Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dark Matter Attenuation Effects: Sensitivity Ceilings for Spin-Dependent and Spin-Independent Interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that Earth's atmosphere stops light dark matter far more effectively than straight-line-path models assumed, lowering the maximum cross-section a surface detector like QUEST-DMC can probe by roughly a factor of two for…

desk verdict Useful experiment-specific ceiling numbers for QUEST-DMC, but the printed diffusion kernel has a mathematical typo and the boundary treatment needs validation before the factor-of-two result is trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10251 v1 pith:HYWLOWOT submitted 2025-02-14 hep-ph hep-ex

QUEST-DMC Collaboration: N. Darvishi , J. Smirnov , S. Autti , L. Bloomfield , A. Casey , N. Eng , P. Franchini , R. P. Haley
show 21 more authors
P. J. Heikkinen A. Jennings A. Kemp E. Leason J. March-Russell A. Mayer J. Monroe D. Munstermann M. T. Noble J. R. Prance X. Rojas T. Salmon J. Saunders R. Smith M. D. Thompson A. Thomson A. Ting V. Tsepelin S. M. West L. Whitehead D.E. Zmeev
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex PACS 95.35.+d
keywords darkmatterattenuationsensitivityceilingsub-GeVEarthshadowingspin-dependentinteractionspin-independentdiffusionmodelsuperfluidhelium-3detector
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 tries to establish that the sensitivity ceiling for a surface dark-matter detector—the largest scattering cross-section it can still probe before Earth's atmosphere blocks the particles—is about a factor of two lower for light dark matter than earlier straight-line-path calculations suggested. The reason is that a sub-GeV dark-matter particle scatters many times as it descends, and the accumulated energy loss plus large angular deflections can turn it back into space. Applying a semi-analytic diffusion model to the QUEST-DMC experiment, a superfluid helium-3 bolometer on the Earth's surface with a sub-electronvolt readout, the paper computes projected ceilings for both spin-dependent and spin-independent interactions and shows the choice of propagation model matters most for masses below $1\,\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ and for the lowest energy thresholds.

What carries the argument

The central object is the semi-analytic diffusion model for light-dark-matter propagation through the atmosphere, adapted from the analytic framework of Ref. [17] and extended here by integrating the incoming flux over the upper half-sphere under the assumption that the Earth is opaque. The probability of reaching the detector after $n$ scatterings is built iteratively from $P_n(z) = \int_0^\infty P_{n-1}(z') \frac{1}{2\lambda}\Gamma(0, |z-z'|/\lambda)\,dz'$, with $\lambda$ the mean free path, and the per-collision energy loss is drawn from the uniform distribution of Eqs. (3.15)–(3.16), weighted by the atmospheric abundances of nitrogen-14 (spin-dependent) and nitrogen-14 plus oxygen-16 (spin-independent). This machinery carries the argument because the random-walk scaling $d_{\mathrm{diff}} \sim \lambda\sqrt{n}$ versus $d_{\mathrm{SL}} \sim \lambda n$ makes the diffusive flux smaller and shifts the sensitivity ceiling down by a factor of two.

What would settle it

A Monte Carlo transport simulation of dark matter particles with masses $0.025$–$1\,\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ crossing an 80 km exponential atmosphere under a realistic differential cross-section, evaluated at the nominal ceiling cross-sections, would settle the claim: if the flux reaching a surface detector matches the straight-line prediction rather than the diffusion prediction (within 10%), the central result fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Adopting a semi-analytic diffusion framework in which each dark-matter–nucleus collision is isotropic in the lab frame and transfers an energy uniformly distributed between zero and a kinematic maximum, the paper shows that light dark matter random-walks through the atmosphere ($d \sim \lambda\sqrt{n}$ rather than $d \sim \lambda n$), so it is re-scattered to lower recoil energies far more often than the straight-line approximation assumes. For QUEST-DMC, this lowers the spin-dependent DM-neutron ceiling to $\sim 3\times10^{-24}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ and the spin-independent DM-nucleon ceiling to $\sim 7.5\times10^{-27}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$, each roughly half the straight-line value, over the mass range $0.025$–$5\,\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$. The two frameworks give nearly identical ceilings with the conventional 31 eV readout; the difference becomes pronounced only with the sub-electronvolt SQUID readout and for masses below $1\,\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every dark-matter–nucleus collision is isotropic in the lab frame and that the energy transferred in a collision is uniformly distributed between zero and $E_{\max}$; if real collisions are forward-peaked, the random walk reflects fewer particles back into space and the factor-of-two reduction of the ceiling shrinks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the QUEST-DMC detector with SQUID readout, the maximum spin-dependent DM-neutron cross-section that can be probed is about $3\times10^{-24}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$, roughly half the straight-line estimate.
  • The spin-independent ceiling is about $7.5\times10^{-27}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$, versus about $1.8\times10^{-26}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ for the straight-line approximation.
  • The two frameworks give essentially identical ceilings when the detector threshold is high (31 eV conventional readout); the diffusive suppression requires sub-eV thresholds and sub-GeV masses.
  • Straight-line models overestimate the dark-matter flux at a surface detector for light DM, because a random walk produces more scatterings per unit distance and can back-reflect particles into space.
  • QUEST-DMC, with its sub-eV SQUID readout, remains competitive in unexplored large-cross-section parameter space for low-mass dark matter, particularly for spin-dependent neutron interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the true angular distribution of elastic dark-matter–nucleus scattering is forward-peaked rather than isotropic, the ceiling should lie between the diffusive and straight-line values, so the factor-of-two gap brackets the plausible range of the true ceiling.
  • The same diffusive treatment, applied to other surface or shallow experiments, would revise their projected sub-GeV ceilings downward by up to a factor of two; published limits near those ceilings may overstate the excluded cross-sections.
  • Because the diffusion model shifts the arriving spectrum toward low speeds, the expected annual and diurnal modulation signals at large cross-sections would be reshaped; modulation searches for light dark matter should use the diffusive velocity distribution rather than the attenuated straight-line one.
  • A dedicated Monte Carlo propagation code with realistic nuclear form factors and angular distributions could turn the uniform-energy-loss assumption into a testable prediction and calibrate the exact position of the ceiling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper computes the attenuation of sub-GeV dark matter in the Earth's atmosphere for the surface-based QUEST-DMC detector and derives projected 90% confidence-level upper sensitivity ceilings for spin-dependent DM-neutron and spin-independent DM-nucleon interactions. Two transport models are compared: a straight-line energy-loss approximation and a semi-analytic diffusion model with isotropic scatterings. The central result is that for light DM (mχ ≲ 1 GeV/c²) and low-threshold SQUID readout, the diffusive treatment lowers the ceiling by about a factor of two relative to the straight-line treatment (SD: ~3×10⁻²⁴ vs ~6×10⁻²⁴ cm²; SI: ~7.5×10⁻²⁷ vs ~1.8×10⁻²⁶ cm²).

Significance. If the diffusive model is correct, the paper makes a useful and practical point: transport modelling changes the apparent sensitivity ceiling of a surface experiment by a factor of two in an accessible mass range. A strength is that the result is a model output computed from standard halo, atmospheric, and detector inputs, so it is falsifiable by a Monte Carlo transport simulation. The paper also gives projections for two readout technologies and compares with existing limits. However, the quantitative claim rests on an analytic diffusion algorithm whose printed equations contain a mathematical inconsistency and whose boundary treatment is not validated; these issues must be resolved before the factor-of-two statement can be considered reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.13)] Equation (3.13) states P_initial(z)=(1/λ)e^{-z/λ}=(1/λ)Γ(0,z/λ), but Γ(0,x)=E_1(x) is not e^{-x}. This is not a harmless notational slip: Eq. (3.14) uses Γ(0,|z-z'|/λ) as the iterative transport kernel, so the text does not specify whether the first-collision distribution is exponential or E_1. Since every P_n is obtained by convolution with this kernel, the printed algorithm is not reproducible. Please correct the equation and state which kernel was used in the numerical results.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.14)-(3.18)] The diffusion model is formulated as a random walk on an unbounded half-line with no absorbing boundary at the top of the atmosphere or at the Earth's surface. The kernel in Eq. (3.14) allows a particle that scatters upward through z=0 to remain in the population and be counted at later steps, and Eq. (3.18) integrates P_n(z') over all z'≥z, counting every later crossing of the detector plane rather than first passage. At the cross-sections of interest the mean free path is comparable to the 80 km atmospheric depth, so these boundary effects are not negligible. The factor-of-two difference between the diffusive and straight-line ceilings is the central quantitative result, yet no Monte Carlo or independent numerical check is provided to show that the boundary treatment does not change it.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.15)-(3.16)] The energy-loss and angular-scattering model assumes isotropic lab-frame scattering and a uniform energy loss in [0,E_max] for every collision. These assumptions control the fraction of light DM that is reflected back into space, which is the main mechanism by which the diffusive ceiling is lowered. If the true angular distribution is forward-peaked, the reflection probability and hence the factor-of-two reduction would be smaller. The paper should justify these assumptions for the relevant kinematics, or test their sensitivity with a Monte Carlo simulation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (3.4)-(3.7)] The symbol d is used both for the chord length defined in Eq. (3.5) and as part of the notation dSLP and ddSLP in the following equations; please distinguish these usages to avoid confusion.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The sentence 'Both the Gamma function and the probability distribution fall off rapidly as z′→∞' is imprecise because Γ(0,x) diverges logarithmically as x→0; the integrand is still integrable, but the wording should be corrected and the chosen finite upper integration limit should be stated.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 4] The abstract and conclusion quote the spin-independent ceiling as ~7.5×10⁻²⁷ cm², while Sec. 4 quotes 7.4×10⁻²⁷ cm²; please round consistently.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption refers to 'coloured lines' for different values of γ but does not specify which line style corresponds to γ=0, γ=180, or the 'without ES' curve in the diffusion panels; please state the mapping explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the attenuation ceilings are model outputs computed from external inputs (halo, atmosphere, detector response, and an independent diffusion kernel), not inputs defined in terms of the results.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from Sec. 2 through Sec. 4. The event-rate formulas (Eqs. 2.1-2.9) use standard external inputs: the SHM velocity distribution, the escape speed, and the local DM density from Refs. [18-21]. The straight-line attenuation uses the ISO Standard Atmosphere density (Eq. 3.6) and the nuclear-stopping formalism of Refs. [22-24]; the diffusion framework is explicitly 'an extension of the framework developed in [17]' (Sec. 3.2), where Ref. [17] is Cappiello, an independent author not overlapping with the present collaboration. The isotropic-scattering and uniform-energy-loss assumptions of Eqs. (3.15)-(3.16) are adopted from that external reference, so they are input assumptions, not claims that the paper derives and then feeds back into itself. The detector response, exposure, and background model come from the collaboration's own earlier Ref. [7], but they are experimental/design inputs used to convert a predicted recoil spectrum into a projected sensitivity; the ceiling is not fitted to those values and Ref. [7] does not already contain the ceiling result. The seasonal angle gamma is computed from geometry (Fig. 6), and the upper-half-sphere flux (Eq. 3.12) follows from the assumed opaqueness of the Earth at large cross-sections; neither is defined in terms of the final ceiling. The central claim is a comparison of two transport models (straight-line vs diffusion) producing different event rates and therefore different ceilings; this is a genuine model comparison, not a renaming of a known result. No parameter in the paper is fitted to the ceiling cross-sections, and no self-citation is used to forbid alternative models. I therefore find no circular step. Separately, Eq. (3.13) appears to contain a typographical inconsistency between e^{-z/lambda} and Gamma(0,z/lambda); that is a mathematical-correctness concern, not a circularity, and does not change this verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a parameterised sensitivity projection. All physics inputs are either standard halo parameters, the atmospheric model, or the detector model from the same collaboration's earlier papers. The only model elements specific to this work are the extension of the diffusion framework to angular-dependent incoming flux and its application to QUEST-DMC; no new particles or forces are introduced. The printed diffusion probabilities in Eq. (3.13) are internally inconsistent, which undermines the self-containedness of the derivation.

free parameters (5)
  • Standard Halo Model parameters (v0, vesc, vE, rho_chi) = v0=220.617 km/s, vesc=544 km/s, vE=232 km/s, rho_chi=0.3 GeV/cm^3
    Inputs from Ref. [21] and standard convention. They set the incoming DM velocity distribution and are not fitted to this paper's outputs.
  • Average seasonal angle gamma = Not quoted numerically; average of the yearly range in Fig. 6
    Used as a fixed input for all sensitivity calculations; the daily and seasonal variation is averaged over.
  • Detector energy thresholds = 31 eV (conventional readout), 0.51 eV (SQUID readout)
    From the QUEST-DMC detector model in Ref. [7]; directly sets vmin and therefore the recoil rate and the ceiling.
  • Exposure = 4.9 g.day (five 0.03 g cells, 6 months, 50% duty cycle)
    From Ref. [7]; enters the profile likelihood sensitivity calculation.
  • Atmospheric scale height H and sea-level density n0 = H=80 km, n0 from ISO 2533 standard atmosphere
    Defines the exponential density profile in Eq. (3.6) used in both attenuation frameworks.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard Halo Model: isotropic Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution truncated at vesc
    Assumed in Eq. (3.1) and used throughout for the unattenuated DM velocity distribution.
  • domain assumption Earth is completely opaque to DM at the cross-sections of interest, so only the upper half-sphere is integrated
    Used in Eq. (3.12) for the diffusion framework. Reasonable at the largest cross-sections, but assumed for all ceiling calculations.
  • domain assumption DM-nucleus scattering is isotropic in the lab frame and the energy-loss distribution is uniform, P(DeltaE)=1/E_max
    Eqs. (3.15)-(3.16). Taken from Ref. [17] and central to the diffusive random walk.
  • domain assumption Exponential density profile for the atmosphere as in ISO 2533
    Eq. (3.6). Used in both the straight-line and diffusion models.
  • domain assumption The detector response and background model from Ref. [7] is accurate
    Used in Sec. 4 to convert event rates into projected upper limits.
  • domain assumption Backscattering and Earth curvature are neglected in the diffusion framework
    Stated in Sec. 3.2. These may affect intermediate cross-sections near the boundary of the opaque-Earth regime.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Matter Attenuation Effects: Sensitivity Ceilings for Spin-Dependent and Spin-Independent Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HYWLOWOT

@misc{pith2026250210251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Matter Attenuation Effects: Sensitivity Ceilings for Spin-Dependent and Spin-Independent Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HYWLOWOT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10251}
}
abstract

Direct detection experiments aimed at uncovering the elusive nature of dark matter (DM) have made significant progress in probing ever lower cross-sections for DM-nucleon interactions. At the same time, an upper limit in the cross-section sensitivity region is present due to DM scattering in the Earth and atmosphere and as a result never reaching the detector. We investigate the impact of this effect for both spin-dependent and spin-independent interactions. In contrast to previous studies that assume a straight line path for DM scattering we employ a semi-analytic diffusion model that takes into account the impact of potentially large angle deviations prevalent for light DM masses. We find that for sufficiently low energy thresholds, this difference in modelling impacts the DM interaction cross-section sensitivity. This study evaluates the impact in the context of the QUEST-DMC experiment, which utilises surface-based detectors with superfluid Helium-3 bolometers to search for sub-GeV DM exploiting low energy threshold. At masses below 1 GeV$/c^2$ the deviation between the two frameworks becomes pronounced. The ceiling sensitivity limit for QUEST-DMC on spin-dependent DM-neutron cross-sections is $\sim 3 \times 10^{-24}$ cm$^2$ using the diffusive framework and approximately doubles with the straight-line path DM scattering. Similarly, for spin-independent DM-nucleon cross-sections, the ceiling limit is $\sim 7.5 \times 10^{-27}$ cm$^2$ under the diffusive framework and also increases about a factor of two with the straight-line path approximation, within the mass range of 0.025-5 GeV$/c^2$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Dark Matter Weather: Probing Sub-GeV Interactions with Earth-Shielding Modulation

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Daily Earth-shielding modulation of sub-GeV dark matter can separate dark-matter–electron from dark-matter–nucleon scattering, and the isoangle shape statistic provides a new validation handle for liquid-noble detectors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [17]

    Cappiello, Analytic Approach to Light Dark Matter Propagation , Phys

    C.V. Cappiello, Analytic Approach to Light Dark Matter Propagation , Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 221001 [2301.07728]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Zurek, Asymmetric Dark Matter: Theories, Signatures, and Constraints , Phys

    K.M. Zurek, Asymmetric Dark Matter: Theories, Signatures, and Constraints , Phys. Rept. 537 (2014) 91 [ 1308.0338]

    arXiv 2014

  3. [2]

    Simple Hidden Sector Dark Matter

    P. Barnes, Z. Johnson, A. Pierce and B. Shakya, Simple Hidden Sector Dark Matter , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 075019 [ 2003.13744]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  4. [3]

    Hochberg, E

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

    arXiv 2014

  5. [4]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz and M.B. Voloshin, Bosonic super-WIMPs as keV-scale dark matter , Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 115012 [ 0807.3279]

    arXiv 2008

  6. [5]

    Jaeckel, A force beyond the Standard Model - Status of the quest for hidden photons , Frascati Phys

    J. Jaeckel, A force beyond the Standard Model - Status of the quest for hidden photons , Frascati Phys. Ser. 56 (2012) 172 [ 1303.1821]

    arXiv 2012

  7. [6]

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

    arXiv 2010

  8. [7]

    QUEST-DMC collaboration, QUEST-DMC superfluid 3He detector for sub-GeV dark matter , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 248 [ 2310.11304]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Autti et al., Long nanomechanical resonators with circular cross-section , 2311.02452

    S. Autti et al., Long nanomechanical resonators with circular cross-section , 2311.02452

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Autti et al., QUEST-DMC: Background Modelling and Resulting Heat Deposit for a Superfluid Helium-3 Bolometer , J

    S. Autti et al., QUEST-DMC: Background Modelling and Resulting Heat Deposit for a Superfluid Helium-3 Bolometer , J. Low Temp. Phys. 215 (2024) 465 [ 2402.00181]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Collar and F.T

    J.I. Collar and F.T. Avignone, Diurnal modulation effects in cold dark matter experiments , Phys. Lett. B 275 (1992) 181. – 13 –

    1992

  4. [11]

    Collar and F.T

    J.I. Collar and F.T. Avignone, III, The Effect of elastic scattering in the Earth on cold dark matter experiments, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 5238

    1993

  5. [12]

    Hasenbalg et al., Cold dark matter identification: Diurnal modulation revisited , Phys

    F. Hasenbalg et al., Cold dark matter identification: Diurnal modulation revisited , Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 7350

    1997

  6. [13]

    Kouvaris and I.M

    C. Kouvaris and I.M. Shoemaker, Daily modulation as a smoking gun of dark matter with significant stopping rate, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 095011

    2014

  7. [14]

    Kouvaris, Earth’s stopping effect in directional dark matter detectors , Phys

    C. Kouvaris, Earth’s stopping effect in directional dark matter detectors , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 035023

    2016

  8. [15]

    Bernabei et al., Investigating Earth shadowing effect with DAMA/LIBRA-phase1 , Eur

    R. Bernabei et al., Investigating Earth shadowing effect with DAMA/LIBRA-phase1 , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 239

    2015

  9. [16]

    Kavanagh, R

    B.J. Kavanagh, R. Catena and C. Kouvaris, Signatures of Earth-scattering in the direct detection of Dark Matter , JCAP 01 (2017) 012

    2017

  10. [18]

    Lewin and P.F

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

    1996

  11. [19]

    Savage, K

    C. Savage, K. Freese and P. Gondolo, Annual Modulation of Dark Matter in the Presence of Streams , Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 043531 [ astro-ph/0607121]

    2006 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. Kopp, T. Schwetz and J. Zupan, Global interpretation of direct Dark Matter searches after CDMS-II results, JCAP 02 (2010) 014 [ 0912.4264]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Baxter et al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches , Eur

    D. Baxter et al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches , Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Kavanagh, Earth scattering of superheavy dark matter: Updated constraints from detectors old and new , Phys

    B.J. Kavanagh, Earth scattering of superheavy dark matter: Updated constraints from detectors old and new , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 123013 [ 1712.04901]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Starkman, A

    G.D. Starkman, A. Gould, R. Esmailzadeh and S. Dimopoulos, Opening the Window on Strongly Interacting Dark Matter , Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 3594

    1990

  16. [24]

    Davis, Probing Sub-GeV Mass Strongly Interacting Dark Matter with a Low-Threshold Surface Experiment, Phys

    J.H. Davis, Probing Sub-GeV Mass Strongly Interacting Dark Matter with a Low-Threshold Surface Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 211302 [ 1708.01484]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    ISO 2533:1975, Standard atmosphere, 1975

    1975

  18. [26]

    Leane and J

    R.K. Leane and J. Smirnov, Dark matter capture in celestial objects: treatment across kinematic and interaction regimes, JCAP 12 (2023) 040 [ 2309.00669]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    XENON collaboration, Search for Light Dark Matter Interactions Enhanced by the Migdal Effect or Bremsstrahlung in XENON1T , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 241803

    2019

  20. [28]

    CRESST Collaborationcollaboration, Testing spin-dependent dark matter interactions with lithium aluminate targets in CRESST-III , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 092008

    2022

  21. [29]

    Akerib et al., Results on the spin-dependent scattering of weakly interacting massive particles on nucleons from the Run 3 data of the LUX experiment , Phys

    D. Akerib et al., Results on the spin-dependent scattering of weakly interacting massive particles on nucleons from the Run 3 data of the LUX experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Agnese et al., Low-mass dark matter search with CDMSlite , Phys

    R. Agnese et al., Low-mass dark matter search with CDMSlite , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    PandaX-II collaboration, PandaX-II Constraints on Spin-Dependent WIMP-Nucleon Effective Interactions, Phys. Lett. B 792 (2019) 193

    2019

  24. [32]

    EDEL WEISScollaboration, Searching for low-mass dark matter particles with a massive Ge bolometer operated above-ground, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 082003 [ 1901.03588]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    DarkSide-50 collaboration, Search for low-mass dark matter WIMPs with 12 ton-day exposure of DarkSide-50, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 063001

    2023

  26. [34]

    XENON collaboration, Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 111302. – 14 –

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.