Migdal Ionization as a Probe of Light Dark Matter from Nuclear Transition

Lei Wu; Liangliang Su; Yuanchao Lou

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 111 references

Migdal Ionization as a Probe of Light Dark Matter from Nuclear Transition

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 This paper argues that the Migdal effect—ionization of an atom when its nucleus suddenly recoils—can make reactor-produced sub-MeV dark matter visible to germanium detectors, and uses a reactor ON–OFF residual spectrum to set limits on dark

desk verdict New reactor-DM Migdal search is a good idea, but the TEXONO residual analysis likely mistakes antineutrinos for signal and needs a corrected treatment. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10716 v2 pith:KHZTNGRP submitted 2026-07-12 hep-ph

Yuanchao Lou , Liangliang Su , Lei Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords Migdaleffectreactor-produceddarkmatterphotonkineticmixingsub-MeVgermaniumdetectornuclearde-excitationON-OFFresidualspectrum

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

The paper tries to establish that light dark matter made in nuclear reactors, which standard searches miss because nuclear recoils are quenched below detector threshold, can be seen through the Migdal effect: when a dark-matter particle scatters off a germanium nucleus, the sudden recoil can ionize a bound electron, adding detectable electron-equivalent energy. The authors compute the reactor-produced dark-matter flux from neutron-capture de-excitation lines, fold in the germanium detector response, and fit the predicted Migdal signal against a reactor ON–OFF residual spectrum. They report 95% confidence upper limits on the dark-matter–proton cross section for dark-matter masses from 0.01 MeV to about 2.6 MeV. Because the dark matter is generated in the reactor rather than in the early universe, these bounds do not require the particle to make up any particular fraction of the cosmological dark matter.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Migdal effect: the ionization of a bound atomic electron when the nucleus is suddenly accelerated by a dark-matter collision. The paper pairs it with a dark-photon production mechanism in which neutron-capture nuclear de-excitation emits an on-shell vector mediator that decays into a dark-matter pair, producing box-shaped energy spectra; the predicted rate is then fit to the residual spectrum with a chi-square that scales as the fourth power of the kinetic-mixing parameter, since production and detection each scale as the mixing squared.

What would settle it

Compute the expected reactor antineutrino–electron scattering rate in the same 300 eV_ee and above energy bins used for the dark-matter template and add it to the fit; if the neutrino component rivals the Migdal prediction in the bins that drive the chi-square, the extracted cross-section limit is not a clean dark-matter bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For MeV-scale dark photons that decay invisibly into a dark-matter pair, neutron-capture transitions in reactor fuel and shielding emit on-shell mediators whose two-body decay produces box-shaped dark-matter spectra peaking at MeV energies. In a germanium detector, the quenched elastic nuclear recoil from this flux lands below the 300 eV_ee analysis threshold, but the Migdal ionization signal adds electronic energy and populates the observable window. From the reactor ON–OFF residual spectrum, the paper derives one-sided 95% C.L. upper limits on the reference dark-matter–proton cross section, roughly 6.7×10^{-35} to 8.0×10^{-33} cm², for mediator masses 3.2–6.9 MeV and dark-matter masses 0.0

Load-bearing premise

The ON–OFF subtraction leaves reactor antineutrino events in the residual spectrum, and the analysis uses that residual as the dark-matter observable without modeling or subtracting them, so comparable neutrino rates could be absorbed into the dark-matter template and shift the limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Sub-MeV dark matter from reactors, previously invisible because quenching pushes elastic recoils below threshold, becomes testable through ionized-electron signals in germanium.
The resulting limits complement cosmological and astrophysical bounds and remain valid even if dark matter is only a small fraction of the universe's mass.
Because the signal scales steeply with the kinetic-mixing parameter, even a null residual spectrum gives a meaningful cross-section bound for MeV-scale mediators.
Recent experimental confirmation of the Migdal effect in neutron scattering makes the signal mechanism a grounded rather than hypothetical channel.
A more complete nuclear de-excitation database would change both the normalization and spectral shape of the predicted flux, directly affecting the limits.

Reading between the lines

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

If reactor antineutrino events remain in the ON–OFF residual at the level of the predicted Migdal signal, the reported limits could be biased; a fit that explicitly includes the neutrino background would quantify this.
The same Migdal strategy could be applied to other artificial dark-matter sources, such as spallation neutron facilities, where the source geometry and spectral lines are better controlled.
The isolated-atom Migdal probabilities used here may differ in a crystal environment; detector-specific atomic calculations could shift the predicted rates and limits.
Extending the source model beyond the four retained transitions, or including multipolarities and secondary production, would likely tighten or reshape the excluded region.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new step in this paper is putting two known pieces together — reactor-produced dark photons from nuclear de-excitation and Migdal ionization in germanium — and deriving a cosmology-independent limit on sub-MeV dark matter. The resulting 0.01–2.6 MeV exclusion is new and the calculation is mostly standard: the flux model uses four E1 lines from 238U and 10B, the Migdal probabilities come from cFAC atomic wavefunctions in the isolated-atom approximation, and the rate equations are internally consistent. The authors also state their approximations honestly, including the omitted secondary production and crystal effects.

The load-bearing problem is the TEXONO residual. The paper uses the reactor ON–OFF residual spectrum as the observable without adding a neutrino background term to the χ² in Eq. (13). In a reactor neutrino experiment, ON–OFF subtraction removes reactor-independent backgrounds; it leaves the reactor antineutrino events, which generate ν–e scattering and CEνNS in the same low-energy region as the Migdal template. Minimizing r will then partially absorb that neutrino spectrum into the DM template, shifting r_lim and breaking the stated coverage. The paper says only that ‘reactor independent backgrounds are reduced’ and does not state whether the published residual already subtracts the SM neutrino expectation. That is checkable in Ref [92], but as written this is a correct and serious concern. If the residual is already neutrino-free, the concern disappears; the authors need to show that.

The other soft spots are lesser. The source model uses four selected transitions with no quantified nuclear-data systematics, and the paper ships no code, binning, or response tables, so the exact limit is not independently reproducible. Both are fixable. The self-citation to the authors' earlier flux paper is fair, since the Migdal step is the new part.

Who gets value: the dark sector and low-threshold detector community. The idea is promising and the limit, if corrected, would complement CMB/BAO and SENSEI. I would not treat the present limit as reliable until the neutrino subtraction is clarified. Send it to peer review, because the concept deserves referee time, but make the residual handling the first thing the referee checks.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new channel for detecting sub-MeV dark matter produced in nuclear reactors: dark photons emitted in neutron-capture nuclear de-excitation decay invisibly to χχ̄, and the resulting χ-nucleus scattering in a germanium detector is detected via the Migdal ionization signal. Using four selected E1 transitions from 238U(n,γ)239U and 10B(n,γ)11B, the authors compute the reactor-produced χ flux at the TEXONO baseline, model the germanium response including quenching and isolated-atom Migdal probabilities, and fit the predicted template to the TEXONO ON–OFF residual spectrum. They derive 95% C.L. upper limits on the reference DM–proton cross section σ̄χp, ranging roughly from 6.7×10^-35 to 8.0×10^-33 cm² for 0.01 MeV < mχ < 2.6 MeV and m_V between 3.2 and 6.9 MeV, explicitly noting that the limit is independent of the cosmological DM abundance.

Significance. If the analysis holds up, this is a useful complementary probe of light dark matter that does not rely on the halo flux or relic abundance. The paper has several strengths: it uses publicly available TEXONO data, builds the signal template from external inputs (cFAC atomic wavefunctions, ENSDF/Mughabghab nuclear yields), and clearly states the main approximations. The parameter scaling is transparent: the signal depends on ε^4 while the cross section depends on ε^2, so the limit conversion via r_lim^2 is straightforward. The paper also honestly lists the limitations of the source model and Migdal treatment. However, two of those limitations — the neutrino content of the ON–OFF residual and the unquantified systematic uncertainties in the source and atomic models — are load-bearing for the central limit claim.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III, Eq. (13)] The observable used in the χ² fit is the TEXONO reactor ON–OFF residual spectrum. The paper states only that 'reactor independent backgrounds are reduced by the subtraction' and then treats the residual as the DM signal. In the TEXONO experiment, the ON–OFF subtraction is designed to isolate reactor-correlated events, which include not only any DM-produced signal but also Standard Model reactor antineutrino events (ν-e elastic scattering and, at low recoil energies, potentially CEνNS). Unless the TEXONO residual has already been corrected for the SM neutrino expectation, Eq. (13) is fitting DM plus an unmodeled neutrino background. Because the neutrino spectrum is smooth and the DM template is multiplied by r^4, the χ² minimization can partially absorb the neutrino events into the DM template, shifting r_min and the Δχ²=2.71 interval; the resulting σ̄χp limit then loses its stated 95% co
[Sec. II, Eq. (4)] The source model is restricted to four selected E1 transitions from 238U and 10B. The paper acknowledges that secondary production (γ e⁻ → V e⁻), additional capture isotopes, and other multipolarities are omitted, but it does not quantify how these omissions affect the final limit. For an upper limit, omitting additional sources is conservative in normalization, but the spectral shape can still change the bin-by-bin fit and therefore the limit in a non-conservative direction for particular mχ values. The authors should either include a bracketing estimate — e.g., adding all ENSDF lines above the m_V threshold with their quoted photon yields — or vary the yields within their Mughabghab/ENSDF uncertainties and show the resulting band on σ̄χp. At minimum, the choice of the four lines should be justified as a complete or conservative subset for the 3.2–6.9 MeV mediator mass range.
[Sec. III, Eq. (8)] The Migdal ionization probabilities are computed in the isolated-atom approximation, and the paper explicitly states that germanium crystal-environment effects are neglected. Since the detection channel relies entirely on these probabilities, a systematic uncertainty in their normalization or spectral shape propagates directly into the cross-section limit. The isolated-atom approximation may shift the ionization probability by a non-negligible factor at the low recoil velocities relevant here; the velocity cutoff v_N/c ≥ 10^-4 is a step in the conservative direction, but the atomic model itself is not bracketed. The authors should compare their cFAC-based Migdal probabilities with solid-state calculations available in the literature (e.g., the tight-binding or dielectric-response approaches used in existing sub-GeV DM analyses) and either adopt a conservative envelope or assign a systema

minor comments (5)

[References] References [92] and [105] are the same paper (TEXONO, PRD 99, 032009). Duplicate citations should be merged or cross-referenced.
[Sec. II, Eq. (4)] The notation 'P(GW)' is used without explaining that P is the reactor thermal power in GW. Define P and N_n consistently.
[Sec. III, text around Eq. (12)] The phrase 'cF AC' should be 'cFAC' for consistency with Refs. [101,102].
[Fig. 2 and Fig. 3] The manuscript states that the 'successive onset of each orbital’s threshold... produces the characteristic changes of slope in the Migdal spectrum shown in Fig. 2.' It would be helpful to show the TEXONO residual data points and the best-fit DM template overlaid, e.g., as an inset or a new panel, so the reader can assess the fit quality and the χ² behavior underlying Fig. 3.
[Sec. II, Eq. (5)] The use of '∓' in the definition of E_min/E_max is correct but a brief parenthetical stating that the minus sign gives E_min could improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TEXONO limit is a template fit with independently built signal and external data.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. In Sec. II, the reactor DM flux (Eqs. 2-6) is built from neutron-capture photon yields (ENSDF/Mughabghab), an E1 dark-vector-to-photon ratio attributed to [86,87,96], and a declared benchmark set of transitions; the model is an input to the analysis, not an output. In Sec. III, the Migdal rate (Eq. 8) uses cFAC-generated wavefunctions, the Helm form factor, and the Lindhard quenching factor. The TEXONO ON-OFF residual supplies the data vector R_b, and the signal template S_b^(0) is computed at fixed benchmark parameters. The only fitted parameter is r ≡ ε/ε0, and the 95% C.L. limit is obtained from Δχ²=2.71 in Eq. (13), then converted via σ̄_χp ∝ ε². This is a standard template fit: the constrained quantity is not defined in terms of the reported limit, and the signal template is not fitted to predetermine the result. The self-citation [86] supplies a production formula that is also supported by independent references [87,96], so it is not a load-bearing self-citation chain. The possible presence of reactor-antineutrino events in the ON-OFF residual is a background-modeling and coverage concern, not a constructional circularity. No quoted equation reduces to its inputs by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The analysis is self-contained against the external TEXONO data and atomic/nuclear inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central result rests on a specific dark-sector model (kinetically mixed dark photon with invisible decays), a simplified reactor source model (four E1 lines), atomic Migdal probabilities from cFAC, Lindhard quenching, and the untested assumption that the TEXONO ON–OFF residual can be treated as the DM signal without modeling reactor-neutrino backgrounds. The αD=0.1 benchmark fixes the relation between σ̄χp and ε; if αD differs, the quoted reach changes.

free parameters (4)

αD (dark coupling) = 0.1 (benchmark)
Sets the DM–mediator coupling and, with ε, fixes the scattering cross section; the quoted σ̄χp limits are computed at this fixed αD, and the reach changes with αD.
ε0 (kinetic mixing template normalization) = 1e-5 (benchmark)
Reference point for the signal template in Eq. (12); the fit scales r=ε/ε0 and the final limit is derived from r_lim, so this normalization is a chosen input.
Migdal recoil-velocity cutoff v_N/c = 1e-4
Imposed 'to remain conservative' in Section III; it suppresses low-velocity contributions and changes the predicted rate.
Retained de-excitation lines = 3.297, 4.060, 4.711, 7.007 MeV
Benchmark selection of four E1 transitions; a hand choice that sets the flux normalization and spectral shape.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Kinetically mixed dark photon model with gχ=√(4παD) and invisible decays
Eq. (1); the entire signal derives from this vector-portal model.
domain assumption BR(V→χχ̄)≃1 and prompt decay
Assumes αD ≫ ε²α so visible decays are negligible; if not, the DM flux is reduced.
domain assumption On-shell vector production via E1 nuclear de-excitation with rate Eq. (2)–(3)
Adopted from refs [86,87]; dark-vector production is assumed to follow the same ratio as gamma emission.
ad hoc to paper Four selected E1 transitions are a sufficient benchmark source
Authors state a more complete nuclear de-excitation database could modify normalization and shape; no uncertainty is included.
domain assumption Isolated-atom Migdal ionization probabilities from cFAC 1.7.1
Neglects the germanium crystal environment; recent literature suggests corrections may matter at these energies.
domain assumption Lindhard quenching model with k=0.157
Literature model; if inaccurate, the quenched nuclear-recoil contribution and Edet shift.
domain assumption TEXONO ON–OFF residual spectrum is a valid DM signal observable
Assumes reactor-neutrino background is negligible or can be absorbed by the fit; this is not demonstrated.
standard math Gaussian χ² with fixed σ_b and no nuisance parameters
Eq. (13); ignores systematic uncertainties and the Poisson nature of low-count bins.

invented entities (2)

Dark photon V (m_V 3.2–6.9 MeV) independent evidence
purpose: Produced in nuclear de-excitation, decays to χχ̄; mediates DM–nucleus scattering
Not invented here; standard vector-portal BSM. Many independent experiments constrain ε–m_V, giving falsifiable handles outside this paper.
Dirac fermion dark matter χ (0.01–2.6 MeV) independent evidence
purpose: The particle searched for; scatters off germanium nuclei and produces Migdal ionization
The model predicts scattering signals in other low-threshold detectors and is bounded by cosmology; no direct evidence of existence yet, but the predicted cross-section plane is testable elsewhere.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Migdal Ionization as a Probe of Light Dark Matter from Nuclear Transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KHZTNGRP

@misc{pith2026260710716,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Migdal Ionization as a Probe of Light Dark Matter from Nuclear Transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KHZTNGRP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10716}
}

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 the authors.

**Figure 2.** Since the quenched elastic recoil lies below threshold for the reactor-produced MeV-scale flux, the observable signal 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 energies in the range ∼ 35–170 eV, below the… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 91 linked inside Pith

[1]

Bertone, D

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

arXiv 2005
[2]

Battaglieriet al., inU.S

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

arXiv 2017
[3]

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

arXiv 2017
[4]

Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

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

arXiv 2018
[5]

Menget al.(PandaX-4T), Phys

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

arXiv 2021
[6]

Boehm and P

C. Boehm and P. Fayet, Nucl. Phys. B683, 219 (2004), hep-ph/0305261

arXiv 2004
[7]

Pospelov, A

M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B662, 53 (2008), arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2008
[8]

Arkani-Hamed, D

N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D79, 015014 (2009), arXiv:0810.0713 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2009

Show all 111 references

[9]

Holdom, Phys

B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B166, 196 (1986)

1986
[10]

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

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

2016 arXiv
[11]

Hochberg, E

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

2014 arXiv
[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]

2015 arXiv
[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]

2016 arXiv
[14]

Kuflik, M

E. Kuflik, M. Perelstein, N. Rey-Le Lorier, and Y.-D. Tsai, JHEP08, 078, arXiv:1706.05381 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[15]

Griest and D

K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D43, 3191 (1991)

1991
[16]

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

2015 arXiv
[17]

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

2016 arXiv
[18]

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

2017 arXiv
[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]

2012 arXiv
[20]

Essig, M

R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP05, 046, arXiv:1509.01598 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[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]

2018 arXiv
[22]

Knapen, T

S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D96, 115021 (2017), arXiv:1709.07882 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[23]

Bringmann and M

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

2019 arXiv
[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]

2019 arXiv
[25]

Alvey, M

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

2019 arXiv
[26]

L. Su, W. Wang, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D102, 115028 (2020), arXiv:2006.11837 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[27]

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

2021 arXiv
[28]

Kahn and T

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

2022 arXiv
[29]

W. Wang, L. Wu, W.-N. Yang, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D107, 073002 (2023), arXiv:2111.04000 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[30]

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

2024 arXiv
[31]

K. I. Nagao, T. Naka, and T. Nomura, JCAP04, 030, arXiv:2411.10149 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[32]

Liang, L

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

2025 arXiv
[33]

Migdal, Sov

A. Migdal, Sov. Phys. JETP9, 1163 (1939)

1939
[34]

A. B. Migdal, J. Phys. USSR4, 449 (1941)

1941
[35]

J. D. Vergados and H. Ejiri, Phys. Lett. B606, 313 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0401151

2005 arXiv
[36]

C. C. Moustakidis, J. D. Vergados, and H. Ejiri, Nucl. Phys. B727, 406 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0507123

2005 arXiv
[37]

Ejiri, C

H. Ejiri, C. C. Moustakidis, and J. D. Vergados, Phys. Lett. B639, 218 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0510042

2006 arXiv
[38]

Bernabeiet al., Int

R. Bernabeiet al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A22, 3155 (2007), arXiv:0706.1421 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[39]

M. Ibe, W. Nakano, Y. Shoji, and K. Suzuki, JHEP03, 194, arXiv:1707.07258 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[40]

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

2018 arXiv
[41]

N. F. Bell, J. B. Dent, J. L. Newstead, S. Sabharwal, and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D101, 015012 (2020), arXiv:1905.00046 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[42]

Essig, J

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

2020 arXiv
[43]

Baxter, Y

D. Baxter, Y. Kahn, and G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. D101, 076014 (2020), arXiv:1908.00012 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[44]

Liang, L

Z.-L. Liang, L. Zhang, F. Zheng, and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D102, 043007 (2020), arXiv:1912.13484 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

2020 arXiv
[45]

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

2023 arXiv
[46]

C. P. Liu, C.-P. Wu, H.-C. Chi, and J.-W. Chen, Phys. Rev. D102, 121303 (2020), arXiv:2007.10965 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[47]

Knapen, J

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

2021 arXiv
[48]

Liang, C

Z.-L. Liang, C. Mo, F. Zheng, and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D104, 056009 (2021), arXiv:2011.13352 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[49]

J. Liao, H. Liu, and D. Marfatia, Phys. Rev. D104, 015005 (2021), arXiv:2104.01811 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[50]

J. F. Acevedo, J. Bramante, and A. Goodman, Phys. Rev. D105, 023012 (2022), arXiv:2108.10889 [hep-ph]. 6

2022 arXiv
[51]

Wang, K.-Y

W. Wang, K.-Y. Wu, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Nucl. Phys. B983, 115907 (2022), arXiv:2112.06492 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[52]

J. Li, L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, JCAP04, 020, arXiv:2210.15474 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[53]

P. Cox, M. J. Dolan, C. McCabe, and H. M. Quiney, Phys. Rev. D107, 035032 (2023), arXiv:2208.12222 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[54]

Liang, C

Z.-L. Liang, C. Mo, F. Zheng, and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D106, 043004 (2022), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 109901 (2022)], arXiv:2205.03395 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[55]

Blanco, I

C. Blanco, I. Harris, Y. Kahn, B. Lillard, and J. P´ erez-R ´ ıos, Phys. Rev. D106, 115015 (2022), arXiv:2208.09002 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[56]

Tomar, S

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

2023 arXiv
[57]

Adams, D

D. Adams, D. Baxter, H. Day, R. Essig, and Y. Kahn, Phys. Rev. D107, L041303 (2023), arXiv:2210.04917 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[58]

K. V. Berghaus, A. Esposito, R. Essig, and M. Shola- purkar, JHEP01, 023, arXiv:2210.06490 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[59]

Y. Gu, J. Tang, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C47, 125105 (2023), arXiv:2309.09740 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[60]

Xuet al., Phys

J. Xuet al., Phys. Rev. D109, L051101 (2024), arXiv:2307.12952 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[61]

M. Qiao, C. Xia, and Y.-F. Zhou, JCAP11, 079, arXiv:2307.12820 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[62]

Li and S.-y

Y.-F. Li and S.-y. Xia, Nucl. Phys. B1006, 116632 (2024), arXiv:2310.05704 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[63]

Herrera, JHEP05, 288, arXiv:2311.17719 [hep-ph]

G. Herrera, JHEP05, 288, arXiv:2311.17719 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[64]

V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and I. B. Samsonov, Phys. Rev. D109, 115032 (2024), arXiv:2312.10566 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[65]

Kahn and J

Y. Kahn and J. P´ erez-R ´ ıos, Phys. Rev. D110, 092012 (2024), arXiv:2403.08866 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[66]

S. Kang, S. Scopel, and G. Tomar, JCAP01, 035, arXiv:2407.16187 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[67]

Nakano, JHEP10, 130, arXiv:2410.16911 [hep-ph]

W. Nakano, JHEP10, 130, arXiv:2410.16911 [hep-ph]
[68]

T. N. Maity, Phys. Rev. D111, 123020 (2025), arXiv:2412.17649 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[69]

Esposito and A

A. Esposito and A. Rocchi, Phys. Rev. D112, 075034 (2025), arXiv:2505.08864 [hep-ph]

2025
[70]

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

2025
[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]

2026
[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]

2026 arXiv
[73]

Nellen Mondrag´ on, J

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

2026
[74]

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

2019 arXiv
[75]

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

2019 arXiv
[76]

Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

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

2019 arXiv
[77]

Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100), Phys

G. Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100), Phys. Rev. D105, 042006 (2022), arXiv:2110.05806 [hep-ex]

2022 arXiv
[78]

Agneset al.(DarkSide), Phys

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

2023
[79]

Armengaudet al.(EDEL WEISS), Phys

E. Armengaudet al.(EDEL WEISS), Phys. Rev. D106, 062004 (2022), arXiv:2203.03993 [astro-ph.GA]

2022 arXiv
[80]

M. F. Albakryet al.(SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. D107, 112013 (2023), arXiv:2302.09115 [hep-ex]

2023 arXiv
[81]

Huanget al.(PandaX), Phys

D. Huanget al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 191002 (2023), arXiv:2308.01540 [hep-ex]

2023 arXiv
[82]

Yiet al., Nature649, 580 (2026)

D. Yiet al., Nature649, 580 (2026)

2026
[83]

J. Xu, J. Kim, D. Adams, B. G. Lenardo, W. H. Lippincott, and R. Essig, Nuclear Recoil Migdal Ef- fect in Liquid Xenon Dark Matter Experiments (2026), arXiv:2606.03174 [hep-ex]

2026 arXiv
[84]

H. M. Ara´ ujoet al.(MIGDAL), Astropart. Phys.151, 102853 (2023), arXiv:2207.08284 [hep-ex]

2023 arXiv
[85]

K. D. Nakamura, K. Miuchi, S. Kazama, Y. Shoji, M. Ibe, and W. Nakano, PTEP2021, 013C01 (2021), arXiv:2009.05939 [physics.ins-det]

2021 arXiv
[86]

Lou and L

Y. Lou and L. Wu, Probing dark photons from nuclear de-excitation in reactor neutrino experiment (2026), arXiv:2606.08487 [hep-ph]

2026 arXiv
[87]

Gao and M

T. Gao and M. Pospelov, Constraints on mil- licharged particles from nuclear gamma-decays (2025), arXiv:2507.17955 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[88]

J. J. Choiet al.(NEON), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 021802 (2025), arXiv:2407.16194 [hep-ex]

2025 arXiv
[89]

Ge and I

S.-F. Ge and I. M. Shoemaker, JHEP11, 066, arXiv:1710.10889 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[90]

W. Dai, Y. Gong, G. Gu, L. Su, L. Wang, L. Wu, Y. Wu, and L. Yang, Hunting for Axions in REac- tor neutrino COherent scattering Detection Experiment (2025), arXiv:2509.01538 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[91]

Y. Gong, J. Guo, N. Liu, L. Su, and W.-N. Yang, Con- straints on Axion-Like Particles with the Silicon De- tector at a Nuclear Reactor (2026), arXiv:2601.07448 [hep-ph]

2026 arXiv
[93]

Kors and P

B. Kors and P. Nath, Phys. Lett. B586, 366 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402047

2004 arXiv
[94]

Feldman, Z

D. Feldman, Z. Liu, and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D75, 115001 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702123

2007 arXiv
[95]

D. E. Morrissey, D. Poland, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP 07, 050, arXiv:0904.2567 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[96]

Pitrou and M

C. Pitrou and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. C102, 015803 (2020), arXiv:1904.07795 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[97]

Schunck,Nuclear Fission: Theories, Experiments and Applications(Springer, 2024)

N. Schunck,Nuclear Fission: Theories, Experiments and Applications(Springer, 2024)

2024
[98]

Xinet al.(TEXONO), Phys

B. Xinet al.(TEXONO), Phys. Rev. D72, 012006 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0502001

2005 arXiv
[99]

gov/ensdf/(2024), accessed: 2024

National Nuclear Data Center, Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF),https://www.nndc.bnl. gov/ensdf/(2024), accessed: 2024

2024
[100]

S. F. Mughabghab,Atlas of Neutron Resonances: Reso- nance Parameters and Thermal Cross Sections,Z= 1– 100, 5th ed. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006)

2006
[101]

Stambulchik, cF AC: a forked version of F AC,https: //github.com/fnevgeny/cfac, version 1.7.1

E. Stambulchik, cF AC: a forked version of F AC,https: //github.com/fnevgeny/cfac, version 1.7.1
[102]

M. F. Gu, Can. J. Phys.86, 675 (2008)

2008
[103]

R. H. Helm, Phys. Rev.104, 1466 (1956)

1956
[104]

Lindhard, M

J. Lindhard, M. Scharff, and H. E. Schiott, Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk.33, 1 (1963)

1963
[105]

Singhet al.(TEXONO), Phys

L. Singhet al.(TEXONO), Phys. Rev. D99, 032009 (2019), arXiv:1808.02719 [hep-ex]

2019 arXiv
[106]

M. A. Buen-Abad, R. Essig, D. McKeen, and Y.-M. Zhong, Phys. Rept.961, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.12377 [astro-ph.CO]. 7

2022 arXiv
[107]

Adariet al.(SENSEI), Phys

P. Adariet al.(SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 011804 (2025), arXiv:2312.13342 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[108]

Giovanetti, M

C. Giovanetti, M. Lisanti, H. Liu, and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 021302 (2022), arXiv:2109.03246 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[109]

S.-F. Ge, J. Sheng, C. Xia, and C.-Y. Xing, Nuclear Production and Analytic Attenuation of Energetic MeV Solar Dark Matter (2024), arXiv:2408.12448 [hep-ph]

2024
[110]

J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and A. Reinert, JHEP03, 141, arXiv:1911.03389 [hep-ph]

1911
[111]

J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP09, 051, arXiv:1803.00993 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[112]

D. F. G. Fiorillo and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 251004 (2024), arXiv:2404.07714 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Bertone, D

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

arXiv 2005

[2] [2]

Battaglieriet al., inU.S

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

arXiv 2017

[3] [3]

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

arXiv 2017

[4] [4]

Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

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

arXiv 2018

[5] [5]

Menget al.(PandaX-4T), Phys

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

arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

Boehm and P

C. Boehm and P. Fayet, Nucl. Phys. B683, 219 (2004), hep-ph/0305261

arXiv 2004

[7] [7]

Pospelov, A

M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B662, 53 (2008), arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2008

[8] [8]

Arkani-Hamed, D

N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D79, 015014 (2009), arXiv:0810.0713 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2009