Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 4 cited by

Constraints on Strongly-Interacting Dark Matter from the James Webb Space Telescope

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST's dark calibration frames can be repurposed as a detector for strongly interacting sub-GeV dark matter, already disfavoring the open high-cross-section window for a 0.4% subcomponent.

desk verdict First real use of JWST NIRSpec dark frames to constrain strongly-interacting sub-GeV dark matter, with a novel exclusion for the ultralight dark-photon model — but the limit rests on a dataset-selection step that needs a signal-injection closure test before I'd trust the boundary. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13131 v1 pith:QGDRPHWJ submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.CO hep-exhep-ph

Peizhi Du , Rouven Essig , Bernard J. Rauscher , Hailin Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-exhep-ph
keywords darkmatterstronglyinteractingsub-GeVJWSTNIRSpecphotondirectdetectionpixelchargedistributioncurrent
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper's central claim is that JWST's NIRSpec "dark" calibration frames—images taken with an opaque filter to characterize instrument noise—can be used as a dark-matter detector, and that they already place new upper limits on strongly interacting sub-GeV dark matter. The target is a fermion that makes up a small fraction $f_\chi$ of the dark matter and interacts with ordinary electrons through an ultralight dark-photon mediator; such particles would be stopped in the atmosphere or crust before reaching underground detectors, which is why the high-cross-section window has remained open. The authors add five custom masks to the standard JWST pipeline, model the expected few-electron signal in the HgCdTe detector, and compare the shape of the masked pixel-charge distribution with a background of dark current plus readout noise. For a subcomponent fraction of 0.4%, they disfavor all previously allowed high-cross-section parameter space between roughly 1 MeV and 10 GeV at 95% confidence, with some sensitivity persisting down to about 0.01%. If correct, this means existing space-based calibration data can probe a regime that terrestrial direct-detection experiments cannot reach.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the per-pixel charge distribution $F_{\rm obs}(N_e)$ of the NRS2 dark frames after masking, compared with the model $F(N_e) = N_{\rm tot} h \sum_n f(n; \sigma_e, \lambda_{\rm DC}) [r\,\mathcal{N}(N_e; n, \sigma_1) + (1-r)\,\mathcal{N}(N_e; n, \sigma_2)]$, where $f(n; \sigma_e, \lambda_{\rm DC})$ is the dark-current distribution convolved with the DM signal and the two normal components describe readout noise with standard deviations $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$. The DM signal comes from the scattering rate integrated over the shield-attenuated DM speed distribution, using the HgTe and CdTe crystal form factors and a dielectric screening function, with the deposited energy converted to electron-hole pairs through $Q(E_e) = 1 + \lfloor (E_e - E_{\rm gap})/\epsilon_{eh}\rfloor$. What makes the background model credible is the masking chain: a jump mask removes pixels with an inter-frame step above 60 DN, a cluster-and-halo mask removes mosaics near high-energy clusters and their surrounding halos, an edge mask trims the image border, a hot-column mask drops the 60 noisiest mosaic columns, and a brightness mask removes pixels with $|y_{\rm int}| > 150$ DN plus a two-pixel radius, leaving about 5% of pixels. The final comparison is made within $|N_e - N_e^{\rm peak}| \leq 55$, and the 95% confidence limit is set by the one-sided profile-likelihood test statistic $q_\mu$. This machinery converts otherwise-discarded calibration exposures into a shape-based direct-detection limit.

What would settle it

Inject synthetic dark-matter signals into the raw dark frames at the excluded cross sections, process them through the identical masks and dataset selection, and check whether the 95% upper limits contain the injected cross section in at least 95% of trials; if the coverage is short, the reported exclusion is biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the JWST NIRSpec dark images provide novel 95% confidence limits on the DM-electron scattering cross section for sub-GeV dark matter coupled to an ultralight dark-photon mediator. After applying a subset of the JWST calibration pipeline (superbias subtraction, reference-pixel correction, linearity correction, and saturation flagging) plus five custom masks (jump, cluster-and-halo, edge, hot-column, and brightness), the surviving pixel charge distribution is fit by a background model of a single random dark-current component smeared by two readout-noise components. A dark-matter signal is added as the convolution of a DM charge spectrum, computed from the crystal form factor, dielectric screening, and a Monte-Carlo-simulated, shield-attenuated DM velocity distribution, with the same dark current and readout kernel, and a one-sided profile likelihood ratio is used to set the 95% upper limit. The result is that the previously allowed high-cross-section region for a 0.4% subcomponent is disfavored for DM masses from about 1 MeV to 10 GeV, with weaker but nonzero constraints for subcomponent fractions as low as about 0.01%.

Load-bearing premise

The whole exclusion rests on assuming that, after masking, the surviving pixel charges are one clean, well-understood background plus detector readout noise, and that images failing this background description can be thrown away as noise rather than counted as possible dark-matter signals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a 0.4% subcomponent with an ultralight dark-photon mediator, the previously open high-cross-section region between about 1 MeV and 10 GeV is excluded at 95% confidence.
  • Some parameter space is constrained for subcomponent fractions as low as about 0.01%, so even a very small dark-matter subcomponent can perturb the pixel charge distribution of a space-based detector.
  • For subcomponent fractions above about 0.4%, cosmic-microwave-background bounds already cover much of this parameter space, making the JWST constraint most useful in the small-subcomponent gap where earlier limits vanish.
  • Applying the same analysis to the NRS1 detector or to additional dark-calibration frames would extend or sharpen the excluded region, since the method is limited by the number of well-fit exposures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test would be to apply the identical masks and likelihood to the rejected datasets alone; if they show a positive best-fit dark-matter cross section or an excess that follows the predicted signal shape, the reported exclusion could be biased by the selection of the well-fit images.
  • Because the boundary of the excluded region sits where the roughly 20 mm silicon-carbide shield becomes opaque, the constraint is sensitive to the assumed shield geometry; cross-checking against the NRS1 detector, which may have slightly different surroundings, could quantify that systematic.
  • The same shape-based logic could be extended to other strongly interacting dark-matter models, such as those with different form factors or mediators, simply by replacing the predicted electron-recoil spectrum inside the likelihood.
  • A future low-noise, minimally shielded space detector with single-electron counting should push this technique to much smaller subcomponent fractions and to even higher cross sections, because the limiting factor here is dark-current stability and readout noise rather than the number of dark-matter events.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses 30 JWST NIRSpec dark calibration images, applies custom masks to reject high-energy background events, and fits the pixel charge distribution with a background model of Poisson dark current smeared by two Gaussians. Fourteen datasets pass a background-only fit-quality cut, and a profile-likelihood analysis is used to set 95% CL upper limits on the DM-electron cross section for a fermion coupled to an ultralight dark photon. The authors report that for fχ=0.4% the previously unconstrained high-cross-section region between about 1 MeV and 10 GeV is disfavored, with reach to fχ~0.01% for some masses.

Significance. If the result is correct, it is a novel and important constraint on strongly interacting sub-GeV dark matter, using archival JWST calibration data and closing a window that ground-based detectors cannot reach because of atmospheric and crustal stopping. The paper is commendably transparent in several respects: the datasets are provided via a DOI, all 14 accepted background fits are shown, the statistical procedure is standard, and several choices are deliberately conservative (lower of the HgTe/CdTe rates, a factor-two reduction for an assumed impenetrable Mo shield). The central concern is that the exclusion is conditioned on a data-dependent selection step whose effect on the DM signal has not been tested; this must be addressed before the constraint can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, SM §VII] The selection of the 14 'good' datasets is made by fitting the background-only model to the same data that are then used to set the limit. A real DM signal would shift the pixel charge distribution toward larger Ne and, for fixed background, would tend to increase the background-only χ²_fit; the 16 rejected datasets are therefore not statistically independent of the DM hypothesis. The paper states in Section IV that the poor fits are 'likely due to an inadequate modeling of all noise sources,' but this is an assumption: no signal-injection or closure test is reported that shows that datasets containing a DM signal at the claimed 95% CL cross section would still pass the χ²_fit ≤ 121 cut and that the profile-likelihood procedure recovers the injected rate. Without such a test, the reported exclusion could be biased, and the 16 rejected datasets could contain the events the paper claims to exclude. In addition, the sentence 'We show the charge distributions and the background fit for the other 13 datasets in the SM' is numerically wrong (30 - 14 = 16), and the SM does not show the rejected fits, so the failure mode of the discarded datasets is not documented.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (1)] The DM signal model uses QEDark form factors for HgTe and CdTe, with the lower rate chosen per charge yield, while the exact HgCdTe form factor is deferred to a future publication [84]. Because the profile likelihood compares the shape of the predicted charge distribution with the data, not only the total rate, the Q-dependence of the form factor matters. The claim that taking the lower of the HgTe and CdTe rates is conservative needs justification for the alloy Hg0.7Cd0.3Te, whose rate need not be bounded by the endpoint-crystal rates. Please either provide the exact calculation or show that plausible form-factor variations move the 95% CL contour by less than the uncertainties in the shielding and background selection.
  3. [Section II, SM §I] The shielding model is essential for the high-cross-section reach, but it is based on a simplified geometry (20 mm SiC on most sides, 12 mm Mo treated as opaque, and an ad hoc factor-of-two flux reduction) and on a private communication [89]. No uncertainty on the shield thickness or composition is propagated into the limits. Since a thicker or denser shield would reduce the DM flux at the detector and weaken the exclusion, the paper should include a sensitivity study (e.g., varying the SiC thickness and the treatment of the Mo shield) and show the resulting change in the σe upper limit. This is particularly important because the cross-section boundary of the excluded region is set by the shield opacity.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section III] The phrase 'between HgCd and CdTe' appears to be a typo; it should be 'between HgTe and CdTe' (or 'HgCdTe') to match the preceding sentence. Please make the target-crystal nomenclature consistent throughout.
  2. [Figure 2 and Fig. 8] Please report the number of bins and degrees of freedom for the quoted χ²_fit and p-values, so that the reader can interpret the fit-quality cut χ²_fit ≤ 121 and the claimed p-values.
  3. [SM §III] Equation (9) treats each Ne bin as an independent Poisson variable; please state the bin width and clarify how the asymptotic chi-square approximation for qμ was validated over the full scan range, not just for the background-only case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DM signal model is external (QEDark, DaMaSCUS-CRUST) and the limit is a profile-likelihood scan; the 14-dataset selection is a statistical data-quality cut, not a reduction by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. The DM signal template is computed from external, independently developed codes: QEDark for the crystal form factor and DaMaSCUS-CRUST for shielding transport, plus stated model assumptions (ultralight dark photon, standard halo model, Lindhard screening). These inputs do not contain the JWST pixel-charge data and are not fitted to it. In Eq. (2) and the profile-likelihood construction of Sec. IV/SM Sec. III, the nuisance parameters (h, lambda_DC, sigma_1, sigma_2, r) are indeed fitted to the same pixel distributions that are later used to set the limit, but the limit itself is obtained by scanning the cross section sigma_e and using a one-sided test statistic; it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The selection of 14 of 30 datasets by chi2_fit <= 121 is a possible source of statistical bias, because a DM signal would skew the same charge distribution used for the background-only fit and could make signal-bearing datasets fail the cut. However, this is a selection/coverage effect, not a definitional circularity: the surviving data still provide a valid (if possibly conservative or miscalibrated) constraint under the stated background model, and the paper transparently displays the fits for the selected datasets. Several citations are to the authors' own prior work (e.g., QEDark, shielding models, Cherenkov-halo studies), but none functions as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or as an unverified ansatz that forces the central result; the key external benchmarks (QEDark, DaMaSCUS-CRUST, MAST data) are independently available. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external, well-validated inputs, and the circularity score is low. The dataset-selection concern belongs to statistical robustness rather than to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a background model, a signal model, and a set of instrument assumptions. The background nuisance parameters and mask thresholds are fitted or tuned to the same datasets used for the constraints, while the signal model relies on approximate form factors and shielding geometry.

free parameters (9)
  • Dark current mean λDC = 2.146 to 22.742 e− per dataset (e.g., 6.447 e− for jw01121008001)
    Fitted per dataset as the mean of the Poisson dark-current background; the central limit depends on this background level.
  • Readout noise widths σ1, σ2 and fraction r = σ1 ≈ 13.6-14.9 e−, σ2 ≈ 19.0-23.4 e−, r ≈ 0.71-0.89
    Two-Gaussian readout noise model fitted per dataset; governs the width of the charge distribution that the DM signal must overcome.
  • Normalization h = 0.998 to 1.000
    Overall normalization of the model distribution, fitted per dataset.
  • Jump mask threshold = 60 DN between frames
    Chosen by scanning cut values to remove high-energy events while preserving DM-like single-pixel charges.
  • Cluster and halo mask parameters = 70% or 40% flagged pixels in 128×128 mosaic; discard surrounding mosaics within radius 3 or 1
    Chosen by hand to remove spatial clusters and halos around high-energy events.
  • Edge mask width = 64 pixels (4 mosaics) around all edges
    Chosen because edge pixels are less stable.
  • Hot-column mask selection = Keep 60 of 120 mosaic columns with smallest summed charge in 20-400 DN range
    Chosen to remove residual correlated noise columns.
  • Brightness mask threshold = |yint| > 150 DN, plus 2-pixel radius patch
    Chosen to remove pixels with charge far above DM expectations.
  • Gain cut = Remove pixels with gain < 0.6 e−/DN
    Chosen to remove poorly calibrated pixels.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Standard halo model: DM velocity distribution is a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution truncated at the galactic escape velocity.
    Used to compute the incident DM flux at JWST (Section II).
  • domain assumption The crystal form factor for HgCdTe can be approximated by the lower rate between HgTe and CdTe computed with QEDark.
    The exact HgCdTe form factor is not yet available; the paper notes a more accurate calculation is in progress (ref [84]).
  • domain assumption Lindhard dielectric function with plasmon width Γ = 0.1Ee describes screening in HgCdTe.
    Used to suppress soft scatterings in Eq. (1); the screening factor changes the expected rate by O(1) (SM §II).
  • domain assumption NIRSpec detector shielding: ~20 mm SiC front/top/left/right, 12 mm Mo back treated as impenetrable, ≲25 mm SiC bottom; the Mo shield reduces the DM flux by a factor of two.
    The shielding model is based on private communication with the NIRSpec system engineer (ref [89]) and affects the expected signal at high cross sections.
  • domain assumption After masking, backgrounds are a single Poisson dark current convolved with two-Gaussian readout noise.
    The background model is fitted to each dataset; datasets that do not fit well are discarded (Section IV).
  • ad hoc to paper Datasets with χ²_fit > 121 (p-value ≤ 0.15) are contaminated by unmodeled noise rather than by DM signals.
    16 of 30 datasets are excluded from the constraint; if any of them contain DM events, the exclusion could be biased.
  • domain assumption The number of electron-hole pairs from an energy deposit Ee is Q(Ee) = 1 + floor((Ee - Egap)/εeh) with εeh ≈ 3Egap.
    Standard semiconductor yield model used to convert deposited energy to detected charges (Section II).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on Strongly-Interacting Dark Matter from the James Webb Space Telescope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGDRPHWJ

@misc{pith2026241213131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on Strongly-Interacting Dark Matter from the James Webb Space Telescope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGDRPHWJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13131}
}
abstract

Direct-detection searches for dark matter are insensitive to dark matter particles that have large interactions with ordinary matter, which are stopped in the atmosphere or the Earth's crust before reaching terrestrial detectors. We use ``dark'' calibration images taken with the HgCdTe detectors in the Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) on the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to derive novel constraints on sub-GeV dark matter candidates that scatter off electrons. We supplement the JWST analysis pipeline with additional masks to remove pixels with high-energy background events. For a 0.4% subcomponent of dark matter that interacts with an ultralight dark photon, we disfavor all previously allowed parameter space at high cross sections, and constrain some parameter regions for subcomponent fractions as low as $\sim$0.01%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13131 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The allowed parameter space for DM interacting with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Pixel charge distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The spectrum of the interaction rate (per pixel per ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The DM speed distribution after passing through a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the 95% CL constraints on DM-electron scattering from the JWST NIRSpec data for fractional DM abundances fχ = 0.1% (left) and fχ = 0.01% (mid￾dle). In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Pixel charge distributions and background fits for the 14 datasets used in our analysis to derive constraints. Each of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. DarkNESS: A skipper-CCD NanoSatellite for Dark Matter Searches

    astro-ph.IM 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A mission design paper describing how a skipper-CCD CubeSat in low Earth orbit could search for strongly interacting sub-GeV dark matter and decaying dark matter X-rays.

  2. Neutrino lines and photon continua from cascade dark matter decay

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In cascade dark-matter decay, neutrino-line searches can beat gamma-ray limits whenever the intermediate mediator is long-lived enough to suppress the photon flux.

  3. Dark Secrets of Baryons: Illuminating Dark Matter-Baryon Interactions with JWST

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    JWST ultraviolet luminosity function data currently provide the strongest upper limits on velocity-dependent (∝v^{-2}) dark matter–proton scattering for sub-GeV dark matter.

  4. Searching for Dark Matter with MeVCube

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Using Fisher forecasting, the author shows that a 2U to 12U MeVCube CubeSat could probe new dark matter parameter space for evaporating primordial black holes and MeV-scale decaying or annihilating dark matter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [84]

    C. E. Dreyer, R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, M. Hott, and A. Singal, (to appear)

  2. [89]

    These estimates of materials surrounding the NIRSpec detector were informed, in part, by private conversa- tions with the NIRSpec System Engineer, Maurice te Plate,

  3. [1]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D 85, 076007 (2012), arXiv:1108.5383 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [2]

    Tiffenberg, M

    J. Tiffenberg, M. Sofo-Haro, A. Drlica-Wagner, R. Es- sig, Y. Guardincerri, S. Holland, T. Volansky, and T.- T. Yu (SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 131802 (2017), arXiv:1706.00028 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [3]

    Crisler, R

    M. Crisler, R. Essig, J. Estrada, G. Fernandez, J. Tiff- enberg, M. Sofo haro, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu (SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 061803 (2018), arXiv:1804.00088 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [4]

    Agnese et al

    R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 051301 (2018), [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.122,no.6,069901(2019)], arXiv:1804.10697 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [5]

    Abramoff et al

    O. Abramoff et al. (SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 161801 (2019), arXiv:1901.10478 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [6]

    Aguilar-Arevalo et al

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (DAMIC), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 181802 (2019), arXiv:1907.12628 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 101 references
  1. [7]

    Barak et al.(SENSEI), Phys

    L. Barak et al.(SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 171802 (2020), arXiv:2004.11378 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Arnaud et al

    Q. Arnaud et al. (EDEL WEISS), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 141301 (2020), arXiv:2003.01046 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [9]

    D. W. Amaral et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. D 102, 091101 (2020), arXiv:2005.14067 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Arnquist et al.(DAMIC-M), SciPost Phys

    I. Arnquist et al.(DAMIC-M), SciPost Phys. Proc. , 014 (2023)

    2023

  5. [11]

    Z. Y. Zhang et al. (CDEX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 221301 (2022), arXiv:2206.04128 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Essig et al

    R. Essig et al. , in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08297 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Arnquist et al

    I. Arnquist et al. (DAMIC-M), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 171003 (2023), arXiv:2302.02372 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Arnquist et al

    I. Arnquist et al. (DAMIC-M), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 101006 (2024), arXiv:2307.07251 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Adari et al

    P. Adari et al. (SENSEI), (2023), arXiv:2312.13342 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [16]

    M. F. Albakry et al. (SuperCDMS), (2024), arXiv:2407.08085 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [17]

    G. D. Starkman, A. Gould, R. Esmailzadeh, and S. Di- mopoulos, Phys. Rev. D41, 3594 (1990)

    1990

  12. [18]

    Zaharijas and G

    G. Zaharijas and G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. D72, 083502 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0406531 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Emken, R

    T. Emken, R. Essig, C. Kouvaris, and M. Sholapurkar, JCAP 09, 070 (2019), arXiv:1905.06348 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [20]

    X.-l. Chen, S. Hannestad, and R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. D65, 123515 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0202496 [astro-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Dvorkin, K

    C. Dvorkin, K. Blum, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D89, 023519 (2014), arXiv:1311.2937 [astro- ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Gluscevic and K

    V. Gluscevic and K. K. Boddy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 081301 (2018), arXiv:1712.07133 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [23]

    S. D. McDermott, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D83, 063509 (2011), arXiv:1011.2907 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  18. [24]

    T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D93, 023527 (2016), arXiv:1506.03811 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [25]

    A. D. Dolgov, S. L. Dubovsky, G. I. Rubtsov, and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D88, 117701 (2013), arXiv:1310.2376 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [26]

    S. L. Dubovsky, D. S. Gorbunov, and G. I. Rubtsov, JETP Lett. 79, 1 (2004), [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.79,3(2004)], arXiv:hep-ph/0311189 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  21. [27]

    W. L. Xu, C. Dvorkin, and A. Chael, Phys. Rev. D97, 103530 (2018), arXiv:1802.06788 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, J

    Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, J. Chluba, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 071304 (2015), arXiv:1506.04745 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [29]

    K. K. Boddy, V. Gluscevic, V. Poulin, E. D. Kovetz, M. Kamionkowski, and R. Barkana, Phys. Rev. D 98, 123506 (2018), arXiv:1808.00001 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Vogel and J

    H. Vogel and J. Redondo, JCAP 1402, 029 (2014), arXiv:1311.2600 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Davidson, S

    S. Davidson, S. Hannestad, and G. Raffelt, JHEP 05, 003 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0001179 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Creque-Sarbinowski, L

    C. Creque-Sarbinowski, L. Ji, E. D. Kovetz, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 100, 023528 (2019), arXiv:1903.09154 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Boehm, M

    C. Boehm, M. J. Dolan, and C. McCabe, JCAP 1308, 041 (2013), arXiv:1303.6270 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Bhoonah, J

    A. Bhoonah, J. Bramante, F. Elahi, and S. Schon, Phys. Rev. D100, 023001 (2019), arXiv:1812.10919 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [35]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP 09, 051 (2018), arXiv:1803.00993 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [36]

    A. A. Prinz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1175 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9804008 [hep-ex]

    1998 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Magill, R

    G. Magill, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov, and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 071801 (2019), arXiv:1806.03310 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (ArgoNeuT), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 131801 (2020), arXiv:1911.07996 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Harnik, R

    R. Harnik, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov, and H. Ramani, Phys. Rev. D 103, 075029 (2021), arXiv:2010.11190 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Plestid, V

    R. Plestid, V. Takhistov, Y.-D. Tsai, T. Bringmann, A. Kusenko, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D 102, 115032 (2020), arXiv:2002.11732 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [41]

    A. Ball, G. Beauregard, J. Brooke, C. Campagnari, M. Carrigan, M. Citron, J. De La Haye, A. De Roeck, Y. Elskens, R. E. Franco, M. Ezeldine, B. Francis, M. Gastal, M. Ghimire, J. Goldstein, F. Golf, J. Guiang, A. Haas, R. Heller, C. S. Hill, L. Lavezzo, R. Loos, S. Lowette, G....

    2020

  36. [42]

    Barak et al.(SENSEI), Phys

    L. Barak et al.(SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 071801 (2024), arXiv:2305.04964 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [43]

    J. B. Mu˜ noz and A. Loeb, Nature 557, 684 (2018), arXiv:1802.10094 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [44]

    H. Liu, N. J. Outmezguine, D. Redigolo, and T. Volan- sky, Phys. Rev. D100, 123011 (2019), arXiv:1908.06986 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [45]

    J. Rich, R. Rocchia, and M. Spiro, New and Exotic Phenomena. Proceedings, 7th Moriond Workshop, Les Arcs, France, January 24-31, 1987, Phys. Lett. B194, 173 (1987), [,221(1987)]

    1987

  40. [46]

    M. S. Mahdawi and G. R. Farrar, JCAP 1810, 007 (2018), arXiv:1804.03073 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Prabhu and C

    A. Prabhu and C. Blanco, Phys. Rev. D 108, 035035 (2023), arXiv:2211.05787 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [48]

    M. A. Buen-Abad, R. Essig, D. McKeen, and Y.-M. Zhong, Phys. Rept. 961, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.12377 12 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [49]

    D. V. Nguyen, D. Sarnaaik, K. K. Boddy, E. O. Nadler, and V. Gluscevic, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103521 (2021), arXiv:2107.12380 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [50]

    K. J. Kelly and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D 100, 015043 (2019), arXiv:1812.03998 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [51]

    S. N. Gninenko, D. V. Kirpichnikov, and N. V. Krasnikov, Phys. Rev. D 100, 035003 (2019), arXiv:1810.06856 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Foroughi-Abari, F

    S. Foroughi-Abari, F. Kling, and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D 104, 035014 (2021), arXiv:2010.07941 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Perez et al

    S. Perez et al. (Oscura), JHEP 02, 072 (2024), arXiv:2304.08625 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [54]

    de Montigny, P.-P

    M. de Montigny, P.-P. A. Ouimet, J. Pinfold, A. Shaa, and M. Staelens, (2023), arXiv:2307.07855 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Kalliokoski, V

    M. Kalliokoski, V. A. Mitsou, M. de Montigny, A. Mukhopadhyay, P.-P. A. Ouimet, J. Pinfold, A. Shaa, and M. Staelens, JHEP 04, 137 (2024), arXiv:2311.02185 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Y.-D. Tsai, I. Hwang, R. Schmitz, M. Citron, K. Gun- thoti, J. Steenis, H. Jeong, H. Moon, J. H. Yoo, and M. X. Liu, (2024), arXiv:2407.07142 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [57]

    Pospelov and H

    M. Pospelov and H. Ramani, Phys. Rev. D 103, 115031 (2021), arXiv:2012.03957 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Budker, P

    D. Budker, P. W. Graham, H. Ramani, F. Schmidt- Kaler, C. Smorra, and S. Ulmer, PRX Quantum 3, 010330 (2022), arXiv:2108.05283 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [59]

    Berlin, H

    A. Berlin, H. Liu, M. Pospelov, and H. Ramani, Phys. Rev. D 105, 095028 (2022), arXiv:2110.06217 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [60]

    J. H. Kim, I. S. Hwang, and J. H. Yoo, JHEP 05, 031 (2021), arXiv:2102.11493 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [61]

    Kling, J.-L

    F. Kling, J.-L. Kuo, S. Trojanowski, and Y.-D. Tsai, Nucl. Phys. B 987, 116103 (2023), arXiv:2205.09137 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [62]

    McKeen, M

    D. McKeen, M. Moore, D. E. Morrissey, M. Pospelov, and H. Ramani, Phys. Rev. D 106, 035011 (2022), arXiv:2202.08840 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [63]

    Berlin, H

    A. Berlin, H. Liu, M. Pospelov, and H. Ramani, Phys. Rev. D 109, 075027 (2024), arXiv:2302.06619 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [64]

    McKeen, D

    D. McKeen, D. E. Morrissey, M. Pospelov, H. Ra- mani, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 011005 (2023), arXiv:2303.03416 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [65]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ray, JCAP 01, 029 (2024), arXiv:2309.10032 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [66]

    Y. Ema, M. Pospelov, and A. Ray, JHEP 07, 094 (2024), arXiv:2402.03431 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [67]

    Snowden-Ifft, S

    D. Snowden-Ifft, S. Barwick, and P. Price, The Astro- physical Journal 364, L25 (1990)

    1990

  62. [68]

    D. P. Snowden-Ifft, S. W. Barwick, and P. B. Price, Astrophysical Journal Letters 364, L25 (1990)

    1990

  63. [69]

    B. D. Wandelt, R. Dave, G. R. Farrar, P. C. McGuire, D. N. Spergel, and P. J. Steinhardt, in 4th Interna- tional Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter in the Universe (DM 2000)(2000) pp. 263–274, arXiv:astro-ph/0006344

    2000 arXiv

  64. [70]

    A. L. Erickcek, P. J. Steinhardt, D. McCammon, and P. C. McGuire, Phys. Rev. D76, 042007 (2007), arXiv:0704.0794 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  65. [71]

    J. S. Adams et al., J. Low Temp. Phys.199, 1072 (2020), arXiv:1908.09010 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  66. [72]

    Saffold, P

    N. Saffold, P. M. Alpine, R. Essig, J. Estrada, T. Kim, D. Kubik, and M. F. Lembeck, PoS T AUP2023, 062 (2024)

    2024

  67. [73]

    Holdom, Phys

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

    1986

  68. [74]

    Galison and A

    P. Galison and A. Manohar, Phys. Lett. 136B, 279 (1984)

    1984

  69. [75]

    Essig, M

    R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP 05, 046 (2016), arXiv:1509.01598 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  70. [76]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, N. Kurinsky, B. V. Lehmann, T. C. Yu, and K. K. Berggren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151802 (2021), arXiv:2101.08263 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [77]

    Knapen, J

    S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 104, 015031 (2021), arXiv:2101.08275 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  72. [78]

    Knapen, J

    S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 105, 015014 (2022), arXiv:2104.12786 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  73. [79]

    S. M. Griffin, K. Inzani, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095015 (2021), arXiv:2105.05253 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [80]

    Kahn and T

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

    2022 arXiv

  75. [81]

    Trickle, Phys

    T. Trickle, Phys. Rev. D 107, 035035 (2023), arXiv:2210.14917 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [82]

    C. E. Dreyer, R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, A. Sin- gal, and C. Zhen, Phys. Rev. D 109, 115008 (2024), arXiv:2306.14944 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [83]

    QEDark,

    “ QEDark,” https://github.com/tientienyu/QEdark

  78. [85]

    Dressel and G

    M. Dressel and G. Gr¨ uner, Electrodynamics of Solids: Optical Properties of Electrons in Matter(Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  79. [86]

    Baxter et al., Eur

    D. Baxter et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 907 (2021), arXiv:2105.00599 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Jakobsen, P

    P. Jakobsen, P. Ferruit, C. Alves de Oliveira, S. Ar- ribas, G. Bagnasco, R. Barho, T. Beck, S. Birk- mann, T. B¨ oker, A. Bunker, S. Charlot, P. de Jong, G. de Marchi, R. Ehrenwinkler, M. Falcolini, R. Fels, M. Franx, D. Franz, M. Funke, G. Giardino, X. Gnata, W. Holota, K. H...

    2022

  81. [88]

    S. M. Birkmann, G. Giardino, M. Sirianni, P. Fer- ruit, B. J. Rauscher, C. Alves de Oliveira, T. B¨ oker, N. Kumari, N. L¨ utzgendorf, E. Manjavacas, C. Prof- fitt, T. Rawle, M. te Plate, and P. Zeidler, Proc SPIE 12180, 101 (2022)

    2022

  82. [90]

    DaMaSCUS- CRUST v1.1, [ascl:1803.001] Available at https://github.com/temken/ and archived under [DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2846401],

    T. Emken and C. Kouvaris, “DaMaSCUS- CRUST v1.1, [ascl:1803.001] Available at https://github.com/temken/ and archived under [DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2846401],” (2018-2019)

    2018 doi

  83. [91]

    Emken and C

    T. Emken and C. Kouvaris, Phys. Rev. D97, 115047 (2018), arXiv:1802.04764 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Barbara A. Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes,

    “Barbara A. Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes,” https://mast.stsci.edu/portal/Mashup/Clients/ 13 Mast/Portal.html

  85. [93]

    stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-spectrograph/ nirspec-instrumentation/nirspec-detectors/ nirspec-detector-performance ,

    JWST User Documentation: https://jwst-docs. stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-spectrograph/ nirspec-instrumentation/nirspec-detectors/ nirspec-detector-performance ,

  86. [94]

    JWST Calibration Pipeline,

    H. Bushouse, J. Eisenhamer, N. Dencheva, J. Davies, P. Greenfield, J. Morrison, P. Hodge, B. Simon, D. Grumm, M. Droettboom, E. Slavich, M. Sosey, T. Pauly, T. Miller, R. Jedrzejewski, W. Hack, D. Davis, S. Crawford, D. Law, K. Gordon, M. Regan, M. Cara, K. MacDonald, L. Bradl...

    2023

  87. [95]

    B. J. Rauscher, R. G. Arendt, D. J. Fixsen, M. A. Greenhouse, M. Lander, D. Lindler, M. Loose, S. H. Moseley, D. B. Mott, Y. Wen, D. V. Wilson, and C. Xenophontos, Publications of the Astronomical So- ciety of the Pacific 129, 105003 (2017)

    2017

  88. [96]

    stsci.edu/depreciated-jdox-articles/ data-artifacts-and-features/ snowballs-and-shower-artifacts ,

    JWST User Documentation: https://jwst-docs. stsci.edu/depreciated-jdox-articles/ data-artifacts-and-features/ snowballs-and-shower-artifacts ,

  89. [97]

    Barak, I

    L. Barak, I. M. Bloch, M. Cababie, G. Cancelo, L. Chap- linsky, F. Chierchie, M. Crisler, A. Drlica-Wagner, R. Essig, J. Estrada, E. Etzion, G. F. Moroni, D. Gift, S. Munagavalasa, A. Orly, D. Rodrigues, A. Singal, M. S. Haro, L. Stefanazzi, J. Tiffenberg, S. Uemura, T. Volans...

    2020

  90. [98]

    P. Du, D. Egana-Ugrinovic, R. Essig, and M. Shola- purkar, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011009 (2022)

    2022

  91. [99]

    P. Du, D. Ega˜ na Ugrinovic, R. Essig, and M. Shola- purkar, JHEP 01, 164 (2024), arXiv:2310.03068 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Ball et al

    A. Ball et al. , Phys. Rev. D 102, 032002 (2020), arXiv:2005.06518 [hep-ex]

    2020

  93. [101]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.