Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Many-body atomic response functions of xenon and germanium for leading-order sub-GeV dark matter-electron interactions in effective field theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper supplies complete many-body atomic response tables for xenon and germanium dark-matter searches and shows that spin-dependent and spin-independent interactions can be told apart at low recoil energies.

desk verdict Solid data paper with real new response tables, but the accuracy claim is over-broad: the photoabsorption benchmark doesn't test the axial or high-q response that the new SD/SI result depends on. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04020 v2 pith:2AXTDTSE submitted 2024-12-25 astro-ph.CO hep-exhep-ph

C.-P. Liu , Mukesh K. Pandey , Lakhwinder Singh , Chih-Pan Wu , Jiunn-Wei Chen , Hsin-Chang Chi , Henry T. Wong This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-exhep-ph
keywords darkmattersub-GeVmatter-electronscatteringatomicresponsefunctionsrelativisticrandomphaseapproximationxenongermaniumspin-dependentinteraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to supply the atomic physics input needed to interpret sub-GeV dark matter-electron scattering in xenon and germanium detectors. Using the (multiconfiguration) relativistic random phase approximation, which treats relativity, exchange, and electron correlation in one self-consistent framework, it computes four response functions over the energy and momentum range relevant to dark matter masses up to about 1 GeV. The results are benchmarked against photoabsorption measurements from threshold to 30 keV and agree within about 5% away from ionization edges. A central finding is that below about 100 eV the spin-dependent response is no longer a constant multiple of the spin-independent one, so the two interaction types could in principle be separated in unpolarized detectors. If the calculation is reliable, the response tables provide a reusable many-body input for future direct-detection limits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the (multiconfiguration) relativistic random phase approximation, a self-consistent many-body method that solves for the ground state with Dirac-Fock or MCDF and for ionized final states with RRPA or MCRRPA, so exchange and electron-electron correlation are included together with relativity. For each momentum transfer $q$ and multipole $J$, it evaluates the reduced matrix elements of four transition operators — charge, axial longitudinal, axial transverse electric, and axial transverse magnetic — whose squared moduli define the response functions $R_C$, $R_{L5}$, $R_{E5}$, and $R_{M5}$ entering the dark-matter differential cross section. The method carries the argument because it is the only ingredient in the rate calculation that needs expensive atomic physics; once tabulated, the response functions are the reusable input for any dark-matter mass, velocity distribution, or coupling.

What would settle it

Compute the axial response functions for xenon at $T<100$ eV with an independent correlated method; if the SD/SI differential-rate ratio returns to 3 in that range, the paper's central distinction claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The atomic response of xenon (above 12.2 eV) and germanium (above 80 eV) to dark matter-electron interactions is governed by four multipole response functions, and the paper computes them with (MC)RRPA, including all subshells except the inert 1s electrons of xenon and all electrons of germanium. The resulting photoabsorption cross sections match experimental data within roughly 5% from threshold to 30 keV. The key qualitative claim is that the spin-dependent response functions deviate substantially from the spin-independent ones at low energy transfer, breaking the factor-of-3 scaling that holds for nonrelativistic independent-particle atoms; this makes spin-dependent versus spin-independent dark matter-electron interactions distinguishable in unpolarized detector media at low recoil energies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that (MC)RRPA transition amplitudes remain accurate at momentum transfers up to 2.5 MeV and for the axial (spin-dependent) multipole operators, although the photoabsorption benchmark only validates the charge operator at the much smaller momenta $q \sim T/c$ of photon absorption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The tabulated response functions cover the full $(T,q)$ plane for sub-GeV dark matter: xenon from 12.2 eV, germanium from 80 eV, up to $T \approx 5$ keV and $q$ up to 2.5 MeV.
  • For $T > 300$ eV the correlated (MC)RRPA rates agree with the simpler frozen-core approximation within about 20%, but below 300 eV the difference can be much larger, so independent-particle calculations should not be trusted at low recoil energies.
  • The spin-dependent and spin-independent differential rates do not scale by the constant factor 3 across the whole spectrum; below about 100 eV the ratio moves well away from 3, giving SD and SI interactions different low-energy spectral shapes.
  • Updated 90% confidence exclusion limits using published liquid-xenon data shift: low-threshold data become more constraining with the correlated response, while high-threshold data become slightly less so.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The tabulated response functions could be reused directly for other low-energy electron-recoil processes, such as neutrino-electron scattering or absorption of dark photons, because those processes share the same atomic transition amplitudes.
  • A natural next test is to compute the SD/SI ratio for argon or other detector targets to see whether the low-energy breakdown of the factor-3 scaling is generic or specific to xenon and germanium's outer-shell structure.
  • If the SD/SI separation survives, experiments with single-electron sensitivity could search for a spectral-shape distortion rather than a total-rate excess, which would require event-by-event energy reconstruction and would be much more robust against background uncertainties.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes atomic response functions for xenon and germanium using the (multiconfiguration) relativistic random phase approximation, for use in sub-GeV dark matter-electron scattering at leading order. It benchmarks the charge response against photoabsorption data, provides data tables and code, compares with earlier RFCA and other independent-particle approaches, and updates exclusion limits for several existing experiments. It also reports a low-energy (T<100 eV) difference between spin-dependent and spin-independent response functions, arguing that SD and SI interactions can be distinguished in unpolarized detectors.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a comprehensive, many-body data set for two important direct-detection targets, with the practical advantage that the response functions are tabulated and the rate code is released. The (MC)RRPA method is ab initio and self-consistent, and the photoabsorption agreement is a genuine external test of the charge channel. However, the benchmark covers only the charge multipoles at momentum transfer q≈T/c, while the DM rate calculation uses the same response functions at q up to 2.5 MeV and includes axial operators that are not probed by real photons. The accuracy claim for DM scattering is therefore an extrapolation that needs to be stated more carefully.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.B.1, Fig. 1; Eqs. (4)-(5)] The photoabsorption benchmark tests only the charge multipoles at q≈T/c, which for T≤30 keV is at most about 0.22 keV. The DM response functions used in Eqs. (4) and (5) are integrated over q up to 2.5 MeV and include the axial operators of Eqs. (2b)-(2d) that do not couple to real photons. The 5% photoabsorption agreement therefore provides no direct external constraint on the axial response or on the q-dependence of any response in the region where DM scattering occurs. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and discuss the degree to which the RMFA/RPA framework is expected to remain accurate at large q and for the spin-dependent operators, ideally with a quantitative estimate of the induced uncertainty on the differential rate.
  2. [Sec. IV, Figs. 7-8] The new claim that SD and SI interactions can be distinguished at T≲100 eV depends precisely on the ratio of axial to charge response at low energy and low momentum transfer. This is the same region where, as the paper notes, the photoabsorption benchmark is least reliable near the ionization edges and where the germanium atomic calculation is not valid below 80 eV. The authors should justify why the axial response is trustworthy in this regime, for example by decomposing the response into shell-wise contributions and by showing how the SD/SI ratio in Figs. 7-8 changes when the RPA correlation treatment is varied.
  3. [Sec. II.B.2] The high-momentum tail beyond 2.5 MeV is said to be extrapolated to the end point q_end=sqrt(2mA(T-Tmin)), but the extrapolation function is not specified and its error is not quantified. Since the differential rate in Eq. (4) integrates over this tail, please describe the extrapolation method and show its contribution to the rate for representative (T,q) values.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'energies less than 1 GeV is' should be 'energies less than 1 GeV are'.
  2. [Sec. III.B] The data tables and code are hosted on a webpage; for long-term accessibility, consider depositing them in a permanent repository (e.g., Zenodo) and citing the DOI.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (5b)] Please confirm that the sum over J for the L5 response starts at J=0 while the E5 and M5 sums start at J=1, given the definitions in Eqs. (2b)-(2d); if this is intentional, a brief note would help the reader.
  4. [Sec. IV] The paper mentions an erratum for the earlier RFCA result in Ref. [20]; it would be helpful to state explicitly that the present SD results supersede those of Ref. [20] on the points where they differ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the (MC)RRPA response functions are computed ab initio and benchmarked against external photoabsorption data; no parameter is fitted to the DM quantities the paper predicts.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The response functions RC, RL5, RE5, RM5 are obtained by solving the (MC)RRPA equations (Sec. II.B), which are ab initio many-body calculations whose only external benchmark is measured photoabsorption cross sections (Fig. 1). These benchmark data are independent of DM-electron scattering and are not used as inputs to define the response functions; they serve only as validation. The DM differential rates in Eqs. (4)-(6) are then assembled from these response functions, so the predictions are not fitted to or defined in terms of the experiments (XENON10, XENON100, XENON1T, PandaX-II) whose exclusion limits are later derived. The comparison with the authors' previous RFCA results (Refs. [10,20]) is a baseline comparison, not a load-bearing self-citation: the new RRPA results are computed independently and differ substantially at low T. The statement that SD and SI were indistinguishable in nonrelativistic independent-particle treatments cites the authors' own Ref. [20] for the old argument, but the new claim of distinguishability is based on the present RRPA calculation, not on that citation. The photoabsorption benchmark does test only charge multipoles at photon kinematics, so the accuracy of axial multipoles and large-q behavior is an extrapolation; however, that is a validation/correctness concern, not circularity, because nothing in the paper defines the DM response as equivalent to the photoabsorption result. The paper also explicitly notes its germanium atomic calculation is invalid below 80 eV, a limitation, not a circular step. Overall, no step reduces the claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Free parameters are limited to two detector-calibration constants used only in the dN/dne event-number conversion; they are not fit to dark matter data and do not enter the response function tables themselves. The atomic calculation itself is ab initio, benchmarked against photoabsorption data. The main axioms are the leading-order EFT truncation, the single-atom picture for germanium above 80 eV, the correctness of (MC)RRPA for transition matrix elements, the unverified transfer of the photoabsorption benchmark to large momentum transfer and axial operators, and the standard halo model for rates. No new particles, mediators, or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • W (average energy per quantum) = 13.8 eV
    Used to convert recoil energy into number of primary ionized electrons or scintillation photons in dN/dne; adopted from detector phenomenology, not fitted to DM data.
  • f(e) (electron detection probability) = 0.83
    Binomial success probability for observing quanta as electrons in dN/dne conversion; adopted from detector phenomenology, not fitted to DM data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The leading-order EFT Lagrangian Eq. (1) captures all relevant DM-electron interactions.
    The paper computes only SI and SD contact and long-range terms; other operators or mediator forms are not considered.
  • domain assumption The single-atom response describes detector targets; germanium crystal effects are negligible above 80 eV.
    The atomic photoabsorption benchmark fails below 80 eV for germanium due to band structure, so the paper sets Tmin = 80 eV and assumes atomic treatment above this energy.
  • domain assumption (MC)RRPA equations correctly include relativistic, exchange, and correlation effects for transition matrix elements.
    The method is taken from Refs. [28,29] as an ab initio approach and is not re-derived here; the photoabsorption benchmark supports it for the charge operator only.
  • domain assumption Photoabsorption benchmarking transfers to DM scattering kinematics.
    Photoabsorption exercises q approximately T/c, while DM response is needed at q up to 2.5 MeV; transferability is assumed, not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The standard halo model with rho = 0.4 GeV/cm3, v0 = 220 km/s, vesc = 544 km/s, and vE = 232 km/s describes the local DM velocity distribution.
    Used for rate predictions and exclusion limits; adopted from Ref. [51], with seasonal modulation averaged out.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Many-body atomic response functions of xenon and germanium for leading-order sub-GeV dark matter-electron interactions in effective field theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2AXTDTSE

@misc{pith2026250104020,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Many-body atomic response functions of xenon and germanium for leading-order sub-GeV dark matter-electron interactions in effective field theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2AXTDTSE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04020}
}
abstract

Direct searches of dark matter candidates with mass energies less than 1 GeV is an active research field. The energy depositions are comparable to the scale of atomic, molecular, or condensed matter systems, therefore many-body physics plays an important role in understanding the detector's response in dark matter scattering. We present in this work a comprehensive data set of atomic response functions for xenon and germanium with 12.2 and 80 eV energy thresholds, respectively, using the (multiconfiguration) relativistic random phase approximation. This approach takes into account the relativistic, exchange, and correlation effects in one self-consistent framework, and is benchmarked successfully by photoabsorption data from thresholds to 30 keV with $\lesssim5\%$ errors. Comparisons with our previous and some other independent particle approaches in literature are made. It is also found that the spin-dependent (SD) response has significant difference from the spin-independent (SI) one such that the dark matter SD and SI interactions with electrons can be distinguished in unpolarized scattering, which is typical for direct search detectors. Finally, the exclusion limits set by current experiments are updated with our new results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04020 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The photoabsorption cross sections of xenon (left) and germanium (right) are shown. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Four atomic responses RC, RL5 ,RE5 , and RM5 of xenon as functions of T and q calculated by RRPA with values shown by color gradients that Jmax ≤ 6 is sufficient. This is supported by our RFCA calculations which can easily handle high multipoles. In Figs. 2 and 3, the four response functions RC, RL5 ,RE5 , and RM5 are plotted in two dimensional planes of T and q with color gradients showing their magnitudes for xeno… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Four atomic responses RC, RL5 ,RE5 , and RM5 of germanium as functions of T and q calculated by MCRRPA with values shown by color gradients. III. DIFFERENTIAL CROSS SECTIONS AND RATES A. Formulation With the relevant response functions being obtained, it is straightforward to assemble them and calculate differential cross sections and rates. Here we outline the general proce￾dure and essential formulae. The differen… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Differential count rates dR/dT due to the SI (dashed) or SD (solid) χ-e short-range (left) or long-range (right) interaction for a xenon detector with a kg-day exposure calculated by RRPA response functions. −2 10 −1 10 1 T (keV) −5 10 −4 10 −3 10 −2 10 −1 10 1 10 2 10…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the RRPA with the RFCA predictions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparisons of expected event numbers as a function of ionized electron number de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratios of the differential rates due to the SD versus SI DM-electron interactions of short- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparisons of the expected event numbers due to the SD and SI DM-electron short- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The DM-free- electron scattering cross section is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The exclusion limits at 90% confidence level (C.L.) on spin-independent and spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    relativistic

    Photoabsorption benchmark Many-body correlation, which is beyond typical mean-field type approaches, has been known to play an important role in proper understanding of excited states of a many-body system. For an atom system, its photoabsorption cross section, which is dominated by photoelectron emission in the energy range of 10 eV to 100 keV, provides ...

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    The digital data files are shipped along with the codes that supplement this paper

    Data tables and parameter space covered Four types of atomic response functions: charge (C), axial longitudinal (L5), axial trans- verse electric (E5), and axial transverse magnetic (M 5), RC,L5,E5,M 5(T, q), which correspond to transition operators ˆM ,ˆΣ ′′ , ˆΣ ′ , ˆΣ, respectively, are compiled in this work. The digital data files are shipped along wi...

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Battaglieriet al., US Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter 2017: Community Report, in U.S

    M. Battaglieriet al., US Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter 2017: Community Report, in U.S. Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter College Park, MD, USA, March 23-25, 2017 (2017) arXiv:1707.04591 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Essig et al., Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark matter direct detection in the next decade, inSnowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08297 [hep-ph]

    R. Essig et al., Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark matter direct detection in the next decade, inSnowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08297 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    J. Kopp, V. Niro, T. Schwetz, and J. Zupan, DAMA/LIBRA and leptonically interacting Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D80, 083502 (2009), arXiv:0907.3159 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Essig, A

    R. Essig, A. Manalaysay, J. Mardon, P. Sorensen, and T. Volansky, First Direct Detection Limits on sub-GeV Dark Matter from XENON10, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 021301 (2012), arXiv:1206.2644 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    B. M. Roberts, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, M. Pospelov, and Y. V. Stadnik, Dark matter scattering on electrons: Accurate calculations of atomic excitations and implications for the DAMA signal, Phys. Rev. D93, 115037 (2016), arXiv:1604.04559 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Essig, T

    R. Essig, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, New Constraints and Prospects for sub-GeV Dark Matter 21 Scattering off Electrons in Xenon, Phys. Rev. D96, 043017 (2017), arXiv:1703.00910 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide), Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Matter-Electron Scattering from the DarkSide-50 Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 111303 (2018), arXiv:1802.06998 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Crisler, R

    M. Crisler, R. Essig, J. Estrada, G. Fernandez, J. Tiffenberg, M. Sofo haro, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu (SENSEI), SENSEI: First Direct-Detection Constraints on sub-GeV Dark Matter from a Surface Run, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 061803 (2018), arXiv:1804.00088 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Agnese et al

    R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS), First Dark Matter Constraints from a SuperCDMS Single- Charge Sensitive Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 051301 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 122, 069901 (2019)], arXiv:1804.10697 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    M. K. Pandey, L. Singh, C.-P. Wu, J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, C.-C. Hsieh, C.-P. Liu, and H. T. Wong, Constraints from a many-body method on spin-independent dark matter scattering off electrons using data from germanium and xenon detectors, Phys. Rev. D102, 123025 (2020), arXiv:18...

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Abramoffet al

    O. Abramoffet al. (SENSEI), SENSEI: Direct-Detection Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Matter from a Shallow Underground Run Using a Prototype Skipper-CCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 161801 (2019), arXiv:1901.10478 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Roberts and V

    B. Roberts and V. Flambaum, Electron-interacting dark matter: Implications from DAMA/LIBRA-phase2 and prospects for liquid xenon detectors and NaI detectors, Phys. Rev. D 100, 063017 (2019), arXiv:1904.07127 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Light Dark Matter Search with Ionization Signals in XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 251801 (2019), arXiv:1907.11485 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Aguilar-Arevalo et al

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (DAMIC), Constraints on Light Dark Matter Particles Inter- acting with Electrons from DAMIC at SNOLAB, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 181802 (2019), arXiv:1907.12628 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Catena, T

    R. Catena, T. Emken, N. A. Spaldin, and W. Tarantino, Atomic responses to general dark matter-electron interactions, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033195 (2020), arXiv:1912.08204 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Arnaud et al

    Q. Arnaud et al. (EDELWEISS), First germanium-based constraints on sub-MeV Dark Matter with the EDELWEISS experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 141301 (2020), arXiv:2003.01046 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Barak et al

    L. Barak et al. (SENSEI), SENSEI: Direct-Detection Results on sub-GeV Dark Matter from a 22 New Skipper-CCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 171802 (2020), arXiv:2004.11378 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    D. W. Amaralet al. (SuperCDMS), Constraints on low-mass, relic dark matter candidates from a surface-operated SuperCDMS single-charge sensitive detector, Phys. Rev. D102, 091101 (2020), arXiv:2005.14067 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    (PandaX-II),SearchforLightDarkMatter-ElectronScatteringsinthePandaX- II Experiment, Phys

    C.Cheng et al. (PandaX-II),SearchforLightDarkMatter-ElectronScatteringsinthePandaX- II Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 211803 (2021), arXiv:2101.07479 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Liu, C.-P

    C.-P. Liu, C.-P. Wu, J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, M. K. Pandey, L. Singh, and H. T. Wong, Spin-dependent dark matter-electron interactions, Phys. Rev. D106, 063003 (2022), arXiv:2106.16214 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Emission of single and few electrons in XENON1T and limits on light dark matter, Phys. Rev. D106, 022001 (2022), arXiv:2112.12116 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Z. Y. Zhang et al. (CDEX), Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Matter–Electron Scattering from the CDEX-10 Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 221301 (2022), arXiv:2206.04128 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Arnquist et al

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

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Adari et al

    P. Adari et al. (SENSEI), SENSEI: First Direct-Detection Results on sub-GeV Dark Matter from SENSEI at SNOLAB, (2023), arXiv:2312.13342 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 85, 076007 (2012), arXiv:1108.5383 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hamaide and C

    L. Hamaide and C. McCabe, Fueling the search for light dark matter-electron scattering with spherical proportional counters, Phys. Rev. D107, 063002 (2023), arXiv:2110.02985 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A. R. Caddell, V. V. Flambaum, and B. M. Roberts, Accurate electron-recoil ionization factors for dark matter direct detection in xenon, krypton, and argon, Phys. Rev. D108, 083030 (2023), arXiv:2305.05125 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    W. R. Johnson and C. D. Lin, Multichannel relativistic random-phase approximation for the photoionization of atoms, Phys. Rev. A20, 964 (1979)

    1979

  23. [31]

    Huang and W

    K.-N. Huang and W. R. Johnson, Multiconfiguration relativistic random-phase approximation. Theory, Phys. Rev. A25, 634 (1982)

    1982

  24. [32]

    B. M. Roberts, V. V. Flambaum, and G. F. Gribakin, Ionization of atoms by slow heavy particles, including dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 023201 (2016), arXiv:1509.09044 23 [physics.atom-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. Fan, M. Reece, and L.-T. Wang, Non-relativistic effective theory of dark matter direct detection, JCAP1011, 042, arXiv:1008.1591 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers, and Y. Xu, The Effective Field Theory of Dark Matter Direct Detection, JCAP1302, 004, arXiv:1203.3542 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Cirelli, E

    M. Cirelli, E. Del Nobile, and P. Panci, Tools for model-independent bounds in direct dark matter searches, JCAP10, 019, arXiv:1307.5955 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Anand, A

    N. Anand, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. C. Haxton, Weakly interacting massive particle-nucleus elastic scattering response, Phys. Rev. C89, 065501 (2014), arXiv:1308.6288 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Anand, A

    N. Anand, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. C. Haxton, Model-independent Analyses of Dark-Matter Particle Interactions, Phys. Procedia61, 97 (2015), arXiv:1405.6690 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J.-W.Chen, H.-C.Chi, C.P.Liu, C.-L.Wu,andC.-P.Wu,Electronicandnuclearcontributions in sub-GeV dark matter scattering: A case study with hydrogen, Phys. Rev. D92, 096013 (2015), arXiv:1508.03508 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Del Nobile, Complete Lorentz-to-Galileo dictionary for direct dark matter detection, Phys

    E. Del Nobile, Complete Lorentz-to-Galileo dictionary for direct dark matter detection, Phys. Rev. D98, 123003 (2018), arXiv:1806.01291 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Catena, K

    R. Catena, K. Fridell, and M. B. Krauss, Non-relativistic Effective Interactions of Spin 1 Dark Matter, JHEP08, 030, arXiv:1907.02910 [hep-ph]

    1907 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Trickle, Z

    T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, Effective field theory of dark matter direct detection with collective excitations, Phys. Rev. D105, 015001 (2022), arXiv:2009.13534 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    T. W. Donnelly and W. C. Haxton, Multipole operators in semileptonic weak and electromag- netic interactions with nuclei, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.23, 103 (1979)

    1979

  35. [43]

    Henke, E

    B. Henke, E. Gullikson, and J. Davis, X-ray interactions: Photoabsorption, scattering, trans- mission, and reflection at e = 50-30,000 ev, z = 1-92, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 54, 181 (1993)

    1993

  36. [44]

    Samson and W

    J. Samson and W. Stolte, Precision measurements of the total photoionization cross-sections of he, ne, ar, kr, and xe, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 123, 265 (2002), determination of cross-sections and momentum profiles of atoms, molecules and condensed matter

    2002

  37. [45]

    I. H. Suzuki and N. Saito, Absolute photoabsorption cross-sections of ne and xe in the sub-kev x-ray region, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena129, 71 (2003). 24

    2003

  38. [46]

    Zheng, M

    L. Zheng, M. Cui, Y. Zhao, J. Zhao, and K. Chen, Total photoionization cross-sections of ar and xe in the energy range of 2.1-6.0kev, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 152, 143 (2006)

    2006

  39. [47]

    J.-W.Chen, H.-C.Chi, C.-P.Liu,andC.-P.Wu,Low-energyelectronicrecoilinxenondetectors by solar neutrinos, Phys. Lett. B774, 656 (2017), arXiv:1610.04177 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. W. Cooper, Interaction of maxima in the absorption of soft x rays, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 762 (1964)

    1964

  41. [49]

    S. T. Manson and J. W. Cooper, Photo-Ionization in the Soft x-Ray Range:Z Dependence in a Central-Potential Model, Phys. Rev.165, 126 (1968)

    1968

  42. [50]

    D. J. Kennedy and S. T. Manson, Photoionization of the noble gases: Cross sections and angular distributions, Phys. Rev. A5, 227 (1972)

    1972

  43. [51]

    W. R. Johnson and K. T. Cheng, Photoionization of the outer shells of neon, argon, krypton, and xenon using the relativistic random-phase approximation, Phys. Rev. A20, 978 (1979)

    1979

  44. [52]

    Chen, H.-C

    J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, K.-N. Huang, C.-P. Liu, H.-T. Shiao,et al., Atomic ionization of germa- nium by neutrinos from an ab initio approach, Phys. Lett. B731, 159 (2014), arXiv:1311.5294 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Freese, M

    K. Freese, M. Lisanti, and C. Savage, Colloquium: Annual modulation of dark matter, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1561 (2013), arXiv:1209.3339 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Angle et al

    J. Angle et al. (XENON10), A search for light dark matter in XENON10 data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 051301 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 110, 249901 (2013)], arXiv:1104.3088 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [55]

    (XENON),Low-massdarkmattersearchusingionizationsignalsinXENON100, Phys

    E.Aprile et al. (XENON),Low-massdarkmattersearchusingionizationsignalsinXENON100, Phys. Rev. D94, 092001 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 059901 (2017)], arXiv:1605.06262 [astro-ph.CO]. 25

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.