Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 109 references

Migdal ionization turns reactor dark-matter recoils into detectable germanium signals and yields new laboratory limits on sub-MeV dark matter.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 09:46 UTC pith:KHZTNGRP

load-bearing objection Solid new lab limits from Migdal + reactor lines, but the absolute numbers sit on a truncated flux the authors themselves call provisional. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10716 v1 pith:KHZTNGRP submitted 2026-07-12 hep-ph

Migdal ionization as a probe of light dark matter from Nuclear Transition

Yuanchao Lou , Liangliang Su , Lei Wu This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords Migdal effectreactor dark matterlight dark matterdark photongermanium detectorTEXONOnuclear de-excitationkinetic mixing
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.

Reactor cores produce light dark-matter particles when excited nuclei emit a dark photon that decays into a dark-matter pair. Ordinary elastic nuclear recoils from those particles are quenched below the threshold of existing germanium detectors, so they are invisible. The paper shows that the Migdal effect—the sudden nuclear acceleration that can eject a bound electron—adds enough electronic energy for the events to appear above threshold. Applying this channel to the published TEXONO reactor ON–OFF residual spectrum produces new laboratory upper limits on the dark-matter–proton cross section for masses between 0.01 MeV and about 2.6 MeV. Because the dark-matter flux is generated in the reactor itself, the bounds do not depend on any assumed cosmological abundance and therefore complement existing astrophysical and cosmological constraints.

Core claim

Using Migdal ionization in a low-threshold germanium detector, the TEXONO reactor ON–OFF residual spectrum yields 95 percent confidence upper limits on the reference dark-matter–proton cross section that range from roughly 6.7 imes10^{-35} to 8.0 imes10^{-33} cm^{2} for MeV-scale mediators and dark-matter masses 0.01 MeV < mχ < 1 MeV (sensitivity is lost above about 2.6 MeV).

What carries the argument

The Migdal ionization signal: the total deposited energy is the quenched nuclear recoil plus the binding energy of the ionized shell plus the kinetic energy of the ejected electron, which lifts otherwise sub-threshold events into the observable window of a germanium detector.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted reactor dark-matter flux is calculated from only four selected nuclear gamma lines of uranium-238 and boron-10; a fuller set of transitions or secondary production channels could change both the size and the shape of that flux.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the same TEXONO residual spectrum that includes a complete nuclear de-excitation database and secondary production channels and finds no residual excess would either strengthen or invalidate the quoted cross-section limits.

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

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Migdal ionization in low-threshold germanium as a detection channel for sub-MeV dark matter produced at nuclear reactors via on-shell kinetically mixed vector mediators emitted in neutron-capture nuclear de-excitation (N* → N + V → χχ̄). The reactor flux is built from four selected E1 lines of 238U and 10B; the detector response includes elastic nuclear scattering, Lindhard quenching, and isolated-atom single-ionization Migdal probabilities. Using the public TEXONO reactor ON–OFF residual spectrum, the authors derive 95% C.L. upper limits on the reference DM–proton cross section σ̄χp for MeV-scale mediators and dark-matter masses 0.01 MeV ≤ mχ ≲ 2.6 MeV. The limits depend only on the laboratory-produced flux and detector response and do not assume that χ constitutes the cosmological dark-matter abundance.

Significance. If the absolute limits hold under a more complete flux model, the work supplies a genuinely complementary laboratory bound in a mass window where halo searches are kinematically suppressed and cosmological/astrophysical limits depend on relic abundance or in-medium production. The independence from the cosmological density of χ is a clear conceptual strength. The analysis correctly assembles standard ingredients (Helm form factor, Lindhard quenching, Gaussian χ² on ON–OFF residuals, Migdal ionization probabilities) and applies them to public TEXONO data, so the methodological core is reproducible and falsifiable. The main scientific value is the demonstration that Migdal ionization can lift reactor-produced MeV-scale recoils above threshold; the numerical reach is secondary to that channel idea.

major comments (3)
  1. Sec. II (after Eq. 6) and Fig. 1: the absolute 95% C.L. limits on σ̄χp are obtained by scaling a benchmark signal template that is linear in the reactor DM flux (Eqs. 6, 8, 12–13). The flux is restricted to four selected E1 lines; secondary production (γe− → Ve−), other capture isotopes, and other multipolarities are omitted. The manuscript itself states that a more complete nuclear database “could modify both the normalization and the spectral shape of the predicted flux.” Because the predicted rate scales as ε4 while σ̄χp ∝ ε2, an overall flux rescaling by a factor f moves the reported cross-section limits by √f. Without a quantified uncertainty band (or an expanded line list with a stated systematic), the absolute numerical bounds remain provisional and the abstract’s claim of a “new stringent limit” is stronger than the source model supports. A revised analysis should either enlarge
  2. Sec. III, Eq. (8) and the paragraph on Migdal probabilities: ionization probabilities are computed in the isolated-atom approximation with cFAC, crystal-environment effects in germanium are neglected, and a recoil-velocity cutoff vN/c ≥ 10−4 is imposed “to remain conservative.” For a semiconductor target the low-energy M- and N-shell contributions that dominate the above-threshold rate (stated as ~86% and ~1%) are the most sensitive to solid-state corrections. The paper should either justify that the isolated-atom rates remain accurate at the level needed for the claimed limits, or assign a systematic uncertainty on the Migdal rate and show its effect on σ̄limχp. As written, this approximation is load-bearing for the observable signal once elastic NR is quenched below the 300 eVee threshold.
  3. Abstract vs. Sec. III / Fig. 3 / Conclusion: the abstract quotes the mass range 0.01 MeV ≤ mχ ≲ 2.6 MeV, while the conclusion quotes limits “for … 0.01 MeV < mχ < 1 MeV” and states that sensitivity is lost for mχ ≳ 2.56 MeV. The body also notes that theoretically mχ can reach ~3.5 MeV. These statements should be reconciled, and the mass range over which the numerical limits are actually competitive (and the reason for the rapid loss of sensitivity near 2.6 MeV) should be stated uniformly so that the central claim is unambiguous.
minor comments (6)
  1. Sec. II heading appears as “DARK MA TTER PRODUCTION” (spurious space); similar spacing artifacts appear elsewhere and should be cleaned.
  2. Fig. 2: the elastic-NR curve is said to end at the quenched kinematic endpoint, but the figure legend and caption would be clearer if the quenched endpoint energy (~0.23 keVee for the benchmark) were marked explicitly on the plot.
  3. Eq. (9)–(10): the reference momentum q0 = α me is introduced without a short physical motivation in the text; a one-sentence reminder that this is the conventional atomic-scale reference used to define σ̄χp would help non-specialist readers.
  4. Sec. III: the statement that N-shell contributions are “far below the analysis threshold, and contribute only about 1% of the above-threshold rate” is useful; a brief table or parenthetical of shell-by-shell fractions (K/L/M/N) would make the slope features in Fig. 2 easier to interpret.
  5. Comparison paragraph (Sec. III): CMB+BAO, Lyman-α, and SENSEI assume different abundance/flux hypotheses than the reactor limits. The caption of Fig. 3 already notes this; the main text could state more explicitly that the curves are not directly comparable on the same footing, only complementary.
  6. References: several arXiv preprints are cited with future-dated years (2025–2026); ensure bibliographic metadata are consistent with the journal’s style once DOIs or final citations exist.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No material circularity: TEXONO residual limits are an independent statistical analysis; only minor self-citation supplies the standard dark-photon production ratio.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. II, Eq. (3) and surrounding text]
    "For an E1 transition of energy ωi [86, 87, 95], rE1,i = ϵ² (1 + mV²/(2ωi²)) √(1 − mV²/ωi²) Θ(ωi − mV)."

    Reference [86] is by two of the present authors and supplies the production-ratio formula used for the entire flux. The citation is not load-bearing: the identical expression appears in the independent works [87,95], and the subsequent limit-setting step uses only the public TEXONO residual, so the numerical bounds do not reduce to the self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is linear and externally anchored. Reactor DM flux is assembled from tabulated neutron-capture yields, discrete E1 lines of 238U and 10B, and the kinematic box spectrum of V oχχ̄ (Eqs. 2–6); the only self-citation ([86]) merely restates the well-known E1 emission ratio rE1 that is also given by external references [87,95]. Detector response folds this flux with Lindhard quenching, Helm form factor and isolated-atom Migdal probabilities generated by cFAC (Eqs. 7–11). The 95 % C.L. limits themselves are obtained by a one-parameter χ^{2} fit of the overall kinetic-mixing strength r to the publicly released TEXONO ON–OFF residual spectrum (Eqs. 12–13); no parameter is fitted to a subset of the same data and then re-used as a “prediction,” nor is any uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported from the authors’ prior work. The admitted incompleteness of the nuclear-line list affects absolute normalization but is an ordinary model systematic, not a circular reduction of the claimed result to its inputs. Hence the numerical bounds stand as an independent laboratory constraint.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central limits rest on a truncated nuclear-source model, isolated-atom Migdal probabilities, Lindhard quenching, and a conventional dark-photon portal. No new free parameters are fitted to the TEXONO residuals; the only free parameters are the benchmark couplings used to generate the signal template that is later rescaled.

free parameters (3)
  • benchmark kinetic mixing ϵ0 = 10^{-5}
    Fixed at 10^{-5} to generate the unit signal template S_b^{(0)}; the final limit is obtained by rescaling r=ϵ/ϵ0, so the absolute value is conventional but still a free choice that sets the numerical scale of the template.
  • dark fine-structure constant αD = 0.1
    Held fixed at 0.1 while only ϵ is varied; enters both production and detection, so its value affects the conversion from r_lim to ¯σ_χp.
  • recoil-velocity cutoff vN/c = 10^{-4}
    Ad-hoc lower cut of 10^{-4} imposed “to remain conservative” on the Migdal calculation; changes which recoils contribute to the rate.
axioms (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Only four selected E1 neutron-capture lines (3.297, 4.060 MeV from 238U; 4.711, 7.007 MeV from 10B) contribute to the mediator flux; secondary production and other multipolarities are negligible.
    Stated explicitly in Sec. II after Eq. (6); the paper notes that a complete database could change normalization and shape.
  • domain assumption Migdal single-ionization probabilities may be computed in the isolated-atom approximation with cFAC wave functions, neglecting the germanium crystal environment.
    Sec. III, paragraph containing Eq. (8); standard but known to be approximate for semiconductors.
  • domain assumption Nuclear-recoil quenching follows the Lindhard formula with k=0.157.
    Eq. (11); conventional choice for germanium.
  • domain assumption The dark photon decays promptly and invisibly with BR(V→χχ̄)≃1 when mV>2mχ and αD≫ϵ^{2}α.
    Sec. II after Eq. (1); standard invisible-decay regime of the vector portal.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 17152 in / 2831 out tokens · 45190 ms · 2026-07-14T09:46:15.022039+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Nuclear reactors serve as a key artificial source of light dark matter. Direct detection of reactor-produced dark matter faces substantial obstacles, since quenching effects suppress conventional elastic scattering signals below detector thresholds. We present a new search strategy utilizing the Migdal effect in germanium detectors to probe light dark matter produced via nuclear de-excitation from reactors. Using ON-OFF residual spectra from the TEXONO experiment, we set a new stringent limit on the dark matter and nucleus interaction over the mass range $0.01\,\text{MeV}\le m_\chi \lesssim 2.6\,\text{MeV}$, which provides a complementary bound to existing cosmological and astrophysical limits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10716 by Lei Wu, Liangliang Su, Yuanchao Lou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Since the quenched elastic recoil lies below threshold for the reactor-produced MeV-scale flux, the observable sig￾nal is dominated by Migdal ionization. N-shell binding energies are at the O(10 eV) scale, far below the analysis threshold, and contribute only about 1% of the above-threshold rate. The M shell contributes about 86% of the above-threshold rate, with binding en￾ergies in the range ∼ 35–170 eV,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 89 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405, 279 (2005) , arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    Battaglieri et al., in U.S

    M. Battaglieri et al., in U.S. Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter (2017) arXiv:1707.04591 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 021303 (2017), arXiv:1608.07648 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302 (2018), arXiv:1805.12562 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Meng et al

    Y. Meng et al. (PandaX-4T), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 261802 (2021) , arXiv:2107.13438 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Boehm and P

    C. Boehm and P. Fayet, Nucl. Phys. B 683, 219 (2004) , hep-ph/0305261

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 662, 53 (2008) , arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    Arkani-Hamed, D

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 79, 015014 (2009) , arXiv:0810.0713 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  9. [9]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  10. [10]

    Alexander et al

    J. Alexander et al. , Dark Sectors 2016 Workshop: Com- munity Report (2016), arXiv:1608.08632 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171301 (2014) , arXiv:1402.5143 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [12]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, H. Murayama, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 021301 (2015) , arXiv:1411.3727 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    Kuflik, M

    E. Kuflik, M. Perelstein, N. Rey-Le Lorier, and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221302 (2016) , arXiv:1512.04545 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Kuflik, M

    E. Kuflik, M. Perelstein, N. Rey-Le Lorier, and Y.-D. Tsai, JHEP 08, 078 , arXiv:1706.05381 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Griest and D

    K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3191 (1991)

    1991

  16. [16]

    R. T. D’Agnolo and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 061301 (2015) , arXiv:1505.07107 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    J. A. Dror, E. Kuflik, and W. H. Ng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 211801 (2016) , arXiv:1607.03110 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    R. T. D’Agnolo, D. Pappadopulo, and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 061102 (2017) , arXiv:1705.08450 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Essig, A

    R. Essig, A. Manalaysay, J. Mardon, P. Sorensen, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 021301 (2012) , arXiv:1206.2644 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    Essig, M

    R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP 05, 046 , arXiv:1509.01598 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    H. An, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 141801 (2018) , [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 259903 (2018)], arXiv:1708.03642 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 96, 115021 (2017) , arXiv:1709.07882 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    Bringmann and M

    T. Bringmann and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 171801 (2019) , arXiv:1810.10543 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    C. V. Cappiello and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103011 (2019) , [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 104, 069901 (2021)], arXiv:1906.11283 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Alvey, M

    J. Alvey, M. Campos, M. Fairbairn, and T. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 261802 (2019) , arXiv:1905.05776 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    L. Su, W. Wang, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 102, 115028 (2020) , arXiv:2006.11837 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    S.-F. Ge, J. Liu, Q. Yuan, and N. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 091804 (2021) , arXiv:2005.09480 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Kahn and T

    Y. Kahn and T. Lin, Rept. Prog. Phys. 85, 066901 (2022), arXiv:2108.03239 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    W. Wang, L. Wu, W.-N. Yang, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 107, 073002 (2023) , arXiv:2111.04000 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. As- tron. 67, 221012 (2024) , arXiv:2308.02204 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    K. I. Nagao, T. Naka, and T. Nomura, JCAP 04, 030 , arXiv:2411.10149 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Liang, L

    Z.-L. Liang, L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 071001 (2025) , arXiv:2401.11971 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Migdal, Sov

    A. Migdal, Sov. Phys. JETP 9, 1163 (1939)

    1939

  34. [34]

    A. B. Migdal, J. Phys. USSR 4, 449 (1941)

    1941

  35. [35]

    J. D. Vergados and H. Ejiri, Phys. Lett. B 606, 313 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0401151

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  36. [36]

    C. C. Moustakidis, J. D. Vergados, and H. Ejiri, Nucl. Phys. B 727, 406 (2005) , arXiv:hep-ph/0507123

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  37. [37]

    Ejiri, C

    H. Ejiri, C. C. Moustakidis, and J. D. Vergados, Phys. Lett. B 639, 218 (2006) , arXiv:hep-ph/0510042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  38. [38]

    Bernabei et al., Int

    R. Bernabei et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 22, 3155 (2007) , arXiv:0706.1421 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  39. [39]

    M. Ibe, W. Nakano, Y. Shoji, and K. Suzuki, JHEP 03, 194, arXiv:1707.07258 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    M. J. Dolan, F. Kahlhoefer, and C. McCabe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 101801 (2018) , arXiv:1711.09906 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    N. F. Bell, J. B. Dent, J. L. Newstead, S. Sabharwal, and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D 101, 015012 (2020) , arXiv:1905.00046 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Pradler, M. Sholapurkar, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 021801 (2020) , arXiv:1908.10881 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Baxter, Y

    D. Baxter, Y. Kahn, and G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. D 101, 076014 (2020) , arXiv:1908.00012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Liang, L

    Z.-L. Liang, L. Zhang, F. Zheng, and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 102, 043007 (2020) , arXiv:1912.13484 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    V. V. Flambaum, L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 271011 (2023) , arXiv:2012.09751 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    C. P. Liu, C.-P. Wu, H.-C. Chi, and J.-W. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 102, 121303 (2020) , arXiv:2007.10965 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Knapen, J

    S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 081805 (2021) , arXiv:2011.09496 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Liang, C

    Z.-L. Liang, C. Mo, F. Zheng, and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 056009 (2021) , arXiv:2011.13352 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    J. Liao, H. Liu, and D. Marfatia, Phys. Rev. D 104, 015005 (2021) , arXiv:2104.01811 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    J. F. Acevedo, J. Bramante, and A. Goodman, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023012 (2022) , arXiv:2108.10889 [hep-ph] . 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Wang, K.-Y

    W. Wang, K.-Y. Wu, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Nucl. Phys. B 983, 115907 (2022) , arXiv:2112.06492 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    J. Li, L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, JCAP 04, 020 , arXiv:2210.15474 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    P. Cox, M. J. Dolan, C. McCabe, and H. M. Quiney, Phys. Rev. D 107, 035032 (2023) , arXiv:2208.12222 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Liang, C

    Z.-L. Liang, C. Mo, F. Zheng, and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043004 (2022) , [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 109901 (2022)], arXiv:2205.03395 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Blanco, I

    C. Blanco, I. Harris, Y. Kahn, B. Lillard, and J. Pérez-Ríos, Phys. Rev. D 106, 115015 (2022) , arXiv:2208.09002 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Tomar, S

    G. Tomar, S. Kang, and S. Scopel, Astropart. Phys. 150, 102851 (2023) , arXiv:2210.00199 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Adams, D

    D. Adams, D. Baxter, H. Day, R. Essig, and Y. Kahn, Phys. Rev. D 107, L041303 (2023) , arXiv:2210.04917 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    K. V. Berghaus, A. Esposito, R. Essig, and M. Shola- purkar, JHEP 01, 023 , arXiv:2210.06490 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    Y. Gu, J. Tang, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C 47, 125105 (2023) , arXiv:2309.09740 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Xu et al

    J. Xu et al. , Phys. Rev. D 109, L051101 (2024) , arXiv:2307.12952 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    M. Qiao, C. Xia, and Y.-F. Zhou, JCAP 11, 079 , arXiv:2307.12820 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  62. [62]

    Li and S.-y

    Y.-F. Li and S.-y. Xia, Nucl. Phys. B 1006, 116632 (2024), arXiv:2310.05704 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Herrera, JHEP 05, 288 , arXiv:2311.17719 [hep-ph]

    G. Herrera, JHEP 05, 288 , arXiv:2311.17719 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  64. [64]

    V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and I. B. Samsonov, Phys. Rev. D 109, 115032 (2024) , arXiv:2312.10566 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Kahn and J

    Y. Kahn and J. Pérez-Ríos, Phys. Rev. D 110, 092012 (2024), arXiv:2403.08866 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    S. Kang, S. Scopel, and G. Tomar, JCAP 01, 035 , arXiv:2407.16187 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [67]

    Nakano, JHEP 10, 130 , arXiv:2410.16911 [hep-ph]

    W. Nakano, JHEP 10, 130 , arXiv:2410.16911 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  68. [68]

    T. N. Maity, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123020 (2025) , arXiv:2412.17649 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Esposito and A

    A. Esposito and A. Rocchi, Phys. Rev. D 112, 075034 (2025), arXiv:2505.08864 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Q. Mai, G. Huai-Ke, and Z. Yu-Feng, Sci. Sin. Phys. Mech. Astro. 55, 111006 (2025)

    2025

  71. [71]

    K. V. Berghaus, R. Essig, and M. H. McDuffie, The Migdal effect in Semiconductors for the Effective Field Theory of Dark Matter Direct Detection (2026), arXiv:2603.13052 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Kahlhoefer and L

    F. Kahlhoefer and L. Su, Probing Sub-GeV Dark Matter via Migdal Effect-Induced Electron Excitations (2026), arXiv:2604.26773 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  73. [73]

    Nellen Mondragón, J

    S. Nellen Mondragón, J. Pradler, and M. Shola- purkar, Adiabatic response in the Migdal Effect (2026), arXiv:2606.14845 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 131301 (2019), arXiv:1811.11241 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    Z. Z. Liu et al. (CDEX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 161301 (2019), arXiv:1905.00354 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 241803 (2019), arXiv:1907.12771 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [77]

    Adhikari et al

    G. Adhikari et al. (COSINE-100), Phys. Rev. D 105, 042006 (2022) , arXiv:2110.05806 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  78. [78]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 101001 (2023), arXiv:2207.11967 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  79. [79]

    Armengaud et al

    E. Armengaud et al. (EDEL WEISS),Phys. Rev. D 106, 062004 (2022) , arXiv:2203.03993 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  80. [80]

    M. F. Albakry et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. D 107, 112013 (2023) , arXiv:2302.09115 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.