Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 62 references

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

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-18 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read 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.

desk verdict 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 →

arxiv 2510.01927 v3 submitted 2025-10-02 hep-ex

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 · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords sub-GeVdarkmatterelectronscatteringCOSINE-100NaI(Tl)upperlimitsvectormediatorconstraints
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 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.

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.

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.

Watch

Extended reading notes

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.

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.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

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)
  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)
  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

  1. 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 · score 0.0 of 10

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 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.

assumptions (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.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on sub-GeV dark matter scattering on electrons with COSINE-100." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2510.01927

@misc{pith2026251001927,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on sub-GeV dark matter scattering on electrons with COSINE-100},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2510.01927}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.01927}
}
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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.01927 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the COSINE-100 experiment. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
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 ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Expected event rate in COSINE-100 NaI(Tl) de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
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]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Normalized posterior distribution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Upper limits for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
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]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Comparison between different methods for perform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [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 Pith review arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

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

    work page 2019

  3. [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. [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 Pith review arXiv 1996

  5. [5]

    Bertone and T

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

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

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

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Jungman, M

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

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

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

    work page 2019

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide-50 Collaboration), Phys

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

    2023

  2. [10]

    Aalberset al.(LUX-ZEPLIN Collaboration), Phys

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

    2023

  3. [11]

    Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys

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

    2019

  4. [12]

    Necib, J

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

    2017

  5. [13]

    Sigurdson, M

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

    2004

  6. [14]

    Fabbrichesi, E

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

    2021

  7. [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

    2008

  8. [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)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys

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

    2022

  10. [18]

    Essig, A

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

    2012

  11. [19]

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

    2022

  12. [20]

    Arnaudet al.(EDELWEISS Collaboration), Phys

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

    2020

  13. [21]

    Aggarwalet al.(DAMIC-M Collaboration), Phys

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

    2025

  14. [22]

    Adariet al.(SENSEI Collaboration), Phys

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

    2025

  15. [23]

    Liet al.(PandaX Collaboration), Phys

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

    2023

  16. [24]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys

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

    2023

  17. [25]

    Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys

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

    2025

  18. [26]

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

    2025

  19. [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

    2018

  20. [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)

    2021

  21. [29]

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

    2016

  22. [30]

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

    2019

  23. [31]

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

    2024

  24. [32]

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

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

    2025

  25. [33]

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

  26. [34]

    Grafana Application,

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

  27. [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)

    2018

  28. [36]

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

    2021

  29. [37]

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

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

    2018

  30. [38]

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

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

    2022

  31. [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

    1992 doi

  32. [40]

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

    2015

  33. [41]

    Freese, M

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

    2013

  34. [42]

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

    2023

  35. [43]

    Agneset al.(The DarkSide Collaboration), Phys

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

    2018

  36. [44]

    Derenzo, R

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

    2017

  37. [45]

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

    2021

  38. [46]

    Atomicionisation,

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

    2023

  39. [47]

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

    2024

  40. [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)

    2024

  41. [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)

    2003

  42. [50]

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

    2025

  43. [51]

    Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Phys

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

    2023

  44. [52]

    Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Phys

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

    2023

  45. [53]

    Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100 Collaboration), Phys

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

    2023

  46. [54]

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

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

    2020

  47. [55]

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

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

    2021

  48. [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)

    2025

  49. [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)

    2020

  50. [58]

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

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

    2024

  51. [59]

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

    2022

  52. [60]

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

    2022

  53. [61]

    McLean and R

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

    1981

  54. [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)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed May 18, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.