Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 6 cited by

Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter by Nuclear Targets

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fermionic dark matter can be caught by absorption, not just scattering

desk verdict A well-organized catalog of nuclear fermionic absorption signals with clean neutral-current kinematics, but the charged-current reach figures rest on uncomputed nuclear-structure input and should be treated as order-of-magnitude estimates. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10861 v2 pith:4ZZWW76E submitted 2019-08-28 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-ex

Jeff A. Dror , Gilly Elor , Robert McGehee This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COhep-ex
keywords fermionicdarkmatterabsorptionnuclearrecoilinducedbetadecayendpointshiftfour-fermionoperatorsdirectdetectionneutrinoexperiments
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

Dark matter that interacts as a fermion can be captured by a nucleus rather than merely scattering off it, and the paper argues that this absorption process should be observable with detectors that already exist or are being built. Neutral-current absorption liberates the dark matter's rest energy, pushing a nucleus back at a recoil energy $E_R = m_\chi^2/2M$ that is about $10^6$ times larger than an elastic-scattering recoil for the same mass, so lighter dark matter becomes accessible. Charged-current absorption triggers $\beta$-like transitions: stable isotopes are driven into $\beta$ decays, and already-radioactive isotopes get a shifted endpoint in their $\beta$ spectrum. The paper builds complete UV models for both operator classes and shows that, even after accounting for the unavoidable decays these interactions cause, a large region of parameter space survives. If the argument is right, searches for scattering are looking at only one of several ways dark matter can reveal itself in a detector.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a set of dimension-6 four-fermion operators that do not conserve dark matter number. In the neutral-current case, a $Z'$-mediated model with a small $\chi$--$\nu$ mixing angle generates $\frac{1}{\Lambda^2}(\bar n\gamma^\mu n+\bar p\gamma^\mu p)\bar\chi\gamma_\mu P_R\nu$; the kinematic identity $E_R^0 = m_\chi^2/2M$ turns the dark matter rest mass into a peaked, velocity-independent nuclear recoil, and the Helm form factor $F(q)$ plus coherent $A^2$ enhancement sets the rate. In the charged-current case, a right-handed $W_R$ model generates $\frac{1}{\Lambda^2}[\bar p\gamma^\mu(1+\lambda\gamma_5)n][\bar e\gamma_\mu P_R\chi]$; the Fermi function $F(Z,E_e)$ and the Fermi ($\Delta I=0$) and Gamow-Teller ($\Delta I=\pm1$) selection rules determine which nuclear transitions contribute. The two model classes also fix the dark matter decay channels that indirect-detection searches constrain, which is what limits the parameter space to light dark matter.

What would settle it

Measure the low-lying Fermi and Gamow-Teller strengths for the relevant transitions, e.g. $^{131}$Xe to $^{131}$Cs and $^{125}$Te to $^{125}$I, and compare the true excited-state energies to the 1 MeV default. If the matching excited states lie much higher or the transition strengths are much smaller than assumed, the projected induced-$\beta$ reach below about 1 MeV would not materialize at the quoted thresholds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two classes of four-fermion, dark-matter-number-violating operators produce distinct nuclear signals that current experiments can test. For the neutral-current operator of the form $[\bar\chi\Gamma_i\nu][\bar n\Gamma_j n]$ and $[\bar\chi\Gamma_i\nu][\bar p\Gamma_j p]$, absorption yields a recoil spectrum concentrated in a peak at $E_R^0 = m_\chi^2/2M$, with a rate enhanced by $A^2 F(q)^2$; the spectrum is characteristically different from the falloff of elastic scattering. For the charged-current operator $[\bar\chi\Gamma_i e][\bar n\Gamma_j p]$, absorption above the threshold $m_\chi > M_{A,Z+1}+m_e - M_{A,Z}$ produces induced $\beta^-$ decays in otherwise stable isotopes, with multiple correlated signals, and for already-unstable isotopes it shifts the kinematic endpoint of the $\beta$ spectrum without any threshold. The paper claims that current detectors can reach $m_\chi$ down to roughly 350 keV through induced $\beta$ decays, and that a tritium-based experiment with about a kilogram-year of exposure could reach the lightest fermionic dark matter consistent with phase-space bounds, near 190 eV.

Load-bearing premise

The induced-decay projections rest on the assumption that a free-nucleon interaction, after a simple Coulomb correction, describes the whole nucleus, and that any missing excited-state energy is set to 1 MeV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Neutral-current absorption gives detectors a mono-energetic nuclear recoil at $m_\chi^2/2M$, so the dark matter mass can be read off from the peak position in a single experiment.
  • The same operator makes heavier targets with larger exposures, including neutrino detectors, competitive with dedicated direct-detection experiments because the signal does not rely on low thresholds for light dark matter.
  • Charged-current absorption of stable isotopes provides a multi-channel signature—energetic electron, nuclear recoil, gamma from the excited daughter, and a possible secondary beta decay—so a single event can be confirmed by correlated observables.
  • Induced $\beta^-$ searches in xenon, tellurium, and oxygen reach dark matter masses around a few hundred keV to tens of MeV, while hydrogen targets for induced $\beta^+$ are the best probe above roughly 2 MeV.
  • A tritium experiment with a kilogram-year exposure could detect fermionic dark matter at masses below the threshold for induced beta decays, down toward the 190 eV phase-space floor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the neutral-current recoil is a sharp peak, null results from past exposures can be reinterpreted as bounds on $\sigma_{NC}$ without any new hardware; the paper does not itself run those re-analyses.
  • The charged-current reach depends on nuclear response data the paper flags as missing; measuring actual Fermi and Gamow-Teller strength distributions for the listed daughter nuclei would sharpen or move the projected thresholds.
  • In asymmetric dark matter scenarios where only $\chi$ or only $\bar\chi$ survives, only one of the $\beta^-$ or $\beta^+$ channels would fire, so a null search in the other channel could bound the asymmetry.
  • If absorption signals are found, the same operators imply dark matter is unstable and should decay at a calculable rate; the decay products would be a complementary indirect-detection signature tied to the same parameter point.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the absorption of fermionic dark matter by nuclear targets through dimension-six four-fermion operators. It classifies the signals into neutral-current processes (χ + N → ν + N, producing a nuclear recoil peaked at E_R ≈ m_χ^2/2M) and charged-current processes (χ + N → e^± + N', producing induced β decays in stable isotopes and endpoint shifts in unstable isotopes). Two UV completions are presented: a gauged baryon-number model with χ–ν mixing for the neutral current, and a modified left-right symmetric model for the charged current. The paper computes dark-matter decay constraints from indirect detection, discusses collider and β-decay constraints, and projects sensitivities for a wide set of current and future experiments, including XENON1T, LUX, PandaX-II, CUORE, Borexino, Super-Kamiokande, and PTOLEMY. The central claims are that the neutral-current recoil spectrum is characteristically different from elastic scattering and that a large viable parameter space remains detectable.

Significance. If the quantitative projections hold, the paper opens a genuinely new experimental avenue: sub-MeV to tens-of-MeV fermionic dark matter could be searched for through peaked nuclear recoils, induced β decays with correlated signals, and β-endpoint shifts in existing and proposed detectors. The neutral-current derivation from Eq. (3.3) to Eq. (3.7) is clear and gives a falsifiable prediction, and the charged-current tritium calculation in Sec. 5 reproduces the standard neutrino-capture cross section in the light-mass limit, which is a useful calibration. The paper is also unusually candid about its limitations, explicitly stating that nuclear form factors for these transitions have not been computed in the literature and that unknown excited-state splittings are set to 1 MeV. These admissions are evidence that the charged-current reach should be read as an estimate rather than a precise bound. The novelty and breadth of the proposed signals make the paper a valuable contribution, provided the nuclear-response uncertainties are either quantified or clearly reflected in the main claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (4.7)–(4.13), Figs. 6–7] The charged-current reach projections replace the full nuclear transition amplitude by the free-nucleon amplitude multiplied by the Fermi function, and set unknown daughter excitation energies to 1 MeV. The manuscript itself acknowledges this twice: after Eq. (4.13) it states that the technology exists to compute form factors but that the authors are unaware of such a computation, and in Sec. 4.1 it states that when excited-state data are missing, “we take the splitting to be 1 MeV.” This is load-bearing because the kinematic threshold in Eq. (4.2) depends directly on the daughter excitation energy, and Fermi and Gamow-Teller nuclear matrix elements can vary by orders of magnitude between transitions. The 10-event projections in Figs. 6 and 7 and the abstract's claim of a “large viable parameter space” for charged-current signals therefore rest on an unquantified nuclear-response approximation. I recommend either supplying a nuclear-structure calculation or a careful compilation of measured transition strengths for the isotopes in Table 1, or explicitly demoting the charged-current projections in the abstract and conclusions to order-of-magnitude estimates pending such a calculation.
  2. [Sec. 5, Eq. (5.4)] The tritium rate is calibrated to the standard neutrino-capture result, but the same formalism is applied to heavy isotopes without accounting for axial-vector quenching or the redistribution of Gamow-Teller strength. The paper maps λ → sqrt(2.788/3) λ for tritium, citing Ref. [112], but no analogous correction is applied for xenon, tellurium, oxygen, or other targets in Sec. 4. Since the axial contribution enters quadratically in Eq. (4.11), an unquenched g_A can overestimate Gamow-Teller rates by a factor of order (1.2694/1.0)^2 ≈ 1.6 or more, and the fragmented or collective nature of the GT strength can shift the summed rate further. This is part of the same nuclear-response issue as the first comment, but it concerns the operator-level input rather than excitation energies and deserves a separate, explicit treatment or an uncertainty band on the projected limits.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title contains a spacing typo: “Nuclear T argets” should be “Nuclear Targets.”
  2. [Sec. 4.1, footnote 7] “to this affect” should be “to this effect,” and in the text near Table 1, “displaces the threshold” should be “displays the threshold.”
  3. [Sec. 6] “Due to their shear size” should be “Due to their sheer size.”
  4. [Fig. 6 and Table 3] The experiment name is written inconsistently as “Panda-XII” in Fig. 6 and “PandaX-II” in Table 3 and elsewhere; please unify the notation.
  5. [Eq. (4.4)] Eq. (4.4) uses the symbol E_R for both the outgoing electron energy and the nuclear recoil energy; renaming the electron kinetic energy, for example E_e, would avoid confusion with the recoil variable E_R used throughout Sec. 3.
  6. [Eqs. (3.6) and (4.5)] The charged-current rate in Eq. (4.5) contains a factor ρ_χ/(2m_χ) while the neutral-current rate in Eq. (3.6) uses ρ_χ/m_χ. Please clarify whether the extra factor of 1/2 accounts for a symmetric χ/anti-χ abundance or for a chiral spin average, and how it is consistent with Eq. (5.4), where the 1/2 is absent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the signal rates are derived from dimension-6 operators with scanned parameters, and the acknowledged nuclear-response approximations are limitations rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The neutral-current rate follows from the stated operator in Eq. (3.1) via standard phase-space calculation, Helm form factors, and the kinematic peak E0_R = m_chi^2/2M; the 'characteristically different' spectrum is a kinematic consequence of absorption, not a fitted output. The charged-current rate in Eqs. (4.9)-(4.13) uses a free-nucleon matrix element times the Fermi function and sums over Fermi and Gamow-Teller transitions; the paper explicitly flags the absence of nuclear form-factor computations ('the technology exists to compute form factors for scattering between different nuclei generated by general operators, we are unaware of such a computation carried out in the literature') and the ad hoc treatment of unknown excited-state splittings ('we take the splitting to be 1 MeV'). These are acknowledged approximations affecting quantitative reach, not inputs that the derivation re-labels as predictions. Projected limits are obtained by requiring fewer than 10 events at stated exposures, so there is no fitted-parameter-renamed-as-prediction. The only self-citation ([40]) is framing context and the present derivations do not reduce to it; benchmark UV parameters are scanned choices, not tuned to reproduce the target signals. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction, so the paper earns a no-circularity verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 5 invented entities

The signal formulas depend on standard halo and nuclear assumptions, while the UV benchmarks and fine-tuning parameters are chosen by hand. These choices do not invalidate the operator-level signal classification, but they are the main reason the projected reach carries substantial model dependence.

free parameters (5)
  • m_chi (dark matter mass) = scanned, from roughly 190 eV up to tens of MeV
    Central kinematic variable; all thresholds, recoil energies, and projected bounds are functions of it. Not fitted, but the discovery reach is presented as a scan.
  • Lambda (operator scale for NC and CC) = projected; sigma_NC = m_chi^2 / (4 pi Lambda^4)
    The overall coupling strength is the quantity constrained by projections, not measured. It is the new-physics scale in the dimension-6 operators.
  • NC benchmark UV parameters (m_Z', s_theta_R, Q_chi) = m_Z' = 18 GeV, s_theta_R = 10^-2 or 10^-1.5, Q_chi = 0.1
    Chosen by hand to illustrate UV constraints and fine-tuning contours; not fitted to data.
  • Fine-tuning of epsilon and UV 3-nu operator = not quantified; required to cancel chi -> nu e+e- and chi -> nu nu nu decays for m_chi above about an MeV
    Introduced ad hoc to evade indirect detection bounds. The paper explicitly says this fine-tuning is necessary in all detectable neutral-current parameter space for m_chi above about an MeV.
  • Charged-current mediator parameters g_R and M_WR = collider bound g_R^2 / (4 M_WR^2) roughly less than (4.5 TeV)^-2
    Define Lambda in the charged-current operator; constrained by CMS 8 TeV contact-interaction searches, not fitted.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Nuclear targets can be described by nucleon-level effective operators with vector and axial couplings plus the Fermi function; full nuclear response is not computed.
    Used throughout Section 4; the paper states that no such form-factor computation exists in the literature and that missing excited-state splittings are set to 1 MeV.
  • domain assumption Dark matter is non-relativistic with a capped Maxwellian velocity distribution (v0 = 220 km/s, vesc = 550 km/s, ve = 240 km/s).
    Used in Appendix A and the neutral-current rate averages; a standard halo model assumption.
  • domain assumption Local dark matter density is 0.4 GeV/cm^3.
    Used in Eqs. (3.7), (3.8), and (4.5); a standard value for Galactic dark matter.
  • ad hoc to paper Detector thresholds can be approximated by step functions and sensitivity by requiring fewer than 10 events.
    Used for all projected bounds; ignores backgrounds, detection efficiencies, and energy resolution.
  • domain assumption Dimension-6 four-Fermi operators are the relevant leading interactions.
    Assumed at the outset; the UV completions are constructed to generate these operators.
  • domain assumption The neutral-current UV completion, based on gauged baryon number with a Z' and chi-nu mixing, is viable with the quoted collider and meson constraints.
    Model construction in Section 2.1; relies on cited constraints and on anomaly structure assumptions.
  • domain assumption The charged-current UV completion, a modified left-right symmetric model with chi_R in the lepton doublet and an inert chi_L, is viable.
    Model construction in Section 2.2; explicitly breaks full left-right symmetry and assumes first-generation-only couplings.
  • domain assumption Dark matter production mechanisms do not restrict the parameter space of interest.
    Stated in Section 2; the paper omits a detailed production mechanism and assumes the relic abundance can be accommodated.
invented entities (5)
  • chi: fermionic dark matter particle
    purpose: Absorbed by nuclei; the central object of the search
    Assumed dark matter candidate with free mass and couplings; no direct detection evidence is claimed.
  • Z' gauge boson gauging baryon number
    purpose: Mediates the neutral-current absorption operator
    Introduced in Section 2.1; constrained by collider and meson searches but not observed.
  • Scalar phi with U(1)' charge
    purpose: Generates chi-nu mass mixing after acquiring a vacuum expectation value
    Model-building ingredient in Section 2.1; no independent evidence.
  • W_R boson and modified left-right symmetric gauge structure
    purpose: Mediates the charged-current absorption operator
    Introduced in Section 2.2; a modified left-right model with no observed W_R.
  • UV kinetic mixing parameter and UV 3-nu operator contributions
    purpose: Fine-tune away chi decay modes that would violate indirect detection bounds
    Ad hoc additions to preserve model viability; the paper explicitly frames them as fine-tuning.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter by Nuclear Targets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ZZWW76E

@misc{pith2026190810861,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter by Nuclear Targets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ZZWW76E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10861}
}
abstract

Absorption of fermionic dark matter leads to a range of distinct and novel signatures at dark matter direct detection and neutrino experiments. We study the possible signals from fermionic absorption by nuclear targets, which we divide into two classes of four Fermi operators: neutral and charged current. In the neutral current signal, dark matter is absorbed by a target nucleus and a neutrino is emitted. This results in a characteristically different nuclear recoil energy spectrum from that of elastic scattering. The charged current channel leads to induced $\beta$ decays in isotopes which are stable in vacuum as well as shifts of the kinematic endpoint of $ \beta$ spectra in unstable isotopes. To confirm the possibility of observing these signals in light of other constraints, we introduce UV completions of example higher dimensional operators that lead to fermionic absorption signals and study their phenomenology. Most prominently, dark matter which exhibits fermionic absorption signals is necessarily unstable leading to stringent bounds from indirect detection searches. Nevertheless, we find a large viable parameter space in which dark matter is sufficiently long lived and detectable in current and future experiments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Dark matter pair absorption

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Pair absorption of two dark matter particles in atomic transitions can probe electroweak-scale couplings of mu-eV-to-eV mass bosonic dark matter, and could bound the cosmic neutrino background overdensity near 10^9.

  2. MeV Electrophilic Axion-like Particles from Sun

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MeV axion-like particles could be made when 5.5 MeV solar fusion photons Compton-scatter off electrons; current LZ, PandaX-4T and Borexino data would then constrain g_ae to (1.7-3.7)e-6 in the 0.4-1 MeV window.

  3. Supernova cooling from neutrino-devouring dark matter

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Supernova cooling excludes fermionic dark matter produced by neutrino scattering down to cross sections of about 10^-58 cm^2 for electrons and 10^-56 cm^2 for nucleons across the keV to 100 MeV mass range.

  4. Probing Light Particles With Optically Trapped Sensors Through Nucleon Scattering

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Optically trapped nanosphere arrays could detect nuclear recoils from solar ALPs, sub-keV pseudoscalar/vector dark matter, and Earth-bound dark matter, opening new tabletop search windows in previously unconstrained p...

  5. Probing Light Dark Particles in Neutrino Scattering Experiments

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A dark fermion produced in neutrino scattering could be probed at DUNE's near detector up to cutoff scales near 1 TeV, beyond CHARM II and LEP, while current COHERENT/CONUS+ limits stay below LHC bounds.

  6. Relativistic Atomic Effects of Dark Matter Electron Scattering

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A first-principles QFT treatment of dark matter scattering off atomic electrons shows that free-electron factorization can fail and that relativistic Dirac wave functions reduce the xenon atomic factor by 30-50% relat...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [39]

    Direct Search for keV Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter with a Stable Dysprosium Target

    T. Lasserre, K. Altenmueller, M. Cribier, A. Merle, S. Mertens and M. Vivier,Direct Search for keV Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter with a Stable Dysprosium Target, 1609.04671

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [40]

    J. A. Dror, G. Elor and R. McGehee,Direct Detection Signals from Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter, 1905.12635

    arXiv 1905

  3. [112]

    Schiavilla et al.,Weak capture of protons by protons, Phys

    R. Schiavilla et al.,Weak capture of protons by protons, Phys. Rev. C58 (1998) 1263 [nucl-th/9808010]

    arXiv 1998

  4. [1]

    LUX collaboration, Results from a search for dark matter in the complete LUX exposure, Phys. Rev. Lett.118 (2017) 021303 [1608.07648]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [2]

    PandaX-IIcollaboration, Dark Matter Results from First 98.7 Days of Data from the PandaX-II Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.117 (2016) 121303 [1607.07400]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [3]

    XENON collaboration, First Dark Matter Search Results from the XENON1T Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) 181301 [1705.06655]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [4]

    Griest and D

    K. Griest and D. Seckel,Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances, Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 3191

    1991

  8. [5]

    Pospelov, A

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

    arXiv 2008

Show all 117 references
  1. [6]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky and J. G. Wacker,Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 171301 [1402.5143]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, H. Murayama, T. Volansky and J. G. Wacker,Model for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015) 021301 [1411.3727]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Kuflik, M

    E. Kuflik, M. Perelstein, N. R.-L. Lorier and Y.-D. Tsai,Elastically Decoupling Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) 221302 [1512.04545]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [9]

    E. D. Carlson, M. E. Machacek and L. J. Hall,Self-interacting dark matter, Astrophys. J. 398 (1992) 43

    1992

  5. [10]

    Pappadopulo, J

    D. Pappadopulo, J. T. Ruderman and G. Trevisan,Dark matter freeze-out in a nonrelativistic sector, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 035005 [1602.04219]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Farina, D

    M. Farina, D. Pappadopulo, J. T. Ruderman and G. Trevisan,Phases of Cannibal Dark Matter, JHEP 12 (2016) 039 [1607.03108]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [12]

    J. A. Dror, E. Kuflik and W. H. Ng,Codecaying Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.117 (2016) 211801 [1607.03110]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [13]

    J. A. Dror, E. Kuflik, B. Melcher and S. Watson,Concentrated dark matter: Enhanced small-scale structure from codecaying dark matter, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 063524 [1711.04773]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [14]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S. M. West,Freeze-In Production of FIMP Dark Matter, JHEP 03 (2010) 080 [0911.1120]. – 33 –

    2010 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Cheung, G

    C. Cheung, G. Elor, L. J. Hall and P. Kumar,Origins of Hidden Sector Dark Matter I: Cosmology, JHEP 03 (2011) 042 [1010.0022]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [16]

    Cheung, G

    C. Cheung, G. Elor, L. J. Hall and P. Kumar,Origins of Hidden Sector Dark Matter II: Collider Physics, JHEP 03 (2011) 085 [1010.0024]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [17]

    Essig, J

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

    2012 arXiv

  13. [18]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, S. Rajendran and M. T. Walters,Semiconductor Probes of Light Dark Matter, Phys. Dark Univ.1 (2012) 32 [1203.2531]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [19]

    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 (2012) 021301 [1206.2644]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [20]

    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, JHEP 05 (2016) 046 [1509.01598]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, C. G. Tully and K. M. Zurek,Directional detection of dark matter with two-dimensional targets, Phys. Lett. B772 (2017) 239 [1606.08849]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [22]

    Derenzo, R

    S. Derenzo, R. Essig, A. Massari, A. Soto and T.-T. Yu,Direct Detection of sub-GeV Dark Matter with Scintillating Targets, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 016026 [1607.01009]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [23]

    Essig, T

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

    2017 arXiv

  19. [24]

    Budnik, O

    R. Budnik, O. Chesnovsky, O. Slone and T. Volansky,Direct Detection of Light Dark Matter and Solar Neutrinos via Color Center Production in Crystals, Phys. Lett. B782 (2018) 242 [1705.03016]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [25]

    Cavoto, F

    G. Cavoto, F. Luchetta and A. D. Polosa,Sub-GeV Dark Matter Detection with Electron Recoils in Carbon Nanotubes, Phys. Lett. B776 (2018) 338 [1706.02487]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [26]

    N. A. Kurinsky, T. C. Yu, Y. Hochberg and B. Cabrera,Diamond Detectors for Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter, 1901.07569

    1901 arXiv

  22. [27]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Zhao and K. M. Zurek,Superconducting Detectors for Superlight Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) 011301 [1504.07237]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Hochberg, M

    Y. Hochberg, M. Pyle, Y. Zhao and K. M. Zurek,Detecting Superlight Dark Matter with Fermi-Degenerate Materials, JHEP 08 (2016) 057 [1512.04533]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Hochberg, T

    Y. Hochberg, T. Lin and K. M. Zurek,Detecting Ultralight Bosonic Dark Matter via Absorption in Superconductors, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 015019 [1604.06800]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Schutz and K

    K. Schutz and K. M. Zurek,Detectability of Light Dark Matter with Superfluid Helium, Phys. Rev. Lett.117 (2016) 121302 [1604.08206]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [31]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin and K. M. Zurek,Light Dark Matter in Superfluid Helium: Detection with Multi-excitation Production, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 056019 [1611.06228]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [32]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, K. M. Zurek, A. G. Grushin, R. Ilan et al.,Detection of sub-MeV Dark Matter with Three-Dimensional Dirac Materials, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 015004 [1708.08929]. – 34 –

    2018 arXiv

  28. [33]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, M. Pyle and K. M. Zurek,Detection of Light Dark Matter With Optical Phonons in Polar Materials, Phys. Lett. B785 (2018) 386 [1712.06598]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [34]

    Szydagis, C

    M. Szydagis, C. Knight and C. Levy,The Snowball Chamber: Neutron-Induced Nucleation in Supercooled Water, 1807.09253

    arXiv

  30. [35]

    Baryakhtar, J

    M. Baryakhtar, J. Huang and R. Lasenby,Axion and hidden photon dark matter detection with multilayer optical haloscopes, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 035006 [1803.11455]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [36]

    Griffin, S

    S. Griffin, S. Knapen, T. Lin and K. M. Zurek,Directional Detection of Light Dark Matter with Polar Materials, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 115034 [1807.10291]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [37]

    Kile and A

    J. Kile and A. Soni,Hidden MeV-Scale Dark Matter in Neutrino Detectors, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 115017 [0908.3892]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [38]

    Agashe, Y

    K. Agashe, Y. Cui, L. Necib and J. Thaler,(In)direct Detection of Boosted Dark Matter, JCAP 1410 (2014) 062 [1405.7370]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [41]

    J. A. Dror, G. Elor, R. McGehee and T.-T. Yu

  35. [42]

    Fiaschi, M

    J. Fiaschi, M. Klasen, M. Vargas, C. Weinheimer and S. Zeinstra,MeV neutrino dark matter: Relic density, electron recoil and lepton flavour violation, 1908.09882

    1908 arXiv

  36. [43]

    S. Betts et al.,Development of a Relic Neutrino Detection Experiment at PTOLEMY: Princeton Tritium Observatory for Light, Early-Universe, Massive-Neutrino Yield, in Proceedings, 2013 Community Summer Study on the Future of U.S. Particle Physics: Snowmass on the Mississippi (CS...

    2013 arXiv

  37. [44]

    PTOLEMY collaboration, PTOLEMY: A Proposal for Thermal Relic Detection of Massive Neutrinos and Directional Detection of MeV Dark Matter, 1808.01892

    arXiv

  38. [45]

    Y. F. Li and Z.-z. Xing,Possible Capture of keV Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter on Radioactive β-decaying Nuclei, Phys. Lett. B695 (2011) 205 [1009.5870]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [46]

    A. J. Long, C. Lunardini and E. Sabancilar,Detecting non-relativistic cosmic neutrinos by capture on tritium: phenomenology and physics potential, JCAP 1408 (2014) 038 [1405.7654]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler,Consequences of Dirac’s theory of positrons, Z. Phys. 98 (1936) 714 [physics/0605038]

    1936 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07 (2014) 079 [1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Essig, E

    R. Essig, E. Kuflik, S. D. McDermott, T. Volansky and K. M. Zurek,Constraining Light Dark Matter with Diffuse X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Observations, JHEP 11 (2013) 193 [1309.4091]

    2013 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Gong and X

    Y. Gong and X. Chen,Cosmological Constraints on Invisible Decay of Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 103511 [0802.2296]. – 35 –

    2008 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Belyaev, E

    A. Belyaev, E. Bertuzzo, C. Caniu Barros, O. Eboli, G. Grilli Di Cortona, F. Iocco et al., Interplay of the LHC and non-LHC Dark Matter searches in the Effective Field Theory approach, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 015006 [1807.03817]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [52]

    J. A. Dror, R. Lasenby and M. Pospelov,New constraints on light vectors coupled to anomalous currents, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) 141803 [1705.06726]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [53]

    J. A. Dror, R. Lasenby and M. Pospelov,Dark forces coupled to nonconserved currents, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 075036 [1707.01503]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [54]

    B. A. Dobrescu and C. Frugiuele,Hidden GeV-scale interactions of quarks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 061801 [1404.3947]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Senjanovic and R

    G. Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra,Exact Left-Right Symmetry and Spontaneous Violation of Parity, Phys. Rev. D12 (1975) 1502

    1975

  49. [56]

    Hsieh, K

    K. Hsieh, K. Schmitz, J.-H. Yu and C. P. Yuan,Global Analysis of General SU(2) x SU(2) x U(1) Models with Precision Data, Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 035011 [1003.3482]

    2010 arXiv

  50. [57]

    N. G. Deshpande and E. Ma,Pattern of Symmetry Breaking with Two Higgs Doublets, Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 2574

    1978

  51. [58]

    J. A. Formaggio and G. P. Zeller,From eV to EeV: Neutrino Cross Sections Across Energy Scales, Rev. Mod. Phys.84 (2012) 1307 [1305.7513]

    2012 arXiv

  52. [59]

    CMS collaboration, Search for physics beyond the standard model in final states with a lepton and missing transverse energy in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 092005 [1408.2745]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [60]

    J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner,Superallowed 0+→ 0+ nuclearβ decays: 2014 critical survey, with precise results forVud and CKM unitarity, Phys. Rev. C91 (2015) 025501 [1411.5987]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [61]

    I. S. Towner and J. C. Hardy,Superallowed 0+→ 0+ nuclearβ-decays, Nucl. Phys. A205 (1973) 33

    1973

  55. [62]

    J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner,Superallowed 0+→ 0+ Nuclear beta Decays and Cabibbo Universality, Nucl. Phys. A254 (1975) 221

    1975

  56. [63]

    J. C. Hardy, I. S. Towner, V. T. Koslowsky, E. Hagberg and H. Schmeing,Superallowed 0+→ 0+ nuclear beta decays: a Critical survey with tests of CVC and the standard model, Nucl. Phys. A509 (1990) 429

    1990

  57. [64]

    J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner,Superallowed 0+→ 0+ nuclear beta decays: A Critical survey with tests of CVC and the standard model, Phys. Rev. C71 (2005) 055501 [nucl-th/0412056]

    2005 arXiv

  58. [65]

    J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner,New limit on fundamental weak-interaction parameters from superallowed beta decay, Phys. Rev. Lett.94 (2005) 092502 [nucl-th/0412050]

    2005 arXiv

  59. [66]

    J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner,Superallowed 0+→ 0+ nuclear beta decays: A New survey with precision tests of the conserved vector current hypothesis and the standard model, Phys. Rev. C79 (2009) 055502 [0812.1202]

    2009 arXiv

  60. [67]

    R. P. Feynman and M. Gell-Mann,Theory of the fermi interaction, Phys. Rev.109 (1958) 193

    1958

  61. [68]

    Gonzalez-Alonso, O

    M. Gonzalez-Alonso, O. Naviliat-Cuncic and N. Severijns,New physics searches in nuclear and neutronβ decay, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.104 (2019) 165 [1803.08732]. – 36 –

    2019 arXiv

  62. [69]

    PIENU collaboration, Improved search for heavy neutrinos in the decayπ→eν, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 072012 [1712.03275]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [70]

    J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith,Review of mathematics, numerical factors, and corrections for dark matter experiments based on elastic nuclear recoil, Astropart. Phys.6 (1996) 87

    1996

  64. [71]

    Lin,TASI lectures on dark matter models and direct detection, 1904.07915

    T. Lin,TASI lectures on dark matter models and direct detection, 1904.07915

    1904 arXiv

  65. [72]

    CRESST collaboration, First results on low-mass dark matter from the CRESST-III experiment, in15th International Conference on Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics (TAUP 2017) Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, July 24-28, 2017, 2017, 1711.07692

    2017 arXiv

  66. [73]

    CUORE collaboration, First Results from CUORE: A Search for Lepton Number Violation via 0νββ Decay of 130Te, Phys. Rev. Lett.120 (2018) 132501 [1710.07988]

    2018 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Borexino collaboration, Modulations of the Cosmic Muon Signal in Ten Years of Borexino Data, JCAP 1902 (2019) 046 [1808.04207]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [75]

    PandaX-IIcollaboration, Dark Matter Results From 54-Ton-Day Exposure of PandaX-II Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) 181302 [1708.06917]

    2017 arXiv

  69. [76]

    XENON collaboration, Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 111302 [1805.12562]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [77]

    COHERENT collaboration, Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering, Science 357 (2017) 1123 [1708.01294]

    2017 arXiv

  71. [78]

    COHERENT collaboration, Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering by COHERENT, PoS NuF act2017(2018) 020 [1801.05546]

    2018 arXiv

  72. [79]

    PICO collaboration, Dark matter search results from the PICO-60 CF3I bubble chamber, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 052014 [1510.07754]

    2016 arXiv

  73. [80]

    PICO collaboration, Dark Matter Search Results from the PICO-60 C3F8 Bubble Chamber, Phys. Rev. Lett.118 (2017) 251301 [1702.07666]

    2017 arXiv

  74. [81]

    SuperCDMS collaboration, Search for Low-Mass Weakly Interacting Massive Particles with SuperCDMS, Phys. Rev. Lett.112 (2014) 241302 [1402.7137]

    2014 arXiv

  75. [82]

    SuperCDMS collaboration, New Results from the Search for Low-Mass Weakly Interacting Massive Particles with the CDMS Low Ionization Threshold Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) 071301 [1509.02448]

    2016 arXiv

  76. [83]

    DarkSide collaboration, First Results from the DarkSide-50 Dark Matter Experiment at Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, Phys. Lett. B743 (2015) 456 [1410.0653]

    2015 arXiv

  77. [84]

    DarkSide collaboration, Low-Mass Dark Matter Search with the DarkSide-50 Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 081307 [1802.06994]

    2018 arXiv

  78. [85]

    DAMIC collaboration, Search for low-mass WIMPs in a 0.6 kg day exposure of the DAMIC experiment at SNOLAB, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 082006 [1607.07410]

    2016 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Phys.97 (2018) 54 [1706.04934]

    NEWS-G collaboration, First results from the NEWS-G direct dark matter search experiment at the LSM, Astropart. Phys.97 (2018) 54 [1706.04934]

    2018 arXiv

  80. [87]

    EDEL WEISScollaboration, Searching for low-mass dark matter particles with a massive Ge bolometer operated above-ground, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 082003 [1901.03588]. – 37 –

    2019 arXiv

  81. [88]

    CRESST collaboration, Results on light dark matter particles with a low-threshold CRESST-II detector, Eur. Phys. J.C76 (2016) 25 [1509.01515]

    2016 arXiv

  82. [89]

    C. E. Aalseth et al.,DarkSide-20k: A 20 tonne two-phase LAr TPC for direct dark matter detection at LNGS, Eur. Phys. J. Plus133 (2018) 131 [1707.08145]

    2018 arXiv

  83. [90]

    DAR WINcollaboration, DARWIN: towards the ultimate dark matter detector, JCAP 1611 (2016) 017 [1606.07001]

    2016 arXiv

  84. [91]

    SuperCDMS collaboration, Projected Sensitivity of the SuperCDMS SNOLAB experiment, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 082002 [1610.00006]

    2017 arXiv

  85. [92]

    Super-Kamiokande collaboration, Measurement of the neutrino-oxygen neutral-current quasielastic cross section using atmospheric neutrinos at Super-Kamiokande, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 032005 [1901.05281]

    2019 arXiv

  86. [93]

    XENON collaboration, Low-mass dark matter search using ionization signals in XENON100, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 092001 [1605.06262]

    2016 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Trinczek et al.,Novel Search for Heavy nu Mixing from the beta+ Decay of 32mK Confined in an Atom Trap, Phys

    M. Trinczek et al.,Novel Search for Heavy nu Mixing from the beta+ Decay of 32mK Confined in an Atom Trap, Phys. Rev. Lett.90 (2003) 012501

    2003

  88. [95]

    M. M. Hindi, R. L. Kozub, P. Miocinovic, R. Acvi, L. Zhu and A. H. Hussein,Search for the admixture of heavy neutrinos in the recoil spectra of Ar-37 decay, Phys. Rev. C58 (1998) 2512

    1998

  89. [96]

    KATRIN collaboration, The KATRIN Neutrino Mass Experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A623 (2010) 442 [0810.3281]

    2010 arXiv

  90. [97]

    MARE collaboration, Neutrino mass calorimetric searches in the MARE experiment, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.229-232 (2012) 155 [1012.2290]

    2012 arXiv

  91. [98]

    Project 8 collaboration, Determining the neutrino mass with cyclotron radiation emission spectroscopy-Project 8, J. Phys. G44 (2017) 054004 [1703.02037]

    2017 arXiv

  92. [99]

    PTOLEMY collaboration, Neutrino Physics with the PTOLEMY project, 1902.05508

    1902 arXiv

  93. [100]

    H. J. de Vega, O. Moreno, E. M. de Guerra, M. R. Medrano and N. G. Sanchez,Role of sterile neutrino warm dark matter in rhenium and tritium beta decays, Nucl. Phys. B866 (2013) 177 [1109.3452]

    2013 arXiv

  94. [101]

    P. F. Smith,Proposed experiments to detect keV range sterile neutrinos using energy-momentum reconstruction of beta decay or K-capture events, New J. Phys.21 (2019) 053022 [1607.06876]

    2019 arXiv

  95. [102]

    Di Paolo, F

    C. Di Paolo, F. Nesti and F. L. Villante,Phase space mass bound for fermionic dark matter from dwarf spheroidal galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475 (2018) 5385 [1704.06644]

    2018 arXiv

  96. [103]

    Savchenko and A

    D. Savchenko and A. Rudakovskyi,New mass bound on fermionic dark matter from a combined analysis of classical dSphs, 1903.01862

    1903 arXiv

  97. [104]

    B. N. L. National Nuclear Data Center,Nudat 2.7 (nuclear structure and decay data), March 18, 2008, 2008

    2008

  98. [105]

    V. V. Kuzminov and N. J. Osetrova,Precise measurement of 14c beta spectrum by using a wall-less proportional counter, Physics of Atomic Nuclei63 (2000) 1292. – 38 –

    2000

  99. [106]

    G. Audi, A. Wapstra and C. Thibault,The ame2003 atomic mass evaluation: (ii). tables, graphs and references, Nuclear Physics A729 (2003) 337

    2003

  100. [107]

    H. H. Hansen and A. Spernol,Some investigations on the decay of60co, Zeitschrift für Physik A Hadrons and nuclei209 (1968) 111

    1968

  101. [108]

    Olsson, E

    O. Olsson, E. Holm and L. BÃÿtter-Jensen,Development of a low level - low background beta-particle spectrometer, International Journal of Radiation Applications and Instrumentation. Part A. Applied Radiation and Isotopes43 (1992) 77

    1992

  102. [109]

    L. Ng, K. Mann and T. Walton,Excited states of 154gd, Nuclear Physics A116 (1968) 433

    1968

  103. [110]

    M. Wang, G. Audi, A. Wapstra, F. Kondev, M. MacCormick, X. Xu et al.,The ame2012 atomic mass evaluation, Chinese Physics C 36 (2012) 1603

    2012

  104. [111]

    Cadeddu, F

    M. Cadeddu, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, K. A. Kouzakov, E. Picciau and A. I. Studenikin, Potentialities of a low-energy detector based on4He evaporation to observe atomic effects in coherent neutrino scattering and physics perspectives, 1907.03302

    1907 arXiv

  105. [113]

    EXO-200 collaboration, Search for nucleon decays with EXO-200, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 072007 [1710.07670]

    2018 arXiv

  106. [114]

    KamLAND-Zen collaboration, Results and future plans for the KamLAND-Zen experiment, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.888 (2017) 012031

    2017

  107. [115]

    SuperCDMS collaboration, Search for Low-Mass Dark Matter with CDMSlite Using a Profile Likelihood Fit, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 062001 [1808.09098]

    2019 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Borexino collaboration, New experimental limits on the Pauli forbidden transitions in C-12 nuclei obtained with 485 days Borexino data, Phys. Rev. C81 (2010) 034317 [0911.0548]

    2010 arXiv

  109. [117]

    V. I. Tretyak,Semi-empirical calculation of quenching factors for scintillators: new results, EPJ Web Conf.65 (2014) 02002 [1312.5779]. – 39 –

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.