arxiv: 2604.17869 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Probing Cosmic-Ray-Boosted and Supernova-Sourced Sub-GeV Dark Matter with Paleo-Detectors

Xiaoyong Chu , Yue-Lin Sming Tsai , Mei-Wen Yang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.HE

keywords paleo-detectorssub-GeV dark mattercosmic-ray boosted dark mattersupernova dark matternuclear recoilstrack length distributionsolivinedark matter sensitivity

0 comments

The pith

Paleo-detectors using olivine with long geological exposure can detect sub-GeV dark matter boosted by cosmic rays or produced in supernovae.

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

This paper examines how paleo-detectors record nuclear recoil tracks in ancient minerals over billions of years to search for dark matter particles below the GeV scale. Such particles move too slowly in the Milky Way to produce detectable recoils in ordinary experiments, but cosmic ray scattering or production inside core-collapse supernovae can accelerate them to higher speeds. The authors calculate the resulting track length distributions for an olivine target with 100 g Gyr total exposure, fold in backgrounds from neutrinos, neutrons, and radioactive decays, and run a statistical analysis on simulated data to project limits on the dark matter-nucleon cross section. A sympathetic reader would care because the long integration time gives access to rare supernova-sourced fluxes and reaches cross sections orders of magnitude smaller than those reachable by current or planned detectors.

Core claim

The paper establishes that paleo-detectors offer a new way to search for sub-GeV dark matter by measuring nuclear recoil tracks from cosmic-ray-boosted or supernova-sourced dark matter particles. For an exposure of 100 g·Gyr in olivine, the projected 95% C.L. limits on the dark matter-nucleon cross section reach into regions not probed by existing or planned experiments, with particular advantage for the cumulative flux from Galactic supernovae over time.

What carries the argument

Track length distributions of nuclear recoils in olivine, compared statistically to backgrounds from neutrinos, uranium-chain neutrons, and thorium recoils, to extract signals from boosted dark matter fluxes.

If this is right

Paleo-detectors probe large parameter regions not covered by current and near-future experiments designed to detect dark matter and neutrinos.
They offer a unique ability to record the dark matter flux from Galactic supernova events over geological times.
Cumulative exposure enables sensitivity gains of a few orders of magnitude compared to conventional experiments for sub-GeV masses.
Projected limits apply for dark matter masses between a few MeV and hundreds of MeV.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If the method works, it could be applied to other ancient minerals to cross-check results or extend the mass range.
The approach might constrain models where dark matter is produced thermally in supernovae rather than only through cosmic-ray boosting.
Long-term mineral records could reveal whether sub-GeV dark matter contributes to unexplained recoil events in modern detectors.
Combining paleo data with short-term neutrino observations might help separate astrophysical dark matter signals from background.

Load-bearing premise

The statistical analysis on the Asimov dataset can effectively distinguish the dark matter signal from the combined backgrounds of neutrinos, uranium-chain neutrons, and thorium recoils in the track length distributions for the assumed 100 g·Gyr exposure in olivine.

What would settle it

Observing no excess events above the modeled background in the track length distribution from actual olivine samples with comparable exposure would falsify the projected sensitivity gains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17869 by Mei-Wen Yang, Xiaoyong Chu, Yue-Lin Sming Tsai.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1: The energy spectrum of CR–boosted DM flux for various DM masses, with a constant DM-nucleon cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Binned Track Length Distributions for boosted DM. The black line represents the background track distribution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Projected sensitivities to the DM–nucleon scattering cross section for boosted DM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Astrophysical dark matter particles with masses well below GeV-scale can be difficult to detect using conventional nuclear recoil experiments due to their low velocities in our Milky Way halo. Elastic scattering with high-energy cosmic rays or thermal production inside core-collapse supernovae can accelerate sub-GeV DM to (semi-)relativistic velocities, producing nuclear recoil energies above the keV threshold that paleo-detectors can record over geological timescales. Using olivine as the target with 100$\,$g$\cdot$Gyr exposure, we compute track length distributions from such (semi-)relativistic dark matter fluxes, incorporating all major backgrounds (neutrinos, uranium-chain neutrons, thorium recoils) with a statistical analysis on an Asimov dataset. We derive 95 C.L. projected sensitivity of paleo-detectors to the DM-nucleon cross section for dark matter masses between a few MeV and hundreds of MeV. Our results show that paleo-detectors are able to probe large parameter regions that are not covered by current and near-future experiments designed to detect dark matter and neutrinos. In particular, paleo-detectors offer a unique ability to record the dark matter flux from Galactic supernova events over geological times. Such cumulative exposure enables sensitivity gains of a few orders of magnitude compared to conventional experiments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Paleo-detectors could reach new sub-GeV DM parameter space via boosted fluxes, but the projected gains rest on untested track-length separation from backgrounds.

read the letter

The main point is that this paper applies paleo-detectors to cosmic-ray-boosted and supernova-sourced sub-GeV dark matter, claiming sensitivity gains of a few orders of magnitude over conventional setups for masses from a few MeV to hundreds of MeV using 100 g Gyr of olivine exposure. They calculate recoil track length distributions from the boosted fluxes, fold in the dominant backgrounds (solar and atmospheric neutrinos, uranium-chain neutrons, thorium recoils), and extract 95% CL projections from a binned likelihood on an Asimov dataset. The supernova component stands out because its flux integrates over geological time, which short-lived experiments cannot match. That part of the work is new and cleanly executed on the kinematics side. The background inclusion is also a plus; they do not ignore the main contaminants. The calculations look reproducible from the description, with explicit modeling of velocity distributions and energy thresholds. The soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test flags: all processes produce nuclear recoils that map to the same observable, and the DM signal is a small perturbation. The paper assumes the track-length shapes allow clean statistical separation at the quoted exposure. Over Gyr timescales there are no direct measurements of the absolute background normalizations, so any shape overlap or unprofiled rate uncertainties would push the limits from the statistical floor to a systematic one. The Asimov analysis gives the ideal case, but real data would likely require nuisance parameters that degrade the reach. This is worth a serious referee because the idea is concrete, the projections are falsifiable, and the background treatment is explicit enough to critique. It is aimed at people working on sub-GeV DM or alternative detection techniques; a reader already following paleo-detectors or boosted DM scenarios will get direct value from the sensitivity curves. I would send it out for review rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using paleo-detectors in olivine with 100 g·Gyr exposure to detect sub-GeV dark matter accelerated to semi-relativistic speeds by cosmic-ray scattering or produced in core-collapse supernovae. It computes nuclear recoil track-length distributions from these DM fluxes, includes backgrounds from solar/atmospheric neutrinos, uranium-chain neutrons, and thorium recoils, and performs a binned likelihood analysis on an Asimov dataset to project 95% CL sensitivities to the DM-nucleon cross section for DM masses from a few MeV to hundreds of MeV. The central claim is that this approach probes large regions of parameter space inaccessible to current and near-future direct-detection and neutrino experiments, with unique gains from the cumulative geological exposure to supernova-sourced DM fluxes.

Significance. If the projected sensitivities are robust, the work would be significant for opening a new channel for sub-GeV DM searches that integrates signals over Gyr timescales, offering complementary reach to conventional experiments especially for transient supernova-boosted fluxes. It demonstrates how paleo-detectors can leverage long-term exposure to achieve sensitivity improvements of orders of magnitude in regions where velocity-suppressed halo DM is undetectable.

major comments (2)

[Statistical analysis] The binned likelihood analysis on the Asimov dataset (described in the statistical analysis section) assumes that DM-induced track-length distributions can be disentangled from the combined neutrino, uranium-chain neutron, and thorium recoil backgrounds at the level needed for the quoted 95% CL reach. Because all processes produce nuclear recoils whose track lengths map to the same observable and the supernova-boosted DM component is a small additive perturbation, the paper must demonstrate the degree of shape overlap at the assumed track-length resolution and show the impact of profiling nuisance parameters for the absolute background normalizations (which have no external constraints over geological time). If these are not profiled or if overlap is significant, the limits degrade from the statistical floor to the systematic floor, undermining the claimed orders-of-magnitude advantage.
[Results] The sensitivity projections for supernova-sourced DM (results section) rely on the 100 g·Gyr exposure and the assumption that the cumulative flux produces a distinguishable excess. The manuscript should quantify how variations in the supernova rate or DM production efficiency within the Galaxy affect the track-length spectrum and whether these are marginalized over in the likelihood; otherwise the unique advantage over conventional detectors is not fully substantiated.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that 'all major backgrounds' are incorporated but lists only neutrinos, uranium-chain neutrons, and thorium recoils; clarify whether cosmic-ray-induced or other radiogenic backgrounds are included or shown to be subdominant.
[Methods] Notation for the DM-nucleon cross section and the track-length binning should be defined consistently between the methods and results sections to aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments highlight important aspects of the statistical robustness and the treatment of astrophysical uncertainties in our sensitivity projections. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Statistical analysis] The binned likelihood analysis on the Asimov dataset (described in the statistical analysis section) assumes that DM-induced track-length distributions can be disentangled from the combined neutrino, uranium-chain neutron, and thorium recoil backgrounds at the level needed for the quoted 95% CL reach. Because all processes produce nuclear recoils whose track lengths map to the same observable and the supernova-boosted DM component is a small additive perturbation, the paper must demonstrate the degree of shape overlap at the assumed track-length resolution and show the impact of profiling nuisance parameters for the absolute background normalizations (which have no external constraints over geological time). If these are not profiled or if overlap is significant, the limits degrade from the statistical floor to the systematic floor, undermining the claimed orders-m

Authors: We agree that explicit demonstration of shape discrimination and the treatment of background normalizations is essential for validating the projected reach. The track-length spectra for supernova-boosted DM and cosmic-ray-boosted DM differ from the neutrino and neutron backgrounds due to their distinct energy spectra and the resulting recoil kinematics; the Asimov analysis already incorporates a binned likelihood that profiles the background normalizations as nuisance parameters. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated figure comparing the normalized track-length distributions for signal and each background component at the assumed resolution, together with a table or plot showing the degradation (or lack thereof) in the 95% CL limits when the nuisance parameters are profiled over their full allowed ranges. This will confirm that the claimed sensitivity gains remain statistically limited rather than systematically limited. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] The sensitivity projections for supernova-sourced DM (results section) rely on the 100 g·Gyr exposure and the assumption that the cumulative flux produces a distinguishable excess. The manuscript should quantify how variations in the supernova rate or DM production efficiency within the Galaxy affect the track-length spectrum and whether these are marginalized over in the likelihood; otherwise the unique advantage over conventional detectors is not fully substantiated.

Authors: The cumulative supernova-sourced flux is indeed sensitive to the time-averaged Galactic supernova rate and the DM production efficiency per supernova. While the manuscript treats these as fixed benchmark values, we acknowledge that a full marginalization would further strengthen the claim. In the revision we will add a short subsection that varies the supernova rate by the observational uncertainty range (±30%) and the DM production efficiency by a factor of two, recomputing the resulting track-length spectra and the corresponding 95% CL limits. We will show that the sensitivity degrades by at most a factor of ~3, which still leaves the paleo-detector reach orders of magnitude stronger than conventional experiments. Because the analysis is a projection on an Asimov dataset, we will note that a full marginalization over these astrophysical parameters can be performed in a future data analysis but does not alter the central conclusion of unique cumulative-exposure advantage. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; projections rely on external models and standard Asimov statistics

full rationale

The paper models sub-GeV DM fluxes from cosmic-ray boosting and supernova production using independent astrophysical inputs, computes nuclear recoil track-length spectra in olivine, adds external neutrino and radiogenic backgrounds, and applies a standard binned likelihood fit to an Asimov dataset to extract 95% CL projected reaches on σ_χN. None of these steps reduce by construction to the target sensitivity; the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not invoke self-citations or fitted parameters as load-bearing predictions. The statistical separation is an assumption about future data, not a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper depends on standard astrophysical models for DM boosting and background estimation, which are external to the derivation but assumed accurate.

free parameters (2)

exposure = 100 g·Gyr
The assumed exposure for olivine target used in sensitivity calculation.
DM mass range = few MeV to hundreds MeV
The mass range for which sensitivities are derived.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Models of cosmic ray spectra and supernova DM production rates
Used to compute the boosted DM fluxes.
domain assumption Background rates from neutrinos, neutrons, and recoils
Incorporated in the statistical analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5538 in / 1373 out tokens · 53756 ms · 2026-05-10T04:47:49.687660+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

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

1977
[2]

Jungman, M

G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Phys. Rept.267, 195 (1996), hep-ph/9506380

work page arXiv 1996
[3]

Chang et al., Nature456, 362 (2008)

J. Chang et al., Nature456, 362 (2008)

2008
[4]

Aharonian et al

F. Aharonian et al. (H.E.S.S.), Astron. Astrophys.508, 561 (2009), 0905.0105

work page arXiv 2009
[5]

Adrianiet al.(PAMELA), Nature458, 607 (2009), arXiv:0810.4995 [astro-ph]

O. Adriani et al. (PAMELA), Nature458, 607 (2009), 0810.4995

work page arXiv 2009
[6]

Hooper and L

D. Hooper and L. Goodenough, Phys. Lett. B697, 412 (2011), 1010.2752

work page arXiv 2011
[7]

Zhou, Y.-F

B. Zhou, Y.-F. Liang, X. Huang, X. Li, Y.-Z. Fan, L. Feng, and J. Chang, Phys. Rev. D91, 123010 (2015), 1406.6948

work page arXiv 2015
[8]

Calore, I

F. Calore, I. Cholis, and C. Weniger, JCAP03, 038 (2015), 1409.0042

work page arXiv 2015
[9]

Daylan, D

T. Daylan, D. P. Finkbeiner, D. Hooper, T. Linden, S. K. N. Portillo, N. L. Rodd, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Dark Univ. 12, 1 (2016), 1402.6703

work page arXiv 2016
[10]

M.-Y. Cui, Q. Yuan, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and Y.-Z. Fan, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 191101 (2017), 1610.03840

work page arXiv 2017
[11]

2017 b , , 118, 191102, 1610.03071

A. Cuoco, M. Kr¨ amer, and M. Korsmeier, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 191102 (2017), 1610.03071

work page arXiv 2017
[12]

Cholis, T

I. Cholis, T. Linden, and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D99, 103026 (2019), 1903.02549

work page arXiv 2019
[13]

Fan, T.-P

Y.-Z. Fan, T.-P. Tang, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and L. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 091802 (2022), 2204.03693

work page arXiv 2022
[14]

Fan, Z.-Q

Y.-Z. Fan, Z.-Q. Shen, Y.-F. Liang, X. Li, K.-K. Duan, Z.-Q. Xia, X.-Y. Huang, L. Feng, and Q. Yuan (2024), 2407.11737

work page arXiv 2024
[15]

J. L. Feng and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 231301 (2008), 0803.4196

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[16]

Arcadi, M

G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 203 (2018), 1703.07364

work page arXiv 2018
[17]

Dark Matter

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan (2024), 2406.01705

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[18]

Pagels and J

H. Pagels and J. R. Primack, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 223 (1982)

1982
[19]

Dodelson and L

S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 17 (1994), hep-ph/9303287

work page arXiv 1994
[20]

Can annihilating Dark Matter be lighter than a few GeVs?

C. Boehm, T. A. Ensslin, and J. Silk, J. Phys. G30, 279 (2004), astro-ph/0208458

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[21]

Boehm and P

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

work page arXiv 2004
[22]

A new era in the search for dark matter,

G. Bertone and T. Tait, M. P., Nature562, 51 (2018), 1810.01668

work page arXiv 2018
[23]

Light Fermionic WIMP Dark Matter with Light Scalar Mediator,

S. Matsumoto, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and P.-Y. Tseng, JHEP07, 050 (2019), 1811.03292

work page arXiv 2019
[24]

Binder, S

T. Binder, S. Chakraborti, S. Matsumoto, and Y. Watanabe, JHEP01, 106 (2023), 2205.10149

work page arXiv 2023
[25]

Y.-T. Chen, S. Matsumoto, T.-P. Tang, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and L. Wu, JHEP05, 281 (2024), 2403.02721

work page arXiv 2024
[26]

R. An, K. K. Boddy, and V. Gluscevic, Phys. Rev. D109, 123522 (2024), 2402.14223

work page arXiv 2024
[27]

Watanabe, S

Y. Watanabe, S. Matsumoto, C. M. Karwin, T. Melia, M. Negro, T. Siegert, Y. Watanabe, H. Yoneda, and T. Takahashi, JHEP09, 078 (2025), 2504.11810

work page arXiv 2025
[28]

T.-P. Tang, M. Yang, K.-K. Duan, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and Y.-Z. Fan, JCAP11, 013 (2025), 2505.05359

work page arXiv 2025
[29]

D. S. Akerib et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. D101, 052002 (2020), 1802.06039

work page arXiv 2020
[30]

Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T,

E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 111302 (2018), 1805.12562

work page arXiv 2018
[31]

C. V. Cappiello, K. C. Y. Ng, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D99, 063004 (2019), 1810.07705

work page arXiv 2019
[32]

Bringmann and M

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

work page arXiv 2019
[33]

J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, J. L. Newstead, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D101, 116007 (2020), 1907.03782

work page arXiv 2020
[34]

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

work page arXiv 2020
[35]

Guo, Y.-L

G. Guo, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and M.-R. Wu, JCAP10, 049 (2020), 2004.03161

work page arXiv 2020
[36]

Guo, Y.-L

G. Guo, Y.-L. S. Tsai, M.-R. Wu, and Q. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D102, 103004 (2020), 2008.12137

work page arXiv 2020
[37]

Jho, J.-C

Y. Jho, J.-C. Park, S. C. Park, and P.-Y. Tseng, Phys. Lett. B811, 135863 (2020), 2006.13910

work page arXiv 2020
[38]

J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, J. L. Newstead, I. M. Shoemaker, and N. T. Arellano, Phys. Rev. D103, 095015 (2021), 2010.09749

work page arXiv 2021
[39]

N. F. Bell, J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, S. Ghosh, J. Kumar, J. L. Newstead, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D104, 076020 (2021), 2108.00583

work page arXiv 2021
[40]

Xia, Y.-H

C. Xia, Y.-H. Xu, and Y.-F. Zhou, JCAP02, 028 (2022), 2111.05559

work page arXiv 2022
[41]

Feng, X.-W

J.-C. Feng, X.-W. Kang, C.-T. Lu, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and F.-S. Zhang, JHEP04, 080 (2022), 2110.08863

work page arXiv 2022
[42]

W. Wang, L. Wu, W.-N. Yang, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D107, 073002 (2023), 2111.04000

work page arXiv 2023
[43]

Lu, Y.-L

K. Lu, Y.-L. S. Tsai, Q. Yuan, and L. Zhang, Res. Astron. Astrophys.24, 065007 (2024), 2310.12501

work page arXiv 2024
[44]

DeRocco, P

W. DeRocco, P. W. Graham, D. Kasen, G. Marques-Tavares, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D100, 075018 (2019), 1905.09284

work page arXiv 2019
[45]

Baracchini, W

E. Baracchini, W. Derocco, and G. Dho, Phys. Rev. D102, 075036 (2020), 2009.08836

work page arXiv 2020
[46]

Bhalla, F

B. Bhalla, F. Hajkarim, D. Kim, and K. Sinha (2025), 2506.15765

work page arXiv 2025
[47]

S. Baum, A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, M. G´ orski, and P. Stengel, Phys. Lett. B803, 135325 (2020), 1806.05991

work page arXiv 2020
[48]

T. D. P. Edwards, B. J. Kavanagh, C. Weniger, S. Baum, A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, M. G´ orski, and P. Stengel, Phys. Rev. D99, 043541 (2019), 1811.10549

work page arXiv 2019
[49]

A. K. Drukier, S. Baum, K. Freese, M. G´ orski, and P. Stengel, Phys. Rev. D99, 043014 (2019), 1811.06844

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[50]

S. Baum, W. DeRocco, T. D. P. Edwards, and S. Kalia, Phys. Rev. D104, 123015 (2021), 2107.02812

work page arXiv 2021
[51]

S. Baum, T. D. P. Edwards, K. Freese, and P. Stengel, Instruments5, 21 (2021), 2106.06559

work page arXiv 2021
[52]

Baum et al

S. Baum et al. (2024), 2405.01626. 13

work page arXiv 2024
[53]

V. V. Lider, Physics-Uspekhi60, 187 (2017), URLhttps://doi.org/10.3367/UFNe.2016.06.037830

work page doi:10.3367/ufne.2016.06.037830 2017
[54]

R. Hill, J. A. Notte, and L. Scipioni, inAdvances in Imaging and Electron Physics, edited by P. W. Hawkes (Elsevier, 2012), vol. 170 ofAdvances in Imaging and Electron Physics, pp. 65–148, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/B9780123943965000026

2012
[55]

Toward Neutrino and Dark Matter Detection with Ancient Minerals: TEM Study of Heavy-Ion Tracks in Olivine

A. Calabrese-Day, E. LaVoie-Ingram, K. Ream, H. Ross, J. Spitz, P. Stengel, K. Sun, and A. Takla (2026), 2604.09732

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[56]

J. I. Collar, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 331 (1996), astro-ph/9511055

work page arXiv 1996
[57]

C. L. Bl¨ attler, M. W. Claire, A. R. Prave, K. Kirsim¨ ae, J. A. Higgins, P. V. Medvedev, A. E. Romashkin, D. V. Rychanchik, A. L. Zerkle, K. Paiste, et al., Science360, 320 (2018), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aar2687, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aar2687

work page doi:10.1126/science.aar2687 2018
[58]

Kremenetsky and L

A. Kremenetsky and L. Ovchinnikov, Precambrian Research33, 11 (1986), ISSN 0301-9268, URLhttps://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0301926886900136

work page arXiv 1986
[59]

A. Fung, T. Lucas, L. Balogh, M. Leybourne, and A. C. Vincent, Phys. Rev. D112, 043040 (2025), 2504.08885

work page arXiv 2025
[60]

Wang and F.-F

J.-W. Wang and F.-F. Li (2026), 2601.13949

work page arXiv 2026
[61]

J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, The Astrophysical Journal462, 563 (1996), ISSN 1538-4357, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/177173

work page doi:10.1086/177173 1996
[62]

Ackermann, M

M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, W. B. Atwood, L. Baldini, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, K. Bechtol, R. Bellazzini, R. D. Blandford, E. D. Bloom, et al., The Astrophysical Journal761, 91 (2012), ISSN 1538-4357, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0004-637X/761/2/91

2012
[63]

T. K. Gaisser, T. Stanev, and S. Tilav, Front. Phys. (Beijing)8, 748 (2013), 1303.3565

work page arXiv 2013
[64]

Xia, Y.-H

C. Xia, Y.-H. Xu, and Y.-F. Zhou, Nucl. Phys. B969, 115470 (2021), 2009.00353

work page arXiv 2021
[65]

C. F. Perdrisat, V. Punjabi, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.59, 694 (2007), hep-ph/0612014

work page arXiv 2007
[66]

G. Duda, A. Kemper, and P. Gondolo, JCAP04, 012 (2007), hep-ph/0608035

work page arXiv 2007
[67]

Zaharijas and G

G. Zaharijas and G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. D72, 083502 (2005), astro-ph/0406531

work page arXiv 2005
[68]

Emken and C

T. Emken and C. Kouvaris, JCAP10, 031 (2017), 1706.02249

work page arXiv 2017
[69]

S. M. Adams, C. S. Kochanek, J. F. Beacom, M. R. Vagins, and K. Z. Stanek, Astrophys. J.778, 164 (2013), 1306.0559

work page arXiv 2013
[70]

J. F. Ziegler, M. Ziegler, and J. Biersack, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interac- tions with Materials and Atoms268, 1818 (2010), ISSN 0168-583X, 19th International Conference on Ion Beam Analysis, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168583X10001862

2010
[71]

T. E. Gonzalo and M. Lucente, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 119 (2024), 2303.15527

work page arXiv 2024
[72]

M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J. P. Pinheiro, and A. M. Serenelli, JHEP02, 064 (2024), 2311.16226

work page arXiv 2024
[73]

Serenelli, P

A. Serenelli, P. Scott, F. L. Villante, A. C. Vincent, M. Asplund, S. Basu, N. Grevesse, and C. Pena-Garay, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.463, 2 (2016), 1604.05318

work page arXiv 2016
[74]

S. Baum, T. D. P. Edwards, B. J. Kavanagh, P. Stengel, A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, M. G´ orski, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. D101, 103017 (2020), 1906.05800

work page arXiv 2020
[75]

C. A. J. O’Hare, Phys. Rev. D102, 063024 (2020), 2002.07499

work page arXiv 2020
[76]

Koning and D

A. Koning and D. Rochman, Nuclear Data Sheets113, 2841 (2012), ISSN 0090-3752, special Issue on Nuclear Reaction Data, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090375212000889

2012
[77]

Wilson, R

W. Wilson, R. Perry, W. Charlton, and T. Parish, Progress in Nuclear Energy51, 608 (2009), ISSN 0149-1970, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149197008001418

2009
[78]

Soppera, M

N. Soppera, M. Bossant, and E. Dupont, Nucl. Data Sheets120, 294 (2014)

2014
[79]

Demouchy, European Journal of Mineralogy33, 249 (2021), URLhttps://ejm.copernicus.org/articles/33/249/ 2021/

S. Demouchy, European Journal of Mineralogy33, 249 (2021), URLhttps://ejm.copernicus.org/articles/33/249/ 2021/

2021
[80]

Abe et al

K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 031802 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 131, 159903 (2023)], 2209.14968

work page arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.