' after 172.9 kg-year but provides no details on estimation method (e.g., sideband constraints, Monte Carlo, or floating nuisance parameters below ~0.7 keV). Small unaccounted systematics here would directly shift the quoted 90% CL limits by amounts comparable to the reported values.

Authors: We agree that the background model in the sub-keV region is central to the result and that the abstract is necessarily brief. The full manuscript details the background estimation in Section 4: a data-driven sideband fit above 0.7 keV is used to constrain the dominant components, which are then extrapolated to lower energies with Monte Carlo simulations of known radioactive and cosmogenic backgrounds; nuisance parameters for normalization and shape uncertainties are floated in the binned likelihood fit. To address the referee's concern directly, we have added a concise summary of this procedure to the abstract and inserted a new paragraph in the analysis section that explicitly describes the constraints applied below 0.7 keV. We have also expanded the systematic uncertainty discussion to quantify how residual modeling uncertainties propagate into the 90% CL limits. These revisions make the method more transparent without changing the reported limits or conclusions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in experimental limit derivation

full rationale

The paper reports new data from the COSINE-100 NaI(Tl) experiment with 172.9 kg-year exposure, constructs a background model from known sources (radioactivity, PMT noise, cosmogenic activation), observes no excess events, and derives 90% CL upper limits on DM-electron scattering cross sections using standard statistical procedures for two mediator scenarios. These limits depend on the observed counts, efficiency, and external halo model assumptions but do not reduce by construction to prior fitted parameters, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks and data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract; the central claim depends on standard domain assumptions for dark matter direct detection (halo velocity distribution, local density, mediator form factors) and accurate background subtraction. No new free parameters or invented entities are identifiable from the given text.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Standard galactic dark matter halo model and local density assumptions are used to convert observed rates into cross-section limits.
Common in the field but not detailed or justified in the abstract.
domain assumption Background events are correctly modeled and subtracted with no significant unaccounted systematics in the sub-keV region.
Central to the 'no excess' statement; details absent from abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6096 in / 1488 out tokens · 44402 ms · 2026-05-18T10:56:11.845710+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Review of Observational Evidence for Dark Matter in the Universe and in upcoming searches for Dark Stars

K. Freese, EAS Publ. Ser.36, 113 (2009), arXiv:0812.4005 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[2]

T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES Collaboration), The Astro- physical Journal Letters872, L30 (2019)

work page 2019
[3]

Dark matter shocked pancakes,

J. R. Bond, J. Centrella, A. S. Szalay, and J. R. Wilson, “Dark matter shocked pancakes,” inFormation and Evo- lution of Galaxies and Large Structures in the Universe, edited by J. Audouze and J. Tran Thanh Van (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1984) pp. 87–99

work page 1984
[4]

Large Scale Structure Tests of Warm Dark Matter

S. Colombi, S. Dodelson, and L. M. Widrow, Astrophys. J.458, 1 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9505029 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996
[5]

Bertone and T

G. Bertone and T. M. P. Tait, Nature562, 51 (2018). 11

work page 2018
[6]

J. L. Feng, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 71 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

Jungman, M

G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Physics Reports267, 195 (1996)

work page 1996
[8]

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

work page 2019
[9]

Agneset al.(DarkSide-50 Collaboration), Phys

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

work page 2023
[10]

Aalberset al.(LUX-ZEPLIN Collaboration), Phys

J. Aalberset al.(LUX-ZEPLIN Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041002 (2023)

work page 2023
[11]

Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys

E. Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 241803 (2019)

work page 2019
[12]

Necib, J

L. Necib, J. Moon, T. Wongjirad, and J. M. Conrad, Phys. Rev. D95, 075018 (2017)

work page 2017
[13]

Sigurdson, M

K. Sigurdson, M. Doran, A. Kurylov, R. R. Caldwell, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D70, 083501 (2004)

work page 2004
[14]

Fabbrichesi, E

M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi,The physics of the dark photon(Springer International Pub- lishing, 2021)

work page 2021
[15]

The strong cp problem and axions,

R. D. Peccei, “The strong cp problem and axions,” in Axions: Theory, Cosmology, and Experimental Searches, edited by M. Kuster, G. Raffelt, and B. Beltr´ an (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008) pp. 3–17

work page 2008
[16]

Essig, M

R. Essig, M. Fern´ andez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, Journal of High Energy Physics2016, 46 (2016)

work page 2016
[17]

Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys

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

work page 2022
[18]

Essig, A

R. Essig, A. Manalaysay, J. Mardon, P. Sorensen, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 021301 (2012)

work page 2012
[19]

Z. Y. Zhanget al.(CDEX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 221301 (2022)

work page 2022
[20]

Arnaudet al.(EDELWEISS Collaboration), Phys

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

work page 2020
[21]

Aggarwalet al.(DAMIC-M Collaboration), Phys

K. Aggarwalet al.(DAMIC-M Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 071002 (2025)

work page 2025
[22]

Adariet al.(SENSEI Collaboration), Phys

P. Adariet al.(SENSEI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 011804 (2025)

work page 2025
[23]

Liet al.(PandaX Collaboration), Phys

S. Liet al.(PandaX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 261001 (2023)

work page 2023
[24]

Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys

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

work page 2023
[25]

Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys

E. Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 161004 (2025)

work page 2025
[26]

J. J. Choiet al.(NEON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 021802 (2025)

work page 2025
[27]

Bernabei, P

R. Bernabei, P. Belli, A. Bussolotti, F. Cappella, V. Caracciolo, R. Cerulli, C. Dai, A. d’Angelo, A. Di Marco, H. He,et al., Nuclear and Particle Physics Pro- ceedings303-305, 74 (2018), 7th Workshop on Theory, Phenomenology and Experiments in Flavour Physics

work page 2018
[28]

Bernabei, P

R. Bernabei, P. Belli, A. Bussolotti, F. Cappella, V. Caracciolo, R. Cerulli, C. Dai, A. d’Angelo, N. Fer- rari, A. Incicchitti,et al., Nuclear Physics and Atomic Energy22, 329 (2021)

work page 2021
[29]

B. M. Roberts, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, M. Pospelov, and Y. V. Stadnik, Phys. Rev. D93, 115037 (2016)

work page 2016
[30]

B. M. Roberts and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. D100, 063017 (2019)

work page 2019
[31]

G. H. Yuet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Journal of Instrumentation19, P12013 (2024)

work page 2024
[32]

Carlinet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Science Advances11, eadv6503 (2025)

N. Carlinet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Science Advances11, eadv6503 (2025)

work page 2025
[33]

G. H. Yuet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), arXiv:2501.13665 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv
[34]

Grafana Application,

“Grafana Application,”https://grafana.com

work page
[35]

Adhikari, P

G. Adhikari, P. Adhikari, E. B. de Souza, N. Carlin, S. Choi, W. Q. Choi, M. Djamal, A. C. Ezeribe, C. Ha, I. S. Hahn,et al., The European Physical Journal C78, 107 (2018)

work page 2018
[36]

G. Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1006, 165431 (2021)

work page 2021
[37]

Prihtiadiet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Journal of Instrumentation13, T02007 (2018)

H. Prihtiadiet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Journal of Instrumentation13, T02007 (2018)

work page 2018
[38]

Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Journal of Instrumentation17, T01001 (2022)

G. Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Journal of Instrumentation17, T01001 (2022)

work page 2022
[39]

Engel, S

J. Engel, S. Pittel, and P. Vogel, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics E01, 1 (1992), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218301392000023

work page doi:10.1142/s0218301392000023 1992
[40]

S. K. Lee, M. Lisanti, S. Mishra-Sharma, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. D92, 083517 (2015)

work page 2015
[41]

Freese, M

K. Freese, M. Lisanti, and C. Savage, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1561 (2013)

work page 2013
[42]

A. R. Caddell, V. V. Flambaum, and B. M. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D108, 083030 (2023)

work page 2023
[43]

Agneset al.(The DarkSide Collaboration), Phys

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

work page 2018
[44]

Derenzo, R

S. Derenzo, R. Essig, A. Massari, A. Soto, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D96, 016026 (2017)

work page 2017
[45]

S. M. Griffin, K. Inzani, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D104, 095015 (2021)

work page 2021
[46]

Atomicionisation,

B. Roberts and A. Caddell, “Atomicionisation,”https: //github.com/benroberts999/AtomicIonisation (2023)

work page 2023
[47]

S. M. Leeet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), The Eu- ropean Physical Journal C84, 484 (2024)

work page 2024
[48]

J. Choi, C. Ha, E. Jeon, K. Kim, S. Kim, Y. Kim, Y. Ko, B. Koh, H. Lee, S. Lee,et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment1065, 169489 (2024)

work page 2024
[49]

Agostinelli, J

S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce, M. Asai, D. Axen, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand,et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment506, 250 (2003)

work page 2003
[50]

G. H. Yuet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), The Euro- pean Physical Journal C85, 32 (2025)

work page 2025
[51]

Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Phys

G. Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 201802 (2023)

work page 2023
[52]

Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Phys

G. Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D108, 092006 (2023)

work page 2023
[53]

Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Phys

G. Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D108, L041301 (2023)

work page 2023
[54]

Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), As- troparticle Physics114, 101 (2020)

P. Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), As- troparticle Physics114, 101 (2020)

work page 2020
[55]

Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Science Advances7, eabk2699 (2021)

G. Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Science Advances7, eabk2699 (2021)

work page 2021
[56]

D. Lee, J. Y. Cho, C. H. Ha, E. Jeon, H. Kim, J. Kim, K. Kim, S. Kim, S. K. Kim, W. K. Kim,et al., Commu- nications Physics8, 135 (2025)

work page 2025
[57]

J. Choi, B. Park, C. Ha, K. Kim, S. Kim, Y. Kim, Y. Ko, H. Lee, S. Lee, and S. Olsen, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- 12 ment981, 164556 (2020)

work page 2020
[58]

Choiet al.(NEON Collaboration), Journal of Instru- mentation19, P10020 (2024)

J. Choiet al.(NEON Collaboration), Journal of Instru- mentation19, P10020 (2024)

work page 2024
[59]

S. Lee, G. Kim, H. Kim, K. Kim, J. Lee, and H. Lee, Astroparticle Physics141, 102709 (2022)

work page 2022
[60]

T. D. Trickle,Direct Detection of Light Dark Matter with Electrons, Phonons, and Magnons, Ph.D. thesis, Caltech (2022)

work page 2022
[61]

McLean and R

A. McLean and R. McLean, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables26, 197 (1981)

work page 1981
[62]

M. K. Pandey, L. Singh, C.-P. Wu, J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, C.-C. Hsieh, C.-P. Liu, and H. T. Wong, Phys. Rev. D102, 123025 (2020)

work page 2020