Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 49 references

A 1.3 kg-day silicon skipper-CCD search for solar-reflected dark matter sets 90% C.L. limits reaching about 3 times 10 to the minus 37 square centimeters at 0.1 MeV for an ultralight mediator.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 03:39 UTC pith:RM3FN4RQ

load-bearing objection Solid first DAMIC-M SRDM limits: competitive ultralight-mediator reach with 1.3 kg-day, clean blind analysis, residual dependence only on the external solar-reflection MC flux. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09352 v1 pith:RM3FN4RQ submitted 2026-07-10 hep-ex

Constraints on Sub-MeV Dark Matter from Solar Reflection with DAMIC-M

K. Aggarwal , I. Arnquist , N. Avalos , X. Bertou , N. Castello-Mor , C. Centeno-Lorca , A.E. Chavarria , A.R. Chriss
show 36 more authors
J. Cuevas-Zepeda A. Dastgheibi-Fard C. De Dominicis O. Deligny J. Duarte-Campderros E. Estrada R. Ga{\i}or E.-L. Gkougkousis T. Hossbach L. Iddir B. J. Kavanagh B. Kilminster I. Lawson A. Letessier-Selvon H. Lin P. Loaiza A. Lopez-Virto R. Lou H. Lumengo-Kidimbu S. Munagavalasa J. Noonan D. Norcini S. Paul P. Perez-Cobo P. Privitera P. Robmann B. Roach D. Rosenmerkel M. Settimo R. Smida M. Traina R. Vilar R. Yajur D. Venegas-Vargas C. Zhu Y. Zhu
This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords DAMIC-MCCDDark MatterDM-electron scatteringDark PhotonHidden-Sector DMSolar Reflectionskipper CCD
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.

The paper establishes that dark-matter particles from the galactic halo can scatter inside the Sun, leave with speeds far above the galactic escape speed, and therefore ionize electrons in a laboratory silicon detector even when the particle mass lies well below an MeV. Using roughly 1.3 kilogram-days of data from a prototype skipper-CCD detector and a search that isolates multi-pixel charge patterns produced by diffusion of few-electron recoils, the collaboration places 90 percent confidence upper limits on the dark-matter–electron scattering cross section for both heavy and ultralight dark-photon mediators. For the ultralight case the limits reach approximately 3.16 times 10 to the minus 37 square centimeters near 0.1 MeV and are competitive with the strongest published direct-detection bounds despite the modest exposure. The result reaches parameter space that lies between stellar-cooling constraints and ordinary halo-flux searches—a region that terrestrial detectors relying only on the standard halo velocity distribution cannot access. A larger final detector with lower backgrounds is projected to push the same solar-reflection channel substantially deeper.

Core claim

With an integrated exposure of about 1.3 kg-day the prototype skipper-CCD detector yields 90 percent confidence-level upper limits on the reference dark-matter–electron scattering cross section for solar-reflected dark matter. At 0.1 MeV the ultralight-mediator limit reaches roughly 3.16 times 10 to the minus 37 square centimeters, competitive with world-leading solar-reflected constraints and sensitive to the previously inaccessible window between stellar cooling and standard-halo direct searches.

What carries the argument

Solar-reflected dark-matter flux: the non-thermal, high-speed population of galactic-halo particles that scatter at least once in the solar plasma and escape. That flux is folded with a dielectric-screened silicon ionization rate and a multi-pixel charge-pattern selection that statistically separates bulk few-electron recoils from single-pixel dark current, converting the solar boost into a detectable laboratory signal.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted signal rate rests on Monte-Carlo simulations of how often and how hard dark-matter particles scatter inside the Sun; if those simulations misestimate the escaping high-speed flux, the reported cross-section limits shift by the same factor.

What would settle it

A larger independent exposure analyzed with the same multi-pixel charge-pattern selection that either produces a statistically significant excess matching the solar-reflected rate prediction as a function of mass and mediator, or that fails to exclude the currently allowed ultralight-mediator region at substantially higher exposure, would confirm or refute the claimed sensitivity.

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

If this is right

  • Sub-MeV dark-matter–electron scattering can be constrained by terrestrial detectors without relying on the standard galactic halo velocity distribution.
  • Even kilogram-day exposures of skipper CCDs already reach the gap between stellar-cooling bounds and freeze-in or freeze-out benchmarks for ultralight mediators.
  • A larger, lower-background final detector will tighten the same solar-reflected limits by a substantial factor.
  • The solar-reflection channel is complementary to daily-modulation and other boosted-flux searches performed with the same apparatus.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the reflected flux depends nonlinearly on the scattering cross section itself, improvements or revisions in solar-propagation modeling will rescale the entire exclusion curve rather than merely change an overall normalization.
  • The same charge-pattern selection could be re-used for other boosted populations once dedicated flux calculations become available.
  • If the high-velocity tail of the solar-reflected spectrum is overestimated, the true laboratory reach into the sub-MeV regime would be weaker than the published limits imply.

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. The paper reports a search for solar-reflected dark matter (SRDM) with the DAMIC-M Low Background Chamber prototype, using ~1.3 kg-day of silicon skipper-CCD data. Galactic-halo DM is accelerated by scattering in the solar plasma (DaMaSCUS-SUN Monte Carlo, including in-medium dark-photon mixing), producing a boosted flux that is converted to a silicon ionization rate with a Mermin-screened QCDark calculation and then to expected yields in six multi-pixel charge-pattern channels. Backgrounds are modeled as random coincidences of isolated low-charge pixels plus a radiogenic component normalized from a higher-energy control region; the analysis is blinded and uses a profile-likelihood construction with toy Monte Carlo p-values. No significant excess is observed, yielding 90% C.L. upper limits on the DM-electron cross section for heavy- and ultralight-mediator benchmarks that reach ~3.16 imes10^{-37} cm^{2} at 0.1 MeV and are competitive with existing SRDM constraints for the ultralight case.

Significance. If the limits hold, the work demonstrates that a modest skipper-CCD exposure can already probe the sub-MeV window between stellar-cooling bounds and conventional halo searches by exploiting solar reflection. The analysis re-uses a validated pattern-based selection, performs explicit checks that annual isoreflection variation and Earth overburden are negligible in the sensitivity-driving region, and replaces the default Thomas-Fermi screening with a damped Mermin dielectric response that agrees with the more recent QCDark2 RPA calculation. These technical choices make the result a useful benchmark for future low-threshold SRDM searches with the full DAMIC-M detector.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. III A / Eq. (9): the reported limits rest on the DaMaSCUS-SUN reflected fraction N_refl/N_sim and the high-velocity tail of f_refl(v). While the paper correctly notes that the flux cannot be rescaled from a fixed template and tabulates it on a (m_χ, σ̄_e) grid, no quantitative uncertainty band (or alternative solar-model / opacity variation) is propagated into the final limit curves of Fig. 5. A short systematic envelope or a statement of the fractional change under plausible variations of the solar electron density / temperature profile would make the competitiveness claim more robust.
  2. Sec. II A and the observed counts D_p = (144,0,0,1,0,0): the decision to discard all single-pixel clusters because of non-Poissonian 2e–/3e– populations is well motivated for background control, yet it discards a substantial fraction of the SRDM acceptance (quoted as 40–80 % for 2–4 e– deposits). The paper should quantify how much the ultralight-mediator limit would improve if a data-driven single-pixel background model could be validated, or at least show the acceptance-corrected sensitivity that is being left on the table.
minor comments (4)
  1. Fig. 3 caption and text: residual bin-to-bin fluctuations are attributed to finite form-factor tables; a brief note on whether these are smoothed or left as-is in the final rate tables would help reproducibility.
  2. Eq. (A2) and surrounding text: the Mermin damping Γ = 3.2 eV is taken from the measured plasmon width; a one-sentence justification that the same value remains appropriate at the finite-q, finite-E_e kinematics of SRDM would be useful.
  3. Fig. 5: the merged “DAMIC-M 2025” halo limits are shown without a clear legend entry distinguishing the daily-modulation and pattern analyses; a short clarification would avoid confusion.
  4. Typographical: “simualtions” (Sec. II B), “threhold” (Sec. V), and inconsistent use of θ_iso vs θ_ref_iso in a few places.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: limits follow from blinded pattern counts versus an external Monte-Carlo SRDM flux, with only a control-region-constrained radiogenic nuisance.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Observed pattern counts (Eq. 2) come from a blinded D2 exposure; the background model (Eqs. 3–8) is fixed from the D1 control sample and a higher-energy control region that constrains the single nuisance Θ_rad via an auxiliary Poisson term (Eq. 15). The signal is obtained by feeding an external DaMaSCUS-SUN reflected flux (Eq. 9) into a modified QCDark rate that includes an independently implemented Mermin dielectric factor (Appendix A, Fig. 3), then folding with diffusion and pattern-acceptance probabilities taken from the same reconstruction used in the prior halo analysis. The profile-likelihood ratio (Eqs. 14–18) is evaluated with toys; no free parameter of the signal model is fitted to the search data and then re-used as a prediction. Self-citations to earlier DAMIC-M papers supply only the shared data set and pattern-selection machinery; they do not supply the SRDM flux, the dielectric response, or the numerical value of the reported cross-section limits. Consequently the central claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central limits rest on standard halo and solar-plasma assumptions, a dark-photon mediator model, published Monte-Carlo tools, and a small set of literature constants for silicon response. No new particles or forces are postulated; the only free parameter floated in the likelihood is a radiogenic normalization constrained by data.

free parameters (2)
  • Θ_rad (radiogenic normalization) = profiled around 1
    Nuisance parameter that rescales the radiogenic background component; constrained by the observed control-region count (N_obs_ctrl = 98) via an auxiliary Poisson term.
  • Mermin damping Γ = 3.2 eV
    Fixed to 3.2 eV from the measured silicon plasmon width; enters the dielectric screening factor used for the SRDM rate.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Standard Halo Model velocity distribution and solar-plasma Maxwell-Boltzmann targets as implemented in DaMaSCUS-SUN
    Used to generate the reflected flux (Sec. III A); any deviation would change the high-velocity tail that drives the signal.
  • domain assumption Dark-photon mediator with either heavy (F_DM=1) or ultralight (F_DM=(α m_e/q)^2) form factor
    Defines the two benchmark scenarios for which limits are quoted (Sec. III B).
  • domain assumption Mermin dielectric function with ω_p = 16.6 eV adequately describes silicon screening in the SRDM kinematic regime
    Replaces the default QCDark Thomas-Fermi screening; validated against QCDark2 RPA but still an approximation (Sec. III C, App. A).
  • domain assumption Pattern-identification efficiencies and ionization-yield model of Ref. [46] correctly map deposited energy to observed multi-pixel channels
    Converts the differential rate into expected counts in the six pattern channels (Sec. III D).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 23644 in / 2638 out tokens · 28620 ms · 2026-07-13T03:39:22.200991+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Sun acts as a natural dark matter accelerator. Galactic halo particles scattering in the solar plasma emerge with velocities well beyond the Galactic escape speed, providing a boosted flux that extends the kinematic reach of direct detection experiments into the sub-MeV mass regime. We present constraints on solar-reflected dark matter (SRDM) from the DAMIC-M prototype detector using $\sim$1.3~kg-day of data acquired with silicon skipper charge coupled devices (CCDs) at the Modane Underground Laboratory. Exploiting the spatial diffusion signature of low-energy electron recoils, we derive 90% C.L. upper limits on the DM-electron scattering cross section for both heavy- and ultralight-mediator benchmarks, reaching $\bar{\sigma}_e\sim 3.16 \cdot 10^{-37} \rm{cm^2}$ at $0.1$ MeV. For the ultralight mediator, our limits are competitive with the world-leading constraints, achieved with an integrated exposure of $\sim1.3$~kg-day. These results probe the parameter space between stellar-cooling bounds and terrestrial limits from standard halo searches, a region inaccessible to direct detection experiments relying solely on the standard halo flux.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09352 by A. Dastgheibi-Fard, A.E. Chavarria, A. Letessier-Selvon, A. Lopez-Virto, A.R. Chriss, B. J. Kavanagh, B. Kilminster, B. Roach, C. Centeno-Lorca, C. De Dominicis, C. Zhu, D. Norcini, D. Rosenmerkel, D. Venegas-Vargas, E. Estrada, E.-L. Gkougkousis, H. Lin, H. Lumengo-Kidimbu, I. Arnquist, I. Lawson, J. Cuevas-Zepeda, J. Duarte-Campderros, J. Noonan, K. Aggarwal, L. Iddir, M. Settimo, M. Traina, N. Avalos, N. Castello-Mor, O. Deligny, P. Loaiza, P. Perez-Cobo, P. Privitera, P. Robmann, R. Ga{\i}or, R. Lou, R. Smida, R. Vilar, R. Yajur, S. Munagavalasa, S. Paul, T. Hossbach, X. Bertou, Y. Zhu.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. SRDM differential flux at Earth’s orbit for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Impact of the dielectric-screening prescription on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Expected SRDM signal rate in events/g/day for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. DAMIC-M 90% C.L. upper limits on DM-electron interactions through an ultralight (left) and heavy (right) dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Screening factors as a function of energy for a set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    J. M. Gaskins, A review of indirect searches for par- ticle dark matter, Contemp. Phys.57, 496 (2016), arXiv:1604.00014 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Boveia and C

    A. Boveia and C. Doglioni, Dark Matter Searches at Colliders, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 429 (2018), arXiv:1810.12238 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Billardet al., Direct detection of dark mat- ter—APPEC committee report*, Rept

    J. Billardet al., Direct detection of dark mat- ter—APPEC committee report*, Rept. Prog. Phys.85, 056201 (2022), arXiv:2104.07634 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Boehm, P

    C. Boehm, P. Fayet, and J. Silk, Light and heavy dark matter particles, Phys. Rev. D69, 101302 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Secluded WIMP Dark Matter, Phys. Lett. B662, 53 (2008), arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Hooper and K

    D. Hooper and K. M. Zurek, A Natural Supersymmetric Model with MeV Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D77, 087302 (2008), arXiv:0801.3686 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    X. Chu, T. Hambye, and M. H. G. Tytgat, The Four Basic Ways of Creating Dark Matter Through a Portal, JCAP05, 034, arXiv:1112.0493 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Light Dark Matter: Models and Constraints, Phys. Rev. D96, 115021 (2017), arXiv:1709.07882 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Drukier and L

    A. Drukier and L. Stodolsky, Principles and Applications of a Neutral Current Detector for Neutrino Physics and Astronomy, Phys. Rev. D30, 2295 (1984)

    1984

  11. [11]

    M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates, Phys. Rev. D31, 3059 (1985)

    1985

  12. [12]

    A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, and D. N. Spergel, Detecting Cold Dark Matter Candidates, Phys. Rev. D33, 3495 (1986)

    1986

  13. [13]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D85, 076007 (2012), arXiv:1108.5383 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Essig, M

    R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, Direct Detection of sub-GeV Dark Matter with Semiconductor Targets, JHEP05, 046, arXiv:1509.01598 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Barretoet al.(DAMIC), Direct Search for Low Mass Dark Matter Particles with CCDs, Phys

    J. Barretoet al.(DAMIC), Direct Search for Low Mass Dark Matter Particles with CCDs, Phys. Lett. B711, 264 (2012), arXiv:1105.5191 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  16. [16]

    Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(DAMIC Collaboration), Search for low-mass WIMPs in a 0.6 kg day exposure of the DAMIC experiment at SNOLAB, Phys

    A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(DAMIC Collaboration), Search for low-mass WIMPs in a 0.6 kg day exposure of the DAMIC experiment at SNOLAB, Phys. Rev. D94, 082006 (2016)

    2016

  17. [17]

    Adariet al.(SENSEI), First Direct-Detection Re- sults on Sub-GeV Dark Matter Using the SENSEI De- tector at SNOLAB, Phys

    P. Adariet al.(SENSEI), First Direct-Detection Re- sults on Sub-GeV Dark Matter Using the SENSEI De- tector at SNOLAB, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 011804 (2025), arXiv:2312.13342 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Arnquistet al.(DAMIC-M), First Constraints from DAMIC-M on Sub-GeV Dark-Matter Particles Interact- ing with Electrons, Phys

    I. Arnquistet al.(DAMIC-M), First Constraints from DAMIC-M on Sub-GeV Dark-Matter Particles Interact- ing with Electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 171003 (2023), arXiv:2302.02372 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Arnquistet al.(DAMIC-M), Search for Daily Modula- tion of MeV Dark Matter Signals with DAMIC-M, Phys

    I. Arnquistet al.(DAMIC-M), Search for Daily Modula- tion of MeV Dark Matter Signals with DAMIC-M, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 101006 (2024), arXiv:2307.07251 [hep- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Aggarwal, I

    K. Aggarwal, I. Arnquist, N. Avalos, X. Bertou, N. Castell´ o-Mor, A. E. Chavarria, J. Cuevas-Zepeda, A. Dastgheibi-Fard, C. De Dominicis, O. Deligny, 11 J. Duarte-Campderros, E. Estrada, R. Ga¨ ıor, E.- L. Gkougkousis, T. Hossbach, L. Iddir, B. J. Ka- vanagh, B. Kilminster, A. Lantero-Barreda, I. Lawson, A. Letessier-Selvon, H. Lin, P. Loaiza, A. Lopez-V...

    2025

  21. [21]

    A. M. Green, Astrophysical uncertainties on the local dark matter distribution and direct detection experi- ments, J. Phys. G44, 084001 (2017), arXiv:1703.10102 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Kouvaris and I

    C. Kouvaris and I. M. Shoemaker, Daily modulation as a smoking gun of dark matter with significant stopping rate, Phys. Rev. D90, 095011 (2014), arXiv:1405.1729 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    B. J. Kavanagh, R. Catena, and C. Kouvaris, Signatures of Earth-scattering in the direct detection of Dark Mat- ter, JCAP01, 012, arXiv:1611.05453 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [25]

    Aggarwalet al.(DAMIC-M), Daily Modulation Con- straints on Light Dark Matter with DAMIC-M (2025), arXiv:2511.13962 [hep-ex]

    K. Aggarwalet al.(DAMIC-M), Daily Modulation Con- straints on Light Dark Matter with DAMIC-M (2025), arXiv:2511.13962 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  25. [26]

    Bringmann and M

    T. Bringmann and M. Pospelov, Novel direct detection constraints on light dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 171801 (2019), arXiv:1810.10543 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [27]

    Y. Ema, F. Sala, and R. Sato, Light Dark Matter at Neu- trino Experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 181802 (2019), arXiv:1811.00520 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [28]

    J.-W. Wang, A. Granelli, and P. Ullio, Direct Detec- tion Constraints on Blazar-Boosted Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 221104 (2022), arXiv:2111.13644 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [29]

    Granelli, P

    A. Granelli, P. Ullio, and J.-W. Wang, Blazar-boosted dark matter at Super-Kamiokande, JCAP07(07), 013, arXiv:2202.07598 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [30]

    C. V. Cappiello, N. P. A. Kozar, and A. C. Vincent, Dark matter from Monogem, Phys. Rev. D107, 035003 (2023), arXiv:2210.09448 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [31]

    H. An, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, Di- rectly Detecting MeV-scale Dark Matter via Solar Re- flection, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 141801 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 259903 (2018)], arXiv:1708.03642 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [32]

    Emken, C

    T. Emken, C. Kouvaris, and N. G. Nielsen, The Sun as a sub-GeV Dark Matter Accelerator, Phys. Rev. D97, 063007 (2018), arXiv:1709.06573 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [33]

    Emken, Solar reflection of light dark matter with heavy mediators, Phys

    T. Emken, Solar reflection of light dark matter with heavy mediators, Phys. Rev. D105, 063020 (2022)

    2022

  33. [34]

    Emken, R

    T. Emken, R. Essig, and H. Xu, Solar reflection of dark matter with dark-photon mediators, JCAP07, 023, arXiv:2404.10066 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [35]

    Z. Y. Zhanget al.(CDEX), Experimental Limits on Solar Reflected Dark Matter with a New Ap- proach on Accelerated-Dark-Matter–Electron Analysis in Semiconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 171001 (2024), arXiv:2309.14982 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [37]

    Arnquist, N

    I. Arnquist, N. Avalos, P. Bailly, D. Baxter, X. Bertou, M. Bogdan, C. Bourgeois, J. Brandt, A. Ca- diou, N. Castell´ o-Mor, A. Chavarria, M. Conde, J. Cuevas-Zepeda, A. Dastgheibi-Fard, C. De Domini- cis, O. Deligny, R. Desani, M. Dhellot, J. Duarte- Campderros, E. Estrada, D. Florin, N. Gadola, R. Ga¨ ıor, E.-L. Gkougkousis, J. Gonz´ alez S´ anchez, S. ...

  36. [38]

    Baxteret al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches, Eur

    D. Baxteret al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 907 (2021), arXiv:2105.00599 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [39]

    Lantero-Barreda, C

    A. Lantero-Barreda, C. Centeno, B. J. Kavanagh, and N. Castell´ o-Mor, A fast earth-scattering formalism for light dark matter with dark photon mediators (2025), arXiv:2511.10589 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [40]

    C. E. Dreyer, R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, A. Sin- gal, and C. Zhen, Fully ab-initio all-electron calculation of dark matter-electron scattering in crystals with eval- uation of systematic uncertainties, Phys. Rev. D109, 115008 (2024), arXiv:2306.14944 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [41]

    D. G. Cerdeno and A. M. Green, Direct detection of WIMPs (2010), arXiv:1002.1912 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [42]

    Lindhard, On the properties of a gas of charged particles, Danske Matematisk-fysiske Meddelelser28, 1 (1954)

    J. Lindhard, On the properties of a gas of charged particles, Danske Matematisk-fysiske Meddelelser28, 1 (1954)

    1954

  41. [43]

    N. D. Mermin, Lindhard Dielectric Function in the Relaxation-Time Approximation, Phys. Rev. B1, 2362 (1970)

    1970

  42. [44]

    Egerton, Electron energy loss spectroscopy in the tem, REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS Rep

    R. Egerton, Electron energy loss spectroscopy in the tem, REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS Rep. Prog. Phys72, 16502 (2009)

    2009

  43. [45]

    Dreyer, R

    C. Dreyer, R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, M. Hott, and A. Singal, All-electron dark matter-electron scattering with random-phase approximation dielectric screening and local field effects (2026), arXiv:2603.12326 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  44. [46]

    Ramanathan and N

    K. Ramanathan and N. Kurinsky, Ionization yield in sil- icon for eV-scale electron-recoil processes, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063026 (2020)

    2020

  45. [47]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymp- totic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  46. [48]

    Collaboration, E

    X. Collaboration, E. Aprile, J. Aalbers, K. Abe, M. Adrover, S. A. Maouloud, L. Althueser, B. Andrieu, E. Angelino, D. A. Martin, S. R. Armbruster, F. Ar- neodo, L. Baudis, M. Bazyk, L. Bellagamba, R. Biondi, A. Bismark, K. Boese, R. M. Braun, G. Bruni, G. Bruno, R. Budnik, C. Cai, C. Capelli, J. M. R. Cardoso, A. P. C. Ch’avez, A. P. Colijn, J. Conrad, J...

    arXiv 2025

  47. [49]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and A. Reinert, Light(ly)-coupled dark matter in the keV range: freeze-in and constraints, JHEP03, 141

  48. [50]

    Battaglieri, A

    M. Battaglieri, A. Belloni, A. Chou, P. Cushman, B. Echenard, R. Essig, J. Estrada, J. L. Feng, B. Flaugher, P. J. Fox, P. Graham, C. Hall, R. Harnik, J. Hewett, J. Incandela, E. Izaguirre, D. McKinsey, M. Pyle, N. Roe, G. Rybka, P. Sikivie, T. M. P. Tait, N. Toro, R. V. D. Water, N. Weiner, K. Zurek, E. Adelberger, A. Afanasev, D. Alexander, J. Alexan- d...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [51]

    Knapen, J

    S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, python package for dark matter scattering in dielectric targets, Physical Review D105, 10.1103/physrevd.105.015014 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.015014 2022