Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Detecting light dark matter with prompt-delayed events in neutrino experiments

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Existing KamLAND data already constrain light dark matter about ten times more strongly than dedicated direct-detection experiments.

desk verdict A transparent new channel for probing hadrophilic light DM in liquid scintillator detectors, with a plausible but unvalidated nuclear-model regime that could soften the claimed advantage over direct detection. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13007 v3 pith:5OMWBM6R submitted 2025-04-17 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Yuanlin Gong , Feiran Lin , Ning Liu , Liangliang Su , Lei Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords lightdarkmatteratmosphericquasi-elasticscatteringprompt-delayedeventsliquidscintillatordetectorsKamLANDJUNOknockoutneutrons
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

This paper shows that liquid-scintillator neutrino detectors can search for light dark matter by looking for a distinctive two-part signal: a prompt flash of scintillation light from a neutron knocked out of a carbon nucleus, followed roughly 200 microseconds later by the 2.2 MeV gamma ray from that neutron's capture on a proton. The authors apply the idea to atmospheric dark matter, relativistic particles produced when cosmic rays strike nitrogen in Earth's atmosphere, and they use existing KamLAND data to set a 90% confidence limit on the dark-matter-nucleon cross section. For $m_\chi = 0.1$ (150) MeV, the limit is $1\times10^{-37}$ ($1\times10^{-31}$) cm$^2$, about an order of magnitude stronger than the elastic-recoil bounds from PandaX-4T, XENONnT, and LUX. A future JUNO exposure of 183 kt$\cdot$yr is projected to improve this by another factor of five. If the atmospheric flux and the nuclear model are correct, neutrino experiments already offer the leading direct constraint on this class of hadrophilic light dark matter.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the prompt-delayed event. A knockout neutron from quasi-elastic scattering first deposits energy promptly through elastic $n+p\to n+p$ collisions, with the recoiling proton producing scintillation light, and is then radiatively captured, $n+p\to d+\gamma$, emitting a 2.2 MeV gamma ray within about 210 microseconds and 60 cm of the prompt vertex. That correlated pair suppresses accidental backgrounds far more effectively than a single nuclear recoil. The rate is computed with an impulse-approximation cross section (Eq. 2.5) that combines the dark-matter-nucleon cross section, a carbon spectral function from the local-density approximation, a scalar nucleon form factor, Pauli blocking through a step function at the Fermi momentum, and a nuclear optical potential for final-state interactions; Birk's law converts the knockout-neutron energy into the observed scintillation light. The paper's limits are obtained by counting these correlated pairs in KamLAND's data and modeling the remaining background as atmospheric-neutrino neutral-current events.

What would settle it

Measure the neutral-current knockout of neutrons from carbon by sub-GeV atmospheric neutrinos in KamLAND itself at the same momentum transfers used for the dark-matter signal; if the measured rate is more than a factor of two below the impulse-approximation prediction, the quoted dark-matter limits weaken by the same factor, since both rates come from the same nuclear model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the quasi-elastic scattering of a relativistic dark-matter particle off a carbon nucleus, $\chi + {}^{12}\mathrm{C}\to \chi + n + {}^{11}\mathrm{C}^*$, produces a prompt-delayed coincidence that liquid-scintillator neutrino detectors can tag almost background-free, making these detectors competitive with—and for light masses superior to—dedicated dark-matter experiments. Using the atmospheric dark-matter flux together with a hadrophilic scalar-mediator model, the authors compute the differential quasi-elastic rate, fold in the detector's scintillation response via Birk's law, and then perform a profile-likelihood analysis of KamLAND's neutron-capture-tagged events. The resulting 90% C.L. exclusions reach $1\times10^{-37}$ cm$^2$ at $m_\chi=0.1$ MeV and $1\times10^{-31}$ cm$^2$ at 150 MeV, roughly an order of magnitude beyond the elastic nuclear-recoil limits from PandaX-4T, XENONnT, and LUX, and JUNO is projected to gain another factor of about five.

Load-bearing premise

The limits rely on the quasi-elastic knockout cross section being accurate at the low dark-matter energies (about 0.2 to 1 GeV) that dominate the signal, even though the impulse approximation used is stated to be valid only for momentum transfers above about 350 MeV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • KamLAND's existing data already exclude hadrophilic light dark matter with $m_\chi\simeq0.1$ MeV at cross sections above $10^{-37}$ cm$^2$, about ten times stronger than current xenon direct-detection limits.
  • At $m_\chi\simeq150$ MeV the same analysis reaches $10^{-31}$ cm$^2$, again beyond the elastic-recoil bounds considered.
  • A JUNO-scale detector with 183 kt$\cdot$yr of exposure is projected to improve the KamLAND sensitivity by roughly a factor of five.
  • For relativistic dark matter produced in the atmosphere, quasi-elastic scattering is the dominant channel, so large neutrino detectors are natural targets for this signal.
  • The prompt-delayed tagging makes the quasi-elastic channel nearly background-free, shifting the limiting systematic from exposure to the nuclear cross-section model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same prompt-delayed tag should work for other relativistic dark-matter sources, such as cosmic-ray-upscattered or supernova-boosted populations, by replacing the atmospheric flux model.
  • The quoted limits inherit the impulse approximation's uncertainty at low momentum transfer; calibrating the knockout rate against sub-GeV neutrino data in the same detectors would quantify this and could shift the bounds by a factor of order one.
  • The 'proton-only' knockout channel, which the paper treats as an irreducible background, could become a signal in detectors with pulse-shape discrimination that can separate proton recoils from electron recoils.
  • If the JUNO projection holds, large liquid-scintillator detectors would join xenon and semiconductor experiments as a standard venue for sub-GeV dark matter searches, especially for hadrophilic models.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new search channel for light dark matter in liquid-scintillator neutrino detectors: quasi-elastic scattering (QES) of atmospheric dark matter with carbon nuclei, producing a knockout neutron that yields a prompt proton-recoil signal and a delayed 2.2 MeV neutron-capture photon. The authors compute the atmospheric DM flux for a hadrophilic scalar mediator model, calculate the QES event rate in KamLAND using an impulse-approximation spectral function, derive a 90% CL limit from published KamLAND binned data with a profile likelihood, and compare with limits from elastic nuclear-recoil searches in LUX, PandaX-4T, and XENONnT under the same flux. They find an approximately order-of-magnitude improvement for mχ=0.1–150 MeV and a projected five-fold improvement for JUNO.

Significance. If the QES cross section and the atmospheric flux model are reliable, this is a genuinely new and potentially powerful signature: the prompt-delayed coincidence in liquid-scintillator detectors can suppress backgrounds and access light DM masses where conventional elastic recoil searches lose sensitivity. The paper uses published KamLAND data, a transparent profile-likelihood analysis with pyhf, and the same atmospheric flux for the comparison channel, which makes the comparison internally consistent. The main caveat is that the nuclear-model input is used outside its stated validity region, and the statistical procedure for the JUNO projection appears inconsistent. These issues must be addressed before the quantitative claim of an order-of-magnitude improvement is established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eqs. (2.5)–(2.8)] The central nuclear input, the QES cross section Eq. (2.5), is used in a regime that the paper itself states is outside the validity of the impulse approximation. Immediately before Eq. (2.5) the authors write that this approximation 'performs well for high momentum transfer (|q|>350 MeV)', yet the event-rate integral in Eq. (2.8) is evaluated from Eχ=200 MeV to 1 GeV, and the text states that the low-deposited-energy bins are dominated by incident energies between 200 MeV and 1 GeV. For mχ=0.1 MeV and Eχ=200 MeV, the maximum momentum transfer to a free nucleon at rest is only about 300–350 MeV, so a non-negligible part of the signal in the KamLAND bins comes from |q| below 350 MeV. The Pauli-blocking step function and the optical potential in Eq. (2.7) are only approximate corrections in this regime, and the authors defer a GENIE/NuWro validation to future work. Because Eq. (2.5) is the only nuclear-physics input in the derived limit, a factor-of-2 to 3 error in the low-q QES rate would shift the KamLAND limit and could erase the claimed order-of-magnitude advantage over direct detection. The paper should either validate the low-q treatment against a more complete nuclear model or Monte Carlo, or quote a limit restricted to the regime |q|>350 MeV and show that the main conclusions are unchanged.
  2. [Sec. 3 and Appendix 6.1] The statistical procedure for the JUNO projection is inconsistent with the stated goal. The text says the test statistics q̃μ and q0 are used to establish the 90% C.L. limits for KamLAND and JUNO, respectively. The discovery test statistic q0 is not an upper-limit test statistic; a 90% CL expected limit should be obtained with qμ (or q̃μ) evaluated on the background-only Asimov data set. As written, the JUNO sensitivity projection in Fig. 3 may not correspond to a 90% CL upper limit. The authors should rerun the projection with the correct test statistic and report the resulting limit.
  3. [Sec. 3 and Table 1] The comparison between KamLAND and the direct-detection limits uses observed data with opposite fluctuations. In Table 1, the KamLAND observed counts (15 total) are systematically below the expected atmospheric-neutrino background (20 total), whereas the ES data in Table 2 show small excesses above background in XENONnT, LUX, and PandaX-4T. The KamLAND limit is therefore based on a downward fluctuation in the data, which tends to make the observed limit stronger than the median expected limit, while the direct-detection limits are weakened by upward fluctuations. To support the claim that the QES channel is intrinsically more sensitive by about one order of magnitude, the authors should report the expected (background-only) 90% CL limits for both KamLAND and the ES experiments alongside the observed limits, and show that the order-of-magnitude statement survives when the expected limits are compared.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (2.5)] The displayed formula does not contain the Pauli-blocking step function θ(|p+q|-p̄F) that the text says is introduced into it; please add it to the equation or clarify where it appears.
  2. [Fig. 2] The text after Fig. 2 says the orange, green, and blue lines correspond to mχ=1, 10, and 100 GeV, but the panel caption and the paper's light-DM focus indicate these should be MeV. Please correct the inconsistency.
  3. [Eq. (2.2)] The sentence 'σpN→η dΦp/dTp = σpN BR(pN→η) dΦp/dTp describes the production of η' is confusing; the notation would be clearer if the production cross section and branching ratio were defined explicitly.
  4. [Sec. 3 and Fig. 3] The acronym 'ES' is used for elastic scattering in Sec. 3 and Fig. 3; this is easily confused with 'electron scattering' in the same field. Consider renaming it 'ER' or 'elastic recoil'.
  5. [Table 1] The table formatting is garbled (e.g., the JUNO row reads '11−29\412'); the observed and background entries should be reformatted so that each bin has clear columns.
  6. [Introduction and Abstract] The introduction says the bound can be 'several tens of times' more stringent than direct detection, while the abstract says 'approximately one order of magnitude'; the numbers should be made consistent.
  7. [Appendix 6.1] The description of the 25% background uncertainty is brief; a short explanation of how this uncertainty enters the likelihood as a nuisance parameter would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central KamLAND bound is a signal-free profile-likelihood output from externally specified flux and cross-section; only a minor self-citation burden from the authors' prior work prevents score 0.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, a 90% C.L. upper limit on the DM-nucleon cross section from KamLAND prompt-delayed knockout-neutron events, is not circular. The signal rate in Eq. (2.8) is the convolution of an externally constructed atmospheric-DM flux (Eq. 2.2) with a QES differential cross section (Eq. 2.5) built from a standard impulse-approximation spectral function, Pauli blocking, and an optical potential. The limit is obtained by a profile-likelihood fit (Eq. 6.1) against observed KamLAND data (Table 1) with background estimates taken from Ref. [85]. No parameter is fitted to the signal channel and then renamed as a prediction: the likelihood procedure is a standard signal-plus-background extraction, and the benchmark choices (mS=300 MeV, BR(eta->pi chi chi_bar)=1e-5) are stated inputs, not outputs of the fit. The direct-detection comparison uses the coherent-scattering formula in Eq. (3.1), which the text attributes to the authors' prior paper [52], and the premise that 'quasi-elastic scattering with nuclei dominates over elastic scattering [52]' is also cited to that work. These self-citations are real but not load-bearing in the circular sense: the QES limit stands on its own data analysis, the ES formula is a standard parameter-free coherent-scattering expression, and the inelastic-dominance claim is additionally supported by the independent references [51,53] cited alongside [52]. The authors' own validity warning that the impulse approximation holds for |q|>350 MeV while the rate integral begins at Echi=200 MeV is a legitimate nuclear-model correctness risk for the low-momentum-transfer part of the rate, but it is a physics-extrapolation concern, not a circularity: the output is not equivalent by construction to the input. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, with only a minor self-citation burden.

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

The central limit depends on a chosen model benchmark (m_S=300 MeV, BR=1e-5), a nuclear description of carbon QES, and borrowed background data from Ref [85]. No new particle is invented here: the scalar mediator and Dirac fermion are taken from Ref [67]. The main burden is that the cross-section and flux ingredients are assembled from external codes and approximations, and the quoted limit is conditional on those.

free parameters (2)
  • Mediator mass m_S = 300 MeV
    Chosen as benchmark; constrains the propagator in Eq 2.5 and Eq 3.1. The limits are quoted for this value and would shift for other mediator masses.
  • Branching ratio BR(eta -> pi chi chi-bar) = 1e-5
    Chosen near the current upper bound of about 1e-4 (Ref [73]). The atmospheric DM flux scales linearly with this branching ratio, so the limits scale inversely with it.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Impulse approximation: the carbon nucleus is a collection of independent nucleons with spectral function P_n(p,E) from the local density approximation.
    Invoked in Eq 2.5 to factor the QES cross section into a free nucleon part and a nuclear response. The paper itself states it performs well only for |q| > 350 MeV.
  • domain assumption Atmospheric DM flux is not attenuated by Earth before reaching the detector.
    Stated after Eq 2.3: attenuation is negligible for the considered interaction strengths, citing Ref [52].
  • domain assumption Pauli blocking represented by a step function with average Fermi momentum p_bar_F = 221 MeV, and final-state interactions via the optical potential in Eq 2.7.
    Coarse modeling of the nuclear medium. Affects low-momentum neutron emission and thus the prompt spectrum that enters the likelihood.
  • domain assumption Production of eta mesons in proton-nitrogen collisions is simulated by CRMC with a constant sigma_pN = 255 mb.
    Used in the flux integral Eq 2.2. The eta production cross-section and its energy dependence are not derived in this paper; they come from the CRMC package.
  • domain assumption The observed events in Table 1 are entirely atmospheric neutrino NC background plus signal, with residual reactor, spallation, and CC backgrounds already subtracted by Ref [85].
    The analysis assigns a 25% systematic uncertainty to the background, but the validity of the subtraction and the binning is borrowed from the earlier analysis in Ref [85].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detecting light dark matter with prompt-delayed events in neutrino experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5OMWBM6R

@misc{pith2026250413007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detecting light dark matter with prompt-delayed events in neutrino experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5OMWBM6R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13007}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate the prompt-delayed signals induced by knockout neutrons from the quasi-elastic scattering in neutrino experiments provides a new avenue for detecting light dark matter. As an illustration, we consider the detection of atmospheric dark matter in the liquid scintillator detectors. The results show that the constraint on the DM-nucleon interaction from KamLAND is approximately one order of magnitude more stringent than those obtained from the elastic nuclear recoil signals in dark matter direct detection experiments. Furthermore, a larger volume neutrino experiment, such as JUNO, is expected to significantly enhance the light dark matter detection sensitivity through the quasi-elastic scattering.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Inelastic Scattering Effects on Attenuation of Boosted Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Resonant excitation of nucleons into Δ(1232) during Earth passage is a non-negligible attenuation channel for boosted dark matter at E_χ ≈ 1–2 GeV, lowering the PandaX-4T upper bound on σ̄_n in the heavy-mediator regime.

  2. Direct Detection of Leptophobic Dark Matter with Electronic Collective Excitations

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Leptophobic dark matter can excite plasmons in silicon through hadronic loops, and SENSEI data now constrain its nucleon cross section down to ~1e-31 cm^2 in the sub-MeV mass range.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Roszkowski, E.M

    L. Roszkowski, E.M. Sessolo and S. Trojanowski,WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects,Rept. Prog. Phys.81(2018) 066201 [1707.06277]. [2]CDEXcollaboration,First experimental constraints on WIMP couplings in the effective field theory framework from CDEX,Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.64(2021) 281011 [2007.15555]. [3]Pan...

    arXiv 2018

  2. [5]

    Essig, J

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

    arXiv 2012

  3. [6]

    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(2016) 046 [1509.01598]. – 9 –

    arXiv 2016

  4. [7]

    Kouvaris and J

    C. Kouvaris and J. Pradler,Probing sub-GeV Dark Matter with conventional detectors,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 031803 [1607.01789]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [8]

    Schutz and K.M

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

    arXiv 2016

  6. [9]

    Hochberg, T

    Y. Hochberg, T. Lin and K.M. Zurek,Absorption of light dark matter in semiconductors, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 023013 [1608.01994]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [10]

    Knapen, T

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

    arXiv 2017

  8. [11]

    M. Ibe, W. Nakano, Y. Shoji and K. Suzuki,Migdal Effect in Dark Matter Direct Detection Experiments,JHEP03(2018) 194 [1707.07258]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 79 references
  1. [12]

    Dolan, F

    M.J. Dolan, F. Kahlhoefer and C. McCabe,Directly detecting sub-GeV dark matter with electrons from nuclear scattering,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 101801 [1711.09906]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [13]

    Hochberg, I

    Y. Hochberg, I. Charaev, S.-W. Nam, V. Verma, M. Colangelo and K.K. Berggren,Detecting Sub-GeV Dark Matter with Superconducting Nanowires,Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) 151802 [1903.05101]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [14]

    Flambaum, L

    V.V. Flambaum, L. Su, L. Wu and B. Zhu,New strong bounds on sub-GeV dark matter from boosted and Migdal effects,Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66(2023) 271011 [2012.09751]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [15]

    Kahn and T

    Y. Kahn and T. Lin,Searches for light dark matter using condensed matter systems,Rept. Prog. Phys.85(2022) 066901 [2108.03239]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [16]

    Wang, K.-Y

    W. Wang, K.-Y. Wu, L. Wu and B. Zhu,Direct detection of spin-dependent sub-GeV dark matter via Migdal effect,Nucl. Phys. B983(2022) 115907 [2112.06492]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [17]

    Bell, J.B

    N.F. Bell, J.B. Dent, R.F. Lang, J.L. Newstead and A.C. Ritter,Observing the Migdal effect from nuclear recoils of neutral particles with liquid xenon and argon detectors,Phys. Rev. D 105(2022) 096015 [2112.08514]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [18]

    Mitridate, T

    A. Mitridate, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang and K.M. Zurek,Snowmass white paper: Light dark matter direct detection at the interface with condensed matter physics,Phys. Dark Univ.40(2023) 101221 [2203.07492]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [19]

    Y. Gu, L. Wu and B. Zhu,Detection of inelastic dark matter via electron recoils in SENSEI, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 075004 [2203.06664]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [20]

    J. Li, L. Su, L. Wu and B. Zhu,Spin-dependent sub-GeV inelastic dark matter-electron scattering and Migdal effect. Part I. Velocity independent operator,JCAP04(2023) 020 [2210.15474]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [21]

    Bhattiprolu, R

    P.N. Bhattiprolu, R. McGehee and A. Pierce,Dark sink enhances the direct detection of freeze-in dark matter,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) L031702 [2312.14152]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [22]

    Essig,Some progress & challenges for the direct-detection of sub-GeV dark matter,Nucl

    R. Essig,Some progress & challenges for the direct-detection of sub-GeV dark matter,Nucl. Phys. B1003(2024) 116484

    2024

  12. [23]

    Bhattiprolu, R

    P.N. Bhattiprolu, R. McGehee, E. Petrosky and A. Pierce,Sub-MeV dark sink dark matter, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 035027 [2408.07744]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [24]

    Balan et al.,Resonant or asymmetric: the status of sub-GeV dark matter,JCAP01(2025) 053 [2405.17548]

    S. Balan et al.,Resonant or asymmetric: the status of sub-GeV dark matter,JCAP01(2025) 053 [2405.17548]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [25]

    Balan, T

    S. Balan, T. Bringmann, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Matuszak and C. Tasillo,Sub-GeV dark matter and nano-Hertz gravitational waves from a classically conformal dark sector,2502.19478

  15. [26]

    Bringmann and M

    T. Bringmann and M. Pospelov,Novel direct detection constraints on light dark matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) 171801 [1810.10543]. – 10 –

    2019 arXiv

  16. [27]

    Y. Ema, F. Sala and R. Sato,Light Dark Matter at Neutrino Experiments,Phys. Rev. Lett. 122(2019) 181802 [1811.00520]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [28]

    Guo, Y.-L.S

    G. Guo, Y.-L.S. Tsai, M.-R. Wu and Q. Yuan,Elastic and Inelastic Scattering of Cosmic-Rays on Sub-GeV Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 103004 [2008.12137]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [29]

    W. Wang, L. Wu, J.M. Yang, H. Zhou and B. Zhu,Cosmic ray boosted sub-GeV gravitationally interacting dark matter in direct detection,JHEP12(2020) 072 [1912.09904]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [30]

    S.-F. Ge, J. Liu, Q. Yuan and N. Zhou,Diurnal Effect of Sub-GeV Dark Matter Boosted by Cosmic Rays,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 091804 [2005.09480]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [31]

    Y. Ema, F. Sala and R. Sato,Neutrino experiments probe hadrophilic light dark matter, SciPost Phys.10(2021) 072 [2011.01939]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [32]

    Xia, Y.-H

    C. Xia, Y.-H. Xu and Y.-F. Zhou,Constraining light dark matter upscattered by ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays,Nucl. Phys. B969(2021) 115470 [2009.00353]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [33]

    G. Elor, R. McGehee and A. Pierce,Maximizing Direct Detection with Highly Interactive Particle Relic Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 031803 [2112.03920]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [34]

    Bell, J.B

    N.F. Bell, J.B. Dent, B. Dutta, S. Ghosh, J. Kumar, J.L. Newstead et al.,Cosmic-ray upscattered inelastic dark matter,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 076020 [2108.00583]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [35]

    Feng, X.-W

    J.-C. Feng, X.-W. Kang, C.-T. Lu, Y.-L.S. Tsai and F.-S. Zhang,Revising inelastic dark matter direct detection by including the cosmic ray acceleration,JHEP04(2022) 080 [2110.08863]. [36]PandaX-IIcollaboration,Search for Cosmic-Ray Boosted Sub-GeV Dark Matter at the PandaX-II ...

    2022 arXiv

  25. [37]

    Maity and R

    T.N. Maity and R. Laha,Cosmic-ray boosted dark matter in Xe-based direct detection experiments,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 117 [2210.01815]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [38]

    Darmé,Atmospheric resonant production for light dark sectors,Phys

    L. Darmé,Atmospheric resonant production for light dark sectors,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 055015 [2205.09773]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [39]

    Liang, L

    Z.-L. Liang, L. Su, L. Wu and B. Zhu,Plasmon-enhanced Direct Detection of sub-MeV Dark Matter,2401.11971

    arXiv

  28. [40]

    Ghosh, T

    D.K. Ghosh, T. Gupta, M. Heikinheimo, K. Huitu and S. Jeesun,Boosted dark matter driven by cosmic rays and diffuse supernova neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 063019 [2411.11973]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [41]

    Das and M

    A. Das and M. Sen,Boosted dark matter from diffuse supernova neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 075029 [2104.00027]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [42]

    Jho, J.-C

    Y. Jho, J.-C. Park, S.C. Park and P.-Y. Tseng,Cosmic-Neutrino-Boosted Dark Matter (νBDM),2101.11262

    arXiv

  31. [43]

    Lin, W.-H

    Y.-H. Lin, W.-H. Wu, M.-R. Wu and H.T.-K. Wong,Searching for Afterglow: Light Dark Matter Boosted by Supernova Neutrinos,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 111002 [2206.06864]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [44]

    Lin and M.-R

    Y.-H. Lin and M.-R. Wu,Supernova-Neutrino-Boosted Dark Matter from All Galaxies,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 111004 [2404.08528]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [45]

    J.-W. Sun, L. Wu, Y.-H. Xu and B. Zhu,Probing Supernova Neutrino Boosted Dark Matter with Collective Excitation,2501.07591

    arXiv

  34. [46]

    De Romeri, A

    V. De Romeri, A. Majumdar, D.K. Papoulias and R. Srivastava,XENONnT and LUX-ZEPLIN constraints on DSNB-boosted dark matter,JCAP03(2024) 028 [2309.04117]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [47]

    Alvey, M

    J. Alvey, M. Campos, M. Fairbairn and T. You,Detecting Light Dark Matter via Inelastic Cosmic Ray Collisions,Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) 261802 [1905.05776]. – 11 –

    2019 arXiv

  36. [48]

    L. Su, W. Wang, L. Wu, J.M. Yang and B. Zhu,Atmospheric Dark Matter and Xenon1T Excess,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 115028 [2006.11837]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [49]

    Argüelles, V

    C.A. Argüelles, V. Muñoz, I.M. Shoemaker and V. Takhistov,Hadrophilic light dark matter from the atmosphere,Phys. Lett. B833(2022) 137363 [2203.12630]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [50]

    M. Du, R. Fang and Z. Liu,Millicharged particles from proton bremsstrahlung in the atmosphere,JHEP08(2024) 174 [2211.11469]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [51]

    Alvey, T

    J. Alvey, T. Bringmann and H. Kolesova,No room to hide: implications of cosmic-ray upscattering for GeV-scale dark matter,JHEP01(2023) 123 [2209.03360]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [52]

    L. Su, L. Wu, N. Zhou and B. Zhu,Accelerated-light-dark-matter–Earth inelastic scattering in direct detection,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 035004 [2212.02286]. [53]PandaXcollaboration,Search for Light Dark Matter from the Atmosphere in PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 041001 [2301.03010]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [54]

    L. Su, L. Wu and B. Zhu,An improved bound on accelerated light dark matter,Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67(2024) 221012 [2308.02204]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [55]

    Dutta, W.-C

    B. Dutta, W.-C. Huang, D. Kim, J.L. Newstead, J.-C. Park and I.S. Ali,Prospects for Light Dark Matter Searches at Large-Volume Neutrino Detectors,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 161801 [2402.04184]. [56]KamLANDcollaboration,A study of extraterrestrial antineutrino sources with the K...

    2024 arXiv

  43. [57]

    Möllenberg, F

    R. Möllenberg, F. von Feilitzsch, D. Hellgartner, L. Oberauer, M. Tippmann, V. Zimmer et al.,Detecting the Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background with LENA,Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 032005 [1409.2240]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [58]

    H. Wei, Z. Wang and S. Chen,Discovery potential for supernova relic neutrinos with slow liquid scintillator detectors,Phys. Lett. B769(2017) 255 [1607.01671]. [59]JUNOcollaboration,Prospects for detecting the diffuse supernova neutrino background with JUNO,JCAP10(2022) 033 [22...

    2017 arXiv

  45. [61]

    Choi and J.-C

    K. Choi and J.-C. Park,New Search for Dark Matter with Neutrons at Neutrino Detectors, 2409.05646

    arXiv

  46. [62]

    Chauhan, B

    B. Chauhan, B. Dasgupta and A. Dighe,Large-energy single hits at JUNO from atmospheric neutrinos and dark matter,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 095035 [2111.14586]. [63]JUNOcollaboration,JUNO sensitivity to the annihilation of MeV dark matter in the galactic halo,JCAP09(2023) 001 [2306...

    2022 arXiv

  47. [65]

    Cheng, M

    J. Cheng, M. Li, Y.-F. Li, G.-S. Li, H.-Q. Lu and L.-J. Wen,Neutral-current background induced by atmospheric neutrinos at large liquid-scintillator detectors: III. Comprehensive prediction for low energy neutrinos,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 295 [2404.07429]. [66]Borexinocollabor...

    2025 arXiv

  48. [67]

    Batell, A

    B. Batell, A. Freitas, A. Ismail and D. Mckeen,Probing Light Dark Matter with a Hadrophilic Scalar Mediator,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 095020 [1812.05103]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [68]

    Durr et al.,Lattice computation of the nucleon scalar quark contents at the physical point, Phys

    S. Durr et al.,Lattice computation of the nucleon scalar quark contents at the physical point, Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 172001 [1510.08013]. – 12 – [69]E787collaboration,Search for the decay K+ —>pi+ nu anti-nu in the momentum region P(pi) less than 195-MeV/c,Phys. Lett. B537...

    2016 arXiv

  50. [74]

    Pierog, I

    T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J.M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko and K. Werner,EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,Phys. Rev. C92(2015) 034906 [1306.0121]

    2015 arXiv

  51. [75]

    Ulrich, T

    R. Ulrich, T. Pierog and C. Baus,Cosmic ray monte carlo package, crmc, Aug., 2021. 10.5281/zenodo.5270381

    2021 doi

  52. [76]

    Argüelles, P

    C. Argüelles, P. Coloma, P. Hernández and V. Muñoz,Searches for Atmospheric Long-Lived Particles,JHEP02(2020) 190 [1910.12839]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [77]

    Xotta,Sub-GeV Hadrophilic Dark Matter at Neutrino Detectors, Master’s thesis, U

    F. Xotta,Sub-GeV Hadrophilic Dark Matter at Neutrino Detectors, Master’s thesis, U. Bologna (main), 6, 2023

    2023

  54. [78]

    Benhar, N

    O. Benhar, N. Farina, H. Nakamura, M. Sakuda and R. Seki,Electron- and neutrino-nucleus scattering in the impulse approximation regime,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 053005 [hep-ph/0506116]

    2005 arXiv

  55. [79]

    Benhar, D

    O. Benhar, D. Day and I. Sick,Inclusive quasielastic electron-nucleus scattering,Reviews of modern Physics80(2008) 189

    2008

  56. [80]

    Benhar, A

    O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni and I. Sick,Spectral function of finite nuclei and scattering of GeV electrons,Nucl. Phys. A579(1994) 493

    1994

  57. [81]

    Schardmüller,Nucleon scalar form factor and Pion-Nucleon Sigma Term from relativistic constituent-quark models, Master’s thesis, Graz U., 2013

    R.C. Schardmüller,Nucleon scalar form factor and Pion-Nucleon Sigma Term from relativistic constituent-quark models, Master’s thesis, Graz U., 2013

    2013

  58. [82]

    Bodek and T

    A. Bodek and T. Cai,Removal Energies and Final State Interaction in Lepton Nucleus Scattering,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 293 [1801.07975]. [83]MINER vAcollaboration,Nucleon binding energy and transverse momentum imbalance in neutrino-nucleus reactions,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 092001...

    2019 arXiv

  59. [84]

    Prasad, J.T

    H. Prasad, J.T. Sobczyk, A.M. Ankowski, J.L. Bonilla, R.D. Banerjee, K.M. Graczyk et al., New multinucleon knockout model in NuWro Monte Carlo generator,2411.11523

    arXiv

  60. [85]

    Meighen-Berger, J.F

    S.A. Meighen-Berger, J.F. Beacom, N.F. Bell and M.J. Dolan,New signal of atmospheric tau neutrino appearance: Sub-GeV neutral-current interactions in JUNO,Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 092006 [2311.01667]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [86]

    Cheng, Y.-F

    J. Cheng, Y.-F. Li, H.-Q. Lu and L.-J. Wen,Neutral-current background induced by atmospheric neutrinos at large liquid-scintillator detectors. II. Methodology forinsitu measurements,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 053002 [2009.04085]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [87]

    Birks,Scintillations from organic crystals: specific fluorescence and relative response to different radiations,Proceedings of the Physical Society

    J.B. Birks,Scintillations from organic crystals: specific fluorescence and relative response to different radiations,Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A64(1951) 874

    1951

  63. [88]

    Chou,The Nature of the Saturation Effect of Fluorescent Scintillators,Phys

    C.N. Chou,The Nature of the Saturation Effect of Fluorescent Scintillators,Phys. Rev.87 (1952) 904. – 13 –

    1952

  64. [89]

    Berger, J

    M. Berger, J. Coursey and M. Zucker,Estar, pstar, and astar: Computer programs for calculating stopping-power and range tables for electrons, protons, and helium ions (version 1.21), 1999-01-01, 1999

    1999

  65. [90]

    Yoshida et al.,Light output response of KamLAND liquid scintillator for protons and C-12 nuclei,Nucl

    S. Yoshida et al.,Light output response of KamLAND liquid scintillator for protons and C-12 nuclei,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A622(2010) 574. [91]Super-Kamiokandecollaboration,Measurements of the atmospheric neutrino flux by Super-Kamiokande: energy spectra, geomagnetic effects, and...

    2010 arXiv

  66. [92]

    Cheng, Y.-F

    J. Cheng, Y.-F. Li, L.-J. Wen and S. Zhou,Neutral-current background induced by atmospheric neutrinos at large liquid-scintillator detectors: I. model predictions,Phys. Rev. D 103(2021) 053001 [2008.04633]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [93]

    Aristizabal Sierra, V

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, V. De Romeri and N. Rojas,COHERENT analysis of neutrino generalized interactions,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 075018 [1806.07424]

    2018 arXiv

  68. [94]

    G. Duda, A. Kemper and P. Gondolo,Model Independent Form Factors for Spin Independent Neutralino-Nucleon Scattering from Elastic Electron Scattering Data,JCAP04(2007) 012 [hep-ph/0608035]. [95]PandaXcollaboration,Dark Matter Search Results from 1.54 Tonne·Year Exposure of Pand...

    2007 arXiv

  69. [98]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells,Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1554 [1007.1727]

    2011 arXiv

  70. [99]

    pyhf: v0.7.6

    L. Heinrich, M. Feickert and G. Stark, “pyhf: v0.7.6.” 10.5281/zenodo.1169739

    doi

  71. [100]

    Heinrich, M

    L. Heinrich, M. Feickert, G. Stark and K. Cranmer,pyhf: pure-python implementation of histfactory statistical models,Journal of Open Source Software6(2021) 2823. – 14 –

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.