Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Leptophobic dark matter can excite collective plasmons in silicon, turning electron-search detectors into probes of nucleon-only dark matter.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 08:50 UTC pith:HVQ6OYBQ

load-bearing objection A clean application of the established plasmon channel to leptophobic DM, with new SENSEI-based limits; the main caveat is an unquantified hadronic-loop cutoff that shifts all limits by an order-one factor. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.18338 v2 pith:HVQ6OYBQ submitted 2025-10-21 hep-ph

Direct Detection of Leptophobic Dark Matter with Electronic Collective Excitations

Yuanlin Gong , Yifan Hu , Ning Liu , Liangliang Su , Bin Zhu This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords leptophobic dark matterplasmon excitationsemiconductor detectorshadronic loopboosted dark mattercosmic-ray up-scattered dark matterSENSEIsub-MeV dark matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks whether direct-detection experiments built to see dark matter scattering off electrons can also detect dark matter that deliberately avoids electrons. It shows they can: a leptophobic vector mediator coupling only to quarks and nucleons mixes with the photon through a proton loop, generating an effective dark-matter–electron interaction. That interaction can resonantly excite plasmons in silicon, but only when dark matter moves faster than about 0.01c, so the paper considers two relativistic populations: boosted dark matter in a two-component model and cosmic-ray up-scattered dark matter. Using SENSEI's observed 3–6 electron-hole events, it derives new 90% confidence exclusions on the dark-matter–nucleon cross section in the sub-MeV mass range, reaching down to roughly 10^-31 cm². The result matters because it extends semiconductor direct detection to a class of dark matter that conventional nuclear-recoil searches had no direct electronic handle on.

Core claim

The central claim is that a dark-matter candidate with no tree-level coupling to electrons can still ionize a semiconductor through hadronic loop-induced vector-mediator–photon mixing. The proton-loop contribution produces an effective dark-matter–electron coupling proportional to c_loop = 4 g_B ln(4π e^{-γ_E} Λ²/m_p²) with the cutoff chosen as Λ = m_p; this enters the scattering amplitude and, combined with the silicon energy-loss function, yields a rate that peaks sharply in the plasmon region near ω ≈ 15 eV. Direct plasmon excitation requires dark-matter speeds ≳ 0.01c, which the paper obtains from boosted dark matter and cosmic-ray up-scattered dark matter. Analyzing SENSEI data at 534.9

What carries the argument

The central object is the proton-loop-induced vector-mediator–photon mixing: a one-loop diagram converts the baryonic vector mediator into a photon, giving a momentum-dependent effective dark-matter–electron coupling. This effective coupling drives transitions in the semiconductor, whose response is encoded in the energy-loss function Im[−1/ϵ(Q,ω)] of silicon; the rate is resonantly enhanced when the energy transfer matches the plasmon mode. The mechanism only becomes active for dark-matter velocities above roughly 0.01c, which is why the paper invokes boosted and cosmic-ray up-scattered dark-matter fluxes.

Load-bearing premise

The proton-loop coefficient c_loop is set by a logarithmically divergent integral cut off at Λ = m_p, with pion-type meson loops assumed to cancel exactly; if the true cutoff or meson contribution differs, every exclusion limit shifts vertically by an order-one factor.

What would settle it

Measure or compute the hadronic loop amplitude from the γ*→hadrons spectral function (e.g., using e+e− annihilation data) to fix c_loop without ad hoc cutoffs; if the actual coefficient is an order of magnitude smaller than Eq. (5), the SENSEI-derived exclusions would weaken correspondingly, and if pion loops do not cancel, the predicted event-rate shape in the 3–6 electron-hole bins would change.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Silicon detectors designed for dark-matter–electron scattering are also sensitive to leptophobic dark matter through the loop-induced channel, without new experimental infrastructure.
  • SENSEI's null 4–6 electron events translate into new 90% exclusion limits on the dark-matter–nucleon cross section in the sub-MeV mass range, reaching about 10^-31 cm².
  • The strongest constraint comes from the 5-electron-hole bin, and the limits weaken as the boosted-dark-matter mass splitting shrinks because the rate scales roughly as 1/μ².
  • Cosmic-ray up-scattered dark matter gives a limit comparable to the two-component boosted-dark-matter scenario with a 1 MeV heavier component.
  • Future detectors with lower thresholds and larger exposures would push this probe to still smaller cross sections and higher masses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The overall normalization of every exclusion limit is set by the logarithmically divergent loop coefficient with cutoff Λ = m_p and by the assumption that pion loops cancel; choosing a different cutoff, such as Λ ≈ 4π m_p, would shift all contours vertically by an order-one factor—this is an editorial inference from Eq. (5), not a claim the paper tests.
  • The same loop mechanism should operate in other target materials, so existing data from noble-liquid and other semiconductor detectors could be re-analyzed for this leptophobic channel; this is a testable extension the paper leaves implicit.
  • A first-principles fix of the loop coefficient, for instance from e+e− → hadrons data or lattice calculations of the γ*→hadrons spectral function, would remove the cutoff ambiguity and make the derived limits robust; this is a concrete future calculation rather than a result of this paper.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers a leptophobic dark matter (DM) model in which a U(1)_B vector mediator couples DM to quarks/nucleons but not at tree level to electrons. It argues that a hadronic (proton) loop induces V–gamma mixing, so leptophobic DM can scatter off electrons in a silicon target and excite plasmons for DM speeds v > 0.01c. Using the DarkELF dielectric function and SENSEI 3–6 electron-hole data, the authors compute 90% C.L. exclusion limits on the spin-independent DM–nucleon cross section for sub-MeV DM in two relativistic-flux scenarios: boosted DM in two-component models and cosmic-ray upscattered DM. The central result is a new exclusion reach down to about 10^-31 cm^2 in the keV–MeV mass range.

Significance. If robust, this is a worthwhile extension of electronic-collective-excitation searches to a class of hadrophilic DM models that are usually probed only by nuclear recoil. The paper makes good use of publicly available DarkELF results and public SENSEI data, and the kinematic requirement for direct plasmon excitation (v > 0.01c) is clearly identified. The main value is the demonstration that a semiconductor electron signal can constrain leptophobic DM despite the absence of a tree-level coupling to electrons. The result is, however, conditional on the normalization of the hadronic loop amplitude, which is not fixed in a scheme-independent way.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (5) and Eq. (9)] The loop coefficient c_loop in Eq. (5) is the overall normalization of the effective DM–electron interaction. The proton loop is logarithmically divergent, and the paper sets the cutoff to Lambda = m_p by hand. With Lambda = m_p, the logarithm is ln(4π e^{-γ_E}) ≈ 1.95; with Lambda = 4π m_p, the logarithm increases by about ln(16π^2) ≈ 5.1, so c_loop changes by a factor ~3.6. Since the rate in Eq. (9) scales as c_loop^2, every exclusion limit in Figs. 3 and 4 shifts by an order of magnitude. Thus the headline sensitivity of ~1e-31 cm^2 is not robust unless c_loop is obtained from a scheme-independent calculation or its uncertainty is quantified. At minimum, the authors should show the limits for two representative cutoff scales (e.g., Lambda=m_p and Lambda=4π m_p) and state the resulting shift in the quoted cross-section limits.
  2. [Sec. II, text after Eq. (5)] The claim that 'processes involving light mesons such as pion loops cancel out (see Ref. [62])' is load-bearing because it is part of the determination of c_loop. The paper does not reproduce the argument or state the symmetry that enforces the cancellation. If the cancellation is only approximate, or if higher hadronic states contribute, the effective DM–electron coupling changes and the limits in Figs. 3 and 4 are modified. The authors should present the loop calculation or at least a clear derivation of the cancellation to the level of detail needed to assess its reliability.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (13) and Fig. 4] The CRDM flux is computed under the assumption of a homogeneous cosmic-ray distribution with an effective distance D = 8.02 kpc, obtained by integrating the NFW profile along the line of sight out to 10 kpc. The CRDM exclusion line in Fig. 4 scales linearly with D. Even though the paper notes that an inhomogeneous and larger-volume CR distribution would give a larger D (hence a larger flux and stronger limits), the quoted CRDM line is still tied to this O(1) model assumption. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of the CRDM limit to D and to the CR spectrum model, for example by showing the limit for D = 16 kpc or for the benchmark values used in Refs. [77] and [97]. Without this, the CRDM constraint is not robust at the factor-of-a-few level.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'BDM with mχ1 = 1 MeV, mχ1 = 1 keV'; the second mass should presumably be mχ2 = 1 keV.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'Universes mass' (Introduction), 'Masssive' (Introduction), 'brenchmark' (Fig. 2 caption), and a missing space in '10^-10' in Fig. 4 axis label. A careful proofread is recommended.
  3. [Eq. (10) and Eq. (12)] The factor 2 in Eq. (10) is explained as accounting for two particles per annihilation, but Eq. (12) is quoted from the literature and may already include all-sky angular integration. Please clarify how the angular average used in Eq. (9) is consistent with the all-sky BDM flux in Eq. (12).
  4. [Sec. II, after Eq. (16)] The sentence 'The contribution from DM–electron scattering is suppressed by the proton loop and can therefore be neglected' is ambiguous: it refers to the CR upscattering of DM by cosmic-ray electrons. Please make this explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the rate is a fixed convolution of external inputs and the SENSEI data are used only to set limits, not to fit parameters.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The theoretical rate in Eq. (9) is built from three independent inputs: the DarkELF dielectric function [53], the hadronic-loop mixing amplitude with explicit loop factor c_loop in Eq. (5), and model fluxes for BDM/CRDM. The SENSEI 3-6 e- upper limits from Table I are then compared with the predicted event count to obtain exclusion contours; ar{\sigma}_{\chi n} appears as a linear prefactor of the rate and is constrained, not fitted. No equation is equivalent to its own input by construction. The loop-normalization choice Lambda=m_p in Eq. (5) is an explicitly stated regulator choice adopted from Ref. [62]; it affects all limits by an order-one factor, but that is a model-dependence/robustness issue, not circularity. The only author-overlapping citation is Ref. [58] (Liang, Su, Wu, Zhu), used mainly for the kinematic condition v_chi >~ 0.01c and the general rate formalism; this is supporting background rather than the load-bearing derivation of the new exclusion limits, so it does not make the argument self-referential. In particular, the paper does not fit a parameter to SENSEI and then relabel that fit as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central rate calculation depends on: (i) the loop coefficient c_loop whose normalization is fixed by Λ = m_p, (ii) the DarkELF dielectric function for silicon, and (iii) the astrophysical fluxes (BDM flux normalization and CRDM effective distance). These are the parameters and assumptions that most critically control the final exclusion limits.

free parameters (3)
  • Loop cutoff scale Λ = Λ = m_p = 938 MeV
    Set by hand in Eq. (5); it sets the overall size of the mixing coefficient c_loop and hence all rates and limits.
  • Effective distance D for CRDM = 8.02 kpc
    Obtained by integrating the NFW profile up to 10 kpc with ρ0 = 0.4 GeV/cm^3; the paper notes this is a lower bound on the true effective distance.
  • Benchmark annihilation cross section ⟨σv⟩ = 5×10^-26 cm^3/s
    Used to normalize the BDM flux in Eq. (12); not derived in this paper.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The hadronic loop mixing is dominated by the proton loop, with pion loops canceling exactly.
    Invoked in Section 2 after Eq. (5), citing Ref. [62] for the cancellation; this determines the strength of the loop-mediated coupling.
  • domain assumption The dielectric response of silicon is taken from the DarkELF package.
    Eq. (6) uses Im[-1/epsilon] from DarkELF [53]; the rate depends on the reliability of these first-principles calculations.
  • domain assumption The cosmic-ray distribution is homogeneous and line-of-sight integration is truncated at 10 kpc.
    Stated in the CRDM flux section; the paper acknowledges this underestimates the true CRDM flux, making the limits conservative.
  • standard math The bound-electron nonrelativistic limit, retaining only the time-like component of the current.
    Used in the second line of Eq. (3), following Ref. [58].
invented entities (1)
  • U(1)_B vector mediator V no independent evidence
    purpose: Mediates DM–nucleon interactions and, through a proton loop, induces an effective DM–electron coupling.
    Introduced in Eq. (1) as the standard leptophobic model; the paper does not provide new evidence for V beyond the literature.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12069 in / 6701 out tokens · 50211 ms · 2026-08-04T08:50:44.257277+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Some new-generation dark matter detection experiments are primarily designed to search for the dark matter-electron interactions, but they can also be utilized to probe models in which dark matter couples exclusively to nucleon via the quantum effects. The hadronic loop-induced interactions can directly excite plasmons in semiconductors, thereby providing an additional channel for detecting the leptophobic dark matter. In this work, we investigate plasmon excitations in silicon detectors induced by boosted dark matter and cosmic-ray up-scattering dark matter via the hadronic loop process. By analyzing the available experimental data, we derive new exclusion limits on the leptophobic dark matter-nucleon scattering cross section in the sub-MeV mass range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.18338 by Bin Zhu, Liangliang Su, Ning Liu, Yifan Hu, Yuanlin Gong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic diagram of LDM-electron scattering pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top panel: The differential event rate dR/dω as a function of the deposited energy ω; Bottom panel: Event rate RZ as a function of the ionized charge Z. The solid lines denotes the BDM with mχ1 = 1 MeV, mχ1 = 1 keV and thermally averaged the annihilation cross section ⟨σv⟩ = 5 × 10−26cm3 /s. The dashed lines are the results of 1 keV CRDM. The brenchmark DM-nucleon scattering cross section is ¯σχn = 10−32 c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The 90% confidence level exclusion limits on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 90% C.L. upper limits on the LDM-nucleon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 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

    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. Constraints on Axion-Like Particles with the Silicon Detector at a Nuclear Reactor

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    New 90% C.L. limits on the ALP–photon coupling in the 0.1–100 keV range are derived from Connie and Atucha-II reactor data via plasmon excitation in silicon; a 30 kg·yr Oscura-style run could improve on NEON by about tenfold.

  3. Probing freeze-in dark matter using Bose-Einstein condensate in neutron star

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Bose-Einstein condensate formation in neutron stars enhances dark matter annihilation by 10^15-10^20, allowing freeze-in models to produce observable heating and probe neutrino-fog scattering cross-sections.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 95 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    In this model, the DM consists of two species,χ 1 andχ 2, with the massesm χ1 > mχ2

    Boosted DM in two-component DM model: A commonly studied framework for relativistic DM is boosted DM in the two-component DM model. In this model, the DM consists of two species,χ 1 andχ 2, with the massesm χ1 > mχ2 . The heavier DMχ 1, which constitutes the dominant DM component, does not cou- ple directly to SM particles and achieves the correct relic a...

  2. [2]

    In this framework, the DM halo in the Milky 4 Way can be accelerated by the scattering between high- energy cosmic-ray and DM

    Cosmic-ray up-scattering DM:Apart from the BDM in two-component DM model, another popu- lar relativistic component of the DM flux in recent years arises from cosmic-ray up-scattering DM, which is short for CRDM. In this framework, the DM halo in the Milky 4 Way can be accelerated by the scattering between high- energy cosmic-ray and DM. Therefore, the dif...

    2015

  3. [3]

    B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.39, 165 (1977)

    1977

  4. [4]

    Bo et al

    Z. Bo et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 011805 (2025), 2408.00664

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025), 2410.17036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON) (2025), 2502.18005

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D85, 076007 (2012), 1108.5383

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Zhao, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 011301 (2016), 1504.07237. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Hochberg, T

    Y. Hochberg, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 94, 015019 (2016), 1604.06800

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Derenzo, R

    S. Derenzo, R. Essig, A. Massari, A. Soto, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D96, 016026 (2017), 1607.01009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    M. Ibe, W. Nakano, Y. Shoji, and K. Suzuki, JHEP03, 194 (2018), 1707.07258

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    M. J. Dolan, F. Kahlhoefer, and C. McCabe, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 101801 (2018), 1711.09906

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D96, 115021 (2017), 1709.07882

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Pradler, M. Sholapurkar, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 021801 (2020), 1908.10881

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    V. V. Flambaum, L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 271011 (2023), 2012.09751

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    G. Elor, R. McGehee, and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 031803 (2023), 2112.03920

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D105, 055021 (2022), 2105.06326

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Calabrese, M

    R. Calabrese, M. Chianese, D. F. G. Fiorillo, and N. Sa- viano, Phys. Rev. D105, 103024 (2022), 2203.17093

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Liang, C

    Z.-L. Liang, C. Mo, F. Zheng, and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D106, 043004 (2022), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 109901 (2022)], 2205.03395

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    J. Li, L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, JCAP04, 020 (2023), 2210.15474

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Y. Gu, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D106, 075004 (2022), 2203.06664

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    L. Su, L. Wu, N. Zhou, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D108, 035004 (2023), 2212.02286

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Li et al

    S. Li et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 261001 (2023), 2212.10067

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Liang, Y

    J.-H. Liang, Y. Liao, X.-D. Ma, and H.-L. Wang, Phys. Rev. D110, L091701 (2024), 2405.04855

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Balan et al., JCAP01, 053 (2025), 2405.17548

    S. Balan et al., JCAP01, 053 (2025), 2405.17548

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    P. N. Bhattiprolu, R. McGehee, E. Petrosky, and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. D111, 035027 (2025), 2408.07744

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    F. Lin, N. Liu, L. Su, and L. Wu (2025), 2504.13007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    S. M. Griffin, G. D. Hadas, Y. Hochberg, K. Inzani, and B. V. Lehmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 141803 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Cheek, P

    A. Cheek, P. Figueroa, G. Herrera, and I. M. Shoemaker (2025), 2507.15956

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Li, C.-T

    L. Li, C.-T. Lu, A. K. Mishra, L. Su, and L. Wu (2025), 2509.11906

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, S. Rajendran, and M. T. Walters, Phys. Dark Univ.1, 32 (2012), 1203.2531

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  32. [32]

    Essig, M

    R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP05, 046 (2016), 1509.01598

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Hochberg, T

    Y. Hochberg, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 95, 023013 (2017), 1608.01994

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, M. Pyle, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Lett. B785, 386 (2018), 1712.06598

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    N. A. Kurinsky, T. C. Yu, Y. Hochberg, and B. Cabrera, Phys. Rev. D99, 123005 (2019), 1901.07569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Trickle, Z

    T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 201801 (2020), 1905.13744

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Coskuner, A

    A. Coskuner, A. Mitridate, A. Olivares, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D103, 016006 (2021), 1909.09170

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    R. M. Geilhufe, F. Kahlhoefer, and M. W. Winkler, Phys. Rev. D101, 055005 (2020), 1910.02091

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    S. M. Griffin, Y. Hochberg, K. Inzani, N. Kurinsky, T. Lin, and T. Chin, Phys. Rev. D103, 075002 (2021), 2008.08560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Andersson, A

    E. Andersson, A. B¨ okmark, R. Catena, T. Emken, H. K. Moberg, and E. ˚Astrand, JCAP05, 036 (2020), 2001.08910

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Esposito and S

    A. Esposito and S. Pavaskar, Phys. Rev. D108, L011901 (2023), 2210.13516

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Autti et al

    S. Autti et al. (QUEST-DMC), Eur. Phys. J. C84, 248 (2024), 2310.11304

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Toschi et al

    F. Toschi et al. (DELight), Phys. Rev. D111, 032013 (2025), 2410.13684

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Baudis et al

    L. Baudis et al. (QROCODILE) (2024), 2412.16279

    arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Aguilar-Arevalo et al

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (DAMIC), Phys. Rev. D94, 082006 (2016), 1607.07410

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    Barak et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Arnaud et al

    Q. Arnaud et al. (EDEL WEISS), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 141301 (2020), 2003.01046

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    D. W. Amaral et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. D102, 091101 (2020), 2005.14067

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Aguilar-Arevalo et al

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (Oscura) (2022), 2202.10518

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Z. Y. Zhang et al. (CDEX), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 221301 (2022), 2206.04128

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    I. M. Bloch et al. (SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 161002 (2025), 2410.18716

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Aggarwal et al

    K. Aggarwal et al. (DAMIC-M), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 071002 (2025), 2503.14617

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Abbamonte et al

    P. Abbamonte et al. (2025), 2507.17782

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Knapen, J

    S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Phys. Rev. D104, 015031 (2021), 2101.08275

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Knapen, J

    S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Phys. Rev. D105, 015014 (2022), 2104.12786

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    C. Boyd, Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, E. D. Kramer, N. Kurinsky, B. V. Lehmann, and T. C. Yu, Phys. Rev. D108, 015015 (2023), 2212.04505

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    C. E. Dreyer, R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, A. Sin- gal, and C. Zhen, Phys. Rev. D109, 115008 (2024), 2306.14944

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Kurinsky, D

    N. Kurinsky, D. Baxter, Y. Kahn, and G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. D102, 015017 (2020), 2002.06937

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    Hochberg, D

    Y. Hochberg, D. Novko, R. Ovadia, and A. Politano (2025), 2507.07164

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Liang, L

    Z.-L. Liang, L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 071001 (2025), 2401.11971

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Essig, R

    R. Essig, R. Plestid, and A. Singal, Commun. Phys.7, 416 (????), 2403.00123

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  62. [62]

    J.-W. Sun, L. Wu, Y.-H. Xu, and B. Zhu (2025), 2501.07591

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    J. B. Dent, B. A. Friedman, J. L. Newstead, and S. Sab- harwal (2025), 2510.06574

    arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Diamond, C

    M. Diamond, C. V. Cappiello, A. C. Vincent, and J. Bramante, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 051001 (2024), 2307.13727

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Batell, P

    B. Batell, P. deNiverville, D. McKeen, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D90, 115014 (2014), 1405.7049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  66. [66]

    Coloma, B

    P. Coloma, B. A. Dobrescu, C. Frugiuele, and R. Harnik, JHEP04, 047 (2016), 1512.03852

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    J. A. Dror, R. Lasenby, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 141803 (2017), 1705.06726

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    Berlin, N

    A. Berlin, N. Blinov, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D99, 075001 (2019), 1807.01730

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    Boyarsky, O

    A. Boyarsky, O. Mikulenko, M. Ovchynnikov, and L. Shchutska, JHEP03, 006 (2022), 2104.09688

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  70. [70]

    Agashe, Y

    K. Agashe, Y. Cui, L. Necib, and J. Thaler, JCAP10, 062 (2014), 1405.7370. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  71. [71]

    Fornal, P

    B. Fornal, P. Sandick, J. Shu, M. Su, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 161804 (2020), 2006.11264

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    Borah, M

    D. Borah, M. Dutta, S. Mahapatra, and N. Sahu, Phys. Lett. B820, 136577 (2021), 2104.05656

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    A. Basu, A. Chakraborty, N. Kumar, and S. Sadhukhan, Phys. Rev. D111, 095016 (2025), 2310.09349

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    J. Li, T. Nomura, J. Pei, X. Yin, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D108, 035021 (2023), 2302.09839

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    Choi and J.-C

    K. Choi and J.-C. Park (2024), 2409.05646

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Alhazmi, D

    H. Alhazmi, D. Kim, K. Kong, G. Mohlabeng, J.-C. Park, and S. Shin (2025), 2503.13598

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Bringmann and M

    T. Bringmann and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 171801 (2019), 1810.10543

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    Y. Ema, F. Sala, and R. Sato, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 181802 (2019), 1811.00520

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    C. V. Cappiello and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103011 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 104, 069901 (2021)], 1906.11283

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  80. [80]

    W. Wang, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, H. Zhou, and B. Zhu, JHEP12, 072 (2020), [Erratum: JHEP 02, 052 (2021)], 1912.09904

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.