Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The high-energy nuclear-recoil excess in LZ and XENONnT can be fit by velocity-dependent or inelastic dark matter models at up to 4σ local significance, but the signal erases when 124Xe background charge yields are left free.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:17 UTC pith:74P3WCVN

load-bearing objection A careful combined reanalysis of the liquid-xenon excess whose 4σ DM preference collapses when the unmeasured XENONnT DEC charge yield is floated; the framework and honesty are solid, the significance claim is not. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.05850 v3 pith:74P3WCVN submitted 2025-12-05 hep-ph hep-ex

Dark Matter implications from the LZ, PandaX-4T and XENONnT Data

Haipeng An , Fei Gao , Jia Liu , Minghao Liu , Haoming Nie , Changlong Xu This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords dark matterliquid xenon TPCnuclear recoil excessWIMPeffective field theoryinelastic dark matterdouble electron captureprofile likelihood
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Liquid-xenon dark matter experiments see more nuclear-recoil-like events above 20 keV than standard elastic WIMP scattering predicts. This paper argues that two less-ordinary dark matter interactions—velocity-dependent scattering and inelastic scattering to a slightly heavier or lighter state—can reproduce the excess, with local significances as high as 4σ in a combined profile-likelihood fit to XENONnT and LZ data. The catch, which the paper also establishes, is that the 124Xe double electron capture background has uncertain charge yields; when those yields are treated as free parameters, every dark matter model's significance drops below 1.6σ. The paper therefore frames the excess as a real anomaly whose resolution requires either better background measurements or a search at higher recoil energies, where the DEC background is negligible.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a spectral coincidence: the high-energy (>20 keV) nuclear-recoil events in XENONnT and LZ, which the standard spin-independent elastic WIMP model cannot produce because its spectrum falls exponentially with recoil energy, are naturally produced by interactions whose rates grow with momentum transfer (the DMEFT operators Q3^(7) and Q4^(7), scaling as q and q^2) or by inelastic scattering with mass splittings δ ≈ 110–205 keV (endothermic) or δ < −105 keV (exothermic). Combined fits give local significances up to 4σ under the baseline DEC charge-yield assumption. The same fits show that the significance is controlled almost entirely by the assumed charge yield o

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the recoil-energy spectrum shape. Standard SI elastic scattering falls exponentially with recoil energy, so it cannot populate the observed 20–100 keV events. The paper uses two alternative shape-producing mechanisms: DMEFT operators Q3^(7) (amplitude ∝ q) and Q4^(7) (amplitude ∝ q^2), whose rates are suppressed at low recoil and peak at higher energies; and inelastic scattering, endothermic (δ>0, so a velocity threshold suppresses low recoils) or exothermic (δ<0, so a characteristic recoil energy E*_R = |δ| m_DM/(m_DM+m_N) sits in the high-energy region). The other central element is Q_X/Q_β, the ratio of 124Xe double electron capture charge yield to β-decay ch

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 124Xe double electron capture background's charge yield is known well enough to be fixed in the fit; if that yield is actually a free parameter, no dark matter model rises above 1.6σ.

What would settle it

Measure the 124Xe DEC charge yield independently (e.g., via a dedicated source or by using the high-energy control region where DEC is negligible) and re-run the fit using the measured value; if the excess persists with the true DEC shape, the DM interpretation survives, and if it vanishes, it is falsified. Alternatively, a search for the predicted out-of-ROI events above ~100 keV in the same datasets that finds no excess would rule out the best-fit DM models.

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

If this is right

  • Standard elastic spin-independent WIMP models are excluded as an explanation of the excess; future direct-detection papers should report spectra above 20 keV separately from their WIMP limits.
  • Velocity-dependent and inelastic dark matter models predict tens of events outside the current WIMP search ROI at 50–200 keV; looking for these events in existing data is a direct test.
  • If the excess is due to velocity-dependent DM, the required cutoff scales of O(1–10) GeV imply light mediator states, which collider searches can probe; inelastic models require O(10) TeV cutoffs and evade those bounds.
  • Running the same analysis on recoil energies up to 300 keV, once available, can settle the DM vs. DEC question, because the DEC background is negligible in that range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: The same combined-fitting procedure could be applied to the PandaX-4T public data, whose 24-event excess is a key motivation; consistency of best-fit parameters across three experiments would strengthen the DM interpretation.
  • Extension: The DEC charge-yield uncertainty could be turned into a control measurement: by fitting the high-energy sideband where DEC is absent, one could calibrate the background model and then re-evaluate the low-energy excess without degeneracy.
  • Extension: The paper's logic suggests a hierarchy of robustness—inelastic DM predicts only a few tens of out-of-ROI events, while velocity-dependent models at high mass overproduce them—so a null high-energy search would disfavor velocity-dependent DM more strongly than inelastic DM.
  • Extension: A dedicated laboratory measurement of 124Xe double electron capture charge and light yields would largely settle whether the 3–4σ preferences are real, since the DEC shape is the dominant systematic.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a combined profile-likelihood reanalysis of high-energy nuclear-recoil-like events in XENONnT (SR0/SR1) and LZ (WS2022/WS2024) using the public DIAMX framework. The authors model backgrounds and signals in corrected (S1,S2) space and fit dark-matter scenarios: two DMEFT operators Q(7)_3 and Q(7)_4, and endothermic/exothermic inelastic scattering. Under their baseline DEC charge-yield model (Case I), they report local discovery significances up to about 4σ. However, when the XENONnT 124Xe DEC charge yields are floated (Case III), all significances fall to 0.2–1.7σ. The paper also predicts event yields outside the standard WIMP search ROI as a future test.

Significance. The paper has clear strengths: it uses an open-source framework, validates its inference against official limits to within 10–20%, combines multiple datasets with a total exposure of 7.3 tonne·yr, and makes concrete high-recoil predictions that can be checked in future releases. If the 4σ signal were robust, the DM interpretations would be important. However, the primary quantitative claim is tied to an unmeasured DEC charge-yield assumption; when that assumption is relaxed, the signal disappears. The trials factor is also not accounted for. As a result, the central claim is defensible only as a conditional statement, not as established evidence for dark matter.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table I / 'Data analysis'] The central DM claim is controlled by the baseline DEC charge-yield assignment. In Case I, QLM/Qβ = QLL/Qβ = 1.00 is imposed for XENONnT with no direct measurement; the 0.88 value for LZ has an explicit XELDA/LZ anchor (Refs. [33,34]). The text says the XENONnT dataset 'remains compatible with a model that uses the β charge yield,' but compatibility is not a measurement of Q. When the XENONnT yields are floated (Case III), all benchmark significances drop to 0.2–1.7σ (Table I). Since Case III is at least as plausible as Case I given current knowledge, the Abstract and Conclusions statements that DM models 'can reproduce the observed high-energy recoil spectrum, reaching local significances up to 4σ' are not robust. The authors should either give a principled justification for the XENONnT Q=1.0 prior, or present Case III as the primary result.
  2. ['DM interpretation' / Figs. 2 and 3] The reported significances are local in the model parameter space. For each operator the significance is maximized over mDM (Fig. 2), and for inelastic DM over (mDM, δ) (Fig. 3); four benchmark models are scanned. The paper labels these 'local' once, but the Abstract and Conclusions quote 'up to 4σ' without any trials-factor correction. With this many scanned models and parameters, the global significance will be lower. Please report a trials-corrected significance, or at least quantify the effective number of independent trials, so readers can judge whether the excess is real.
  3. [Final paragraph of 'DM interpretation'] The statement that 'the qualitative preference for spectra that enhance high energy NR events remains' is not supported by any shown likelihood comparison. Under Case III, the DM components have best-fit significances of 0.2–1.7σ (Table I), i.e., consistent with a DEC-only background with floated yields. To claim a qualitative preference, the authors need to compare a background-only model with floated XENONnT yields against the same background plus a DM component and present, e.g., Δχ² or a profile-likelihood ratio. Without such a comparison, the data do not currently favor DM over a DEC background with unknown yields.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title/Abstract] The arXiv metadata title and abstract mention PandaX-4T and a total exposure of 8.8 tonne·yr, while the paper text analyzes only XENONnT and LZ with 7.3 tonne·yr. Please align the title and abstract with the actual datasets and exposures.
  2. [Abstract/Introduction] There is an inconsistency between the Abstract ('8.8 tonne × year') and the paper's abstract and conclusions ('7.3 tonne × year'). Please correct the exposure in one place.
  3. [Throughout] Typos and formatting: 'V elocity' at the start of the section header, 'and and' in the Acknowledgements, and unusual spacing such as '3 .3σ' in Table I and the text.
  4. ['DM interpretation' paragraph after Fig. 2] The text states the preferred cutoff scale Λ lies in the range O(1−10) GeV, but Table I gives best-fit Λ = 22.0 GeV for Q(7)_3 and 1.75 GeV for Q(7)_4. Please reconcile the range with the table values.
  5. [Fig. 4 and out-of-ROI discussion] The mDM upper limits 'inferred' from LZ extended-energy data are presented qualitatively, without a quantitative goodness-of-fit to the out-of-ROI energy bins. This is not central to the main significance claim, but adding a numerical comparison would strengthen the prediction section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: DM fits are standard signal extraction, validated against external limits; DEC systematics are explicitly floated and shown to control the significance.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and externally anchored. The DM normalizations are fitted to the observed high-energy NR excess and the reported local significances are computed from the resulting profile likelihood; this is normal signal extraction, not a prediction derived from its own fit. The DIAMX framework (Ref. [23], by co-author M. Liu) is a self-citation, but it is not load-bearing: the paper explicitly validates the framework by reproducing official XENONnT and LZ spin-independent WIMP limits to within 10–20%, and it relies on publicly available data and likelihood models. The out-of-ROI event-rate predictions use best-fit normalizations but are extrapolated to ROI-excluded regions with stated efficiencies, making them testable rather than tautological. The dependence on 124Xe DEC charge yields is openly modeled as Cases I–III; Table I shows that floating the XENONnT yields (Case III) drops all significances below 1.6σ, and the text explicitly identifies DEC charge yields as the dominant systematic. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the DM interpretation. The analysis is therefore not circular; the fragility of the 4σ claim is a systematic-uncertainty concern, not a circular-derivation concern.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard halo-model assumptions and the NEST microphysics model, plus nuclear response functions from DirectDM. The most important free parameters are the DM normalization/mass/δ, which are fit to the excess, and the DEC charge-yield ratios, which are fixed in the baseline but can destroy the signal when floated.

free parameters (6)
  • DM signal normalization (1/Λ^2 or cross-section) = e.g., Λ = 22 GeV (Q7_3), 1.75 GeV (Q7_4), 5.04 TeV (endothermic), 80.9 TeV (exothermic) at Case I best-fit
    Normalization of each DM component is fitted to the combined XENONnT+LZ dataset; without this fit there is no excess.
  • DM mass mDM = 832 GeV (Q7_3), 759 GeV (Q7_4), 70 GeV (endothermic), 19 GeV (exothermic)
    Mass is scanned and the best-fit value is determined by the fit; it controls the spectrum shape.
  • Inelastic mass splitting δ = 135 keV (endothermic), 350 keV (exothermic)
    Mass splitting is fit for inelastic models and sets the recoil-energy threshold/peak.
  • DEC charge-yield ratios QLM/Qβ and QLL/Qβ = Case I: 1.0 (XENONnT), 0.88 (LZ); Case III: floated
    The central result's significance depends directly on these ratios; they are fixed in the baseline and floated in robustness cases, changing significance from 4σ to <1.6σ.
  • XENONnT SR1 electron gain g2 = 15.8 PE/e− (vs. published 16.9±0.5)
    Ad hoc adjustment to match the collaboration's SR1 model; affects energy scale of S2 and thus event selection.
  • AC and surface background shape parameters = not quoted
    Gaussian/piecewise parameters chosen so published 68%/95% contours are reproduced exactly; they affect the background-only expectation.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Standard halo model for the Galactic dark matter velocity distribution (e.g., Maxwellian with v0≈220 km/s, vesc≈544 km/s, ρ≈0.3 GeV/cm^3).
    All DM rate spectra and vmin integrals in Eqs. (1)–(2) require a velocity distribution; the paper does not state its choice or uncertainty, but the excess shape and significance depend on the high-velocity tail.
  • domain assumption NEST microphysics accurately describe light and charge yields in LXe for both experiments.
    ER/NR models are based on NEST with parameters from Refs. [25,28]; any mismatch shifts the NR band and the reported efficiencies.
  • domain assumption Nuclear response functions from DirectDM/nuclear-structure calculations are correct.
    Used to compute DM-nucleus scattering rates for DMEFT operators; validated partially against experimental data but still theory-dependent.
  • standard math Asymptotic profile-likelihood formulae (Cowan et al.) apply at the low statistics involved.
    Used to compute 90% C.L. regions and discovery significances; asymptotic approximation may be inaccurate with O(10) events.
  • domain assumption The 124Xe DEC charge-yield ratios measured for L-shell EC by XELDA/LZ transfer to LM/LL-shell DEC in both detectors.
    The baseline penalty depends on this transfer; it is explicitly flagged by the authors as poorly known.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9880 in / 15440 out tokens · 147428 ms · 2026-08-03T18:17:06.890546+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate a possible dark matter origin of the high-energy nuclear-recoil-like events in data from liquid xenon time projection chamber experiments, including LZ, PandaX-4T, and XENONnT, which cannot be explained by standard elastic spin-independent WIMP scattering. Using our unified DIAMX framework, built on openly available data and likelihood models, we perform the first combined profile-likelihood fits to multiple WIMP-search datasets with a total exposure of approximately 8.8 tonne $\times$ year. We consider two broad classes of dark matter-nucleon interactions, involving either velocity-dependent cross sections or inelastic (endo- and exothermic) scattering, which can reproduce the observed high-energy recoil spectrum, reaching local significances up to $3.5\sigma$. We further quantify the impact of $^{124}$Xe double electron capture (DEC) backgrounds, finding that variations in the poorly known DEC charge yields can shift the inferred significances from a null-like result to $3.5\sigma$. We further note that extending the same analysis to data from all three experiments with recoil energies up to $300~\mathrm{keV}$, when available, will provide a powerful test of the dark matter interpretation, since the $^{124}$Xe DEC background is expected to be negligible in this high-energy range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.05850 by Changlong Xu, Fei Gao, Haipeng An, Haoming Nie, Jia Liu, Minghao Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Event distributions in NR energy for XENONnT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Allowed 90% C.L. regions for the reciprocal of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Predicted total number of events inside (dashed) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Corrected (S1, S2) distributions for all XENONnT and LZ datasets used in this analysis. Each event is represented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Electroweak Doublet Dark Matter for a Galactic Halo Gamma-Ray Excess

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Electroweak doublet dark matter with Higgs-portal interactions accounts for the Galactic halo gamma-ray excess via gauge boson annihilation and allows inelastic scattering with ~100 keV splitting.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 29 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    outside the ROI

    [ 20] and exothermic ( δ < 0) [ 21, 22] scenarios are considered. In order to isolate the effect of inelastic scattering, we focus on the vector-vector spin-independent (SI) interaction 1 Λ2 ( ¯χγµχ′) (¯qγ µq). In the endothermic case, the minimum velocity required to produce a given recoil energy ER is vmin (ER) = 1√2mN ER mN ER µN + δ , (2) where µN is ...

  2. [2]

    Hut, Limits on masses and number of neutral weakly interacting particles, Phys

    P. Hut, Limits on masses and number of neutral weakly interacting particles, Phys. Lett. B 69, 85 (1977)

    1977

  3. [3]

    B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, Cosmological lower bound on heavy-neutrino masses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 165 (1977)

    1977

  4. [4]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ Collaboration), First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ Collaboration), Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX- ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 011802 (2025), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), First Dark Mat- ter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041003 (2023), arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), WIMP Dark Matter Search Using a 3.1 Tonne-Year Exposure of the XENONnT Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 221003 (2025), arXiv:2502.18005 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Bo et al

    Z. Bo et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Dark Matter Search Results from 1.54 Tonne ·Year Exposure of PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 011805 (2025), arXiv:2408.00664 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Dark matter search results from a one ton-year exposure of XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Cao, C.-R

    Q.-H. Cao, C.-R. Chen, C. S. Li, and H. Zhang, Effective Dark Matter Model: Relic density, CDMS II, Fermi LAT and LHC, JHEP 08, 018, arXiv:0912.4511 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    An, S.-L

    H. An, S.-L. Chen, R. N. Mohapatra, S. Nussinov, and Y. Zhang, Energy Dependence of Direct Detection Cross Section for Asymmetric Mirror Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 82, 023533 (2010), arXiv:1004.3296 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  12. [12]

    J. Fan, M. Reece, and L.-T. Wang, Non-relativistic ef- fective theory of dark matter direct detection, JCAP 11, 042, arXiv:1008.1591 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers, and Y. Xu, The Effective Field Theory of Dark Matter Direct Detection, JCAP 02, 004, arXiv:1203.3542 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Gluscevic, M

    V. Gluscevic, M. I. Gresham, S. D. McDermott, A. H. G. Peter, and K. M. Zurek, Identifying the Theory of Dark Matter with Direct Detection, JCAP 12, 057, arXiv:1506.04454 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    De Simone and T

    A. De Simone and T. Jacques, Simplified models vs. effec- tive field theory approaches in dark matter searches, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 367 (2016), arXiv:1603.08002 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    S. Liem, G. Bertone, F. Calore, R. Ruiz de Austri, T. M. P. Tait, R. Trotta, and C. Weniger, Effective field the- ory of dark matter: a global analysis, JHEP 09, 077, arXiv:1603.05994 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Bishara, J

    F. Bishara, J. Brod, B. Grinstein, and J. Zupan, From quarks to nucleons in dark matter direct detection, JHEP 11, 059, arXiv:1707.06998 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    H. Song, H. Sun, and J.-H. Yu, Complete EFT operator bases for dark matter and weakly-interacting light particle, JHEP 05, 103, arXiv:2306.05999 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Bishara, J

    F. Bishara, J. Brod, B. Grinstein, and J. Zupan, Di- rectDM: a tool for dark matter direct detection (2017), arXiv:1708.02678 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Anand, A

    N. Anand, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. C. Haxton, Weakly interacting massive particle-nucleus elastic scattering re- sponse, Phys. Rev. C 89, 10.1103/physrevc.89.065501 (2014)

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.89.065501 2014

  21. [21]

    Tucker-Smith and N

    D. Tucker-Smith and N. Weiner, Inelastic dark matter, 6 Phys. Rev. D 64, 043502 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0101138

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  22. [22]

    P. W. Graham, R. Harnik, S. Rajendran, and P. Saraswat, Exothermic Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 82, 063512 (2010), arXiv:1004.0937 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  23. [23]

    Batell, M

    B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Direct Detection of Multi-component Secluded WIMPs, Phys. Rev. D 79, 115019 (2009), arXiv:0903.3396 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  24. [24]

    Liu, mhliu0001/diamx: v0.2.0 (2025)

    M. Liu, mhliu0001/diamx: v0.2.0 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    D. Xu, Z. Xu, M. Liu, Y. Ma, J. R. Angevaare, L. Yuan, and L. Hoetzsch, XENONnT/appletree: v0.5.4 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), XENONnT WIMP search: Signal and background modeling and statistical inference, Phys. Rev. D 111, 103040 (2025), arXiv:2406.13638 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), XENONnT anal- ysis: Signal reconstruction, calibration, and event selec- tion, Phys. Rev. D 111, 062006 (2025), arXiv:2409.08778 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Szydagis, N

    M. Szydagis, N. Barry, K. Kazkaz, J. Mock, D. Stolp, M. Sweany, M. Tripathi, S. Uvarov, N. Walsh, and M. Woods, NEST: A Comprehensive Model for Scin- tillation Yield in Liquid Xenon, JINST 6, P10002, arXiv:1106.1613 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Szydagis et al

    M. Szydagis et al. , A review of NEST models for liq- uid xenon and an exhaustive comparison with other ap- proaches, Front. Detect. Sci. Tech. 2, 1480975 (2024), arXiv:2211.10726 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Projected WIMP sensitivity of the XENONnT dark matter experiment, JCAP 11, 031, arXiv:2007.08796 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  31. [31]

    Mougeot, Atomic exchange correction in forbidden unique beta transitions, Applied Radiation and Isotopes 201, 111018 (2023)

    X. Mougeot, Atomic exchange correction in forbidden unique beta transitions, Applied Radiation and Isotopes 201, 111018 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Kleesiek et al., β-Decay Spectrum, Response Function and Statistical Model for Neutrino Mass Measurements with the KATRIN Experiment, Eur

    M. Kleesiek et al., β-Decay Spectrum, Response Function and Statistical Model for Neutrino Mass Measurements with the KATRIN Experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 204 (2019), arXiv:1806.00369 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Kotila and F

    J. Kotila and F. Iachello, Phase-space factors for double-β decay, Phys. Rev. C 85, 034316 (2012)

    2012

  34. [34]

    D. J. Temples, J. McLaughlin, J. Bargemann, D. Baxter, A. Cottle, C. E. Dahl, W. H. Lippincott, A. Monte, and J. Phelan, Measurement of charge and light yields for Xe127 L-shell electron captures in liquid xenon, Phys. Rev. D 104, 112001 (2021), arXiv:2109.11487 [physics.ins- det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ Collaboration), Measurements and models of enhanced recombination following inner-shell vacancies in liquid xenon, Phys. Rev. D 112, 012024 (2025), arXiv:2503.05679 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymp- totic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  37. [37]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), First constraints on WIMP-nucleon effective field theory couplings in an extended energy region from LUX-ZEPLIN, Phys. Rev. D 109, 092003 (2024), arXiv:2312.02030 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Constraints on Covariant Dark- Matter–Nucleon Effective Field Theory Interactions from the First Science Run of the LUX-ZEPLIN Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 221801 (2024), arXiv:2404.17666 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Goodman, M

    J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. P. Tait, and H.-B. Yu, Constraints on Dark Mat- ter from Colliders, Phys. Rev. D 82, 116010 (2010), arXiv:1008.1783 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [40]

    H. An, X. Ji, and L.-T. Wang, Light Dark Matter and Z ′ Dark Force at Colliders, JHEP 07, 182, arXiv:1202.2894 [hep-ph]. 7 End Matter Figure 5 shows the corrected (S1, S2) distributions for all XENONnT and LZ datasets, visualized event-by-event as pie charts that encode the relative contributions of background and representative endothermic inelastic DM b...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv