Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Inelastic Scattering Effects on Attenuation of Boosted Dark Matter

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Resonant excitation of bound nucleons into the Δ(1232) baryon resonance gives a non-negligible contribution to Earth attenuation of GeV-scale boosted dark matter, and including it lowers the upper boundary of the PandaX-4T exclusion region.

desk verdict A genuine but incremental addition: the Δ(1232) resonance channel improves boosted-DM attenuation, yet the quoted boundary shift needs in-medium Δ treatment and a flux-normalization fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15098 v2 pith:6XXRKPRY submitted 2026-07-16 hep-ph

Guanhua Gu , Liangliang Su , Lei Wu , Jin Min Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords boosteddarkmatterEarthattenuationresonantscatteringDelta(1232)photonmediatorPandaX-4Tnucleonspectralfunctioninelastic
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 argues that boosted dark matter passing through the Earth loses energy and gets removed from the flux not only through elastic, quasi-elastic, and deep-inelastic scattering, but also through resonant excitation of nucleons into the Δ(1232) baryon state. In the heavy-mediator regime, this resonant channel is sizable for incoming dark-matter energies around 1–2 GeV in both iron and oxygen. Adding the channel to two Earth-propagation models reduces the detector-level flux near the spectral peak and moves the attenuation-induced upper boundary of the 90% confidence exclusion on the dark-matter–nucleon cross section to lower values. The claim matters because boosted-light-dark-matter searches rely on that upper boundary to close the allowed cross-section range, so omitting the resonance channel would place the boundary too high. The effect is larger in the straight-line energy-loss model than in the single-scattering absorption model because the resonant channel transfers a substantial fraction of the incoming energy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the nuclear resonance response tensor, built by folding the elementary N→Δ(1232) transition tensor with a nucleon spectral function under the impulse approximation, with the resonance's finite lifetime encoded in a Breit–Wigner distribution. This tensor converts the dark-photon-mediated dark-matter current into a nuclear excitation probability, and it is the mechanism that lets the paper add resonant scattering as a distinct channel lying between quasi-elastic and deep-inelastic scattering in energy transfer.

What would settle it

Compute the same resonant energy-loss cross section with an in-medium Δ self-energy and Pauli blocking of Δ→πN decay; if those corrections change the energy-transfer-weighted resonant cross section at Eχ ≈ 2 GeV by more than roughly the claimed shift of the exclusion boundary (tens of percent), the numerical conclusion would not survive. A cheaper cross-check is to compare the impulse-approximation response to electron- or neutrino-scattering data on iron and oxygen in the resonance region, which directly measures the N→Δ transition in the nuclear medium.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors compute the dark-matter–nucleus resonant scattering cross section for excitation of the Δ(1232) resonance in the impulse approximation, folding the elementary electromagnetic N→Δ transition tensor with a nucleon spectral function and replacing the on-shell delta with a Breit–Wigner distribution of width ΓΔ ≈ 117 MeV. Using a heavy-mediator benchmark (mV′ = 10 GeV, mχ = 1 MeV), they find that the energy-transfer-weighted resonant cross section is comparable to the other inelastic channels at Eχ ≈ 1–2 GeV for Fe and O. Including this channel in both the straight-line and single-scattering Earth-attenuation models suppresses the boosted-DM flux reaching the detector and lowers the u

Load-bearing premise

That the nuclear environment can be ignored when computing the transition: the bound nucleon is described by a free-space spectral function and the produced Δ(1232) is assigned its free decay width, with no in-medium broadening, Pauli blocking, or final-state interactions included.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Boosted-dark-matter attenuation calculations at Eχ ≈ 1–2 GeV should include the Δ(1232) resonant channel; analyses that omit it will overestimate the flux reaching underground detectors and place the upper exclusion boundary too high.
  • The attenuation-induced upper boundary is lowered more in the straight-line continuous-energy-loss description than in the single-scattering absorption description, because the resonant channel transfers a large fraction of the incident energy.
  • The lower boundary of the exclusion region also changes: with inelastic channels included, it shifts upward by roughly a factor of two in the cases shown, except for the elastic-only straight-line case.
  • The relative importance of the resonant channel is specific to the heavy-mediator regime; for a light mediator, small-momentum-transfer elastic scattering dominates and the inelastic channels become less important.
  • The size of the effect is tied to the peak of the boosted-DM spectrum near 2 GeV, which sits at the kinematic threshold for Δ production, so the channel is most relevant for GeV-scale parent dark-matter annihilations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the resonant channel is as sizable as claimed, the same Δ-excitation mechanism should also appear in other accelerated-dark-matter scenarios, such as cosmic-ray upscattered or atmospheric dark matter, and existing propagation calculations for those scenarios likely overestimate the flux at GeV energies.
  • The claimed shift of the exclusion boundary is comparable in size to plausible in-medium nuclear corrections, so the qualitative conclusion that a channel is missing is more robust than the exact numerical shift; a nuclear-model uncertainty band would clarify the strength of the constraint.
  • The stronger RES effect in the straight-line model suggests that a directional detector, whose trajectories traverse different Earth depths, could see a channel-dependent imprint and help discriminate attenuation models without relying on absolute flux normalization.
  • Because the resonance response is mediated by the electromagnetic current through kinetic mixing, precision pion-production data from neutrino or electron scattering on the same nuclear targets could calibrate the nuclear spectral function and Breit–Wigner treatment used here.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper extends the Earth-attenuation treatment of boosted dark matter (BDM) by adding the resonant excitation of bound nucleons to the Δ(1232) resonance to the previously considered elastic, quasi-elastic, and deep-inelastic channels. The RES cross section is computed in the impulse approximation with a nuclear spectral function and a Breit-Wigner Δ width, and is then included in two attenuation models (continuous energy loss and single-scattering absorption) to compute the boosted-DM flux at the PandaX-4T detector. The authors report that, in the heavy-mediator regime, RES is sizable for E_χ ≈ 1–2 GeV in Fe and O, and that including it lowers the attenuation-induced upper boundary of the 90% C.L. exclusion region on the DM–nucleon cross section. The paper includes a detailed derivation of the nuclear response in Appendix A.

Significance. If the quantitative result is robust, the paper establishes that resonance production should be included in boosted-DM attenuation analyses for GeV-scale incoming energies, and it provides a concrete, detailed computation of the N→Δ(1232) response using a spectral-function impulse approximation and empirical form factors. The use of an external benchmark (PandaX-4T) and the explicit separation of the nuclear response into ES/QES/RES/DIS channels make the result directly usable in future BDM studies. The main value of the paper is phenomenological: it identifies a previously neglected channel and quantifies its effect on exclusion boundaries. The authors are transparent about the approximations used, and the derivation is largely self-contained.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (12) and Appendix A (A15)] The RES cross section is computed with the free Δ(1232) width Γ_Δ = 117 MeV and no in-medium modification of the resonance. At Earth-core densities, Δ self-energy effects — collisional broadening, Pauli blocking of Δ→πN decay, and ΔN→NN absorption — are known from neutrino/electron-nucleus studies to modify the inclusive Δ response at the tens-of-percent level. The reported RES-induced shift of the exclusion boundary in Fig. 6 is of the same order as these unquantified nuclear-model uncertainties. The qualitative existence of an additional RES attenuation channel is plausible, but the quantitative central claim is not yet robust. The authors should either model a density-dependent Δ width/self-energy or provide a sensitivity scan (e.g., varying Γ_Δ by ±30% or adding a collisional width) and show how the exclusion boundary shifts within that range.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (13) and the paragraph after Fig. 4] The QES and DIS differential cross sections are taken from Ref. [60], but the paper does not specify the kinematic cuts that separate QES, RES, and DIS. If the DIS prescription in Ref. [60] already includes the low-W resonance region, adding the RES cross section of Eq. (12) double-counts part of the nuclear response. Since the attenuation calculation sums all four channels, this matching is load-bearing. The authors should state the W and Q² boundaries used for each channel and demonstrate that the four channels are disjoint and complete.
  3. [Sec. V, Eq. (22) and likelihood analysis] The exclusion limits in Fig. 6 are derived from a 'likelihood-based analysis' with only a sentence describing the observed and expected event counts. To make the constraints reproducible and to assess how the attenuation-model differences propagate into the 90% C.L. boundary, the exact likelihood construction — e.g., Poisson likelihood with the 1356±43 background treated as a nuisance parameter, and the definition of the test statistic — should be given. This is especially important because the RES-induced ratio in the lower subpanels depends on the precise location of the upper boundary.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV A] The section is entitled 'Straight-line model' but the first sentence begins 'In the single-scattering model, any interaction...' This appears to be a copy-paste error and should be corrected to 'straight-line model'.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The symbol ⟨σν⟩ should presumably be ⟨σv⟩ (thermally averaged annihilation cross section). Please fix the notation.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The typesetting of the Gaussian prefactor is ambiguous due to the line break. As written, it appears to be 2/√(2π)σ0 mχ1, which integrates to 2, but the reader cannot tell whether a √2 is intended in the numerator. Please write the prefactor explicitly as 2/[√(2π)σ0 mχ1] (or state the intended normalization) so that the two-particle spectrum integrates to 2.
  4. [After Eq. (4)] 'is a Direct function' should read 'is a Dirac delta function' or simply 'delta function'.
  5. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption contains a grammatically incomplete sentence: 'Together, The lower subpanels...' This should be rephrased.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RES attenuation prediction is computed from external nuclear inputs and benchmarked against PandaX-4T data, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forcing the result.

full rationale

The claimed new result—the non-negligible RES contribution to boosted-DM attenuation—is derived, not assumed. Equations (12) and (A15) compute the RES cross section by folding an elementary N→Δ tensor from Ref. [70], MAID2007 transition form factors [74,75], a nucleon spectral function from NuWro [71], and the PDG Δ width [72]. These are external inputs, and no parameter is fitted to the PandaX-4T data or to the attenuation output. The subsequent attenuation calculation and the upper-boundary shift in Fig. 6 follow from a definite quantitative evaluation (Fig. 4) and a standard likelihood analysis against external PandaX-4T Run 1 data. The paper's only self-citation is Ref. [60] (Su, Wu, Zhu), whose authors overlap with two of the present authors, used as the source of the BDM flux (Eq. 2) and of the ES/QES/DIS cross sections. That is a prior published framework, not a uniqueness theorem, not an ansatz imported to forbid alternatives, and not an input that already contains the RES result. Its use does not make the RES prediction equal to its inputs by construction. The possibly large unquantified in-medium Δ corrections and the unspecified QES/RES matching are genuine physics uncertainties, but uncertainty about the nuclear model is not circularity. No step in the derivation reduces to a fit, a re-labeled known result, or the paper's own conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are invented: the dark photon V', the two-component DM (χ1, χ2), and the Δ(1232) resonance all pre-exist in the cited literature. The free parameters are benchmark/model choices (Λ, σ_0, m_V', m_χ), not fitted to the PandaX data. The main hidden burden is the set of nuclear-physics domain assumptions (spectral function, MAID form factors, free Δ width, channel partition), any of which could shift the claimed RES effect by tens of percent.

free parameters (4)
  • Λ (mass scale in annihilation cross section) = 250 GeV
    Set by hand (Sec. II, after Eq. 3) in ⟨σv⟩; normalizes the bare BDM flux. Standard BDM benchmark but a free input.
  • σ_0 (relative Gaussian width of the boosted spectrum) = 0.05 (used in Fig. 5)
    Controls the spectral width of dN/dE in Eq. (4); no physical derivation given; determines how much flux overlaps the RES peak.
  • m_V' (dark photon mass) = 10 GeV
    Heavy-mediator benchmark chosen (Sec. III) because a light-mediator propagator suppresses inelastic channels; the RES effect is only studied in this regime.
  • m_χ (light DM mass) = 1 MeV (figures)
    Representative mass for the light boosted component; constraints are shown as a function of it.
assumptions (8)
  • ad hoc to paper The nuclear response can be partitioned into four independent channels (ES, QES, RES, DIS) without overlap or gaps, with QES/DIS taken from ref [60].
    The matching between quasi-elastic, resonance, and deep-inelastic regions at E_χ~1–2 GeV is not specified; single-nucleon QES and DIS may double-count the resonance region.
  • domain assumption Impulse approximation: DM scatters incoherently off one bound nucleon, with the remaining nucleons as spectators (Eqs. 9–10).
    Standard for QE neutrino scattering; its validity for resonance production at Q²~0.1–1 GeV² is assumed without in-medium corrections.
  • domain assumption N→Δ(1232) transitions parametrized by MAID2007 form factors (Eqs. A8–A9) are accurate for the dark-photon (vector) current at the probed Q².
    Empirical fits to pion electroproduction; assumed to apply to the DM-induced γ*N→Δ vertex.
  • domain assumption The bound-nucleon spectral function from NuWro/Benhar et al. (ref [67]) describes the nucleon momentum and removal-energy distribution.
    External nuclear input; normalized per nucleon with isoscalar assumption.
  • domain assumption Isospin symmetry: p→Δ+ and n→Δ0 have the same reduced isovector matrix element.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. III; needed for the inclusive treatment of bound protons and neutrons.
  • domain assumption The resonance is treated inclusively with a Breit-Wigner in W using the free width Γ_Δ=117 MeV and W≃M_Δ in slowly varying factors.
    Standard zero-width-plus-BW approximation; neglects in-medium Δ self-energy and Pauli blocking of Δ→πN decay.
  • domain assumption The χ1 halo follows a gNFW profile (ref [69]) and the annihilation cross section is s-wave with Λ=250 GeV.
    Standard astrophysical input for the production flux (Eqs. 2–5).
  • domain assumption The spherical Earth density profile plus the two transport limits (continuous energy loss vs. single-scattering absorption) bracket the true attenuation.
    Both models are acknowledged simplifications; no full Monte Carlo transport is performed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inelastic Scattering Effects on Attenuation of Boosted Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6XXRKPRY

@misc{pith2026260715098,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inelastic Scattering Effects on Attenuation of Boosted Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6XXRKPRY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15098}
}
abstract

Earth attenuation is crucial for interpreting direct-detection constraints on boosted dark matter (DM), since scatterings with terrestrial nuclei can significantly modify the flux and energy spectrum reaching underground detectors. At boosted energies, inelastic nuclear channels beyond ordinary elastic scattering can become relevant, including quasi-elastic scattering, deep-inelastic scattering, and resonant scattering. In this work, we incorporate the resonant scattering of boosted dark matter (DM) off nuclei into the Earth-attenuation framework, in combination with the elastic, quasi-elastic, and deep-inelastic channels. We find that, in the heavy-mediator regime, resonant scattering can give a non-negligible contribution to the attenuation of boosted DM. Using the latest PandaX-4T data, we derive new constraints on the spin-independent boosted DM-nucleon cross section $\bar{\sigma}_n$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15098 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of the normalized differential scattering cross sections for Fe, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Diagrammatic sketch of resonant dark matter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Comparison of the effective energy-loss cross sections for Fe and O, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Differential flux of boosted dark matter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of the 90% C.L. exclusion limits derived from PandaX-4T Run 1 data, obtained under the single-scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 65 linked inside Pith

  1. [60]

    L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 221012 (2024), 2308.02204

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

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

    1977

  3. [2]

    Roszkowski, E

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 066201 (2018), 1707.06277

    arXiv 2018

  4. [3]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025), 2410.17036

    arXiv 2025

  5. [4]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 221003 (2025), 2502.18005

    arXiv 2025

  6. [5]

    Bo et al

    Z. Bo et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 011805 (2025), 2408.00664

    arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D85, 076007 (2012), 1108.5383

    arXiv 2012

  8. [7]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Zhao, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 011301 (2016), 1504.07237

    arXiv 2016

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    Essig, M

    R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP05, 046 (2016), 1509.01598

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Essig, T

    R. Essig, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D96, 043017 (2017), 1703.00910

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D96, 115021 (2017), 1709.07882

    2017 arXiv

  4. [11]

    R. T. D’Agnolo, C. Mondino, J. T. Ruderman, and P.-J. Wang, JHEP08, 079 (2018), 1803.02901

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

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

    2020 arXiv

  6. [13]

    S.-F. Ge, J. Liu, Q. Yuan, and N. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 091804 (2021), 2005.09480

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Guo, Y.-L

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

    2020 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Yang et al

    J. Yang et al. (PandaX-II), Sci. China Phys. Mech. As- tron.64, 111062 (2021), 2104.14724

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D105, 055021 (2022), 2105.06326

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Calabrese, M

    R. Calabrese, M. Chianese, D. F. G. Fiorillo, and N. Sa- viano, Phys. Rev. D105, L021302 (2022), 2107.13001

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

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

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    G. Elor, R. McGehee, and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 031803 (2023), 2112.03920

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Alvey, T

    J. Alvey, T. Bringmann, and H. Kolesova, JHEP01, 123 (2023), 2209.03360

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    L. Su, L. Wu, N. Zhou, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D108, 035004 (2023), 2212.02286

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Ning et al

    X. Ning et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041001 (2023), 2301.03010

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Liang, L

    Z.-L. Liang, L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 071001 (2025), 2401.11971

    2025 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Dutta, W.-C

    B. Dutta, W.-C. Huang, D. Kim, J. L. Newstead, J.-C. Park, and I. S. Ali, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 161801 (2024), 2402.04184

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    P. N. Bhattiprolu, R. McGehee, E. Petrosky, and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. D111, 035027 (2025), 2408.07744

    2025 arXiv

  19. [26]

    J.-W. Sun, L. Wu, Y.-H. Xu, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 112, 015014 (2025), 2501.07591

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Balan, T

    S. Balan, T. Bringmann, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Matuszak, and C. Tasillo, JCAP08, 062 (2025), 2502.19478

    2025

  21. [28]

    Y. Gong, F. Lin, N. Liu, L. Su, and L. Wu (2025), 2504.13007

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Cheek, P

    A. Cheek, P. Figueroa, G. Herrera, and I. M. Shoemaker (2025), 2507.15956

    2025 arXiv

  23. [30]

    S.-F. Ge, J. Sheng, and C.-Y. Xing, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 617 (2026), 2509.14534

    2026 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Bernreuther, N

    E. Bernreuther, N. Hemme, F. Kahlhoefer, S. Kulkarni, and M. Ovchynnikov, Phys. Rev. D113, 075002 (2026), 2510.23696

    2026 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Y. Hu, N. Liu, L. Su, and B. Zhu (2025), 2510.18338

    2025 arXiv

  26. [33]

    P. Cox, M. J. Dolan, and A. Ghosh (2025), 2512.20825

    2025 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Wang and F.-F

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

    2026

  28. [35]

    Y. Gong, J. Guo, N. Liu, L. Su, and W.-N. Yang (2026), 2601.07448. 10

    2026 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Bringmann and M

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

    2019 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Xia, Y.-H

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

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Y. Ema, F. Sala, and R. Sato, SciPost Phys.10, 072 (2021), 2011.01939

    2021 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Feng, X.-W

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

    2022 arXiv

  33. [40]

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

    2023 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Cui et al

    X. Cui et al. (PandaX-II), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 171801 (2022), 2112.08957

    2022 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Abe et al

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

    2023 arXiv

  36. [43]

    K. I. Nagao, S. Higashino, T. Naka, and K. Miuchi, JCAP 07, 061 (2023), 2211.13399

    2023 arXiv

  37. [44]

    T. N. Maity and R. Laha, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 117 (2024), 2210.01815

    2024 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Lu, Y.-L

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

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    D. K. Ghosh, T. Gupta, M. Heikinheimo, K. Huitu, and S. Jeesun, Phys. Rev. D111, 063019 (2025), 2411.11973

    2025 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 241801 (2025), 2503.18158

    2025 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Jeesun and A

    S. Jeesun and A. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. D114, 023029 (2026), 2601.16903

    2026 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Alvey, M

    J. Alvey, M. Campos, M. Fairbairn, and T. You, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 261802 (2019), 1905.05776

    2019 arXiv

  43. [50]

    L. Su, W. Wang, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D102, 115028 (2020), 2006.11837

    2020 arXiv

  44. [51]

    C. A. Arg¨ uelles, V. Mu˜ noz, I. M. Shoemaker, and V. Takhistov, Phys. Lett. B833, 137363 (2022), 2203.12630

    2022 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Darm´ e, Phys

    L. Darm´ e, Phys. Rev. D106, 055015 (2022), 2205.09773

    2022 arXiv

  46. [53]

    M. Du, R. Fang, and Z. Liu, JHEP08, 174 (2024), 2211.11469

    2024 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Agashe, Y

    K. Agashe, Y. Cui, L. Necib, and J. Thaler, JCAP10, 062 (2014), 1405.7370

    2014 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Berger, Y

    J. Berger, Y. Cui, and Y. Zhao, JCAP02, 005 (2015), 1410.2246

    2015 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Agashe, Y

    K. Agashe, Y. Cui, L. Necib, and J. Thaler, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.718, 042041 (2016), 1512.03782

    2016 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Kachulis et al

    C. Kachulis et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 221301 (2018), 1711.05278

    2018 arXiv

  51. [58]

    J.-W. Wang, A. Granelli, and P. Ullio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 221104 (2022), 2111.13644

    2022 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Granelli, P

    A. Granelli, P. Ullio, and J.-W. Wang, JCAP07, 013 (2022), 2202.07598

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A. G. De Marchi, A. Granelli, J. Nava, and F. Sala, JHEP 12, 136 (2025), 2507.12278

    2025

  54. [62]

    Jeesun, Phys

    S. Jeesun, Phys. Rev. D111, 103022 (2025), 2501.11569

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Xing and C

    C.-Y. Xing and C. Xia (2026), 2606.16204

    2026

  56. [64]

    D. E. Soper, M. Spannowsky, C. J. Wallace, and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D90, 115005 (2014), 1407.2623

    2014 arXiv

  57. [65]

    L. Su, L. Wu, and M. Yang, Phys. Rev. D110, 055014 (2024), 2408.03759

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Li, C.-T

    L. Li, C.-T. Lu, A. K. Mishra, L. Su, and L. Wu (2025), 2509.11906

    2025

  59. [67]

    Benhar, N

    O. Benhar, N. Farina, H. Nakamura, M. Sakuda, and R. Seki, Phys. Rev. D72, 053005 (2005), hep- ph/0506116

    2005

  60. [68]

    A. M. Ankowski and O. Benhar, Phys. Rev. D88, 093004 (2013), 1305.2068

    2013 arXiv

  61. [69]

    C. A. Arg¨ uelles, A. Diaz, A. Kheirandish, A. Olivares- Del-Campo, I. Safa, and A. C. Vincent, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035007 (2021), 1912.09486

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    R. E. Gerasimov and V. S. Fadin, J. Phys. G43, 125003 (2016), 1604.07960. [71]Nuwro official repository,https://github.com/NuWro/ nuwro

    2016 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  64. [73]

    Luo et al

    Y. Luo et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. D110, 023029 (2024), 2403.04239

    2024 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Drechsel, S

    D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov, and L. Tiator, Eur. Phys. J. A34, 69 (2007), 0710.0306

    2007 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Tiator, D

    L. Tiator, D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov, and M. Vander- haeghen, Eur. Phys. J. ST198, 141 (2011), 1109.6745

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.