Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

First dark-matter limits from a lead-tungstate crystal detector

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 06:15 UTC pith:NRAB74YB

load-bearing objection First PbWO4 DM limits from a 13 g archaeological-Pb crystal: a careful proof-of-principle whose limits hinge on an unvalidated efficiency extrapolation. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.16251 v3 pith:NRAB74YB submitted 2026-01-22 physics.ins-det astro-ph.CO

Probing dark matter interactions with a RES-NOVA prototype cryogenic detector

D. Alloni , G. Benato , P. Carniti , M. Cataldo , L. Chen , M. Clemenza , M. Consonni , G. Croci
show 39 more authors
I. Dafinei F.A. Danevich C. de Vecchi D. Di Martino E. Di Stefano N. Ferreiro Iachellini F. Ferroni F. Filippini S. Ghislandi A. Giachero L. Gironi C. Gotti D.L. Helis D.V. Kasperovych V.V. Kobychev G. Marcucci A. Melchiorre A. Menegolli S. Nisi M. Musa L. Pagnanini L. Pattavina G. Pessina S. Pirro S. Pozzi M.C. Prata A. Puiu S. Quitadamo M.P. Riccardi M. Ricci M. Rossella R. Rossini E. Sala F. Saliu A. Salvini V.I. Tretyak L. Trombetta D. Trotta H. Yuan
This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det astro-ph.CO PACS 95.35.+d07.20.Mc29.40.Vj
keywords dark matterdirect detectioncryogenic detectorPbWO4lead tungstatearchaeological leadRES-NOVAbolometer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper establishes that lead tungstate (PbWO4) — a heavy crystal containing both lead and oxygen nuclei — can be operated as a cryogenic calorimeter for direct dark-matter searches. Using a 13-gram crystal grown from archaeological lead and cooled to 12 mK in an underground laboratory, the authors achieved a low-energy threshold near 2.5 keV and produced the first dark-matter exclusion limits ever derived with a PbWO4 target. The limits, covering both spin-independent and spin-dependent interactions, are not competitive with leading experiments, but the demonstration of stable, low-vibration operation and a complete triggerless analysis chain is the paper's intended contribution. The work is presented as a proof of principle for the RES-NOVA detector concept, which aims to detect supernova neutrinos and dark matter with larger lead-tungstate detectors.

Core claim

The central claim is that a 13 g PbWO4 crystal, grown from archaeological lead to suppress intrinsic radioactivity, can serve as a working cryogenic target for rare-event searches. Operated at approximately 12 mK and read out by a germanium thermistor, the detector reached a baseline energy resolution of σ ≈ 234 eV and an analysis threshold near 2.5 keV. By injecting simulated pulses into the raw data stream, the authors measured the detection efficiency as a function of energy, and with an exposure of 32.4 g·day they set 90% confidence upper limits on dark-matter scattering using an optimum-interval method that requires no background model. These are the first such limits for a PbWO4 target

What carries the argument

The PbWO4 crystal is the central object: its high-mass lead nuclei give strong coherent scattering for heavy dark matter, while its oxygen nuclei extend sensitivity to lower masses and, through 17O, to spin-dependent interactions on neutrons. The thermal pulses are read out with a germanium thermistor, and the analysis uses an optimum filter built from the measured noise spectrum and a ~500 keV signal template, together with a maximum-likelihood amplitude fit. A pulse-shape consistency cut rejects pathological events, and the surviving efficiency is measured by processing injected mono-energetic simulated pulses through the entire chain. The exclusion limits are derived by the optimum-interv

Load-bearing premise

The dark-matter limits assume that the detection efficiency measured using simulated pulses derived from a ~500 keV electron/gamma template applies unchanged to the low-energy nuclear recoils that dark matter would produce, at every position in the crystal.

What would settle it

Expose the same crystal to a neutron source producing nuclear recoils of known energy in the 2–10 keV range and run the full analysis pipeline. If the measured nuclear-recoil efficiency at, say, 3 keV differs from the injected-pulse efficiency by more than the systematic band quoted in the paper, the exclusion limits would need to be revised.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • PbWO4 becomes a demonstrated target material for direct dark-matter detection, with the heavy lead and light oxygen nuclei enabling sensitivity across roughly four orders of magnitude in dark-matter mass.
  • The low-vibration dry cryostat and triggerless analysis chain are directly applicable to coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering detectors, including real-time supernova monitoring.
  • The archaeological-lead radiopurity measurements support using such crystals in future ultra-low-background experiments.
  • Scaling the prototype to a 200 kg target mass with more sensitive thermal sensors is projected to probe previously unexplored dark-matter parameter space.
  • The efficiency-measurement technique described here can be reused for any new detector geometry or readout technology.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The efficiency curve is built from a signal template averaged from ~500 keV particle pulses; if low-energy nuclear recoils produce a different pulse shape, the efficiency and therefore the limits could be biased, an effect not addressed in the paper.
  • The energy scale is anchored to a 2615 keV gamma line and a 46 keV lead feature; sub-keV linearity of the thermistor is assumed, so the threshold region may carry unquantified energy-scale uncertainty.
  • Because the background in the region of interest is dominated by the cryogenic infrastructure, a dedicated low-background cryostat would likely improve the sensitivity by orders of magnitude without changing the crystal.
  • The simulated-pulse injection method could be extended to map position-dependent response in larger crystals, which would be needed to validate the final RES-NOVA detector geometry.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports the operation of a 13 g PbWO4 crystal grown from archaeological Pb, read out by a Ge NTD thermistor at ~12 mK in the LNGS Hall-C Ieti dilution cryostat. A triggerless analysis chain based on optimum filtering and MLE pulse-shape consistency is used to process 32.4 g·d of exposure. The detection efficiency is measured by injecting simulated mono-energetic pulses, built from a ~500 keV signal template, into the raw data stream. Using Yellin's optimum-interval method, the paper derives 90% C.L. exclusion limits on spin-independent and spin-dependent (on 207Pb and 17O neutrons) DM interactions. It also reports in-situ vibrational characterization with cryogenic geophones and presents the detector as a proof of principle for the RES-NOVA concept.

Significance. If the quantitative limits are accepted, this is the first DM exclusion limit obtained with PbWO4 as the target material, and the paper demonstrates several useful R&D advances: triggerless DAQ, a fully characterized cryogenic analysis chain, two-point gamma calibration, in-situ cryogenic vibration monitoring, and the use of archaeological Pb in an active detector element. The analysis is standard and mostly conservative: expected rates are computed with the external wimprates package, and Yellin's optimum-interval method avoids a background model. The main caveat is that the central limits inherit an unquantified systematic from the detection-efficiency measurement, which is based on a high-energy gamma/electron template and has no nuclear-recoil or position-dependent calibration. This makes the quantitative limits provisional until that uncertainty is bounded.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Fig. 6] The detection efficiency ε(E) is measured by injecting simulated pulses built from a template averaged over ~1000 pulses at ~500 keV, then applying the full chain including the 10% OF-vs-MLE consistency cut. No nuclear-recoil calibration (e.g., neutron source) or low-energy electron/gamma shape measurement is reported, and no position dependence is measured for the 0.7×0.7×4 cm³ crystal with a single NTD thermistor. Real low-energy nuclear recoils may have a different pulse shape (thermal non-linearity, position-dependent phonon collection), which would bias both the OF amplitude and the acceptance cut. Section 4 itself states that some low-energy events have 'pulse shape inconsistent with the detector response model,' but the effect on ε(E) is not quantified. Because the limits in Fig. 8 are scaled by ε(E), this is a load-bearing systematic. Please provide a conservative efficiency enve
  2. [§4–§5, energy calibration] The absolute energy scale is anchored to the 2615 keV 208Tl line and cross-checked with the 210Pb onset at 46 keV; there is no calibration point below 46 keV. The 2.5–10 keV ROI therefore relies on an assumed linearity of the OF amplitude. The simulated line at 2.4 keV (Fig. 7) is reconstructed with the same template and thus does not validate the absolute scale for real low-energy events. A small gain nonlinearity would shift the ROI boundaries and distort the recoil-spectrum shape used in the Yellin limit. Please state the linearity assumption explicitly and quantify its impact (e.g., with an energy-scale uncertainty or a low-energy line measurement).
  3. [§5, Fig. 8] The band in Fig. 8 is described as the variation from changing the pulse-shape consistency tolerance between 5% and 20%, with a nominal 10%. This is a selection-sensitivity check, not a full systematic uncertainty estimate. The band does not cover template-mismatch, position-dependent efficiency, or energy-scale nonlinearity. Please clarify in the figure caption and text that the shown band represents only the tolerance variation, and, if possible, add the dominant efficiency/energy-scale uncertainties separately. Otherwise, the figure may be read as overstating the robustness of the limits.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption uses 'amplitude spectral density (ASP)' while the text uses 'amplitude spectral density (ASD)'; please make the terminology consistent.
  2. [§4, first paragraph] 'as shown in see Fig. 4' should read 'as shown in Fig. 4'.
  3. [Ref. [13]] The DOI '10.1103/wcvd-rk1f' appears to be a placeholder or is not in standard PRD format; please verify.
  4. [§5, SD limits] The abstract says 'spin-dependent interactions on neutrons' without specifying isotopes; the main text and figure caption are clearer. The statement that 183W is neglected 'due to its lower natural isotopic abundance' should also note that the omission is conservative (it can only reduce the expected rate), since spin-structure factors also matter.
  5. [Fig. 5 right] The grey 'bulk contaminations' histogram is compared with the measured spectrum, but the normalization of this Monte Carlo component is not specified. Please state the scaling (e.g., exposure and measured activities) so the comparison is quantitative.
  6. [§4, tolerance] A 30% tolerance is listed among the tested values but is not included in the Fig. 8 band (5–20%). Please explain why the 30% value is excluded from the band.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the exclusion limits are an experimental measurement folded with an external halo model and a measured efficiency; the only self-citation is a prior-work input, not a derived result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: acquire 32.4 g·d raw data -> triggerless pulse identification -> OF/MLE amplitude estimators -> 10% consistency cut -> calibrated energy spectrum -> Yellin optimum-interval limit. The expected WIMP recoil spectrum is computed with the external wimprates package [35] and fixed halo parameters from [36]; it is not fitted to the observed spectrum, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction. The detection efficiency in Fig. 6 is measured by injecting simulated template pulses into the raw data stream and counting survivals; this is a standard efficiency measurement and is not used to define the DM signal. It does assume low-energy nuclear recoils have the same pulse shape as the ~500 keV averaged template, but the manuscript explicitly acknowledges shape-inconsistent events ('signals whose pulse shape is inconsistent with the detector response model', Section 4) and identifies the 2.5 keV region as noise-dominated at S/N near unity. That is an unquantified systematic/validation risk, not a constructional equivalence. The only notable author-overlap citation is Ref. [13], used for the 207Pb spin structure in the spin-dependent interpretation and for background context; it is a peer-reviewed prior sensitivity study and the present exclusion limits are not used to derive or validate it. No equation reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The result is therefore self-contained as an experimental measurement with standard external inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an experimental measurement; it relies on standard dark-matter halo and scattering models, a package for rate calculations, and the collaboration's own prior calculation of 207Pb spin structure. The only free parameters are analysis choices (selection tolerance, ROI) that define the limit. No new particles or physical entities are invented.

free parameters (2)
  • Pulse-shape consistency tolerance = 10% (nominal); 5%, 20%, 30% tested
    Hand-chosen selection cut used to accept/reject events based on consistency between optimum-filter and maximum-likelihood amplitudes; directly affects the accepted event sample and the resulting DM limit. The paper uses this to estimate a systematic band on the limit.
  • Dark-matter region of interest (2.5-10 keV) = 2.5-10 keV
    The lower bound is set by the S/N=1 threshold; the upper bound of 10 keV is a hand-chosen cut for the DM search window. The Yellin optimum-interval limit depends on the energy interval searched, so this choice affects the numerical limit.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Standard dark-matter halo model (Maxwellian, rho_DM=0.3 GeV/cm^3, v_esc=544 km/s, v_lab=238 km/s, etc.)
    Used to compute the expected WIMP recoil spectrum in Section 5; parameters taken from Ref [36].
  • domain assumption Standard WIMP-nucleus elastic scattering formalism as implemented in the wimprates package
    The recoil-rate calculation and nuclear form factors are taken from the package (Ref [35]); not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption 207Pb spin-dependent nuclear structure form factors
    The SD limit is based on the spin structure of 207Pb discussed in Ref [13], a prior paper by the same collaboration; no external validation is presented.
  • domain assumption Detector response is linear in energy from 2.5 to 2615 keV with Gaussian resolution (sigma=234 eV at threshold)
    Energy calibration uses the 2615 keV gamma line and the 46 keV 210Pb onset; linearity and resolution are extrapolated to the 2.5-10 keV ROI without direct low-energy calibration points below 46 keV.
  • domain assumption Detection efficiency measured with injected template pulses applies to all events including nuclear recoils
    Pulses injected for efficiency studies are generated from a template of ~500 keV e/gamma events (Section 4); this implicitly assumes no particle-type or position dependence of the pulse shape/efficiency in the ROI.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12409 in / 14582 out tokens · 156560 ms · 2026-08-04T06:15:58.479280+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing dark matter interactions with a RES-NOVA prototype cryogenic detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NRAB74YB

@misc{pith2026260116251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing dark matter interactions with a RES-NOVA prototype cryogenic detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NRAB74YB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.16251}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We report on the operation of a 13 g PbWO$_4$ crystal, grown from archaeological Pb and operated as a cryogenic calorimeter in an underground environment. Read out with a Ge thermistor, the detector achieves a low energy threshold and, for the first time, enables the derivation of a dark matter exclusion limit using PbWO$_4$ as target material, for both spin-dependent interactions on neutrons and spin-independent interactions. Although limited in mass and not representative of the final RES-NOVA detector design, this prototype demonstrates effective control of mechanical vibrations and low-energy noise in a cryogenic system, which is a key requirement for rare-event searches. The experiment therefore provides a proof of principle for the RES-NOVA detection concept, validating the use of archaeological Pb-based PbWO$_4$ crystals, low-background operation, and robust data-analysis procedures. These results establish a solid technological and methodological foundation for future RES-NOVA detectors employing larger target masses and advanced thermal readout technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.16251 by A. Giachero, A. Melchiorre, A. Menegolli, A. Puiu, A. Salvini, C. De Vecchi, C. Gotti, D. Alloni, D. Di Martino, D.L. Helis, D. Trotta, D.V. Kasperovych, E. Di Stefano, E. Sala, F.A. Danevich, F. Ferroni, F. Filippini, F. Saliu, G. Benato, G. Croci, G. Marcucci, G. Pessina, H. Yuan, I. Dafinei, L. Chen, L. Gironi, L. Pagnanini, L. Pattavina, L. Trombetta, M. Cataldo, M. Clemenza, M. Consonni, M.C. Prata, M. Musa, M.P. Riccardi, M. Ricci, M. Rossella, N. Ferreiro Iachellini, P. Carniti, R. Rossini, S. Ghislandi, S. Nisi, S. Pirro, S. Pozzi, S. Quitadamo, V.I. Tretyak, V.V. Kobychev.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Photograph of the Ieti cryogenic infrastructure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Ieti cryostat amplitude spectral density (ASP) of the axial displacement. This is measured at the Mixing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic rendering of the cryogenic detector. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trace detector pulses at the end of the electronics read-out chain. The left (right) panel shows a typical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Background energy spectra measured of the PbWO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Optimum Filter energy reconstruction of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Upper limit on dark matter–nucleus scattering cross-section at 90% confidence level. The left panel shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Billard, et al., Rep

    J. Billard, et al., Rep. Prog. Phys.85(5), 056201 (2022). DOI: 10.1088/1361-6633/ac5754

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac5754 2022

  2. [2]

    O’Hare, Phys

    C.A.J. O’Hare, Phys. Rev. Lett.127(25), 251802 (2021). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.251802

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.251802 2021

  3. [3]

    Freedman, Phys

    D.Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D9, 1389 (1974). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.9.1389

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.9.1389 1974

  4. [4]

    Pattavina, et al., Eur

    L. Pattavina, et al., Eur. Phys. J.A 55, 127 (2019). DOI: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12809-0

    doi:10.1140/epja/i2019-12809-0 2019

  5. [5]

    Pattavina, N

    L. Pattavina, N. Ferreiro Iachellini, I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D102(6), 063001 (2020). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.063001 2020

  6. [6]

    Pattavina, S

    L. Pattavina, S. Nagorny, S. Nisi, L. Pagnanini, G. Pessina, S. Pirro, C. Rusconi, K. Sch¨ affner, V.N. Shlegel, V.N. Zhdankov, Eur. Phys. J.A 56(2), 38 (2020). DOI: 10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00050-x

    doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00050-x 2020

  7. [7]

    Beeman, et al., Eur

    J.W. Beeman, et al., Eur. Phys. J.A 49, 50 (2013). DOI: 10.1140/epja/i2013-13050-7

    doi:10.1140/epja/i2013-13050-7 2013

  8. [8]

    Cadeddu, F

    M. Cadeddu, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, EPL143(3), 34001 (2023). DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/ace7f0

    doi:10.1209/0295-5075/ace7f0 2023

  9. [9]

    Laubenstein, I

    M. Laubenstein, I. Lawson, Front. in Phys.8, 577734 (2020). DOI: 10.3389/fphy.2020.577734

    arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Clemenza, C

    M. Clemenza, C. Maiano, L. Pattavina, E. Previ- tali, Eur. Phys. J. C71(11), 1805 (2011). DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1805-0

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1805-0 2011

  11. [11]

    Pattavina, et al., J

    L. Pattavina, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2021(10), 064 (2021). DOI: 10.1088/1475- 7516/2021/10/064

    doi:10.1088/1475- 2021

  12. [12]

    Drukier, L

    A. Drukier, L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D30(11), 2295 (1984). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.30.2295

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.30.2295 1984

  13. [13]

    Alloni, et al., Phys

    D. Alloni, et al., Phys. Rev. D111(10), 103050 (2025). DOI: 10.1103/wcvd-rk1f

    doi:10.1103/wcvd-rk1f 2025

  14. [14]

    Aprile, et al., Phys

    E. Aprile, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.131(4), 041003 (2023). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041003

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.041003 2023

  15. [15]

    Meng, et al., Phys

    Y. Meng, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.127(26), 261802 (2021). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.261802

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.261802 2021

  16. [16]

    Aalbers, et al., Phys

    J. Aalbers, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.131(4), 041002 (2023). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.041002 2023

  17. [17]

    Beeman, et al., Eur

    J.W. Beeman, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C82(8), 692 (2022). DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10656-8

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10656-8 2022

  18. [18]

    Arnaboldi, et al., Phys

    C. Arnaboldi, et al., Phys. Rev. C78(3), 035502 (2008). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.78.035502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.78.035502 2008

  19. [19]

    Alfonso, et al., Phys

    K. Alfonso, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.115(10), 102502 (2015). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.102502

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.102502 2015

  20. [20]

    Azzolini, et al., Eur

    O. Azzolini, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C78(5), 428 (2018). DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5896-8

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5896-8 2018

  21. [21]

    Barucci, V

    M. Barucci, V. Martelli, G. Ventura, J. Low Temp. Phys.157(5), 541 (2009). DOI: 10.1007/s10909- 009-9981-0

    doi:10.1007/s10909- 2009

  22. [23]

    Wex, et al., J

    A. Wex, et al., J. Instrum.20(05), P05022 (2025). DOI: 10.1088/1748-0221/20/05/P05022

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/05/p05022 2025

  23. [24]

    de Wit, G

    M. de Wit, G. Welker, K. Heeck, F.M. Buters, H.J. Eerkens, G. Koning, H. van der Meer, D. Bouwmeester, T.H. Oosterkamp, Rev. Sci. Instrum.90(1), 015112 (2019). DOI: 10.1063/1.5066618

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5066618 2019

  24. [25]

    Pirro, P

    S. Pirro, P. Mauskopf, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.67, 161 (2017). DOI: 10.1146/annurev-nucl- 101916-123130

    doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl- 2017

  25. [26]

    Bellini, et al., J

    G. Bellini, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. (05), 015 (2012). DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/05/015

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/05/015 2012

  26. [27]

    Arnaboldi, P

    C. Arnaboldi, P. Carniti, L. Cassina, C. Gotti, X. Liu, M. Maino, G. Pessina, C. Rosenfeld, B. Zhu, J. Instrum.13(02), P02026 (2018). DOI: 10.1088/1748-0221/13/02/P02026

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/02/p02026 2018

  27. [28]

    Carniti, L

    P. Carniti, L. Cassina, C. Gotti, M. Maino, G. Pessina, Rev. Sci. Instrum.87(5), 054706 (2016). DOI: 10.1063/1.4948390

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4948390 2016

  28. [29]

    Carniti, C

    P. Carniti, C. Gotti, G. Pessina, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A1045, 167658 (2023). DOI: 10.1016/j.nima.2022.167658

    arXiv 2023

  29. [30]

    Azzolini, M.T

    O. Azzolini, M.T. Barrera, J.W. Beeman, F. Bellini, M. Beretta, M. Biassoni, C. Brofferio, C. Bucci, L. Canonica, S. Capelli, L. Cardani, P. Carniti, N. Casali, L. Cassina, M. Clemenza, O. Cremonesi, A. Cruciani, A. D’Addabbo, I. Dafinei, S.D. Dom- izio, F. Ferroni, L. Gironi, A. Giuliani, P. Gorla, C. Gotti, G. Keppel, M. Martinez, S. Morganti, S. Nagorn...

    2018

  30. [31]

    Gatti, P.F

    E. Gatti, P.F. Manfredi, Riv. Nuovo Cim.9(1), 1 (1986). DOI: 10.1007/BF02822156

    doi:10.1007/bf02822156 1986

  31. [32]

    Cardani, L

    L. Cardani, L. Gironi, J.W. Beeman, I. Dafinei, Z. Ge, G. Pessina, S. Pirro, Y. Zhu, J. In- strum.7, P01020 (2012). DOI: 10.1088/1748- 0221/7/01/P01020

    doi:10.1088/1748- 2012

  32. [33]

    Barucci, J.W

    M. Barucci, J.W. Beeman, V. Caracciolo, L. Pag- nanini, L. Pattavina, G. Pessina, S. Pirro, C. Rusconi, K. Sch¨ affner, Nucl. Instrum. Meth- ods Phys. Res. A935, 150 (2019). DOI: 10.1016/j.nima.2019.05.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2019.05.019 2019

  33. [34]

    Helis, et al., Eur

    D.L. Helis, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C84(7), 749 (2024). DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13123-8

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13123-8 2024

  34. [35]

    Aalbers, B

    J. Aalbers, B. Pelssers, J.R. Angevaare, K.D. Mor ˚ a. Jelleaalbers/wimprates: v0.5.0 (2023). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7636982 11

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7636982 2023

  35. [36]

    Baxter, et al., Eur

    D. Baxter, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C81(10), 907 (2021). DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09655-y

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09655-y 2021

  36. [37]

    Yellin, Phys

    S. Yellin, Phys. Rev. D66(3), 032005 (2002). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.032005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.032005 2002

  37. [38]

    Abdelhameed, et al., Phys

    A.H. Abdelhameed, et al., Phys. Rev. D 100(10), 102002 (2019). DOI: 10.1103/Phys- RevD.100.102002

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2019

  38. [39]

    Agnes, et al., Phys

    P. Agnes, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.121(8), 081307 (2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.081307

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.081307 2018

  39. [40]

    Aprile, et al., Phys

    E. Aprile, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123(25), 251801 (2019). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.251801

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.251801 2019