Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 2 cited by

The SENSEI experiment finds no daily modulation in its single-electron rate, sets a 90% C.L. amplitude limit of 6.8 electrons per gram per day, and improves sub-MeV dark-matter–electron bounds by an order of magnitude.

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 08:22 UTC pith:67K7GUDA

load-bearing objection Solid null result and a new model-dependent bound for sub-GeV DM, with a nagging issue about the Earth-velocity date that needs fixing before publication. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2510.20889 v1 pith:67K7GUDA submitted 2025-10-23 hep-ex astro-ph.COhep-ph

SENSEI: A Search for Diurnal Modulation in sub-GeV Dark Matter Scattering

Itay M. Bloch , Ana M. Botti , Mariano Cababie , Gustavo Cancelo , Brenda A. Cervantes-Vergara , Miguel Daal , Ansh Desai , Alex Drlica-Wagner
show 23 more authors
Rouven Essig Juan Estrada Erez Etzion Guillermo Fernandez Moroni Stephen E. Holland Jonathan Kehat Ian Lawson Steffon Luoma Aviv Orly Santiago E. Perez Dario Rodrigues Nathan A. Saffold Silvia Scorza Miguel Sofo-Haro Kelly Stifter Javier Tiffenberg Sho Uemura Edgar Marrufo Villalpando Tomer Volansky Federico Winkel Yikai Wu Tien-Tien Yu Xavier Bertou
This is my paper
classification hep-ex astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords dark mattersub-GeV dark matterdaily modulationsidereal modulationEarth scatteringSkipper-CCDdark photondirect detection
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 dark matter that scatters off ordinary matter in the Earth can reveal itself through a daily rhythm in an underground detector. Because the Earth rotates, the angle between the detector and the incoming dark-matter wind—the isodetection angle—sweeps over a sidereal day, so any strong-enough dark-matter–nucleus interaction imprints a sinusoid on the event rate. Using SENSEI's Skipper-CCD data from 141 six-hour exposures, the experiment finds no such modulation: the single-electron rate is statistically compatible with a time-independent Poisson background. The null result caps any daily modulation amplitude at 6.8 electrons per gram per day at 90% confidence, and for dark-photon-mediated dark matter below about 1 MeV it improves previous direct-detection cross-section limits by roughly an order of magnitude. The work matters because it demonstrates that daily modulation from Earth-scattering is an observable that can probe below the background floor that limits rate-only searches.

Core claim

On the model-independent side, the paper finds no statistically significant sidereal daily modulation in the number of single-electron events, yielding a 90% C.L. upper limit of a1 ≤ 6.8 e− g−1 day−1 on the amplitude of a daily sine term. On the model-dependent side, assuming the Standard Halo Model with a Maxwell–Boltzmann velocity distribution (v0 = 238 km/s, vesc = 544 km/s), dark-photon-mediated dark matter with masses below about 1 MeV is excluded for electron-scattering cross sections roughly an order of magnitude stronger than previously published direct-detection bounds. The analysis uses a profile-likelihood ratio test statistic, is validated with bootstrap resampling of timestamps,

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by two tools: the isodetection angle Θ(t), the time-varying angle between the local zenith and the direction of the incoming dark-matter wind, whose daily sweep (between about 10° and 86° at the detector's latitude) converts any Earth-scattering effect into a sinusoidal rate modulation; and a simulation chain — DaMaSCUS for full 3D Monte Carlo propagation of dark matter through the Earth with energy loss and deflection, feeding a modified QCDark that includes a charge-screening-corrected silicon response — which turns a dark-matter–nucleus scattering model into a predicted time-dependent single-electron rate. The model-independent search uses a single one-cycle-per-da

Load-bearing premise

The model-dependent exclusions rely on the Standard Halo Model Maxwell–Boltzmann velocity distribution (v0 = 238 km/s, vesc = 544 km/s) and on the DaMaSCUS/QCDark simulations accurately describing dark-matter scattering through the Earth and the silicon response; if the halo is non-Maxwellian or these Earth-scattering/screening models are wrong, the cross-section limits shift, although the unmodulated null result itself does not depend on them.

What would settle it

The null result would be falsified by a larger or differently placed exposure that measures a daily modulation amplitude above 6.8 e− g−1 day−1 with no known background explanation. The model-dependent limits would be falsified by a direct measurement of the halo velocity distribution showing pronounced non-Maxwellian structure, or by an independent calibration of the silicon ionization response that disagrees with the screening-corrected QCDark model at few-eV energies.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Any daily modulation of the single-electron rate with amplitude above 6.8 e− g−1 day−1 is excluded at 90% C.L., showing that the low-energy background at SENSEI is stable on the timescale of a sidereal day.
  • For dark-photon-mediated dark matter with masses between about 0.6 and 1 MeV, the allowed electron-scattering cross-section is now roughly an order of magnitude smaller than previous direct-detection bounds.
  • The model-independent limit, recast into the model-dependent plane, is only slightly weaker than the full spectral fit, showing that a simple daily-sine search captures most of the sensitivity of this dataset.
  • The result demonstrates that daily-modulation searches can probe dark-matter interactions even when the unmodulated signal is buried under background, a technique that carries over to other low-threshold detectors.
  • The sensitivity scales with exposure; combining longer data-taking periods with the same analysis would push the amplitude limit below 6.8 e− g−1 day−1.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The null amplitude bound is largely independent of the halo velocity model, but the cross-section exclusion curves would shift under a non-Maxwellian halo; reporting limits under multiple halo models would make the constraint more robust.
  • Applying the same daily-modulation analysis to a detector at a different latitude would change the isodetection-angle range, breaking degeneracies between Earth-scattering physics and the local halo velocity distribution.
  • The less-than-10% shift in limits under a scaled-Poisson background model suggests the result is not dominated by the non-Poissonian tail of the detector noise; extending this robustness test to time-correlated backgrounds would further strengthen the null result.
  • A dedicated search for modulation at harmonics of the sidereal frequency, beyond the single one-cycle-per-day sine, could, with larger exposure, probe anisotropic scattering effects that produce non-sinusoidal time signatures.

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

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper reports a search for a daily modulation in the single-electron rate of the SENSEI Skipper-CCD detector at Fermilab's MINOS cavern, using 141 six-hour images collected between 29 Feb and 16 May 2024. A model-independent fit of a one-day sinusoid to the time-binned 1e− rate finds no significant modulation and sets a 90% C.L. amplitude limit a1 ≤ 6.8 e− g−1 day−1. For a dark-photon mediator with a Standard Halo Model Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution, the authors use DaMaSCUS/QCDark to compute Earth-scattering–modified rates and set 90% C.L. cross-section limits on σe as a function of mχ, reporting an order-of-magnitude improvement over previous direct-detection limits for mχ ≲ 1 MeV. The statistical treatment uses profile-likelihood-ratio tests with MC-based p-values, a bootstrap consistency test for the time-independent Poisson background, a scaled-Poisson robustness check, and expected sensitivity bands.

Significance. If the quoted limits hold, this is a valuable new constraint in the sub-GeV DM mass range, particularly for the single-electron channel where previous bounds were weak. The analysis has several genuine strengths: a hidden/blinded dataset, p-values computed from toy Monte Carlo rather than asymptotic formulae, a bootstrap test validating the time-independent background assumption under the chosen test statistic, an explicit scaled-Poisson cross-check showing the limit curves shift by less than 10%, and an observed model-dependent limit that falls within the expected 2σ band. The model-independent amplitude limit is a simple, reproducible quantity. However, the two time-modeling issues discussed below affect the central quantitative claims and need to be resolved before the quoted limits can be accepted as final.

major comments (2)
  1. [Signal Modeling / Eq. (4) and Fig. 3] The text states: 'The Earth's velocity is computed as a function of time and evaluated on March 3rd, 2024, corresponding to the midpoint of the data-taking period.' The dataset spans 29 February to 16 May 2024, whose midpoint is approximately 8 April, not 3 March. The model-dependent signal S(µ) depends on v_lab(t) through the isoangle Θ(t); using a velocity vector evaluated 35 days early changes the phase and amplitude of the predicted daily modulation. Because the headline order-of-magnitude improvement is derived from the exclusion curves in Fig. 3, this is not a purely cosmetic issue. Please rerun the analysis with the true time-dependent v_lab(t), or at minimum with the correct mid-run date, and verify that the limits are unchanged; also add a robustness scan over the assumed date. If 'March 3' is a typographical error, please state so explicitly and confirm that the code actually u
  2. [Eq. (1), Eq. (5), and Statistical Treatment] The period of the fitted sinusoid in Eq. (1) is not defined. The Earth-scattering modulation discussed in the paper is sidereal, with a period of 23.934 h, but Eq. (1) sets ω = 1/day without specifying whether 'day' is sidereal or solar. Over the 75-day run, the difference accumulates to about 5 h, comparable to the 6-h exposure window. A solar-day template fitted to a sidereal signal can bias the reconstructed amplitude a1 and therefore the quoted limit in Eq. (5). Please specify the time convention used for image timestamps and for ω in Eq. (1); if the fit used a 24-h period, demonstrate that the result is stable when the sidereal period is used, or justify the approximation quantitatively.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption swaps the equation references: the blue band is described as 'model-dependent (Eq. (1))' and the yellow band as 'model-independent (Eq. (4))'; Eq. (4) is the model-dependent signal and Eq. (1) is the model-independent signal.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The parameter list µ=(mχ, σe, t) should be µ=(mχ, σe); t is the integration variable, not a free parameter.
  3. [Results] The sentence 'For the signal models defined in Eqs. (1) and (2)' should refer to Eqs. (1) and (4); Eq. (2) is the differential rate formula, not the time-dependent signal model.
  4. [Statistical Treatment / Supplemental] There is an inconsistency in the discovery threshold: the main text reports p-value > 0.001 for no evidence, while the Supplemental Materials state that a signal is declared if the p-value falls below 0.01. Please make the threshold consistent and report the actual smallest p-value observed.
  5. [Eq. (2)] The quantity vmin in Eq. (2) is not defined, and the integration limits over q are not given. Please add the standard definitions for completeness.
  6. [Abstract / Eq. (1)] The abstract's phrase 'general daily modulation signal' overstates what Eq. (1) constrains. Equation (1) fits only the first harmonic at a fixed one-day period; higher harmonics and modulations at other periods are not bounded. Suggest phrasing the limit as a bound on the first-harmonic amplitude of a daily modulation, or demonstrate that the physical modulation is dominated by this harmonic.
  7. [Fig. 2 text] The text reads 'σe = 5×10^{-32},cm^2' with a stray comma; should be '5×10^{-32} cm^2'.
  8. [Data Reconstruction & Selection] The decision not to apply the hot-image mask is motivated by the risk of introducing or hiding a modulation, but the paper does not report a check of hot-pixel stability as a function of time. Please state whether this was verified, since unmasked hot pixels could in principle produce a false time-varying signal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity found; the analysis is an experimental null result with limits computed from external simulations and not from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is an inference from observed event counts, not a construction in which outputs are baked into inputs. The model-independent signal (Eq. 1) is a one-parameter sine amplitude; the quoted result (Eq. 5) is the 90% CL bound on that fitted amplitude. The model-dependent signal (Eq. 4) is computed by DaMaSCUS [19] and a modified QCDark [20,36,37], with an explicit SHM halo (v0=238 km/s, vesc=544 km/s); the model parameters (m_chi, sigma_e) are scanned and constrained by the data rather than obtained from the data and then repackaged as a prediction. The theoretical prediction [20] is by overlapping authors, but it is a pre-existing, parameterized prediction that the SENSEI data test; it is not a fit to the SENSEI modulation data, so the self-citation is not a circular load. The bootstrap and Scaled-Poisson checks address background assumptions internally and do not redefine the signal. The only notable concern is a possible date inconsistency ('March 3rd, 2024, corresponding to the midpoint...' while the run spans 29 Feb-16 May 2024); that is a modeling/timing correctness risk for the model-dependent limits, not a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model-dependent limits rely on standard astrophysical inputs (SHM velocity parameters, local DM density), the dark-photon mediator model, the silicon ionization/screening response, and Earth-scattering simulation codes. These are adopted from prior literature, including self-cited works [20,36]; no new particles or ad-hoc entities are introduced. The fitted parameters are background rates, the bounded modulation amplitude, and a robustness scale factor.

free parameters (3)
  • per-quadrant background rates b_q (8 values) = not tabulated; ~(1.09–2.46)e-5 e−/pixel in 1e− density
    Nuisance parameters in the Poisson likelihood (Eq. 6), estimated from the time-averaged data; they do not determine the signal model.
  • Model-independent modulation amplitude a_1 and phase φ = a_1 ≤ 6.8 e− g−1 day−1 (90% C.L. bound)
    Signal parameters in Eq. (1); the paper reports a limit on a_1, so this is the measured quantity rather than an ad hoc input.
  • Scaled-Poisson scale factor c = 1.9
    Robustness cross-check only (Supplemental Eq. 10); used to model over-dispersed background and shown not to change limits by more than 10%.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Standard Halo Model with Maxwell–Boltzmann velocity distribution (v0=238 km/s, vesc=544 km/s)
    Adopted from Ref. [27]; used for all model-dependent limits; non-Maxwellian halos would change the modulation amplitude–cross-section mapping (Signal Modeling section).
  • domain assumption Local dark matter density ρχ = 0.3 GeV/cm^3
    Input to Eq. (2); taken from Ref. [27]; standard but carries astrophysical uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Dark-photon kinetic-mixing model with FDM(q) = (αme/q)^n, n=0 or 2
    Model choice from cited Refs. [2,3,5,24,25]; the Earth-shielding effect requires DM–nucleus scattering linked to the electron scattering via this model.
  • domain assumption Silicon ionization response f_res(Ee,q) from [35] and charge-screening from [36,37]
    Converts deposited energy into single-electron yield; the screening correction is from coauthored Ref. [36].
  • domain assumption DaMaSCUS Earth-composition/scattering simulation and QCDark integration accurately describe DM propagation and detector response
    Limits are computed by convolving these simulations with the likelihood; errors in Earth composition, scattering form factors, or multiple-scatter treatment shift the limits (Refs. [19,20,36]).
  • standard math Profile-likelihood test statistic distribution from toy MC is valid
    Standard Cowan et al. [38] construction with MC-generated PDFs; bootstrap validates the Poisson background assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14553 in / 17017 out tokens · 156458 ms · 2026-08-04T08:22:10.931118+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SENSEI: A Search for Diurnal Modulation in sub-GeV Dark Matter Scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/67K7GUDA

@misc{pith2026251020889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SENSEI: A Search for Diurnal Modulation in sub-GeV Dark Matter Scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/67K7GUDA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.20889}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Dark matter particles with sufficiently large interactions with ordinary matter can scatter in the Earth's atmosphere and crust before reaching an underground detector. This Earth-shielding effect can induce a directional dependence in the dark matter flux, leading to a sidereal daily modulation in the signal rate. We perform a search for such a modulation using data from the SENSEI experiment, targeting MeV-scale dark matter. We achieve an order-of-magnitude improvement in sensitivity over previous direct-detection bounds for dark-matter masses below 1 MeV, assuming the Standard Halo Model with a Maxwell--Boltzmann velocity distribution, and constrain the amplitude of a general daily modulation signal to be below 6.8 electrons per gram per day.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.20889 by Alex Drlica-Wagner, Ana M. Botti, Ansh Desai, Aviv Orly, Brenda A. Cervantes-Vergara, Dario Rodrigues, Edgar Marrufo Villalpando, Erez Etzion, Federico Winkel, Guillermo Fernandez Moroni, Gustavo Cancelo, Ian Lawson, Itay M. Bloch, Javier Tiffenberg, Jonathan Kehat, Juan Estrada, Kelly Stifter, Mariano Cababie, Miguel Daal, Miguel Sofo-Haro, Nathan A. Saffold, Rouven Essig, Santiago E. Perez, Sho Uemura, Silvia Scorza, Steffon Luoma, Stephen E. Holland, Tien-Tien Yu, Tomer Volansky, Xavier Bertou, Yikai Wu.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison of the fluctuation around the average of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. 90% C.L. upper-limits on the DM electron scattering cross-section for a light ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Measured single-electron event spectrum from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of our main results obtained with the scaled-Poisson background model (blue) and the Poisson background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Expected sensitivity bands for DM-electron interactions via light ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. 90% C.L. upper-limits on the DM electron scattering cross-section for light ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.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 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Dark Matter Weather: Probing Sub-GeV Interactions with Earth-Shielding Modulation

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Daily Earth-shielding modulation of sub-GeV dark matter can separate dark-matter–electron from dark-matter–nucleon scattering, and the isoangle shape statistic provides a new validation handle for liquid-noble detectors.

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

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Battaglieriet al., inU.S

    M. Battaglieriet al., inU.S. Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter(2017) arXiv:1707.04591 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  2. [3]

    Essig, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [4]

    Essig, A

    R. Essig, A. Manalaysay, J. Mardon, P. Sorensen, and T. Volansky, Physical Review Letters109(2012), 10.1103/physrevlett.109.021301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.021301 2012

  4. [5]

    Essig, M

    R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP05, 046 (2016), arXiv:1509.01598 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [6]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, S. Rajendran, and M. T. Walters, Phys. Dark Univ.1, 32 (2012), arXiv:1203.2531 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  6. [7]

    Tiffenberg, M

    J. Tiffenberg, M. Sofo-Haro, A. Drlica-Wagner, R. Es- sig, Y. Guardincerri, S. Holland, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, Physical Review Letters119(2017), 10.1103/phys- revlett.119.131802

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2017

  7. [8]

    Barak, I

    L. Barak, I. M. Bloch, M. Cababie, G. Cancelo, L. Chap- linsky, F. Chierchie, M. Crisler, A. Drlica-Wagner, R. Es- sig, J. Estrada, E. Etzion, G. F. Moroni, D. Gift, S. Mu- nagavalasa, A. Orly, D. Rodrigues, A. Singal, M. S. Haro, L.Stefanazzi, J.Tiffenberg, S.Uemura, T.Volansky, and T.-T. Yu (SENSEI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 171802 (2020)

    2020

  8. [9]

    P. Du, D. Egana-Ugrinovic, R. Essig, and M. Shola- purkar, Phys. Rev. X12, 011009 (2022)

    2022

  9. [10]

    P. Du, D. Egaña Ugrinovic, R. Essig, and M. Shola- purkar, (2023), arXiv:2310.03068 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [11]

    Baxter, R

    D. Baxter, R. Essig, Y. Hochberg, M. Kaznacheeva, B. von Krosigk, F. Reindl, R. K. Romani, and F. Wagner, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75, 301 (2025), arXiv:2503.08859 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [12]

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

    1986

  12. [13]

    Kouvaris and N

    C. Kouvaris and N. G. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. D92, 075016 (2015)

    2015

  13. [14]

    Sikivie and S

    P. Sikivie and S. Wick, Physical Review D66(2002), 10.1103/physrevd.66.023504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.023504 2002

  14. [15]

    M. S. Alenazi and P. Gondolo, Physical Review D74 10 (2006), 10.1103/physrevd.74.083518

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.083518 2006

  15. [16]

    Collar and F

    J. Collar and F. Avignone, Physics Letters B275, 181 (1992)

    1992

  16. [17]

    J. I. Collar and F. T. Avignone, Phys. Rev. D47, 5238 (1993)

    1993

  17. [18]

    Hasenbalg, D

    F. Hasenbalg, D. Abriola, J. I. Collar, D. E. Di Gregorio, A. O. Gattone, H. Huck, D. Tomasi, and I. Urteaga, Physical Review D55, 7350–7355 (1997)

    1997

  18. [19]

    Emken and C

    T. Emken and C. Kouvaris, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017, 031–031 (2017)

    2017

  19. [20]

    Earth-scattering induced modula- tion in low-threshold dark matter experiments,

    X. Bertou, A. Desai, T. Emken, R. Essig, T. Volan- sky, and T.-T. Yu, “Earth-scattering induced modula- tion in low-threshold dark matter experiments,” (2025), arXiv:2507.00344 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [21]

    D. S. Akerib, S. Alsum, H. M. Araújo, X. Bai, J. Bal- ajthy, P. Beltrame, E. P. Bernard, A. Bernstein, T. P. Biesiadzinski, E. M. Boulton, B. Boxer, P. Brás, S. Bur- din, D. Byram, M. C. Carmona-Benitez, C. Chan, J. E. Cutter, T. J. R. Davison, E. Druszkiewicz, S. R. Fallon, A. Fan, S. Fiorucci, R. J. Gaitskell, J. Genovesi, C. Ghag, M. G. D. Gilchriese, ...

    2018

  21. [22]

    Arnquist, N

    I. Arnquist, N. Avalos, D. Baxter, X. Bertou, N. Castelló- Mor, A. Chavarria, J. Cuevas-Zepeda, A. Dastgheibi- Fard, C. De Dominicis, O. Deligny, J. Duarte- Campderros, E. Estrada, N. Gadola, R. Gaïor, T. Hoss- bach, L. Iddir, B. Kavanagh, B. Kilminster, A. Lantero- Barreda, I. Lawson, S. Lee, A. Letessier-Selvon, P. Loaiza, A. Lopez-Virto, K. McGuire, P....

    2024

  22. [23]

    I. M. Bloch, A. M. Botti, M. Cababie, G. Cancelo, B. A. Cervantes-Vergara, M. Daal, A. Desai, A. Drlica-Wagner, R. Essig, J. Estrada, E. Etzion, G. F. Moroni, S. E. Hol- land, J. Kehat, I. Lawson, S. Luoma, A. Orly, S. E. Perez, D. Rodrigues, N. A. Saffold, S. Scorza, M. Sofo-Haro, K. Stifter, J. Tiffenberg, S. Uemura, E. M. Villalpando, T. Volansky, F. W...

    2025

  23. [24]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett.166B, 196 (1986)

    1986

  24. [25]

    Galison and A

    P. Galison and A. Manohar, Phys. Lett.136B, 279 (1984)

    1984

  25. [26]

    Emken, R

    T. Emken, R. Essig, C. Kouvaris, and M. Sholapurkar, JCAP09, 070 (2019), arXiv:1905.06348 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [27]

    Baxter, I

    D. Baxter, I. M. Bloch, E. Bodnia, X. Chen, J. Con- rad, P. Di Gangi, J. E. Y. Dobson, D. Durnford, S. J. Haselschwardt, A. Kaboth, R. F. Lang, Q. Lin, W. H. Lippincott, J. Liu, A. Manalaysay, C. McCabe, K. D. Morå, D. Naim, R. Neilson, I. Olcina, M. C. Piro, M. Selvi, B. von Krosigk, S. Westerdale, Y. Yang, and N. Zhou, The European Physical Journal C81(...

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09655-y 2021

  27. [28]

    Catena and P

    R. Catena and P. Ullio, JCAP08, 004 (2010), arXiv:0907.0018 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  28. [29]

    Salucci, F

    P. Salucci, F. Nesti, G. Gentile, and C. F. Martins, Astron. Astrophys.523, A83 (2010), arXiv:1003.3101 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  29. [30]

    J. I. Read, J. Phys. G41, 063101 (2014), arXiv:1404.1938 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [31]

    P. F. de Salas and A. Widmark, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, 104901 (2021), arXiv:2012.11477 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [32]

    S. H. Lim, E. Putney, M. R. Buckley, and D. Shih, JCAP 01, 021 (2025), arXiv:2305.13358 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [33]

    A. M. Green, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics44, 084001 (2017)

    2017

  33. [34]

    Emken,Dark Matter in the Earth and the Sun – Sim- ulating Underground Scatterings for the Direct Detection of Low-Mass Dark Matter, Ph.D

    T. Emken,Dark Matter in the Earth and the Sun – Sim- ulating Underground Scatterings for the Direct Detection of Low-Mass Dark Matter, Ph.D. thesis, Southern Den- mark U., CP3-Origins (2019), arXiv:1906.07541 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [35]

    Ramanathan and N

    K. Ramanathan and N. Kurinsky, Phys. Rev. D102, 063026 (2020)

    2020

  35. [36]

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

    2024

  36. [37]

    Cappellini, R

    G. Cappellini, R. Del Sole, L. Reining, and F. Bechstedt, Phys. Rev. B47, 9892 (1993)

    1993

  37. [38]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, The European Physical Journal C71, 1 (2011)

    2011

  38. [39]

    Efron, The Annals of Statistics7, 1 (1979)

    B. Efron, The Annals of Statistics7, 1 (1979)

    1979

  39. [40]

    Efron and R

    B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani,An Introduction to the Bootstrap(Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York, NY, 1993)

    1993

  40. [41]

    Emken, R

    T. Emken, R. Essig, and H. Xu, JCAP07, 023 (2024), arXiv:2404.10066 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [42]

    H. An, H. Nie, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D104, 103026 (2021), arXiv:2108.10332 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [43]

    Aprile, J

    E. Aprile, J. Aalbers, K. Abe, S. Ahmed Maouloud, L. Althueser, B. Andrieu, E. Angelino, D. Antón Martin, F. Arneodo, L. Baudis,et al., Physical Review Letters 134, 161004 (2025)

    2025

  43. [44]

    X. Chu, T. Hambye, and M. H. G. Tytgat, JCAP1205, 034 (2012), arXiv:1112.0493 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  44. [45]

    Dvorkin, T

    C. Dvorkin, T. Lin, and K. Schutz, Phys. Rev.D99, 115009 (2019), arXiv:1902.08623 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [46]

    Boehm and P

    C. Boehm and P. Fayet, Nucl. Phys.B683, 219 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0305261 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  46. [47]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [48]

    Lin, H.-B

    T. Lin, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, Phys.Rev.D85, 063503 (2012), arXiv:1111.0293 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  48. [49]

    Izaguirre, G

    E. Izaguirre, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 251301 (2015), arXiv:1505.00011 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [50]

    Hochberg, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  50. [51]

    Kuflik, M

    E. Kuflik, M. Perelstein, N. R.-L. Lorier, and Y.-D. Tsai, JHEP08, 078 (2017), arXiv:1706.05381 [hep-ph]. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [52]

    R. T. D’Agnolo, D. Pappadopulo, J. T. Ruderman, and P.-J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 151801 (2020), arXiv:1906.09269 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [53]

    Adari, I

    P. Adari, I. M. Bloch, A. M. Botti, M. Cababie, G. Can- celo, B. A. Cervantes-Vergara, M. Crisler, M. Daal, A. Desai, A. Drlica-Wagner,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13342 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [54]

    Aggarwal, I

    K. Aggarwal, I. Arnquist, N. Avalos, X. Bertou, N. Castelló-Mor, A. Chavarria, J. Cuevas-Zepeda, A. Dastgheibi-Fard, C. De Dominicis, O. Deligny,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14617 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [55]

    Arnquistet al.(DAMIC-M), Phys

    I. Arnquistet al.(DAMIC-M), Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 101006 (2024), arXiv:2307.07251 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [56]

    Barak, I

    L. Barak, I. M. Bloch, A. Botti, M. Cababie, G. Can- celo, L. Chaplinsky, F. Chierchie, M. Crisler, A. Drlica- Wagner, R. Essig, J. Estrada, E. Etzion, G. Fernan- dez Moroni, D. Gift, S. E. Holland, S. Munagavalasa, A. Orly, D. Rodrigues, A. Singal, M. S. Haro, L. Ste- fanazzi, J. Tiffenberg, S. Uemura, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu (SENSEI Collaboration), Ph...

    2022

  56. [57]

    B. J. Kavanagh, Phys. Rev. D97, 123013 (2018), arXiv:1712.04901 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [58]

    Yu, “QEDark,”https://github.com/tientienyu/ QEdark

    T.-T. Yu, “QEDark,”https://github.com/tientienyu/ QEdark