pith. sign in

arxiv: 2207.03764 · v4 · pith:NKX2SYIVnew · submitted 2022-07-08 · ✦ hep-ex · astro-ph.CO

First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment

J. Aalbers , D.S. Akerib , C.W. Akerlof , A.K. Al Musalhi , F. Alder , A. Alqahtani , S.K. Alsum , C.S. Amarasinghe
show 339 more authors
A. Ames T.J. Anderson N. Angelides H.M. Ara\'ujo J.E. Armstrong M. Arthurs S. Azadi A.J. Bailey A. Baker J. Balajthy S. Balashov J. Bang J.W. Bargemann M.J. Barry J. Barthel D. Bauer A. Baxter K. Beattie J. Belle P. Beltrame J. Bensinger T. Benson E.P. Bernard A. Bhatti A. Biekert T.P. Biesiadzinski H.J. Birch B. Birrittella G.M. Blockinger K.E. Boast B. Boxer R. Bramante C.A.J. Brew P. Br\'as J.H. Buckley V.V. Bugaev S. Burdin J.K. Busenitz M. Buuck R. Cabrita C. Carels D.L. Carlsmith B. Carlson M.C. Carmona-Benitez M. Cascella C. Chan A. Chawla H. Chen J.J. Cherwinka N.I. Chott A. Cole J. Coleman M.V. Converse A. Cottle G. Cox W.W. Craddock O. Creaner D. Curran A. Currie J.E. Cutter C.E. Dahl A. David J. Davis T.J.R. Davison J. Delgaudio S. Dey L. de Viveiros A. Dobi J.E.Y. Dobson E. Druszkiewicz A. Dushkin T.K. Edberg W.R. Edwards M.M. Elnimr W.T. Emmet S.R. Eriksen C.H. Faham A. Fan S. Fayer N.M. Fearon S. Fiorucci H. Flaecher P. Ford V.B. Francis E.D. Fraser T. Fruth R.J. Gaitskell N.J. Gantos D. Garcia A. Geffre V.M. Gehman J. Genovesi C. Ghag R. Gibbons E. Gibson M.G.D. Gilchriese S. Gokhale B. Gomber J. Green A. Greenall S. Greenwood M.G.D.van der Grinten C.B. Gwilliam C.R. Hall S. Hans K. Hanzel A. Harrison E. Hartigan-O'Connor S.J. Haselschwardt S.A. Hertel G. Heuermann C. Hjemfelt M.D. Hoff E. Holtom J.Y-K. Hor M. Horn D.Q. Huang D. Hunt C.M. Ignarra R.G. Jacobsen O. Jahangir R.S. James S.N. Jeffery W. Ji J. Johnson A.C. Kaboth A.C. Kamaha K. Kamdin V. Kasey K. Kazkaz J. Keefner D. Khaitan M. Khaleeq A. Khazov I. Khurana Y.D. Kim C.D. Kocher D. Kodroff L. Korley E.V. Korolkova J. Kras H. Kraus S. Kravitz H.J. Krebs L. Kreczko B. Krikler V.A. Kudryavtsev S. Kyre B. Landerud E.A. Leason C. Lee J. Lee D.S. Leonard R. Leonard K.T. Lesko C. Levy J. Li F.-T. Liao J. Liao J. Lin A. Lindote R. Linehan W.H. Lippincott R. Liu X. Liu Y. Liu C. Loniewski M.I. Lopes E. Lopez Asamar B. L\'opez Paredes W. Lorenzon D. Lucero S. Luitz J.M. Lyle P.A. Majewski J. Makkinje D.C. Malling A. Manalaysay L. Manenti R.L. Mannino N. Marangou M.F. Marzioni C. Maupin M.E. McCarthy C.T. McConnell D.N. McKinsey J. McLaughlin Y. Meng J. Migneault E.H. Miller E. Mizrachi J.A. Mock A. Monte M.E. Monzani J.A. Morad J.D. Morales Mendoza E. Morrison B.J. Mount M. Murdy A.St.J. Murphy D. Naim A. Naylor C. Nedlik C. Nehrkorn F. Neves A. Nguyen J.A. Nikoleyczik A. Nilima J. O'Dell F.G. O'Neill K. O'Sullivan I. Olcina M.A. Olevitch K.C. Oliver-Mallory J. Orpwood D. Pagenkopf S. Pal K.J. Palladino J. Palmer M. Pangilinan N. Parveen S.J. Patton E.K. Pease B. Penning C. Pereira G. Pereira E. Perry T. Pershing I.B. Peterson A. Piepke J. Podczerwinski D. Porzio S. Powell R.M. Preece K. Pushkin Y. Qie B.N. Ratcliff J. Reichenbacher L. Reichhart C.A. Rhyne A. Richards Q. Riffard G.R.C. Rischbieter J.P. Rodrigues A. Rodriguez H.J. Rose R. Rosero P. Rossiter T. Rushton G. Rutherford D. Rynders J.S. Saba D. Santone A.B.M.R. Sazzad R.W. Schnee P.R. Scovell D. Seymour S. Shaw T. Shutt J.J. Silk C. Silva G. Sinev K. Skarpaas W. Skulski R. Smith M. Solmaz V.N. Solovov P. Sorensen J. Soria I. Stancu M.R. Stark A. Stevens T.M. Stiegler K. Stifter R. Studley B. Suerfu T.J. Sumner P. Sutcliffe N. Swanson M. Szydagis M. Tan D.J. Taylor R. Taylor W.C. Taylor D.J. Temples B.P. Tennyson P.A. Terman K.J. Thomas D.R. Tiedt M. Timalsina W.H. To A. Tom\'as Z. Tong D.R. Tovey J. Tranter M. Trask M. Tripathi D.R. Tronstad C.E. Tull W. Turner L. Tvrznikova U. Utku J. Va'vra A. Vacheret A.C. Vaitkus J.R. Verbus E. Voirin W.L. Waldron A. Wang B. Wang J.J. Wang W. Wang Y. Wang J.R. Watson R.C. Webb A. White D.T. White J.T. White R.G. White T.J. Whitis M. Williams W.J. Wisniewski M.S. Witherell F.L.H. Wolfs J.D. Wolfs S. Woodford D. Woodward S.D. Worm C.J. Wright Q. Xia X. Xiang Q. Xiao J. Xu M. Yeh J. Yin I. Young P. Zarzhitsky A. Zuckerman E.A. Zweig
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 10:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex astro-ph.CO
keywords dark matterWIMPdirect detectionxenon TPCprofile likelihoodspin-independent cross sectionbackground model
0
0 comments X p. Extension
pith:NKX2SYIV Add to your LaTeX paper What is a Pith Number? 
\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{NKX2SYIV}

Prints a linked pith:NKX2SYIV badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

Data from a large xenon time projection chamber is consistent with background only and sets a new upper limit of 9.2×10^{-48} cm² on spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross sections at 36 GeV/c².

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

This paper reports the first search for weakly interacting massive particles in a dual-phase xenon detector with 60 live days of data and a fiducial mass of 5.5 tonnes. The observed events match the expected background from known sources with no excess signal. A profile-likelihood ratio analysis is used to set new limits on WIMP interaction cross sections for masses above 9 GeV/c². These results are of interest because they further constrain the possible properties of dark matter particles that might make up the invisible mass in galaxies. The tightest bound excludes cross sections larger than 9.2×10^{-48} cm² for a 36 GeV/c² WIMP at 90 percent confidence.

Core claim

The data is consistent with a background-only hypothesis, setting new limits on spin-independent WIMP-nucleon, spin-dependent WIMP-neutron, and spin-dependent WIMP-proton cross sections for WIMP masses above 9 GeV/c², with the most stringent limit rejecting cross sections above 9.2×10^{-48} cm² at 36 GeV/c² at the 90% confidence level.

What carries the argument

Profile-likelihood ratio analysis that tests the data against background and possible signal models.

If this is right

  • This result excludes previously allowed regions of WIMP mass and cross section parameter space.
  • Improved sensitivity in future data-taking periods will probe even smaller cross sections.
  • Models predicting WIMP interactions stronger than this limit are disfavored.
  • The background rejection techniques demonstrated here can be applied to other rare-event searches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • These tighter limits suggest that if WIMPs are the dark matter, their interactions with normal matter are extremely feeble.
  • Complementary searches using different detector materials could be needed to cover other possible interaction types.
  • Understanding the background at this level is crucial for scaling up to larger detectors in the future.

Load-bearing premise

The background model and detector response functions used in the profile-likelihood fit accurately capture all relevant sources and efficiencies with no large unaccounted systematics in the fiducial volume or energy scale.

What would settle it

Detection of an excess of events in the low-energy signal region that cannot be accounted for by the background model would falsify the background-only hypothesis.

read the original abstract

The LUX-ZEPLIN experiment is a dark matter detector centered on a dual-phase xenon time projection chamber operating at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, South Dakota, USA. This Letter reports results from LUX-ZEPLIN's first search for weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) with an exposure of 60~live days using a fiducial mass of 5.5 t. A profile-likelihood ratio analysis shows the data to be consistent with a background-only hypothesis, setting new limits on spin-independent WIMP-nucleon, spin-dependent WIMP-neutron, and spin-dependent WIMP-proton cross sections for WIMP masses above 9 GeV/c$^2$. The most stringent limit is set for spin-independent scattering at 36 GeV/c$^2$, rejecting cross sections above 9.2$\times 10^{-48}$ cm$^2$ at the 90% confidence level.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports first dark matter search results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) dual-phase xenon TPC at SURF. Using 60 live days of data and a 5.5 t fiducial mass, a profile-likelihood ratio analysis finds the observed data consistent with a background-only hypothesis and sets new 90% CL upper limits on spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross sections (strongest exclusion 9.2×10^{-48} cm² at 36 GeV/c²), as well as spin-dependent WIMP-neutron and WIMP-proton limits for WIMP masses above 9 GeV/c².

Significance. If the background model and detector response functions are accurate, the result improves existing direct-detection limits and demonstrates the sensitivity reach of the 7 t LZ detector even with modest exposure. The use of a profile-likelihood ratio with explicit treatment of systematics is a standard and reproducible approach for setting exclusion limits in this field.

major comments (1)
  1. [Analysis / Results] The central claim that the data are consistent with background-only and that the quoted SI limit holds depends on the accuracy of the background model (ER/NR discrimination, radon, surface events, cosmogenic neutrons) and response functions inside the 5.5 t fiducial volume. The manuscript should include explicit tables or figures (e.g., in the Analysis or Results section) comparing predicted versus observed event rates in the signal region after all cuts, together with the full covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties, to allow independent assessment of whether unmodeled mismatches exceed the quoted uncertainties.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the exposure as '60 live days' but does not define the precise live-time calculation or any dead-time corrections; this should be clarified in the main text for reproducibility.
  2. [Results] Notation for the fiducial mass (5.5 t) and the WIMP mass (36 GeV/c²) is clear, but the manuscript should confirm whether the quoted cross-section limit includes the full systematic uncertainty band or only statistical.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript reporting the first dark matter search results from LZ. The positive assessment of the result's significance is appreciated. We address the single major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to improve transparency regarding the background model and systematic uncertainties.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Analysis / Results] The central claim that the data are consistent with background-only and that the quoted SI limit holds depends on the accuracy of the background model (ER/NR discrimination, radon, surface events, cosmogenic neutrons) and response functions inside the 5.5 t fiducial volume. The manuscript should include explicit tables or figures (e.g., in the Analysis or Results section) comparing predicted versus observed event rates in the signal region after all cuts, together with the full covariance matrix of systematic uncertainties, to allow independent assessment of whether unmodeled mismatches exceed the quoted uncertainties.

    Authors: We agree that additional explicit comparisons will strengthen the presentation and allow readers to more readily assess the background model. In the revised manuscript we have added a new table in the Results section that tabulates the predicted background contributions (electronic recoils, neutron-induced nuclear recoils, surface events, and radon-related components) in the WIMP search region after all analysis cuts, together with the observed event count. We have also added a supplementary figure showing the distribution of events in the S1-S2 parameter space with the signal region overlaid and the background model prediction. The profile-likelihood analysis already incorporates the full set of systematic uncertainties via nuisance parameters; we have expanded the text in the Analysis section to describe the covariance structure among the dominant systematics (including ER/NR discrimination, light and charge yields, and fiducial volume definition) and have included the numerical covariance matrix as a supplementary table. These additions permit independent verification that any residual mismatches lie within the quoted uncertainties. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in data-driven profile-likelihood limits

full rationale

The paper presents an experimental result from 60 live days of data in a 5.5 t fiducial volume of the LZ dual-phase xenon TPC. The central claim is obtained by applying a standard profile-likelihood ratio test statistic to the observed event distribution versus a background-only hypothesis constructed from calibrated ER/NR discrimination, radon, surface, and cosmogenic components. This procedure directly compares real data to an independently modeled background and extracts an upper limit (9.2×10^{-48} cm² at 36 GeV/c²) without any self-definitional loop, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation that reduces the reported exclusion to its own inputs. The analysis is externally falsifiable by future data or independent experiments and remains self-contained against the stated assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the background model and detector simulation rather than new free parameters or postulated entities; no explicit free parameters or invented particles are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions in particle physics and detector modeling hold, such as accurate simulation of backgrounds and response functions.
    Implicit in any dark matter direct-detection analysis that quotes a limit from a profile-likelihood fit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 7540 in / 1229 out tokens · 55872 ms · 2026-05-19T10:48:10.655038+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 18 Pith papers

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

  1. Producing the GeV Galactic Center Excess via Cosmic Ray-Dark Matter Scattering

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Cosmic ray protons scattering off dark matter produce the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess through inelastic up-scattering followed by decay or direct elastic 2-to-3 photon production.

  2. Search for sub-GeV dark particles in $\eta\to\pi^0+\rm{invisible}$ decay

    hep-ex 2026-01 accept novelty 7.0

    No signal found in first search for eta to pi0 plus invisible dark scalar decay, setting branching fraction limits of (1.8-5.5)x10^-5 at 90% CL and improving DM-nucleon cross section bounds by ~5 orders of magnitude.

  3. Probing Heavy Dark Matter in Red Giants

    hep-ph 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Red-giant luminosity observations at the tip of the branch are used to set upper limits on dark-matter masses near 10^11 GeV and spin-independent cross sections near 10^{-37} cm² by requiring that DM-induced core heat...

  4. Precision measurement of positron decay modes of Xe-125 in the LUX-ZEPLIN experiment

    hep-ex 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Xe-125 positron decay branching ratio measured as 0.29% at 5.5 sigma significance, providing the first constraint on individual levels in I-125.

  5. Scalar-Mediated Inelastic Dark Matter as a Solution to Small-Scale Structure Anomalies

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A scalar-mediated inelastic dark matter model with 100 eV splitting, Z2 symmetry forbidding elastic scattering, and a dimension-5 dipole operator reconciles dwarf galaxy observations with cosmological bounds via reson...

  6. Towards a Unified Framework for Pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone Dark Matter and Electroweak Baryogenesis

    hep-ph 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The cS2HDM unifies a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone dark matter candidate with electroweak baryogenesis in a two-Higgs-doublet plus complex singlet setup, featuring naturally suppressed DM-nucleon scattering and CP-violating ...

  7. Dark Matter Induced Proton Decays

    hep-ph 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A framework unifies dark matter stability and proton decay via residual Z4 symmetry from U(1)B+L breaking, with one-loop proton decay mediated by TeV-scale dark sector particles whose masses correlate with proton lifetime.

  8. Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment

    hep-ex 2024-10 accept novelty 6.0

    LZ reports a null result from 4.2 tonne-year exposure and sets new world-leading upper limits on spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross sections reaching 2.2e-48 cm2 at 40 GeV.

  9. Bayesian analysis of density profile of light dark matter elucidating the properties of dark matter admixed neutron stars in the presence of hyperons

    nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Bayesian analysis finds that the likely ranges of light dark-matter fermion mass and exponential density-profile parameter in hyperon-containing neutron stars are nearly independent of the hadronic model for symmetry-...

  10. Phenomenological implications of the high-precision COHERENT germanium CE$\nu$NS data

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    High-precision COHERENT germanium CEνNS data yields state-of-the-art constraints on the weak mixing angle, neutrino charge radii, germanium neutron radius, and non-standard neutrino interactions via global analysis wi...

  11. Direct-detection constraints on inelastic dark matter with a scalar mediator

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Xenon data constrain inelastic fermion DM with scalar mediator for sub-MeV mass splittings through endothermic and exothermic DM-electron scattering.

  12. A Comprehensive Study of WIMP Models Explaining the Fermi-LAT Galactic Center Excess

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0

    WIMP models for the Galactic Center Excess survive only in finely tuned resonant funnels with portal couplings around 10^-4, with leptophilic vectors and pseudoscalar portals remaining most viable after current bounds.

  13. GeV-scale thermal dark matter from dark photons: tightly constrained, yet allowed

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    In a dark-photon-mediated Dirac fermionic DM model, only narrow resonant regions with small dark-sector coupling allow the candidate to saturate the full relic density while evading current direct and indirect detecti...

  14. The $Z_3$ soft breaking in the I(2+1)HDM and its cosmological probes

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Soft Z3 breaking in the I(2+1)HDM makes the lightest Z3-charged neutral scalar a dark matter candidate while allowing a long-lived opposite-CP state to contribute to relic density or yield missing-energy plus multi-le...

  15. QCD-driven dark matter: AQNs formation and observational tests

    hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Dark matter is composed of composite quark-antiquark objects stabilized by axion domain walls, offering a unified account of dark matter and baryon asymmetry.

  16. Freeze-In Dark Matter and Leptogenesis: a $\psi'$SM route

    hep-ph 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    In an E6-derived ψ'SM extension, a singlet fermion acts as freeze-in dark matter with relic density set by scalar decays for masses from a few MeV to hundreds of GeV, while type-I seesaw neutrinos simultaneously produ...

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

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

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

  18. WIMP Dark Matter within the dark photon portal

    hep-ph 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Derives lower limits on dark photon parameters from thermal relic density for Dirac fermion and complex scalar WIMPs and compares resulting spin-independent cross sections to direct detection upper bounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 95 canonical work pages · cited by 18 Pith papers · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astron. As- trophys. 641, A6 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Sofue and V

    Y. Sofue and V. Rubin, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 39, 137 (2001)

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Harvey, R

    D. Harvey, R. Massey, T. Kitching, A. Taylor, and E. Tit- tley, Science 347, 1462 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Arbey and F

    A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.119, 103865 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Schumann, J

    M. Schumann, J. Phys G 46, 103003 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 165 (1977)

    work page 1977

  7. [7]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045002 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Billard et al., Rep

    J. Billard et al., Rep. Prog. Phys. 85, 056201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Akerib et al., arXiv:2203.08084 (2022)

    D. Akerib et al., arXiv:2203.08084 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High En- ergy Phys. 2018 (1), 126

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 97, 092005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 776, 318 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Trevisani, Universe 4 (2018)

    N. Trevisani, Universe 4 (2018)

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 102, 072002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Choi et al

    K. Choi et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 141301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, 062004 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Albert et al

    A. Albert et al. (ANTARES Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 769, 249 (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Cuoco, M

    A. Cuoco, M. Kr¨ amer, and M. Korsmeier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 191102 (2017)

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    M.-Y. Cui, Q. Yuan, Y.-L. S. Tsai, Y.-Z. Fan, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 191101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Albert et al., Astrophys J 834, 110 (2017)

    A. Albert et al., Astrophys J 834, 110 (2017)

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Abdelhameed et al

    A. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 100, 102002 (2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide-50 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 081307 (2018)

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Amole et al

    C. Amole et al. (PICO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 100, 022001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302 (2018)

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    Meng et al

    Y. Meng et al. (PandaX-4T Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 261802 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Ajaj et al

    R. Ajaj et al. (DEAP Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 100, 022004 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Akerib et al

    D. Akerib et al. (LUX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 118, 021303 (2017)

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    Agnese et al

    R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 92, 072003 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Akerib et al

    D. Akerib et al. (LZ Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth- ods Phys. Res. Sect. A 953, 163047 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Technical Design Report

    B. Mount et al., arXiv:1703.09144 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    Heise, J

    J. Heise, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2156, 012172 (2021)

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Akerib et al

    D. Akerib et al. (LZ Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 96, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    S. J. Haselschwardt, S. Shaw, H. N. Nelson, M. S. With- erell, M. Yeh, K. T. Lesko, A. Cole, S. Kyre, and D. T. White, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 937, 148 (2019)

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Linehan et al

    R. Linehan et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 1031, 165955 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Faham, V

    C. Faham, V. Gehman, A. Currie, A. Dobi, P. Sorensen, and R. Gaitskell, J. Instrum. 10 (09), P09010

    work page

  37. [37]

    L´ opez Paredes, H

    B. L´ opez Paredes, H. Ara´ ujo, F. Froborg, N. Marangou, I. Olcina, T. Sumner, R. Taylor, A. Tom´ as, and A. Vacheret, Astropart. Phys. 102, 56 (2018)

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    V. N. Solovov et al., IEEE Trans. on Nucl. Sci. 59, 3286 (2012)

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Vainionpaa, C

    J. Vainionpaa, C. Gary, J. Harris, M. Piestrup, R. Pan- tell, and G. Jones, Physics Procedia 60, 203 (2014)

    work page 2014

  40. [40]

    J. R. Verbus et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 851, 68–81 (2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    D. S. Akerib et al., arXiv:1608.05381 (2016)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    A. V. Mozhayev, M. E. Moore, and E. K. Mace, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 168, 109472 (2021)

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Szydagis et al., Noble Element Simulation Technique (2022)

    M. Szydagis et al., Noble Element Simulation Technique (2022)

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002 for the full description of the nest parameters and a header file to configure the software for this model

    See Supplemental Material at https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002 for the full description of the nest parameters and a header file to configure the software for this model

    work page

  45. [45]

    Akerib et al

    D. Akerib et al. (LUX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 102, 112002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    Kolmogorov, Giorn

    A. Kolmogorov, Giorn. Inst. Ital. Attuari 4, 1 (1933)

    work page 1933

  47. [47]

    N. V. Smirnov, Bull. Math. Univ. Moscou 2, 3 (1939)

    work page 1939

  48. [48]

    T. W. Anderson and D. A. Darling, Ann. Math. Stat. 23, 193 (1952)

    work page 1952

  49. [49]

    S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk, Biometrika 52, 591 (1965)

    work page 1965

  50. [50]

    D. J. Temples, J. McLaughlin, J. Bargemann, D. Baxter, A. Cottle, C. E. Dahl, W. H. Lippincott, A. Monte, and J. Phelan, Phys. Rev. D 104, 112001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Electron train backgrounds in liquid xenon dark matter search detectors are indeed due to thermalization and trapping

    P. Sorensen, arXiv:1702.04805 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  52. [52]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 102, 092004 (2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    See Supplemental Material for a detailed table of events by selection

    work page

  54. [54]

    Baxter et al., Eur

    D. Baxter et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    Lewin and P

    J. Lewin and P. Smith, Astropart. Phys. 6, 87 (1996)

    work page 1996

  56. [56]

    M. C. Smith et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 379, 755 (2007)

    work page 2007

  57. [57]

    McCabe, J

    C. McCabe, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2014 (02), 027

    work page 2014

  58. [58]

    Sch¨ onrich, J

    R. Sch¨ onrich, J. Binney, and W. Dehnen, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 403, 1829 (2010)

    work page 2010

  59. [59]

    Bland-Hawthorn and O

    J. Bland-Hawthorn and O. Gerhard, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54, 529 (2016)

    work page 2016

  60. [60]

    Abuter, R. et al. (GRAVITY Collaboration), Astron. As- trophys. 647, A59 (2021)

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Aalbers et al., arXiv:2211.17120 (2022)

    J. Aalbers et al., arXiv:2211.17120 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  62. [62]

    Akerib et al., Astropart

    D. Akerib et al., Astropart. Phys. 97, 80 (2018)

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

    Akerib et al

    D. Akerib et al. (LZ Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    Akerib et al., Astropart

    D. Akerib et al., Astropart. Phys. 116, 102391 (2020)

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    Agostini et al

    M. Agostini et al. (Borexino Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 100, 082004 (2019)

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    Vinyoles, A

    N. Vinyoles, A. M. Serenelli, F. L. Villante, S. Basu, J. Bergstr¨ om, M. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, C. Pe˜ na- Garay, and N. Song, Astrophys J. 835, 202 (2017)

    work page 2017

  67. [67]

    Aharmim et al

    B. Aharmim et al. (SNO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 88, 025501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  68. [68]

    Berglund and M

    M. Berglund and M. E. Wieser, Pure Appl. Chem. 83, 397 (2011)

    work page 2011

  69. [69]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Nature 568, 532 (2019)

    work page 2019

  70. [70]

    J. B. Albert et al. (EXO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 89, 015502 (2014)

    work page 2014

  71. [71]

    B´ eet al

    M.-M. B´ eet al. , Table of Radionuclides , Monographie BIPM-5, Vol. 7 (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, Pavillon de Breteuil, F-92310 S` evres, France, 2013)

    work page 2013

  72. [72]

    B´ eet al

    M.-M. B´ eet al. , Table of Radionuclides , Monographie BIPM-5, Vol. 8 (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, Pavillon de Breteuil, F-92310 S` evres, France, 2016)

    work page 2016

  73. [73]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 96, 112011 (2017)

    work page 2017

  74. [74]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, 082004 (2022)

    work page 2022

  75. [75]

    Ajaj et al

    R. Ajaj et al. (DEAP), Phys. Rev. D 100, 022004 (2019)

    work page 2019

  76. [76]

    Akerib et al

    D. Akerib et al. (LZ Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 125, 102480 (2021)

    work page 2021

  77. [77]

    Allison et al

    J. Allison et al. (Geant4 Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 835, 186 (2016)

    work page 2016

  78. [78]

    Power-Constrained Limits

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, arXiv preprint arXiv:1105.3166 (2011)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  79. [79]

    1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002 for a data release for in- formation shown in Figs

    See Supplemental Material at https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002 for a data release for in- formation shown in Figs. 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8

    work page

  80. [80]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LZ Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 102, 014602 (2020)

    work page 2020

Showing first 80 references.