Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 14 cited by

LZ's 5.7-tonne-year search finds no light dark matter but 4.5σ solar-neutrino signal

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

2026-08-03 17:46 UTC pith:WCPUVWJJ

load-bearing objection A careful, genuinely new LZ result with world-leading light-DM limits and a plausible 4.5σ CEνNS signal, but the headline significance is not yet shown to be robust against the prior-dominated low-energy NR model. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.08065 v3 pith:WCPUVWJJ submitted 2025-12-08 hep-ex

Searches for Light Dark Matter and Evidence of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering of Solar Neutrinos with the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment

D.S. Akerib , A.K. Al Musalhi , F. Alder , B.J. Almquist , C.S. Amarasinghe , A. Ames , T.J. Anderson , N. Angelides
show 211 more authors
H.M. Ara\'ujo J.E. Armstrong M. Arthurs A. Baker S. Balashov J. Bang J.W. Bargemann E.E. Barillier J. Barthel D. Bauer K. Beattie A. Bhatti T.P. Biesiadzinski H.J. Birch E. Bishop G.M. Blockinger C.A.J. Brew P. Br\'as S. Burdin M.C. Carmona-Benitez M. Carter A. Chawla H. Chen Y.T. Chin N.I. Chott S. Contreras M.V. Converse R. Coronel A. Cottle G. Cox D. Curran C.E. Dahl I. Darlington S. Dave A. David J. Davis J. Delgaudio S. Dey L. de Viveiros L. Di Felice C. Ding J.E.Y. Dobson E. Druszkiewicz S. Dubey C.L. Dunbar S.R. Eriksen S. Fayer N.M. Fearon N. Fieldhouse S. Fiorucci H. Flaecher E.D. Fraser T.M.A. Fruth P.W. Gaemers R.J. Gaitskell A. Geffre J. Genovesi C. Ghag J. Ghamsari A. Ghosh S. Ghosh R. Gibbons S. Gokhale J. Green M.G.D.van der Grinten J.J. Haiston C.R. Hall T. Hall R.N Hampp S.J. Haselschwardt M.A. Hernandez S.A. Hertel G.J. Homenides M. Horn D.Q. Huang D. Hunt E. Jacquet R.S. James K. Jenkins A.C. Kaboth A.C. Kamaha M.K. Kannichankandy D. Khaitan A. Khazov J. Kim Y.D. Kim D. Kodroff E.V. Korolkova H. Kraus S. Kravitz L. Kreczko V.A. Kudryavtsev C. Lawes D.S. Leonard K.T. Lesko C. Levy J. Lin A. Lindote W.H. Lippincott J. Long M.I. Lopes W. Lorenzon C. Lu D. Lucero S. Luitz W. Ma V. Mahajan P.A. Majewski A. Manalaysay R.L. Mannino R.J. Matheson C. Maupin M.E. McCarthy D.N. McKinsey J. McLaughlin J.B. McLaughlin R. McMonigle B. Mitra E. Mizrachi M.E. Monzani K. Mor{\aa} E. Morrison B.J. Mount M. Murdy A.St.J. Murphy H.N. Nelson F. Neves A. Nguyen C.L. O'Brien F.H. O'Shea I. Olcina K.C. Oliver-Mallory J. Orpwood K.Y Oyulmaz K.J. Palladino N.J. Pannifer N. Parveen S.J. Patton B. Penning G. Pereira E. Perry T. Pershing A. Piepke S.S. Poudel Y. Qie J. Reichenbacher C.A. Rhyne G.R.C. Rischbieter E. Ritchey H.S. Riyat R. Rosero N.J. Rowe T. Rushton D. Rynders S. Salt\~ao D. Santone I. Sargeant A.B.M.R. Sazzad R.W. Schnee G. Sehr B. Shafer S. Shaw W. Sherman K. Shi T. Shutt C. Silva G. Sinev J. Siniscalco A.M. Slivar R. Smith V.N. Solovov P. Sorensen J. Soria T.J. Sumner A. Swain M. Szydagis D.J. Taylor D.R. Tiedt M. Timalsina D.R. Tovey J. Tranter M. Trask K. Trengove M. Tripathi A. Us\'on A.C. Vaitkus O. Valentino V. Velan A. Wang J.J. Wang Y. Wang L. Weeldreyer T.J. Whitis K. Wild M. Williams J. Winnicki L. Wolf F.L.H. Wolfs S. Woodford D. Woodward C.J. Wright Q. Xia J. Xu Y. Xu M. Yeh D. Yeum J. Young W. Zha H. Zhang T. Zhang Y. Zhou
This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords dark matterCEνNScoherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scatteringsolar neutrinosliquid xenon detectorlow-mass WIMPneutrino fognuclear recoil response
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 presents the first low-mass dark matter search from LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) using 5.7 tonne-years of data, covering dark matter masses 3–9 GeV/c². It finds no statistically significant excess of nuclear recoils from dark matter, and sets the strongest limits to date on spin-independent and spin-dependent-neutron dark matter-nucleon interactions for masses down to 5 GeV/c². In the same dataset, it reports a 4.5σ signal consistent with coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEνNS) from boron-8 solar neutrinos—the most significant observation of this process on xenon reported by an experiment. The result matters because CEνNS is the irreducible 'neutrino fog' that will eventually limit xenon dark matter searches, and detecting it at keV-scale recoil energies shows that the experiment can see rare, low-energy nuclear recoils of astrophysical origin.

Core claim

Using 417 live days of data from a 5.09-tonne fiducial volume, LZ observes 19 events in the 1–6 keV nuclear-recoil window, all consistent with a background-only model of accidental coincidences, detector neutrons, and 8B CEνNS. With dark matter not included, the best fit yields 12.3 CEνNS events, rejecting zero CEνNS at 4.5σ observed significance (6.7σ median expected) and matching the Standard Model prediction within uncertainties. No dark matter component is required: 90% confidence limits reach 2.1×10⁻⁴² cm² at 3 GeV/c² and 1.1×10⁻⁴⁶ cm² at 9 GeV/c², the most restrictive for masses above 5 GeV/c². The same signal yields measurements of the 8B neutrino flux, the CEνNS cross-section on xeno

What carries the argument

The central object is the dual-phase liquid-xenon time projection chamber, which records each nuclear recoil as a prompt scintillation pulse (S1) and a delayed ionization pulse (S2). The analysis hinges on the nuclear-recoil response model, NEST tuned to a dedicated deuterium-deuterium neutron calibration, which converts recoil energy into predicted S1/S2 distributions, and on a data-driven accidental-coincidence model normalized with unphysical-drift-time events. These models feed an unbinned profile likelihood in the {S1,S2} space, with a single nuisance parameter σeff carrying the combined rate uncertainty from yields, fluctuations, and detection efficiency.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the extrapolated nuclear-recoil response model: light and charge yields and their fluctuations below about 2.5 keV come from higher-energy calibration plus priors from other measurements, so if those yields are wrong, both the CEνNS significance and the dark matter limits shift.

What would settle it

A direct low-energy neutron calibration that pins the yields below 2.5 keV would settle it: if the measured yields differ from the posterior-envelope curves by more than the quoted band, the CEνNS significance and DM limits must be recomputed and may not survive. Alternatively, an independent measurement of the accidental-coincidence rate in a sideband with different electron/photon rates that disagrees with the model would undermine the background subtraction.

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

If this is right

  • If the signal is real, 8B solar neutrinos have been positively detected as nuclear recoils in a xenon detector, confirming CEνNS at the lowest energy scale yet and validating the predicted neutrino background for light dark matter searches.
  • LZ sets the current best 90% limits on spin-independent dark matter-nucleon scattering for masses above 5 GeV/c², covering a region other xenon experiments have constrained less strongly at these masses.
  • The measured 8B neutrino flux from the CEνNS rate agrees with solar-model predictions and the earlier SNO measurement, adding a new way to probe the Sun with neutrinos.
  • The CEνNS signal can be used to measure the weak mixing angle at low momentum transfer; the value obtained is consistent with the Standard Model but with large uncertainty, and more exposure will sharpen it.
  • A planned 1000-day exposure should push the CEνNS significance higher and further improve the light dark matter limits into the neutrino-fog region.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If CEνNS remains visible as LZ accumulates its planned 1000-day exposure, it should transition from a background to a standard candle that calibrates the low-energy nuclear-recoil response in situ, reducing reliance on extrapolated yield models.
  • A natural next step is to use the same {S1,S2} accidental-coincidence and response-model machinery to search for non-standard neutrino interactions, since new physics would appear as a distortion of the CEνNS spectrum rather than as an excess.
  • The 19-event dataset is statistically thin: the observed 4.5σ significance is below the 6.7σ median expected, so a repetition with more exposure will be the cleanest test of whether the low best-fit CEνNS rate is a fluctuation or a sign of underestimated background or yields.
  • Combining LZ's low-energy nuclear-recoil data with electron-recoil calibrations could produce a measurement of the 8B neutrino flux that is independent of solar-model assumptions, complementing radiochemical and water-Cherenkov detectors.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports an LZ search for 3–9 GeV/c^2 dark matter and a measurement of 8B solar-neutrino CEνNS in the same 5.7 tonne-year dataset (546 live days, 417 after selections). The analysis uses an unbinned profile likelihood in {S1c, S2c} with a data-driven accidental background, an in-situ neutron constraint, and a NEST-based NR response model tuned with DD calibrations. The authors find no DM excess and set 90% CL limits that are world-leading above 5 GeV/c^2 for SI and SD-neutron couplings. In the no-DM hypothesis they observe a best-fit 8B CEνNS signal of 12.3+7.0−5.4 events against 20.6+8.9−6.8 expected, with a quoted 4.5σ statistical significance, leading to a 8B flux measurement consistent with SNO and a weak-mixing-angle measurement consistent with the SM.

Significance. If correct, this is the first >3σ evidence for solar CEνNS on xenon and a significant step into the neutrino fog. The analysis has important strengths: blind injection of artificial events, a synthetic accidental-coincidence model normalized to unphysical-drift-time data and validated in several sidebands, MCMC response-model tuning with explicit treatment of yield fluctuations, and world-leading DM limits. However, the CEνNS evidence claim is only as strong as the low-energy NR response model, which the paper itself states is prior-dominated below ~2.5 keV; the 8B recoil spectrum peaks at 1.5 keV. The requested robustness tests are therefore essential before the evidence claim can be considered established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Response Modeling / Supp. Table S1] The central evidence claim relies on the NR response model below ~2.5 keV, exactly the regime where the paper concedes 'The DD dataset has limited ability to constrain the low-energy-specific yield parameters (≲2.5 keV)' and where Gaussian NEST priors are imposed. Table S1 shows that for ζ, η, θ, ι the posterior is largely prior-dominated. Because the 8B CEνNS recoil spectrum peaks at 1.5 ± 0.5 keV (main text), the signal shape is strongly influenced by these priors. The final likelihood reduces all yield/fluctuation/efficiency systematics to a single Gaussian rate nuisance σeff; a rate rescaling cannot change the spectral shape. The Supplemental statement that shape effects are 'negligible' is not demonstrated quantitatively. To support the 4.5σ evidence claim, please show a posterior-predictive or profile-likelihood scan in which the low-energy yield modes are included as shape nuisanc
  2. [Boron-8 CEνNS Measurement / Abstract] The abstract and text call the 4.5σ result a 'statistical significance.' It is not clear whether this number includes all systematic uncertainties that enter the likelihood (σeff, accidental normalization, neutron rate, 8B flux constraint). The paper should state explicitly which uncertainties are profiled in the q0 calculation and give the systematic-only contribution, e.g., the significance obtained with all nuisance parameters fixed to their best-fit values. This distinction is important because the largest systematic (NR response) is much larger than the statistical uncertainty on the 8B rate alone. If 4.5σ already includes all systematics, the text should say so; if not, the evidence claim should be based on the total significance.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] The last column reports σeff = 0 ± 1 for the 8B-unconstrained fit; clarify whether σeff is fixed or fitted in that scenario and why it is not pulled to accommodate the lower 8B rate.
  2. [Experiment / Selections] The S2 range statement '3.5–14.5 electrons (44.5 phd per extracted electron)' conflicts with g2 = 34.0 phd/electron cited earlier; please reconcile.
  3. [Figure 1] The gray uncertainty band includes 'yields and fluctuations,' but it would be useful to state explicitly that it includes the NEST-prior-dominated low-energy parameters; this relates to the main evidence claim.
  4. [Supplemental Table S1] The LZ posterior for ζ is 0.44 ± 0.15 while the prior is 0.3 ± 0.1; this is consistent but also illustrates that the low-energy parameters are not constrained independently by DD data. A note in the main text would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the 8B CEνNS rate is a free profile-likelihood parameter against independently calibrated backgrounds, not an input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The 8B CEνNS expectation (20.6 +8.9/−6.8 events) is built from the SM CEνNS cross-section, the literature 8B solar-neutrino flux, the 5.7 tonne-year exposure, and a NEST v2.4.5 NR response model tuned to a dedicated DD-neutron calibration dataset; the measured 8B rate (12.3 +7.0/−5.4) is then left free in the q0 profile-likelihood fit, so the signal is not defined by its own expectation. The accidental background is normalized using unphysical-drift-time sideband events rather than the signal ROI, and the detector-neutron component is subdominant and constrained in situ. The DM limits treat 8B CEνNS as a constrained background and are compared to external XENONnT/PandaX/DarkSide limits. The one genuine limitation flagged by the paper — 'The DD dataset has limited ability to constrain the low-energy-specific yield parameters (≲2.5 keV), motivating our choice to enforce nest priors derived from other existing measurements' (Response Modeling) — is a systematic/prior-dependence concern: the priors come from independent LUX and NEST yield measurements, not from the CEνNS rate/spectrum being fitted, so the evidence claim does not reduce by construction to those priors. The blinded injection of 8B-like events is a bias check; the single injected event that passed cuts was removed. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz from the authors' prior work is used to force the result. The absence of a separate systematic-only significance is a reporting/robustness limitation, not a circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis is an experimental search, so the burden is on the detector response model and background estimates. The most important free parameters are those of the NEST model fitted to DD data; these directly affect the expected CEνNS rate and DM limits. The solar flux and SM cross-section are external inputs. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • NEST NR yield parameters (α, β, γ, ε, ζ, η, θ, ι) = See Table S1 (e.g., α=11.6±1.1, β=1.084+0.024-0.021, γ=(5.29+0.05-0.06)e-2, ε=8.0+1.8-1.7, ζ=0.44±0.15, η=1.1+0.5-0.3, θ
    Fitted to DD calibration recoil spectrum to predict NR signal shapes/rates.
  • NR fluctuation parameters (Fi, Fex slope, λ) = Fi≈1.1+0.3-0.4, Fex slope=(2.2±0.6)e-2, λ=0.29+0.22-0.17
    Introduced/modified from NEST default to achieve fit across DD energy spectrum.
  • σeff (combined rate uncertainty nuisance) = 0±1 (constrained)
    A single Gaussian constraint absorbing NR response and efficiency systematics; its rate effect varies from +81%/−60% at 3 GeV to +21%/−20% at 9 GeV.
  • 8B CEνNS rate = 12.3+7.0-5.4 (unconstrained fit)
    Signal parameter in the no-DM hypothesis; prediction is 20.6+8.9-6.8.
  • Accidental coincidence normalization = 6.6±0.3 events
    Scaled from unphysical drift-time sideband via synthetic accidental model.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Standard Model CEνNS cross-section with sin^2θ_W as predicted
    Used to convert measured CEνNS rate to 8B flux; also cross-section measurement assumes SNO flux.
  • domain assumption 8B solar neutrino flux from SNO and solar models
    Predicts expected CEνNS rate; in cosmic, this is external input.
  • domain assumption NEST model adequately describes xenon NR yields and fluctuations after tuning
    Low-energy <2.5 keV parameters rely on priors from other measurements because DD calibration has limited sensitivity there.
  • ad hoc to paper Synthetic accidental model recreates real accidental coincidences
    Model validated against UDT and ancillary datasets, but no independent physical prediction.
  • standard math Profile likelihood ratio test statistic is asymptotically chi-square distributed
    Used to derive significances and limits per Cowan et al.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19030 in / 11561 out tokens · 100167 ms · 2026-08-03T17:46:41.777271+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present searches for light dark matter (DM) with masses 3-9 GeV/$c^2$ in the presence of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CE$\nu$NS) from $^{8}$B solar neutrinos with the LUX-ZEPLIN experiment. This analysis uses a 5.7 tonne-year exposure with data collected between March 2023 and April 2025. In an energy range spanning 1-6 keV, we report no significant excess of events attributable to dark matter nuclear recoils, but we observe a significant signal from $^{8}$B CE$\nu$NS interactions that is consistent with expectation. We set world-leading limits on spin-independent and spin-dependent-neutron DM-nucleon interactions for masses down to 5 GeV/$c^2$. In the no-dark-matter scenario, we observe a signal consistent with $^{8}$B CE$\nu$NS events, corresponding to a $4.5\sigma$ statistical significance. This is the most significant evidence of $^{8}$B CE$\nu$NS interactions and is enabled by robust background modeling and mitigation techniques. This demonstrates LZ's ability to detect rare signals at keV-scale energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.08065 by A. Ames, A. Baker, A. Bhatti, A.B.M.R. Sazzad, A. Chawla, A.C. Kaboth, A.C. Kamaha, A. Cottle, A.C. Vaitkus, A. David, A. Geffre, A. Ghosh, A.K. Al Musalhi, A. Khazov, A. Lindote, A. Manalaysay, A.M. Slivar, A. Nguyen, A. Piepke, A.St.J. Murphy, A. Swain, A. Us\'on, A. Wang, B.J. Almquist, B.J. Mount, B. Mitra, B. Penning, B. Shafer, C.A.J. Brew, C.A. Rhyne, C. Ding, C.E. Dahl, C. Ghag, C.J. Wright, C. Lawes, C.L. Dunbar, C. Levy, C.L. O'Brien, C. Lu, C. Maupin, C.R. Hall, C.S. Amarasinghe, C. Silva, D. Bauer, D. Curran, D. Hunt, D.J. Taylor, D. Khaitan, D. Kodroff, D. Lucero, D.N. McKinsey, D.Q. Huang, D.R. Tiedt, D.R. Tovey, D. Rynders, D.S. Akerib, D. Santone, D.S. Leonard, D. Woodward, D. Yeum, E. Bishop, E.D. Fraser, E. Druszkiewicz, E.E. Barillier, E. Jacquet, E. Mizrachi, E. Morrison, E. Perry, E. Ritchey, E.V. Korolkova, F. Alder, F.H. O'Shea, F.L.H. Wolfs, F. Neves, G. Cox, G.J. Homenides, G.M. Blockinger, G. Pereira, G.R.C. Rischbieter, G. Sehr, G. Sinev, H. Chen, H. Flaecher, H.J. Birch, H. Kraus, H.M. Ara\'ujo, H.N. Nelson, H.S. Riyat, H. Zhang, I. Darlington, I. Olcina, I. Sargeant, J. Bang, J. Barthel, J.B. McLaughlin, J. Davis, J. Delgaudio, J.E. Armstrong, J.E.Y. Dobson, J. Genovesi, J. Ghamsari, J. Green, J.J. Haiston, J.J. Wang, J. Kim, J. Lin, J. Long, J. Mclaughlin, J. Orpwood, J. Reichenbacher, J. Siniscalco, J. Soria, J. Tranter, J.W. Bargemann, J. Winnicki, J. Xu, J. Young, K. Beattie, K.C. Oliver-Mallory, K. Jenkins, K.J. Palladino, K. Mor{\aa}, K. Shi, K.T. Lesko, K. Trengove, K. Wild, K.Y Oyulmaz, L. de Viveiros, L. Di Felice, L. Kreczko, L. Weeldreyer, L. Wolf, M.A. Hernandez, M. Arthurs, M. Carter, M.C. Carmona-Benitez, M.E. McCarthy, M.E. Monzani, M.G.D.van der Grinten, M. Horn, M.I. Lopes, M.K. Kannichankandy, M. Murdy, M. Szydagis, M. Timalsina, M. Trask, M. Tripathi, M.V. Converse, M. Williams, M. Yeh, N. Angelides, N. Fieldhouse, N.I. Chott, N.J. Pannifer, N.J. Rowe, N.M. Fearon, N. Parveen, O. Valentino, P.A. Majewski, P. Br\'as, P. Sorensen, P.W. Gaemers, Q. Xia, R. Coronel, R. Gibbons, R.J. Gaitskell, R.J. Matheson, R.L. Mannino, R. McMonigle, R.N Hampp, R. Rosero, R.S. James, R. Smith, R.W. Schnee, S.A. Hertel, S. Balashov, S. Burdin, S. Contreras, S. Dave, S. Dey, S. Dubey, S. Fayer, S. Fiorucci, S. Ghosh, S. Gokhale, S.J. Haselschwardt, S.J. Patton, S. Kravitz, S. Luitz, S.R. Eriksen, S. Salt\~ao, S. Shaw, S.S. Poudel, S. Woodford, T. Hall, T.J. Anderson, T.J. Sumner, T.J. Whitis, T.M.A. Fruth, T.P. Biesiadzinski, T. Pershing, T. Rushton, T. Shutt, T. Zhang, V.A. Kudryavtsev, V. Mahajan, V.N. Solovov, V. Velan, W.H. Lippincott, W. Lorenzon, W. Ma, W. Sherman, W. Zha, Y.D. Kim, Y. Qie, Y.T. Chin, Y. Wang, Y. Xu, Y. Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Detection efficiency as a function of NR energy, after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The 19 events comprising the final dataset passing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Upper limits (90% C.L.) from the 5.7 tonne-year analysis on the spin-dependent DM-proton (left) and DM-neutron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.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 14 Pith papers

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

  1. Sub-keV energy calibration of CONUS+ via 71Ge M-shell neutron activation

    hep-ex 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    Neutron activation resolves the 71Ge M-shell X-ray line at 158.7 eVee in a CONUS+ germanium detector, reducing CEvNS signal prediction uncertainty below 4%.

  2. Probing Solar Symmetrons with Direct Detection

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Solar tachocline production of symmetrons yields a keV-scale flux at Earth whose absorption in xenon detectors provides new complementary bounds on symmetron parameter space.

  3. Ubiquitous Corotation of Dark Matter Halos: Implications for Direct Detection

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Dark matter in simulated Milky Way analogues preferentially corotates with the baryonic disk, suppressing predicted direct-detection rates for light WIMPs, reducing directional modulation, and producing a 21% astrophy...

  4. Light Antinuclei Coalescence: Femtoscopic Constraints via Neural-Flow Surrogates

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A neural-flow emulator of the CECA femtoscopic source, fit to 49 ALICE pp correlation functions, reduces claimed uncertainties on antinuclei coalescence parameters B2 and B3 to a few percent and ~10% respectively.

  5. Probing the Solar $^8$B Neutrino Fog with XENONnT

    hep-ex 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    XENONnT measures solar 8B neutrino coherent scattering at 3.3 sigma, finds no light dark matter, and constrains the weak mixing angle at low momentum transfer.

  6. High Negative Ion Gain MMThGEM-Micromegas Detector for Directional Dark Matter Searches

    physics.ins-det 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    A MMThGEM-Micromegas detector in 40 Torr SF6 achieves the highest negative-ion gas gain reported to date (1.22e5) and reconstructs alpha tracks and candidate nuclear recoils.

  7. Light Dark Matter Search with 7.8 Tonne-Year of Ionization-Only Data in XENONnT

    hep-ex 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    An S2-only analysis of 7.83 tonne-years of XENONnT data finds no dark matter excess and sets 90% CL limits, e.g. 6.0e-45 cm^2 for spin-independent scattering at 5 GeV/c^2.

  8. Phenomenological implications of the high-precision COHERENT germanium CE$\nu$NS data

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    High-precision COHERENT germanium CEνNS data yields state-of-the-art constraints on the weak mixing angle, neutrino charge radii, germanium neutron radius, and non-standard neutrino interactions via global analysis wi...

  9. Phenomenological implications of the high-precision COHERENT germanium CE$\nu$NS data

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Analysis of new COHERENT germanium CEνNS data yields updated constraints on the weak mixing angle, neutrino charge radii, germanium neutron rms radius, and bounds on neutrino non-standard interactions via global fits.

  10. Searching for UFOs from the early universe: direct detection prospects for relativistically decoupling dark matter

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Ultrarelativistically decoupling dark matter in Z' portal models has direct detection cross sections that existing experiments like LZ and XENONnT have already excluded over large regions, leaving testable space above...

  11. Elastic neutrino-electron scattering perspectives at nuclear reactors

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    Projections show CLOUD and TAO could improve low-energy weak mixing angle measurements to 8-11% via elastic neutrino-electron scattering, with competitive magnetic moment and NSI limits.

  12. Serendipitous supersymmetric solution to the strong CP problem

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5

    Anomaly-free discrete R-symmetries plus Kim-Nilles regeneration of the mu term force an accidental U(1)_PQ whose spontaneous breaking yields a SUSY DFSZ axion that solves strong CP.

  13. Simulations of 3-Dimensional Recoil Response to Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering Events in Directional Direct Dark Matter Detectors

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Simulations of solar CEvNS events produce annually varying ring-like 3D recoil distributions in directional detectors that lack target dependence and contrast with fixed WIMP signals.

  14. Shifting the neutrino fog: studying the Isospin-violating Dark Matter case

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0

    Isospin-violating dark matter shifts the neutrino fog: in xenon, a Z-portal model (f_n/f_p ≈ -22) lowers the discovery limit while the Scotogenic model (f_n/f_p = 0) raises it.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 41 linked inside Pith · cited by 13 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D. S. Akerib et al. , Snowmass 2021 , (2022), arXiv:2203.08084 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Billard et al

    J. Billard et al. , Rept. Prog. Phys. 85, 056201 (2022), arXiv:2104.07634 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 011802 (2025), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Cohen, D

    T. Cohen, D. J. Phalen, A. Pierce, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 82, 056001 (2010), arXiv:1005.1655 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    Billard, L

    J. Billard, L. Strigari, and E. Figueroa-Feliciano, Phys. Rev. D 89, 023524 (2014), arXiv:1307.5458 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Ruppin, J

    F. Ruppin, J. Billard, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, and L. Stri- gari, Phys. Rev. D 90, 083510 (2014), arXiv:1408.3581 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 251802 (2021), arXiv:2109.03116 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    J. N. Bahcall, A. M. Serenelli, and S. Basu, Astrophys. J. Lett. 621, L85 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0412440

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  10. [10]

    Bo et al

    Z. Bo et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 191001 (2024), arXiv:2407.10892 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 191002 (2024), arXiv:2408.02877 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 111802 (2025), arXiv:2409.17868 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Zhang et al

    M. Zhang et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 211001 (2025), arXiv:2507.11930 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    B. J. Mount et al., (2017), arXiv:1703.09144 [physics.ins- det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LZ), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 953, 163047 (2020), arXiv:1910.09124 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A 1068, 169712 (2024), 2405.14732

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), JINST 19 (08), P08027, arXiv:2406.12874 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  18. [18]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. D 108, 012010 (2023), arXiv:2211.17120 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    D. S. Akerib et al., (2025), arXiv:2510.06500 [physics.ins- det]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Bradski, Dr

    G. Bradski, Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools (2000)

    2000

  21. [21]

    Hansen, Y

    N. Hansen, Y. Akimoto, and P. Baudis, CMA-ES/pycma on Github, Zenodo, DOI:10.5281/zenodo.2559634 (2019)

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.2559634 2019

  22. [22]

    J. A. Klein and A. Roodman, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 55, 141 (2005)

    2005

  23. [23]

    Szydagis et al., Noble Element Simulation Technique, v2.4.5 beta (2025)

    M. Szydagis et al., Noble Element Simulation Technique, v2.4.5 beta (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Szydagis et al

    M. Szydagis et al. , Front. Detect. Sci. Tech. 2, 1480975 (2024), arXiv:2211.10726 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX), (2016), arXiv:1608.05381 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 061002 (2025), arXiv:2210.05859 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Good- man, PASP 125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  28. [28]

    Lenardo et al., (2019), arXiv:1908.00518 [physics.ins- det]

    B. Lenardo et al., (2019), arXiv:1908.00518 [physics.ins- det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    D. S. Akerib et al. , (2021), arXiv:2101.08753 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Baker and R

    S. Baker and R. D. Cousins, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research 221, 437 (1984)

    1984

  31. [31]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    Baxter et al

    D. Baxter et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 907 (2021), arXiv:2105.00599 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LZ), Astropart. Phys. 125, 102480 (2021), arXiv:2001.09363 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Ma et al

    W. Ma et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 9 130, 021802 (2023), arXiv:2207.04883 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide-50 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 063001 (2023), arXiv:2207.11966 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Vinyoles, A

    N. Vinyoles, A. M. Serenelli, F. L. Villante, S. Basu, J. Bergstr¨ om, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, C. Pe˜ na-Garay, and N. Song, Astrophys. J. 835, 202 (2017), arXiv:1611.09867 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    Aharmim et al

    B. Aharmim et al. (SNO), Phys. Rev. C 88, 025501 (2013), arXiv:1109.0763 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [38]

    C. S. Wood, S. C. Bennett, D. Cho, B. P. Masterson, J. L. Roberts, C. E. Tanner, and C. E. Wieman, Science 275, 1759 (1997)

    1997

  39. [39]

    P. L. Anthony et al. (SLAC E158), Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 081601 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0504049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

    Androi´ c et al

    D. Androi´ c et al. (Qweak), Nature 557, 207 (2018), arXiv:1905.08283 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    De Romeri, O

    V. De Romeri, O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Garcia, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, JHEP 04, 035, arXiv:2211.11905 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Aristizabal Sierra, V

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, V. De Romeri, and D. K. Papoulias, JHEP 09, 076, arXiv:2203.02414 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Alp ´ ızar-Venegas, L

    M. Alp ´ ızar-Venegas, L. J. Flores, E. Peinado, and E. V´ azquez-J´ auregui, Phys. Rev. D111, 053001 (2025), arXiv:2501.10355 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and G. Sanchez Garcia, Phys. Rev. D 111, 075025 (2025), arXiv:2501.17843 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Prescott et al

    C. Prescott et al. , Physics Letters B 84, 524 (1979)

    1979

  46. [46]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Faulkner et al

    P. Faulkner et al. , J. Phys. G 32, N1 (2006)

    2006

  48. [48]

    Britton et al

    D. Britton et al. , Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 367, 2447 (2009)

    2009

  49. [49]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. D 102, 074018 (2020), arXiv:2007.08529 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Pirinen, J

    P. Pirinen, J. Kotila, and J. Suhonen, Nucl. Phys. A 992, 121624 (2019)

    2019

  52. [52]

    B. S. Hu, J. Padua-Arg¨ uelles, S. Leutheusser, T. Miyagi, S. R. Stroberg, and J. D. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 072502 (2022), arXiv:2109.00193 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Amole et al

    C. Amole et al. (PICO), Phys. Rev. D 100, 022001 (2019), arXiv:1902.04031 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041003 (2023), arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    C. Rhyne, Development of Tagged Low Energy D- and H- Based Scintillator Reflector Neutron Sources and Char- acterizations of a D-D Neutron Generator for Calibra- tions of the LZ Detector , PhD Thesis, Brown University (2024)

    2024

  56. [56]

    Mendoza, D

    E. Mendoza, D. Cano-Ott, T. Koi, and C. Guerrero, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 61, 2357 (2014)

    2014

  57. [57]

    Chadwick, M

    M. Chadwick, M. Herman, P. Obloˇ zinsk´ y,et al., Nuclear Data Sheets 112, 2887 (2011), special Issue on ENDF/B- VII.1 Library

    2011

  58. [58]

    Szydagis et al., Noble Element Simulation Technique, v2.4.0 (2023)

    M. Szydagis et al., Noble Element Simulation Technique, v2.4.0 (2023)

    2023

  59. [59]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ Collaboration), (2025), arXiv:2509.16281 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), (2024), arXiv:2412.10451 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Aprile, M

    E. Aprile, M. Anthony, Q. Lin, Z. Greene, P. De Perio, F. Gao, J. Howlett, G. Plante, Y. Zhang, and T. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 98, 112003 (2018), arXiv:1809.02072 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  62. [62]

    Pershing et al

    T. Pershing et al. , Phys. Rev. D 106, 052013 (2022), arXiv:2207.08326 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    Huang, Ultra-Low Energy Calibration of the LUX and LZ Dark Matter Detectors , Ph.D

    D. Huang, Ultra-Low Energy Calibration of the LUX and LZ Dark Matter Detectors , Ph.D. thesis, Brown U. (2020). 1 Supplemental Materials Details of the Accidental Coincidence Model and V alidation We construct the accidental coincidence model with two major ingredients: a high statistics synthetic dataset generated from real data and a sideband of single ...

    2020