Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Light Dark Matter Search with 7.8 Tonne-Year of Ionization-Only Data in XENONnT

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 7.8 tonne-year search using ionization-only signals in a liquid-xenon detector finds no excess and excludes spin-independent dark-matter cross sections above 6×10⁻⁴⁵ cm² at 5 GeV/c².

desk verdict Solid null result with improved light-DM limits, but the post-unblinding SR2 efficiency correction needs to be quantified before the headline limit is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.11296 v2 pith:NDO5ZZLL submitted 2026-01-16 hep-ex astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMhep-phphysics.ins-det

E. Aprile , J. Aalbers , K. Abe , M. Adrover , S. Ahmed Maouloud , L. Althueser , B. Andrieu , E. Angelino
show 169 more authors
D. Antón Martin S. R. Armbruster F. Arneodo L. Baudis M. Bazyk V. Beligotti L. Bellagamba R. Biondi A. Bismark K. Boese R. M. Braun G. Bruni G. Bruno R. Budnik C. Cai C. Capelli J. M. R. Cardoso A. P. Cimental Chávez A. P. Colijn J. Conrad J. J. Cuenca-García V. D'Andrea L. C. Daniel Garcia M. P. Decowski A. Deisting C. Di Donato P. Di Gangi S. Diglio K. Eitel S. el Morabit R. Elleboro A. Elykov A. D. Ferella C. Ferrari H. Fischer T. Flehmke M. Flierman R. Frankel D. Fuchs W. Fulgione C. Fuselli F. Gao R. Giacomobono F. Girard R. Glade-Beucke L. Grandi J. Grigat H. Guan M. Guida P. Gyorgy R. Hammann C. Hils L. Hoetzsch N. F. Hood M. Iacovacci Y. Itow J. Jakob F. Joerg Y. Kaminaga M. Kara S. Kazama P. Kharbanda M. Kobayashi D. Koke K. Kooshkjalali A. Kopec H. Landsman R. F. Lang L. Levinson A. Li I. Li S. Li S. Liang Z. Liang Y.-T. Lin S. Lindemann M. Lindner K. Liu M. Liu F. Lombardi J. A. M. Lopes G. M. Lucchetti T. Luce Y. Ma C. Macolino G. C. Madduri J. Mahlstedt F. Marignetti T. Marrodán Undagoitia K. Martens J. Masbou S. Mastroianni V. Mazza A. Melchiorre J. Merz M. Messina A. Michel K. Miuchi A. Molinario S. Moriyama M. Murra J. Müller K. Ni C. T. Oba Ishikawa U. Oberlack S. Ouahada B. Paetsch Y. Pan Q. Pellegrini R. Peres J. Pienaar M. Pierre G. Plante T. R. Pollmann F. Pompa A. Prajapati L. Principe J. Qin D. Ramírez García A. Ravindran A. Razeto R. Singh L. Sanchez J. M. F. dos Santos I. Sarnoff G. Sartorelli J. Schreiner P. Schulte H. Schulze Ei{ss}ing M. Schumann L. Scotto Lavina M. Selvi F. Semeria F. N. Semler P. Shagin S. Shi H. Simgen Z. Song A. Stevens C. Szyszka A. Takeda Y. Takeuchi P.-L. Tan D. Thers G. Trinchero C. D. Tunnell K. Valerius S. Vecchi S. Vetter G. Volta B. von Krosigk C. Weinheimer M. Weiss D. Wenz C. Wittweg V. H. S. Wu Y. Xing D. Xu Z. Xu M. Yamashita J. Yang L. Yang J. Ye M. Yoshida L. Yuan G. Zavattini Y. Zhao M. Zhong T. Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exastro-ph.COastro-ph.IMhep-phphysics.ins-det
keywords darkmatterlightionization-onlysignalsS2-onlyanalysisliquidxenonTPCdirectdetectionupperlimitsbackgroundmodeling
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that light dark matter does not produce an observable ionization-only signal in 7.83 tonne-years of XENONnT data, and that this channel can push direct-detection sensitivity into a previously hard-to-reach low-recoil-energy regime. The search covers nuclear recoils from 0.5 to 5 keV and electronic recoils from 0.04 to 0.7 keV, with a complete background model that includes cathode radioactivity, delayed electrons, accidental electrons, and solar neutrinos. No significant excess is observed, and the resulting 90% upper limits improve on earlier constraints for spin-independent and spin-dependent scattering, dark-matter–electron scattering, axion-like particles, and dark photons. The result matters because it is the first S2-only XENONnT analysis with a full background model, and it brings sensitivity close to the point where solar-neutrino coherent scattering becomes an irreducible background.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the S2-only channel in a dual-phase xenon TPC: when a scattering produces too few scintillation photons to be seen above threshold, the ionization electrons still drift, are extracted into the gas phase, and produce proportional scintillation (S2). The analysis uses the corrected S2 size (cS2) in the 80–500 PE range as the energy estimator and leaves the S1 requirement effectively open. Background is suppressed with waveform-shape classifiers, a machine-learning model of the delayed-electron 'ambience' that surrounds large S2s, and a spatial pattern likelihood that rejects accidental pile-up of single-electron signals. To measure signal efficiency, simulated S2 wav

What would settle it

A calibration measurement that generates real low-energy S2 signals with ambient S2 activity, then re-runs the full selection and compares the acceptance with the salted-simulation efficiency in the cS2 < 200 PE region, would settle whether the quoted limits are biased; if the true acceptance differs by more than the 11.2% systematic uncertainty, all cross-section limits in this search would need to be re-derived.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a null result with improved limits: using only the ionization (S2) signal from the liquid-xenon time projection chamber, and after building the first complete S2-only background model for the detector, the experiment observes data consistent with background across three science runs. At 90% confidence, spin-independent dark-matter–nucleon cross sections above 6.0×10⁻⁴⁵ cm² at a dark-matter mass of 5 GeV/c² are excluded; dark-matter–electron scattering cross sections above 2.4×10⁻⁴¹ cm² at 0.4 GeV/c² are excluded; and for bosonic candidates, axioelectric coupling above 3.9×10⁻¹⁴ and kinetic mixing above 2.2×10⁻¹⁷ at 0.1 keV/c² are excluded. Signal efficiency is determined

Load-bearing premise

The analysis leans on the assumption that signal efficiency measured by injecting simulated S2 waveforms into real data matches the efficiency for real dark-matter events; the paper itself found this assumption failed in one run for small signals and had to relax the selection, so the corrected efficiency is the load-bearing premise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the null result stands, the allowed parameter space for dark matter with masses around 3–8 GeV/c² is narrowed, especially for spin-independent and spin-dependent nuclear scattering.
  • The quoted limits push toward the coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering floor, meaning further sensitivity gains at these masses will require distinguishing dark matter from solar neutrinos rather than simply accumulating more exposure.
  • The first complete S2-only background model identifies cathode radioactivity as the dominant residual background, directly motivating electrode design and material-purity improvements in future detectors.
  • The demonstration that machine-learning background models can handle the S2-only environment makes the channel usable for other low-threshold searches, including sub-GeV dark-matter–electron and bosonic dark-matter models.
  • The absence of an excess across 579 days of data is consistent with the standard halo model assumptions used to derive the limits; any dark matter in this mass range must have a smaller cross section than these bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If cathode radioactivity truly dominates, then a detector with a cleaner or shielded cathode could reach the neutrino floor at lower mass than the 5 GeV/c² point quoted here; this is a testable prediction for next-generation liquid-xenon detectors.
  • The SR2 efficiency discrepancy the paper reports suggests that any future low-threshold analysis using injected simulated signals should validate the temporal-isolation requirement with real low-energy calibration events that produce their own ambient S2s; otherwise quoted limits could become optimistic at the lowest cS2 values.
  • A natural extension, not fully explored here, would be to run the same background modeling down to single-electron S2s, which could extend sensitivity below the 3 GeV/c² mass floor of this search.
  • The paper's hint that isolated S2s in S1–S2 coincidence analyses come mainly from the cathode offers a concrete way to improve those searches: reject events correlated with cathode activity rather than treating such S2s only as random accidental background.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a blinded S2-only (ionization-only) dark matter search in XENONnT using 7.83 tonne·year of exposure from three science runs. The analysis develops a full background model with cathode, delayed-electron (DE), accidental-electron (AE), and 8B CEνNS components, and uses a likelihood on the corrected S2 (cS2) spectrum. No significant excess is observed, and 90% CL upper limits are set for SI and SD DM-nucleon scattering, DM-electron scattering, axion-like particles, and dark photons. The headline result is a SI DM-nucleon cross-section limit of 6.0×10^-45 cm^2 at 5 GeV/c^2.

Significance. If the analysis is valid, this is a substantial experimental advance: it provides the first complete S2-only background model in XENONnT, extends ionization-only sensitivity to sub-keV nuclear and electronic recoils, and improves limits in several light-DM channels. The paper has real methodological strengths: the analysis is blinded, background models are validated against 220Rn/222Rn calibrations, the statistical inference uses power-constrained limits, and machine-checked or publicly available analysis tools (fuse, straxen, alea) and prior calibration data are cited. The central null result is credible, but the unquantified post-unblinding efficiency correction affects the headline limits and needs to be addressed before the results can be considered fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results, paragraph beginning 'A discrepancy between data-driven and simulation-derived efficiency...'] This paragraph is load-bearing but lacks quantitative support. The paper states that the salting method overestimated signal efficiency because it cannot simulate ambient S2s from real DM events, and that in SR2 for cS2<200 PE the temporal-isolation selection was therefore relaxed. It then asserts that the adjustment is conservative and has 'negligible impact on the final limits', but gives no before/after efficiency numbers, no change in the quoted 5 GeV/c^2 limit, and no estimate of residual bias. Since signal efficiency multiplies the signal rate, even a few-percent change at low cS2 can shift the limits, and the 11.2% systematic quoted in the Signal section may not cover a post-unblinding correction. Please provide a quantitative assessment: the corrected efficiency versus the pre-correction efficiency by cS2 bin, the impact on the reported limits, and an explicit statement of how th
  2. [Signal, first paragraph (efficiency evaluation) and Results] The paper acknowledges the fundamental limitation of the salting method: salted DM S2 signals do not produce the ambient S2s that a real DM event would produce, so the temporal-isolation selection is less effective on salted waveforms. This is an admitted shortcoming of the signal-efficiency evaluation. The paper states that the selection was relaxed to consider only ambient S2s preceding DM candidates, but it does not describe how the corrected efficiency is validated (e.g., with wall, cathode, or 37Ar calibration events) or how the 11.2% systematic uncertainty was modified after this correction. Without this, the central limit depends on an unquantified acceptance correction.
  3. [Background modeling, cathode paragraph] The cathode background is the dominant background in the science ROI (Table I), yet its cS2 spectrum is not derived from first principles. The paper rescaled a simulated cathode cS2 spectrum to match a cathode-dominated sideband, using a simulation-driven sideband-to-ROI ratio in each cS2 bin. The systematic uncertainties from sideband statistics, the rescaling ratio, and background leakage are propagated to the inference. However, the validation of this rescaled spectrum in the science ROI and its impact on the final limits are not shown in the Letter. Given that the cathode rate is approximately 70% of the total background in SR0/SR1 and the cS2 shape is similar to signal, the shape systematic is a key ingredient for the limit; please provide a closure test or describe how the calibration data constrain the in-ROI cathode shape.
  4. [Results and Table I, SR2 p-value] The background-only hypothesis in SR2 has a χ2 p-value of 0.013 in the cS2 dimension, attributed to a downward fluctuation. This is a mild tension, and the paper does not discuss whether this downward fluctuation artificially strengthens or weakens the reported limits, especially when combined with the post-unblinding efficiency correction in the same SR and cS2 region. Since the PCL procedure is used, please show the observed limit relative to the expected limit and the power-constraint threshold for SR2, and clarify whether the unblinded efficiency correction increases the uncertainty on the SR2 background rates beyond the quoted values.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says 'black dashed (solid) lines show limits before (after) −1σ power-constrained limit (PCL)', which is confusing. Please rephrase to clarify what is dashed and what is solid, and whether the PCL is applied only when the observed limit is more than 1σ below the expected.
  2. [Table I] The 'Accidental electron' row lists a dash for SR2 but no explicit statement in the text that the AE component is zero because of the higher S2 area threshold; this is stated in the text, but adding '— (negligible)' in the table would improve readability.
  3. [Text, 'negligible impact' statement] The phrase 'negligible impact on the final limits' should be moved to a quantitative section or replaced with a specific reference to a table/figure. In the current form, it is an unsupported qualitative claim.
  4. [General] The paper uses several acronyms (DE, AE, CNF, BDT, PCL) that are defined internally, but a short glossary or a more explicit definition at first use would help readers outside the XENON analysis framework.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: signal models and backgrounds are external or sideband-derived; self-citations are to code and calibration, not to the claimed result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The DM signal rates are taken from external literature and public code (Lewin-Smith, Essig et al., Bloch et al., Caddell/Flambaum/Roberts, wimprates), then folded through detector response calibrated with 37Ar/220Rn and 88YBe sources; no DM parameter is fitted to the science data. Background components are normalized in sidebands outside the science ROI (cathode via a cathode-dominated sideband, DE via a DE-BDT-rejected sideband, AE via a low-S2-area sideband), and the science ROI was blinded until the background model was fixed. The only post-unblinding change is the acknowledged SR2 temporal-isolation relaxation to correct an efficiency overestimate; the paper explicitly states this arose because the salting method cannot reproduce ambient S2s from real DM events, and the adjustment is conservative. This is an admitted systematic correction, not a prediction that equals its input by construction. Self-citations are to detector characterization, calibration data, analysis software (fuse, straxen, alea), and prior XENON results; they are not used to define the target quantities or to forbid alternatives. The quoted limits scale with signal efficiency, so the SR2 correction is a legitimate systematic-accuracy concern, but it does not make the central claim circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, mediators, or conserved quantities are introduced. The free parameters are background normalizations, selection thresholds, and the efficiency scale, all fitted or tuned within the analysis. The axioms are standard astrophysical and detector-response assumptions imported from external or previous calibration literature. The confidence in the result depends mainly on the cathode background sideband extrapolation and the post-unblinding efficiency correction, not on new physics input.

free parameters (7)
  • Per-SR cathode event rate = 477, 726, 1080 best-fit events (SR0, SR1, SR2)
    Dominant background; normalization floated with Gaussian constraints from a cathode-dominated sideband.
  • Per-SR delayed-electron (DE) event rate = 1.3, 0.34, 17.1 best-fit events
    Normalized via CNF-simulated DE salting and a DE sideband; rate drives part of the background.
  • Per-SR accidental-electron (AE) event rate = 89, 106, 0 best-fit events
    Normalized from an AE sideband below the science ROI; zero in SR2 due to the higher S2 threshold.
  • Per-SR 8B CEνNS event rate = 18, 26, 29 best-fit events
    Predicted from solar 8B flux and charge yield, then floated with constraints; a signal-like background component.
  • Signal efficiency scale = 1.0 nominal with 11.2% relative systematic uncertainty
    MC salting efficiency is applied as a scale; the systematic covers data selection and fiducial volume uncertainty.
  • Cathode cS2 shape rescaling ratio per bin = not quoted per-bin; sideband-to-ROI simulation ratio
    Simulated cathode cS2 spectrum is rescaled to match sideband data, transferring the shape into the science ROI.
  • S2 area threshold, BDT/CNF thresholds, fiducial radius = 100/120 PE; r<60.15/59.60 cm; optimized BDT cuts
    Hand-chosen selection boundaries balancing background rejection and signal efficiency, with associated systematics.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard halo model astrophysical parameters from Baxter et al.
    Used to convert DM-nucleon cross sections into recoil spectra; if the local dark matter density or velocity distribution is wrong, the limits shift.
  • domain assumption Nuclear recoil yield model calibrated with 88Y/Be, with yield set to zero below 0.5 keV_nr
    The NR yield at low energy is extrapolated from calibration; zeroing below 0.5 keV_nr is a conservative cutoff.
  • domain assumption Electron recoil response determined by 37Ar and 220Rn calibrations; atomic ionization factors from Caddell et al.
    Determines the DM-electron scattering signal and ER background shape in the sub-keV region.
  • domain assumption Background model completeness: radiogenic neutron and ER backgrounds are below O(1) event/t/y after selection
    These components are neglected; if they are larger than assumed, the background expectation is underestimated.
  • standard math Extended binned Poisson likelihood with Gaussian ancillary constraints and PCL with power threshold 0.16
    Standard statistical framework from Feldman-Cousins and Cowan et al.; adopted without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light Dark Matter Search with 7.8 Tonne-Year of Ionization-Only Data in XENONnT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NDO5ZZLL

@misc{pith2026260111296,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light Dark Matter Search with 7.8 Tonne-Year of Ionization-Only Data in XENONnT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NDO5ZZLL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.11296}
}
abstract

We report on a blinded search for dark matter (DM) using ionization-only (S2-only) signals in XENONnT with a total exposure of $7.83\mathrm{tonne}\times\mathrm{year}$ over 579 days in three science runs. Dedicated background suppression techniques and the first complete S2-only background model in XENONnT provide sensitivity to nuclear recoils of [0.5, 5.0] $\mathrm{keV_\mathrm{nr}}$ and electronic recoils of [0.04, 0.7] $\mathrm{keV_\mathrm{ee}}$. No significant excess over the expected background is observed, and we set 90\% confidence level upper limits on spin-independent DM--nucleon and spin-dependent DM--neutron scattering for DM masses between 3 and 8 $\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$, as well as on DM--electron scattering, axion-like particles, and dark photons, improving on previous constraints. For spin-independent DM--nucleon scattering, we exclude cross sections above $6.0\times10^{-45} $cm$^2$ at a DM mass of 5 $\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$, pushing the XENONnT sensitivity closer to the region where coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering ($\text{CE}\nu\text{NS}$) becomes an irreducible background.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.11296 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Top: The SI DM-nucleon spectra for 3, 6, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of observed events (black dots) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of observed events with expected back [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The 90% confidence level upper limits on the DM–particle scattering with 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 49 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), The XENONnT dark mat- ter experiment, Eur

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), The XENONnT dark mat- ter experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 784 (2024), arXiv:2402.10446 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Roszkowski, E

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 066201 (2018), arXiv:1707.06277 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Super- symmetric dark matter, Phys. Rept.267, 195 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    arXiv 1996

  4. [4]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, History of dark matter, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 045002 (2018), arXiv:1605.04909 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), WIMP Dark Matter Search Using a 3.1 Tonne-Year Exposure of the XENONnT Experiment, Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), 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

  6. [6]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), First Search for Light Dark Matter in the Neutrino Fog with XENONnT, Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), First Search for Light Dark Matter in the Neutrino Fog with XENONnT, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 111802 (2025), arXiv:2409.17868 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos via Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scat- tering with XENONnT, Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos via Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scat- tering with XENONnT, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 191002 (2024), arXiv:2408.02877 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Light Dark Matter Search with Ionization Signals in XENON1T, Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Light Dark Matter Search with Ionization Signals in XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 251801 (2019), arXiv:1907.11485 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Emission of single and few electrons in XENON1T and limits on light dark matter, Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Emission of single and few electrons in XENON1T and limits on light dark matter, Phys. Rev. D106, 022001 (2022), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 110, 109903 (2024)], arXiv:2112.12116 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Search for Light Dark Matter in Low-Energy Ionization Signals from XENONnT, Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Search for Light Dark Matter in Low-Energy Ionization Signals from XENONnT, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 161004 (2025), arXiv:2411.15289 [hep- ex]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Zhanget al.(PandaX), Search for Light Dark Matter with 259 Days of Data in PandaX-4T, Phys

    M. Zhanget al.(PandaX), Search for Light Dark Matter with 259 Days of Data in PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 211001 (2025), arXiv:2507.11930 [hep-ex]

    2025

  4. [12]

    Liet al.(PandaX), Search for Light Dark Matter with Ionization Signals in the PandaX-4T Experiment, Phys

    S. Liet al.(PandaX), Search for Light Dark Matter with Ionization Signals in the PandaX-4T Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 261001 (2023), arXiv:2212.10067 [hep- ex]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aprile and T

    E. Aprile and T. Doke, Liquid Xenon Detectors for Parti- cle Physics and Astrophysics, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2053 (2010), arXiv:0910.4956 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Plante, E

    G. Plante, E. Aprile, J. Howlett, and Y. Zhang, Liquid- phase purification for multi-tonne xenon detectors, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 860 (2022), arXiv:2205.07336 [physics.ins- det]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    C. M. B. Monteiro, L. M. P. Fernandes, J. A. M. Lopes, L. C. C. Coelho, J. F. C. A. Veloso, J. M. F. d. Santos, K. Giboni, and E. Aprile, Secondary Scintillation Yield in Pure Xenon, JINST2, P05001, arXiv:physics/0702142

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Aprileet al.(XENON, (XENON Collaboration)‡‡), XENONnT WIMP search: Signal and background mod- eling and statistical inference, Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON, (XENON Collaboration)‡‡), XENONnT WIMP search: Signal and background mod- eling and statistical inference, Phys. Rev. D111, 103040 (2025), arXiv:2406.13638 [physics.data-an]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Szydagiset al., A review of NEST models for liq- uid xenon and an exhaustive comparison with other ap- proaches, Front

    M. Szydagiset 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]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), The triggerless data acqui- sition system of the XENONnT experiment, JINST18 (07), P07054, arXiv:2212.11032 [physics.ins-det]

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), The triggerless data acqui- sition system of the XENONnT experiment, JINST18 (07), P07054, arXiv:2212.11032 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Aprileet al.(XENON100), Observation and ap- plications of single-electron charge signals in the XENON100 experiment, J

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON100), Observation and ap- plications of single-electron charge signals in the XENON100 experiment, J. Phys. G41, 035201 (2014), arXiv:1311.1088 [physics.ins-det]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), XENONnT analysis: Sig- nal reconstruction, calibration, and event selection, Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), XENONnT analysis: Sig- nal reconstruction, calibration, and event selection, Phys. Rev. D111, 062006 (2025), arXiv:2409.08778 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

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

    1996

  14. [22]

    Menendez, D

    J. Menendez, D. Gazit, and A. Schwenk, Spin-dependent WIMP scattering off nuclei, Phys. Rev. D86, 103511 (2012), arXiv:1208.1094 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [23]

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

    D. Baxteret al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 907 (2021), arXiv:2105.00599 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Coher- ent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering: EFT analysis and nuclear responses, Phys. Rev. D102, 074018 (2020), arXiv:2007.08529 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Del Nobile, M

    E. Del Nobile, M. Kaplinghat, and H.-B. Yu, Direct De- tection Signatures of Self-Interacting Dark Matter with a Light Mediator, JCAP10, 055, arXiv:1507.04007 [hep- ph]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Fornengo, P

    N. Fornengo, P. Panci, and M. Regis, Long-Range Forces in Direct Dark Matter Searches, Phys. Rev. D84, 115002 (2011), arXiv:1108.4661 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Essig, T

    R. Essig, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, New Constraints and Prospects for sub-GeV Dark Matter Scattering off Electrons in Xenon, Phys. Rev. D96, 043017 (2017), arXiv:1703.00910 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A. R. Caddell, V. V. Flambaum, and B. M. Roberts, Ac- curate electron-recoil ionization factors for dark matter direct detection in xenon, krypton, and argon, Phys. Rev. D108, 083030 (2023), arXiv:2305.05125 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Aalbers, B

    J. Aalbers, B. Pelssers, J. R. Angevaare, and K. D. Mor ˚ a, Jelleaalbers/wimprates: v0.5.0 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Bosonic super- WIMPs as keV-scale dark matter, Phys. Rev. D78, 115012 (2008), arXiv:0807.3279 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  23. [31]

    I. M. Bloch, R. Essig, K. Tobioka, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, Searching for Dark Absorption with Direct Detection Experiments, JHEP06, 087, arXiv:1608.02123 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    B. L. Henke, E. M. Gullikson, and J. C. Davis, X-Ray Interactions: Photoabsorption, Scattering, Transmission, and Reflection at E = 50-30,000 eV, Z = 1-92, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.54, 181 (1993)

    1993

  25. [33]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Low-Energy Nuclear Recoil Calibration of XENONnT with a 88YBe Photoneutron Source, arXiv:2412.10451 [physics.ins-det] (2024)

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Low-Energy Nuclear Recoil Calibration of XENONnT with a 88YBe Photoneutron Source, arXiv:2412.10451 [physics.ins-det] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. I. Collar, Applications of an 88Y /Bephoto-neutron calibration source to Dark Matter and Neutrino Ex- 9 periments, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 211101 (2013), arXiv:1303.2686 [physics.ins-det]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    XENONnT Collaboration, xenon-fuse: Framework for Unified Simulations of Events (version 1.6.0) (2025), available fromhttps://github.com/XENONnT/fuse

    2025

  28. [36]

    Aalberset al., AxFoundation/strax: Stream analysis for xenon tpcs (2024)

    J. Aalberset al., AxFoundation/strax: Stream analysis for xenon tpcs (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    XENONnT Collaboration, XENONnT/straxen: Stream- ing analysis for xenon (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), XENONnT Analysis: Sig- nal Reconstruction, Calibration and Event Selection, Phys.Rev.D111, 062006 (2025)

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), XENONnT Analysis: Sig- nal Reconstruction, Calibration and Event Selection, Phys.Rev.D111, 062006 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Intrinsic backgrounds from Rn and Kr in the XENON100 experiment, Eur

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Intrinsic backgrounds from Rn and Kr in the XENON100 experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 132 (2018), arXiv:1708.03617 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    R. E. Linehan,High voltage electrode development and the LZ experiment’s WIMP search, Ph.D. thesis, Stan- ford U. (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Sorensen, Anisotropic diffusion of electrons in liquid xenon with application to improving the sensitivity of direct dark matter searches, Nucl

    P. Sorensen, Anisotropic diffusion of electrons in liquid xenon with application to improving the sensitivity of direct dark matter searches, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A635, 41 (2011), arXiv:1102.2865 [astro-ph.IM]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Material radiopurity control in the XENONnT experiment, Eur

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Material radiopurity control in the XENONnT experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 599 (2022), arXiv:2112.05629 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    D. S. Akeribet al.(LZ), Study of few-electron back- grounds in the LUX-ZEPLIN detector, arXiv:2510.06500 [physics.ins-det] (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    D. S. Akeribet al.(LUX), Investigation of background electron emission in the LUX detector, Phys. Rev. D102, 092004 (2020), arXiv:2004.07791 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Papamakarios, E

    G. Papamakarios, E. Nalisnick, D. J. Rezende, S. Mo- hamed, and B. Lakshminarayanan, Normalizing Flows for Probabilistic Modeling and Inference, J. Ma- chine Learning Res.22, 2617 (2021), arXiv:1912.02762 [stat.ML]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Brad- bury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. K¨ opf, E. Z. Yang, Z. De- Vito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy, B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala, PyTorch: An impera- tive styl...

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Durkan, A

    C. Durkan, A. Bekasov, I. Murray, and G. Papamakarios, nflows: normalizing flows in PyTorch (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Abadi, A

    M. Abadi, A. Agarwal, P. Barham, E. Brevdo, Z. Chen, C. Citro, G. S. Corrado, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin, S. Ghemawat, I. Goodfellow, A. Harp, G. Irving, M. Is- ard, Y. Jia, R. Jozefowicz, L. Kaiser, M. Kudlur, J. Lev- enberg, D. Man´ e, R. Monga, S. Moore, D. Murray, C. Olah...

    2015

  41. [49]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Low-energy calibration of XENON1T with an internal 37Ar source, Eur

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Low-energy calibration of XENON1T with an internal 37Ar source, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 542 (2023), arXiv:2211.14191 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    These calibrations were previously used to model the ER response for the S1–S2 analysis [5]

    and 222Rn [51] calibration data in both the enlarged ROI and the science ROI for each SR. These calibrations were previously used to model the ER response for the S1–S2 analysis [5]. In the S2-only ROI they contribute negligible ER events, while their increasedβandγactiv- itie...

    2025

  43. [51]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Spectral Measurement of the 214Bi beta-decay to the 214Po Ground State with XENONnT, arXiv:2510.04846 [nucl-ex] (2025)

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Spectral Measurement of the 214Bi beta-decay to the 214Po Ground State with XENONnT, arXiv:2510.04846 [nucl-ex] (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    J¨ org, S

    F. J¨ org, S. Li, J. Schreiner, H. Simgen, and R. F. Lang, Characterization of a 220Rn source for low-energy electronic recoil calibration of the XENONnT detector, JINST18(11), P11009, arXiv:2306.05673 [physics.ins- det]

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Angleet al.(XENON10), A search for light dark mat- ter in XENON10 data, Phys

    J. Angleet al.(XENON10), A search for light dark mat- ter in XENON10 data, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 051301 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 110, 249901 (2013)], arXiv:1104.3088 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Krause and D

    C. Krause and D. Shih, Fast and accurate simulations of calorimeter showers with normalizing flows, Phys. Rev. D 107, 113003 (2023), arXiv:2106.05285 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Search for new physics in low- energy electron recoils from the first LZ exposure, Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Search for new physics in low- energy electron recoils from the first LZ exposure, Phys. Rev. D108, 072006 (2023), arXiv:2307.15753 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Search for New Physics in Electronic Recoil Data from XENONnT, Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Search for New Physics in Electronic Recoil Data from XENONnT, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 161805 (2022), arXiv:2207.11330 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide), Search for Dark Matter Particle Interactions with Electron Final States with DarkSide-50, Phys

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide), Search for Dark Matter Particle Interactions with Electron Final States with DarkSide-50, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 101002 (2023), arXiv:2207.11968 [hep-ex]

    2023

  50. [58]

    The neutrino fog region [59] in panel (a) is indicated in gray bands for SI DM–nucleon scattering

    are shown for comparison. The neutrino fog region [59] in panel (a) is indicated in gray bands for SI DM–nucleon scattering. The 8B CEνNS equivalent DM of 5.5 GeV/c 2 with cross-section 4.4×10 −45 cm2 is shown. to the higher S2 area threshold. The cathode background is primari...

    2020

  51. [59]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide-50), Search for low-mass dark matter WIMPs with 12 ton-day exposure of DarkSide- 50, Phys

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide-50), Search for low-mass dark matter WIMPs with 12 ton-day exposure of DarkSide- 50, Phys. Rev. D107, 063001 (2023), arXiv:2207.11966 [hep-ex]

    2023

  52. [60]

    Araliset al.(SuperCDMS), Constraints on dark photons and axionlike particles from the Super- CDMS Soudan experiment, Phys

    T. Araliset al.(SuperCDMS), Constraints on dark photons and axionlike particles from the Super- CDMS Soudan experiment, Phys. Rev. D101, 052008 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 103, 039901 (2021)], arXiv:1911.11905 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, New Definition of the Neutrino Floor for Direct Dark Matter Searches, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 251802 (2021), arXiv:2109.03116 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Boet al.(PandaX), First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos through Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in PandaX-4T, Phys

    Z. Boet al.(PandaX), First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos through Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 191001 (2024), arXiv:2407.10892 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Aharmimet al.(SNO), Combined Analysis of all Three Phases of Solar Neutrino Data from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys

    B. Aharmimet al.(SNO), Combined Analysis of all Three Phases of Solar Neutrino Data from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys. Rev. C88, 025501 (2013), arXiv:1109.0763 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  56. [64]

    XENONnT Collaboration, XENONnT/alea: v0.3.4 (2025)

    2025

  57. [65]

    G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, A Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals, Phys. Rev. D57, 3873 (1998), arXiv:physics/9711021

    1998 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Power-Constrained Limits, (2011), arXiv:1105.3166 [physics.data-an]

    2011 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Baxter, R

    D. Baxter, R. Essig, Y. Hochberg, M. Kaznacheeva, B. von Krosigk, F. Reindl, R. K. Romani, and F. Wag- ner, Low-Energy Backgrounds in Solid-State Phonon and Charge Detectors, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75, 301 (2025), arXiv:2503.08859 [physics.ins-det]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Aalberset al.(XLZD), The XLZD Design Book: to- wards the next-generation liquid xenon observatory for dark matter and neutrino physics, Eur

    J. Aalberset al.(XLZD), The XLZD Design Book: to- wards the next-generation liquid xenon observatory for dark matter and neutrino physics, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1192 (2025), arXiv:2410.17137 [hep-ex]

    2025

  61. [69]

    Abdukerimet al.(PANDA-X, PandaX), PandaX- xT—A deep underground multi-ten-tonne liquid xenon observatory, Sci

    A. Abdukerimet al.(PANDA-X, PandaX), PandaX- xT—A deep underground multi-ten-tonne liquid xenon observatory, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 221011 (2025), arXiv:2402.03596 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    D. S. Akeribet al.(LZ), Searches for Light Dark Matter and Evidence of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scat- tering of Solar Neutrinos with the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) 10 Experiment, arXiv:2512.08065 [hep-ex] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.