Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 129 references

Information-theoretic astrophysical uncertainties in the effective theory of dark matter direct detection

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Direct-detection limits can vary by up to four orders of magnitude from halo-velocity uncertainty, depending on the dark matter interaction operator.

desk verdict Useful systematic extension of KL-bounded halo uncertainties to the full NR EFT basis, but the optimization lacks a velocity support bound, so the quoted orders of magnitude are not well-defined as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.05332 v2 pith:R2PTOWG6 submitted 2026-01-08 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-ex

Gonzalo Herrera This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-ex
keywords darkmatterdirectdetectionnon-relativisticeffectivefieldtheoryKullback-LeiblerdivergencehalovelocitydistributionastrophysicaluncertaintiesmomentsWIMP-nucleonscatteringconvexoptimization
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 asks how much the unknown velocity distribution of galactic dark matter can change the upper limits experiments set on dark matter–nucleon scattering, for every operator in the non-relativistic effective theory. It finds that the impact is highly operator-dependent: simple spin-independent or spin-dependent operators (O1, O4) give limits that move by only about an order of magnitude even for entropically large deviations from the standard halo model, while operators that scale with higher powers of the dark matter velocity or with momentum-suppressed nuclear responses (O5, O7, O8, O14, O15) can move by two to four orders of magnitude near the experimental threshold. The analysis is parameter-free: it bounds the Kullback–Leibler divergence between the true halo distribution and the Maxwell–Boltzmann benchmark, then optimizes the event rate under that bound. The paper also shows that each operator effectively probes a specific truncated raw moment of the speed distribution—mean-like, variance-like, or skewness-like—which explains the hierarchy and tells experimenters which features of the halo matter for which model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the Kullback–Leibler divergence between the true dark-matter speed distribution and the Maxwell–Boltzmann benchmark, used as a budget in a convex optimization: minimize and maximize the scattering rate subject to D_KL ≤ K and normalization. Solving this for each operator yields the range of 90% C.L. limits compatible with any velocity distribution within K bits of the standard halo. The analytic handle is the decomposition of each operator's rate into truncated velocity-weighted integrals ∫_{v_min}^∞ v^n f(v) dv, whose combination mirrors the conditional mean, variance, and skewness of the distribution above threshold. This moment mapping turns the numerical hierarch

What would settle it

Compute the KL divergence between the Maxwell–Boltzmann benchmark and a representative suite of galactic dark-matter speed distributions inferred from simulations and stellar kinematics; if any plausible distribution has D_KL > 0.1, or if a distribution with D_KL < 0.1 yields a v^3-weighted rate integral outside the paper's optimized band by more than a factor of a few, then the uncertainty hierarchy understates the true astrophysical spread.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a KL-divergence budget of D_KL ≤ 0.1 (or 1) around the Maxwell–Boltzmann halo, the author computes, for all 15 Galilean-invariant NR operators, the most conservative and most aggressive 90% C.L. limits on the dark-matter–nucleon coupling from current direct-detection data. The central result is a clear hierarchy: operators whose rates are dominated by the first velocity moment, O1 and O4, are robust to astrophysical unknowns (factors of a few to ~10), whereas operators dominated by v^2 or v^3 weightings or by momentum-suppressed nuclear responses—O5, O7, O8, O14, O15—show uncertainties up to two, three, or even four orders of magnitude near the threshold. This hierarchy is explained by

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that all physically plausible galactic halo speed distributions lie within a KL divergence of 0.1 (or 1) from the Maxwell–Boltzmann benchmark, so that the quoted uncertainty ranges are valid; a true distribution with a small but fast-moving component could have a much smaller KL yet strongly alter the high-velocity moments that dominate operators like O5 or O14, underestimating the uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For operators O1 and O4, whose rates track the first velocity moment, limits computed under the Standard Halo Model remain valid to within about an order of magnitude, so their exclusion regions are essentially robust to astrophysical unknowns.
  • For operators O5, O7, O8, O14, and O15, near-threshold limits can weaken by two to four orders of magnitude when the halo is allowed to deviate within the KL budget; any exclusion claim with these operators is strongly halo-dependent.
  • Operators that share the same velocity and momentum dependence show nearly identical ratios of optimized to SHM limits, indicating the hierarchy is governed by the operator's moment index rather than by target or experiment.
  • For dark matter masses above roughly 20 GeV, all operators converge to a common modest uncertainty factor (about 3 for one experiment and 10 for another at D_KL=0.1), because the threshold velocity is low and the rate samples the bulk of the distribution.
  • The KL-constrained framework can be applied without parametric halo assumptions to re-interpret any current or future direct-detection dataset, including in the neutrino-floor regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the local speed distribution's high-velocity tail were measured more precisely, the hierarchy predicts that operators O5, O8, O14, and O15 would benefit most; conversely, resources spent refining the bulk distribution would mostly affect the already-robust O1/O4 limits.
  • The quoted uncertainties are upper bounds for galactically bounded distributions because the KL ball also contains artificial distributions; adding physical constraints (e.g., a hard escape velocity or smoothness) inside the optimization would likely shrink the ranges.
  • The same KL-constrained moment optimization transfers directly to other observables that are functionals of an unknown distribution, such as the solar neutrino floor, cosmic-ray fluxes, or gravitational capture of dark matter in the Sun.
  • Repeating the optimization at smaller KL budgets (e.g., 0.01) would test whether the ordering of operators by sensitivity persists or whether some operators become robust faster than others; the paper reports only D_KL=0.1 and 1.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the KL-divergence-based method of Herrera & Rappelt (2024) to the full non-relativistic EFT basis for dark matter–nucleon scattering, studying XENONnT and PICO-60. For each operator, it solves a convex optimization over the local dark matter velocity distribution subject to D_KL(f_MB||f) ≤ K and normalization, obtaining 'most conservative' and 'most aggressive' 90% C.L. upper limits. It reports a clear hierarchy: O1 and O4 are relatively robust, while velocity- and momentum-suppressed operators such as O5, O7, O8, O14, and O15 can show two-to-three (or even four) orders of magnitude uncertainty near threshold. The paper also maps the rate integrals onto truncated velocity moments, providing an intuitive explanation of the hierarchy.

Significance. If the numerical results were well-posed, the paper would be a useful systematic extension of a recent method: it is the first KL-based, model-independent quantification of astrophysical uncertainties across the entire NR EFT operator basis, with a transparent moment interpretation. The qualitative hierarchy is physically sensible, and the method is in principle more flexible than traditional halo-independent analyses. However, as detailed below, the optimization problem is not well-posed as stated because the velocity support of f is unbounded, and the quoted numerical uncertainty factors rely on an unstated discretization cutoff. The paper's central quantitative claim (the 2–3 order-of-magnitude hierarchy) therefore needs a redefinition and re-derivation of the optimization domain before it can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (10)–(13), Figs. 1–3] The optimization problem is not well-posed. Eq. (10) defines D_KL(f_MB || f), and f_MB is a Maxwellian truncated at v_esc (Eqs. (2)–(3)). Since f_MB(v)=0 for v>v_esc, the KL integrand vanishes there; the constraint (12) does not restrict the support of f above v_esc. For any v_L>v_esc and any ε≤1−e^{−K}, the normalized mixture f=(1−ε)f_MB+ε δ(v−v_L) satisfies D_KL(f_MB||f)=−log(1−ε)≤K and ∫f=1, yet ∫ v^n f ≥ ε v_L^n diverges as v_L→∞. Hence the 'max' in Eq. (11) is unbounded for every operator whose rate has a velocity weight n≥1 (which includes O1, O3, O5, O8, O14, etc.). The finite 'most aggressive' curves in the figures must therefore be artifacts of an unstated upper-velocity cutoff in the WimPyDD/CVXPY implementation. The authors must specify and justify the admissible velocity support (e.g., f=0 for v>v_esc, or an explicit v_max) and show the sensitivity of the quoted factors to th
  2. [Sec. 3, Figs. 1–2] The numerical upper limits cannot be reproduced because the statistical procedure is not specified. The paper quotes 90% C.L. upper limits on σ_DM−p in cm^2, but gives no likelihood, no observed event count, no background model, no exposure, no energy window, and no efficiency curves for XENONnT or PICO-60. The reference to 'an adapted version of WimPyDD' is insufficient. Please provide the exact experimental inputs and the limit-setting method (e.g., Poisson counting with the observed and expected background), and ideally compare the O1 SHM result with the published XENONnT limit for calibration.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (10)] The interpretation of the KL direction is stated backwards. The text says the KL divergence 'quantifies the amount of information lost when fMB is used to approximate the true velocity distribution f', but Eq. (10) is D_KL(f_MB || f) = ∫ f_MB log(f_MB/f), which measures the information lost when f is used to approximate f_MB (or, equivalently, the expected log-likelihood ratio under f_MB). This matters in a methodological paper because the chosen direction is asymmetric and affects which distributions are strongly penalized. Please correct the wording and explicitly note that the forward KL heavily penalizes f with suppressed support where f_MB is sizable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and garbled renderings: 'suh as' (Sec. 3), 'angular averaded' (Appendix A), 'we show Further, we also plot' (Sec. 3), square-root symbols in Eqs. (1) and (16) appearing as 'q', and mis-rendered table headers in Table 2. These should be corrected in a revision.
  2. [Eq. (17)] The inner momentum integral in Eq. (17) is written as ∫_0^∞ dq q F(v,q), but the kinematically allowed q-range depends on v and v_min (and on the nuclear response). The expression is schematic; please specify the integration limits or state that it is a formal representation.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (15), (19)] The claim that rates are proportional to ∫ v^n f(v) is only heuristic: the (v^⊥)^2 decomposition in Eq. (14) introduces v_min-dependent subtractions, and the nuclear form factors do not factor out of the q-integral. The authors acknowledge this in Appendix A, but the main text should be more careful to avoid presenting these expressions as exact rate formulas.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 3] The statement 'without assuming any specific functional form for the velocity distribution' is overstated: the method assumes the true distribution lies within a KL ball around a specified truncated Maxwell-Boltzmann benchmark with fixed parameters. This is acknowledged later, but the abstract could be misleading.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The operator hierarchy is genuinely moment-driven and benchmarked against external simulations, but the absolute uncertainty factors are inherited from the author's own KL budget (Ref. [103]) and the 'most conservative' limits as stated have no velocity-support bound, so the quantitative predictions are partly constructed from unstated inputs.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, Eqs. (11)-(12) and paragraph 'We choose maximally-allowed values...']
    "We choose maximally-allowed values of the KL-divergence motivated by calculations of the dark matter velocity distribution (galactically-bounded only) from simulations and observations [51, 52, 119–121]. In Ref. [103] it was found that DKL = 0.1 is an adequate phenomenological choice to encompass a variety of physically plausible (galactically-bounded only) dark matter distributions."

    All quoted uncertainty magnitudes ('up to two or three orders of magnitude', 'approaching four orders of magnitude') are evaluated at K = DKL = 0.1 and 1. The paper does not derive or recalibrate this budget here; it imports it from Ref. [103], whose first author is the same as the present paper. The hierarchy between operators does not depend on K, but the numerical scale of every reported uncertainty does, so the quantitative central claims rest on a load-bearing self-citation rather than on evidence established in this work.

  2. other [Section 3, Eqs. (11)-(13) and Figures 1-3]
    "We then solve the following optimization problem for the experiment E, with free variables the Wilson coefficients of the effective theory ⃗c and velocity distribution f(⃗v): N E opt ≡min/max f(v) h N E f(v)(c) i ,(11) subject to DKL(fMB(v), f(v))≤K,(12) and Z f(v)d3v=1,(13) using convex optimization techniques, and the code CVXPY[122]."

    The displayed constraints contain no f(v)=0 for v>v_esc and no other upper-velocity bound. For a mixture f=(1−ε)fMB+εδ(v−v0) with v0 beyond the MB support, Eq. (10) gives DKL≈−log(1−ε)≈ε, so the distribution is inside the K=0.1 ball, while the O5-type rate in Eq. (19), ∫v^3f, grows as εv0^3 without bound. The finite 'most conservative' curves in Figs. 1-3 therefore cannot be the solution of the stated optimization problem; they are determined by an unstated numerical grid boundary in WimPyDD/CVXPY. The quantitative uncertainty factors shown are thus constructed from that hidden boundary rather than from the KL constraint alone.

full rationale

The central qualitative hierarchy is not circular: it follows from the explicit velocity/momentum structure of the NR EFT response functions and is checked against external simulation distributions (Aquarius, SHM++, Eagle, S1-stream), which are independent evidence. The optimization over f is a genuine convex problem. However, the quantitative claims are only partly self-contained: (i) the KL budget K = 0.1 and 1, which sets the scale of every 'order of magnitude' statement, is inherited from the same author's prior Ref. [103]; and (ii) the 'most conservative' maximum is mathematically unbounded under the written constraints because no velocity cutoff is imposed, so the finite numbers must come from the private grid choice. Both are reductions of the headline numbers to inputs that are neither derived nor disclosed. If the code's velocity grid/support were stated and physically justified, (ii) would become a stated assumption rather than a circularity; as written the quantitative claims are partly constructed.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numbers rest on one genuinely free knob (K=0.1/1) plus the adopted SHM reference parameters and the standard EFT/nuclear-response framework. No new particles or forces are introduced. The 'velocity moments' are re-descriptions of rate integrals, not new entities.

free parameters (2)
  • KL budget K (D_KL bound) = 0.1 and 1
    Hand-set 'phenomenological choice' from Ref. [103] to cover galactically-bounded halos; it sets the volume of the distribution ball and therefore the magnitude of the quoted uncertainties.
  • Reference Maxwell-Boltzmann halo parameters (sigma_v, v_esc, v_c, Solar motion, rho_chi) = sigma_v~156 km/s, v_esc~544 km/s, v_c~220 km/s, v_sun=(11.1,12.24,7.25) km/s, rho_chi=0.3 GeV/cm^3
    Adopted from Refs. [106-113]; not varied in this paper. The KL divergence and the SHM limits are measured against this fixed reference, so its uncertainties propagate into the results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 15-operator NR EFT basis (Table 1) is complete for DM spin <= 1/2 and covers the interactions considered.
    Section 2, Eq. (6); standard framework of Refs. [114,115]. Limits are only as general as the basis.
  • domain assumption Nuclear response functions W_Nk(y) and form factors from Anand/Fitzpatrick/Haxton and Kang et al. are accurate for xenon and fluorine targets.
    Section 2, Eq. (8), Table 2; the calculation inherits nuclear-structure uncertainties, which the paper defers to future work.
  • ad hoc to paper D_KL <= K with K=0.1 (and 1) defines the set of physically plausible halo velocity distributions.
    Section 3: 'adequate phenomenological choice' motivated by galactically-bounded simulations/observations, following Ref. [103]. This is the load-bearing modeling choice; all magnitudes are conditional on it.
  • domain assumption The experimental data are background-like and the 90% C.L. upper limits follow from standard Poisson statistics implemented in the adapted WimPyDD code.
    Section 3: no likelihood or background formula is given; reproducibility depends on WimPyDD and the original experimental papers.
  • domain assumption Event rates can be classified by a single truncated velocity moment ∫ v^n f(v) for each operator.
    Eqs. (15)-(19) and Appendix A: the classification drops q-dependent form-factor structure and mixed R0/R1 terms; the paper labels it 'schematic'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Information-theoretic astrophysical uncertainties in the effective theory of dark matter direct detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R2PTOWG6

@misc{pith2026260105332,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Information-theoretic astrophysical uncertainties in the effective theory of dark matter direct detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R2PTOWG6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.05332}
}
read the original abstract

The impact of astrophysical uncertainties in direct detection searches can vary significantly across particle dark matter models and detector targets, due to the different velocity and momentum dependencies of the scattering cross section. We address these uncertainties for all operators of the non-relativistic effective field theory of dark matter-nucleon interactions, making use of the Kullback-Leibler (KL) information divergence to measure the deviation of the true dark matter velocity distribution from the Maxwell-Boltzmann form. This approach quantifies how astrophysical uncertainties affect each operator in the effective theory, without assuming any specific functional form for the velocity distribution. While for some operators the uncertainties are smaller than one order of magnitude for entropically-motivated deviations from the Maxwell-Boltzmann form, for other operators these uncertainties can be as large as three orders of magnitude near threshold. Furthermore, we identify the dependence of the scattering rate for various operators of the effective theory with different velocity-weighted moments of the velocity distribution, functionally analogous to the mean, variance, or skewness. This provides new analytic insight into which features of the velocity distribution are most relevant to detect a given particle dark matter model. Our technique is general and could be applied to a broader class of physics problems where a physical observable depends on the statistical moments of an uncertain theoretical distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.05332 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 90% C.L upper limits on the dark matter-nucleon coupling from XENONnT, for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 90% C.L upper limits on the dark matter-nucleon coupling from PICO60, for different values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ratio of limits on the cross section in the SHM vs the KL-informed minima. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Supersymmetry, Cosmology and New TeV Physics

    Heinz Pagels and Joel R. Primack. “Supersymmetry, Cosmology and New TeV Physics”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982), p. 223.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.223

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.48.223 1982

  2. [2]

    Supersymmetric Relics from the Big Bang

    John R. Ellis et al. “Supersymmetric Relics from the Big Bang”. In:Nucl. Phys. B 238 (1984). Ed. by M. A. Srednicki, pp. 453–476.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90461-9

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90461-9 1984

  3. [3]

    Supersymmetric dark matter

    Gerard Jungman, Marc Kamionkowski, and Kim Griest. “Supersymmetric dark matter”. In: Phys. Rept. 267 (1996), pp. 195–373.doi:10 . 1016 / 0370 - 1573(95 ) 00058 - 5. arXiv:hep - ph/9506380

    arXiv 1996

  4. [4]

    Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints

    Gianfranco Bertone, Dan Hooper, and Joseph Silk. “Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints”. In:Phys. Rept. 405 (2005), pp. 279–390.doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08 2005

  5. [5]

    The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints

    Giorgio Arcadi et al. “The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints”. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 78.3 (2018), p. 203.doi:10 . 1140 / epjc / s10052 - 018 - 5662 - y. arXiv: 1703.07364 [hep-ph]. 15

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Dark Matter

    Marco Cirelli, Alessandro Strumia, and Jure Zupan. “Dark Matter”. In: (June 2024). arXiv: 2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates

    Mark W. Goodman and Edward Witten. “Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates”. In: Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985). Ed. by M. A. Srednicki, p. 3059.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.31.3059

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.31.3059 1985

  8. [8]

    Detecting Cold Dark Matter Candidates

    A. K. Drukier, Katherine Freese, and D. N. Spergel. “Detecting Cold Dark Matter Candidates”. In: Phys. Rev. D 33 (1986), pp. 3495–3508.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.33.3495

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.33.3495 1986

Show all 129 references
  1. [9]

    Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Mat- ter

    Rouven Essig, Jeremy Mardon, and Tomer Volansky. “Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Mat- ter”. In: Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012), p. 076007.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 85 . 076007. arXiv: 1108.5383 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Direct Detection of WIMP Dark Matter: Concepts and Status

    Marc Schumann. “Direct Detection of WIMP Dark Matter: Concepts and Status”. In:J. Phys. G 46.10 (2019), p. 103003.doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab2ea5. arXiv:1903.03026 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Directdetectionofdarkmatter—APPECcommitteereport*

    JulienBillardetal.“Directdetectionofdarkmatter—APPECcommitteereport*”.In: Rept. Prog. Phys. 85.5 (2022), p. 056201.doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac5754. arXiv:2104.07634 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark mat- ter direct detection in the next decade

    Rouven Essig et al. “Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark mat- ter direct detection in the next decade”. In:Snowmass 2021. Mar. 2022. arXiv:2203 . 08297 [hep-ph]

    2021

  5. [13]

    Testing Thermal-Relic Dark Matter with a Dark Photon Mediator

    Gordan Krnjaic. “Testing Thermal-Relic Dark Matter with a Dark Photon Mediator”. In: (May 2025). arXiv:2505.04626 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Sub-GeV Dark Matter Under Pressure from Direct Detection

    Andrew Cheek et al. “Sub-GeV Dark Matter Under Pressure from Direct Detection”. In: (July 2025). arXiv:2507.15956 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    GeV-scale thermal dark matter from dark photons: tightly con- strained, yet allowed

    D. Alonso-González et al. “GeV-scale thermal dark matter from dark photons: tightly con- strained, yet allowed”. In: (July 2025). arXiv:2507.11376 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Light thermal dark matter models in the light of DAMIC-M 2025 con- straints

    Debasish Borah et al. “Light thermal dark matter models in the light of DAMIC-M 2025 con- straints”. In: (Sept. 2025). arXiv:2509.16319 [hep-ph]

    2025

  9. [17]

    SENSEI: Direct-Detection Results on sub-GeV Dark Matter from a New Skipper-CCD

    Liron Barak et al. “SENSEI: Direct-Detection Results on sub-GeV Dark Matter from a New Skipper-CCD”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett. 125.17 (2020), p. 171802.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125. 171802. arXiv:2004.11378 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Probing Benchmark Models of Hidden-Sector Dark Matter with DAMIC- M

    K. Aggarwal et al. “Probing Benchmark Models of Hidden-Sector Dark Matter with DAMIC- M”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett. 135.7 (2025), p. 071002.doi:10.1103/2tcc-bqck. arXiv:2503.14617 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Passive Low-Energy Nuclear-Recoil Detection with Color Centers

    Bernadette K. Cogswell, Apurva Goel, and Patrick Huber. “Passive Low-Energy Nuclear-Recoil Detection with Color Centers”. In:Phys. Rev. Applied 16.6 (2021), p. 064060.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevApplied.16.064060. arXiv:2104.13926 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Nuclear recoil detection with color centers in bulk lithium fluoride

    Gabriela A. Araujo et al. “Nuclear recoil detection with color centers in bulk lithium fluoride”. In: (Mar. 2025). arXiv:2503.20732 [nucl-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    First Sub-MeV Dark Matter Search with the QROCODILE Experiment Using Superconducting Nanowire Single-Photon Detectors

    Laura Baudis et al. “First Sub-MeV Dark Matter Search with the QROCODILE Experiment Using Superconducting Nanowire Single-Photon Detectors”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett. 135.8 (2025), p. 081002.doi:10.1103/4hb6-f6jl. arXiv:2412.16279 [hep-ph]

    2025

  14. [22]

    Results from the first cryogenic NaI detector for the COSINUS project

    G. Angloher et al. “Results from the first cryogenic NaI detector for the COSINUS project”. In: JINST 12.11 (2017), P11007.doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/11/P11007. arXiv:1705.11028 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Defect Formation in NaI Crystals: A Novel Pathway to Dark Matter Detec- tion

    G. Angloher et al. “Defect Formation in NaI Crystals: A Novel Pathway to Dark Matter Detec- tion”. In: (Dec. 2025). arXiv:2512.23553 [hep-ph]. 16

    2025

  16. [24]

    Non-relativistic effective theory of dark matter direct detection

    JiJi Fan, Matthew Reece, and Lian-Tao Wang. “Non-relativistic effective theory of dark matter direct detection”. In:JCAP 11 (2010), p. 042.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/11/042. arXiv: 1008.1591 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Tools for model-independent bounds in direct dark matter searches

    Marco Cirelli, Eugenio Del Nobile, and Paolo Panci. “Tools for model-independent bounds in direct dark matter searches”. In:JCAP 10 (2013), p. 019.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/10/

    2013 doi

  18. [27]

    Global limits and interference patterns in dark matter direct detection

    Riccardo Catena and Paolo Gondolo. “Global limits and interference patterns in dark matter direct detection”. In:JCAP 08 (2015), p. 022.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/08/022. arXiv: 1504.06554 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [28]

    arXiv:1307.5955 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  20. [29]

    Complementarity of experiments in probing the non-relativistic effective theory of dark matter-nucleon interactions

    Anja Brenner et al. “Complementarity of experiments in probing the non-relativistic effective theory of dark matter-nucleon interactions”. In:JCAP 06.06 (2022), p. 026.doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2022/06/026. arXiv:2203.04210 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Effective theory of nuclear scattering for a WIMP of arbitrary spin

    Paolo Gondolo et al. “Effective theory of nuclear scattering for a WIMP of arbitrary spin”. In: Phys. Rev. D 104.6 (2021), p. 063017.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063017. arXiv:2008.05120 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [31]

    arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    arXiv

  23. [32]

    A global fit of non-relativistic effective dark matter operators including solar neutrinos

    Neal P. Avis Kozar, Pat Scott, and Aaron C. Vincent. “A global fit of non-relativistic effective dark matter operators including solar neutrinos”. In:JCAP 02 (2025), p. 007.doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2025/02/007. arXiv:2310.15392 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Isospin-violating dark matter at liquid noble detectors: new constraints, future projections, and an exploration of target complemen- tarity

    Andrew Cheek, Darren D. Price, and Ellen M. Sandford. “Isospin-violating dark matter at liquid noble detectors: new constraints, future projections, and an exploration of target complemen- tarity”. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 83.10 (2023), p. 914.doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 023- 11826- y...

    2023 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Uncertainties on the EFT coupling limits for direct dark matter de- tection experiments stemming from uncertainties of target properties

    Daniel J. Heimsoth et al. “Uncertainties on the EFT coupling limits for direct dark matter de- tection experiments stemming from uncertainties of target properties”. In:Phys. Rev. D 108.10 (2023), p. 103031.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103031. arXiv:2305.08991 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Constraints from the neutron EDM on subleading effec- tive operators for direct Dark Matter searches

    Manuel Drees and Rahul Mehra. “Constraints from the neutron EDM on subleading effec- tive operators for direct Dark Matter searches”. In:JHEP 07 (2024), p. 218.doi:10.1007/ JHEP07(2024)218. arXiv:2403.02083 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Bayesian technique to combine independently-trained machine-learning models applied to direct dark matter detection

    David Cerdeno, Martin de los Rios, and Andres D. Perez. “Bayesian technique to combine independently-trained machine-learning models applied to direct dark matter detection”. In: JCAP 01 (2025), p. 038.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/038. arXiv:2407.21008 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [37]

    First constraints on WIMP-nucleon effective field theory couplings in an extended energy region from LUX-ZEPLIN

    J. Aalbers et al. “First constraints on WIMP-nucleon effective field theory couplings in an extended energy region from LUX-ZEPLIN”. In:Phys. Rev. D 109.9 (2024), p. 092003.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.092003. arXiv:2312.02030 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Constraints on dark matter-nucleon effective couplings in the presence of kinematically distinct halo substructures using the DEAP-3600 detector

    P. Adhikari et al. “Constraints on dark matter-nucleon effective couplings in the presence of kinematically distinct halo substructures using the DEAP-3600 detector”. In: Phys. Rev. D 102.8 (2020). [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 105, 029901 (2022)], p. 082001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 102.0...

    2020 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Effective field theory interactions for liquid argon target in DarkSide-50 exper- iment

    P. Agnes et al. “Effective field theory interactions for liquid argon target in DarkSide-50 exper- iment”. In:Phys. Rev. D 101.6 (2020), p. 062002.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.062002. arXiv: 2002.07794 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Limits on Dark Matter Effective Field Theory Parameters with CRESST- II

    G. Angloher et al. “Limits on Dark Matter Effective Field Theory Parameters with CRESST- II”. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 79.1 (2019), p. 43.doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 018- 6523- 4. arXiv: 1809.03753 [hep-ph]. 17

    2019 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Effective field theory and inelastic dark matter results from XENON1T

    E. Aprile et al. “Effective field theory and inelastic dark matter results from XENON1T”. In: Phys. Rev. D 109.11 (2024), p. 112017.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.112017. arXiv:2210. 07591 [hep-ex]

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    Results on photon-mediated dark-matter–nucleus interactions from the PICO-60 C3F8 bubble chamber

    B. Ali et al. “Results on photon-mediated dark-matter–nucleus interactions from the PICO-60 C3F8 bubble chamber”. In:Phys. Rev. D 106.4 (2022), p. 042004.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 106.042004. arXiv:2204.10340 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Dark matter effective field theory scattering in direct detection experiments

    K. Schneck et al. “Dark matter effective field theory scattering in direct detection experiments”. In: Phys. Rev. D 91.9 (2015), p. 092004.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.092004. arXiv:1503. 03379 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 doi

  35. [44]

    A combined analysis of PandaX, LUX, and XENON1T experiments within the framework of dark matter effective theory

    Zuowei Liu et al. “A combined analysis of PandaX, LUX, and XENON1T experiments within the framework of dark matter effective theory”. In:JHEP 11 (2017), p. 024.doi:10.1007/ JHEP11(2017)024. arXiv:1708.04630 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Snowmass White Paper: Effective Field Theories for Dark Matter Phenomenology

    Matthew Baumgart et al. “Snowmass White Paper: Effective Field Theories for Dark Matter Phenomenology”. In: (Mar. 2022). arXiv:2203.08204 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Simplified Spin Dependence in Dark Matter Direct Detection

    Pierce Giffin et al. “Simplified Spin Dependence in Dark Matter Direct Detection”. In: (Nov. 2025). arXiv:2511.10764 [hep-ph]

    2025

  38. [47]

    Atomic responses to general dark matter-electron interactions

    Riccardo Catena et al. “Atomic responses to general dark matter-electron interactions”. In: Phys. Rev. Res. 2.3 (2020). [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Res. 7, 019001 (2025)], p. 033195.doi:10 . 1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033195. arXiv:1912.08204 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [48]

    EFT Approach of Inelastic Dark Matter for Xenon Electron Recoil Detection

    Hong-Jian He, Yu-Chen Wang, and Jiaming Zheng. “EFT Approach of Inelastic Dark Matter for Xenon Electron Recoil Detection”. In:JCAP 01 (2021), p. 042.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2021/01/042. arXiv:2007.04963 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Crystal responses to general dark matter-electron interactions

    Riccardo Catena et al. “Crystal responses to general dark matter-electron interactions”. In: Phys. Rev. Res. 3.3 (2021), p. 033149.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevResearch . 3 . 033149. arXiv: 2105.02233 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Spin-dependent sub-GeV inelastic dark matter-electron scattering and Migdal effect. Part I. Velocity independent operator

    Jiwei Li et al. “Spin-dependent sub-GeV inelastic dark matter-electron scattering and Migdal effect. Part I. Velocity independent operator”. In:JCAP 04 (2023), p. 020.doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2023/04/020. arXiv:2210.15474 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Direct detection of light dark matter charged under a Lµ-Lτsymmetry

    Pablo Figueroa, Gonzalo Herrera, and Fredy Ochoa. “Direct detection of light dark matter charged under a Lµ-Lτsymmetry”. In: Phys. Rev. D 110.9 (2024), p. 095018.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.110.095018. arXiv:2404.03090 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [52]

    The Non-Relativistic Effective Field The- ory Of Dark Matter-Electron Interactions

    Gordan Krnjaic, Duncan Rocha, and Tanner Trickle. “The Non-Relativistic Effective Field The- ory Of Dark Matter-Electron Interactions”. In: (July 2024). arXiv:2407.14598 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Refinement of the standard halo model for dark matter searches in light of the Gaia Sausage

    N. Wyn Evans, Ciaran A. J. O’Hare, and Christopher McCabe. “Refinement of the standard halo model for dark matter searches in light of the Gaia Sausage”. In:Phys. Rev. D 99.2 (2019), p. 023012.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.023012. arXiv:1810.11468 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Dark matter hurricane: Measuring the S1 stream with dark matter detectors

    Ciaran A. J. O’Hare et al. “Dark matter hurricane: Measuring the S1 stream with dark matter detectors”. In: Phys. Rev. D 98.10 (2018), p. 103006.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 98 . 103006. arXiv:1807.09004 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [55]

    The impact of the Large Magellanic Cloud on dark matter direct detection signals

    Adam Smith-Orlik et al. “The impact of the Large Magellanic Cloud on dark matter direct detection signals”. In:JCAP 10 (2023), p. 070.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/070. arXiv: 2302.04281 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [56]

    The Large Magellanic Cloud: expanding the low-mass parameter space of dark matter direct detection

    Javier Reynoso-Cordova, Nassim Bozorgnia, and Marie-Cécile Piro. “The Large Magellanic Cloud: expanding the low-mass parameter space of dark matter direct detection”. In:JCAP 12 (2024), p. 037.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/037. arXiv:2409.09119 [hep-ph]. 18

    2024 arXiv

  48. [57]

    High Mass Dark Matter Searches With the High Speed Flux From the Large Magellanic Cloud

    Nassim Bozorgnia, Joseph Bramante, and Andrew Buchanan. “High Mass Dark Matter Searches With the High Speed Flux From the Large Magellanic Cloud”. In: (Nov. 2025). arXiv:2511. 21841 [hep-ph]

    2025

  49. [58]

    Extragalactic dark matter and direct detection experiments

    A. N. Baushev. “Extragalactic dark matter and direct detection experiments”. In:Astrophys. J. 771 (2013), p. 117.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/117. arXiv:1208.0392 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Flux of Extragalactic Dark Matter in Direct Detection Experiments

    Shokhruz Kakharov and Abraham Loeb. “Flux of Extragalactic Dark Matter in Direct Detection Experiments”. In: (July 2025). arXiv:2507.01190 [hep-ph]

    2025

  51. [60]

    Direct detection of non-galactic light dark matter

    Gonzalo Herrera and Alejandro Ibarra. “Direct detection of non-galactic light dark matter”. In: Phys. Lett. B 820 (2021), p. 136551.doi:10 . 1016 / j . physletb . 2021 . 136551. arXiv: 2104.04445 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Enhanced prospects for direct detection of inelastic dark matter from a non-galactic diffuse component

    Gonzalo Herrera, Alejandro Ibarra, and Satoshi Shirai. “Enhanced prospects for direct detection of inelastic dark matter from a non-galactic diffuse component”. In:JCAP 04 (2023), p. 026. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/026. arXiv:2301.00870 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Implications of non-galactic dark matter for sub-GeV direct detection searches

    Gonzalo Herrera and Alejandro Ibarra. “Implications of non-galactic dark matter for sub-GeV direct detection searches”. In:J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2156 (2021), p. 012040.doi:10.1088/1742- 6596/2156/1/012040

    2021 doi

  54. [63]

    Implication of neutrino backgrounds on the reach of next generation dark matter direct detection experiments

    J. Billard, L. Strigari, and E. Figueroa-Feliciano. “Implication of neutrino backgrounds on the reach of next generation dark matter direct detection experiments”. In:Phys. Rev. D 89.2 (2014), p. 023524.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.023524. arXiv:1307.5458 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Physics from solar neutrinos in dark matter direct detection ex- periments

    David G. Cerdeño et al. “Physics from solar neutrinos in dark matter direct detection ex- periments”. In: JHEP 05 (2016). [Erratum: JHEP 09, 048 (2016)], p. 118.doi:10 . 1007 / JHEP09(2016)048. arXiv:1604.01025 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Non-standard interactions of solar neutrinos in dark matter experiments

    Bhaskar Dutta et al. “Non-standard interactions of solar neutrinos in dark matter experiments”. In: Phys. Lett. B 773 (2017), pp. 242–246.doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.08.031. arXiv: 1705.00661 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Neutrino non-standard interactions and dark matter searches with multi-ton scale detectors

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, N. Rojas, and M. H. G. Tytgat. “Neutrino non-standard interactions and dark matter searches with multi-ton scale detectors”. In:JHEP 03 (2018), p. 197.doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2018)197. arXiv:1712.09667 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [67]

    How high is the neutrino floor?

    C. Bœhm et al. “How high is the neutrino floor?” In:JCAP 01 (2019), p. 043.doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2019/01/043. arXiv:1809.06385 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Migdal effect and photon bremsstrahlung in effective field theories of dark matter direct detection and coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering

    Nicole F. Bell et al. “Migdal effect and photon bremsstrahlung in effective field theories of dark matter direct detection and coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering”. In:Phys. Rev. D 101.1 (2020), p. 015012.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.015012. arXiv:1905.00046 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [69]

    A neutrino floor for the Migdal effect

    Gonzalo Herrera. “A neutrino floor for the Migdal effect”. In: JHEP 05 (2024), p. 288.doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2024)288. arXiv:2311.17719 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Neutrinofogfordarkmatter-electronscatteringexperiments

    BenCarewetal.“Neutrinofogfordarkmatter-electronscatteringexperiments”.In: Phys. Rev. D 109.8 (2024), p. 083016.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.083016. arXiv:2312.04303 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Neutrinos as background and signal in searches using the Migdal effect

    Tarak Nath Maity. “Neutrinos as background and signal in searches using the Migdal effect”. In: Phys. Rev. D 111.12 (2025), p. 123020.doi:10.1103/h3th-6wsr. arXiv:2412.17649 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Probing active-sterile neutrino transition magnetic moment on coherent elastic solar neutrino-nucleus scattering

    Mehmet Demirci and M. Fauzi Mustamin. “Probing active-sterile neutrino transition magnetic moment on coherent elastic solar neutrino-nucleus scattering”. In:Eur. Phys. J. C 85.1 (2025), p. 1.doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13679-5. arXiv:2412.03140 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Clarity through the neutrino fog: constraining new forces in dark matter detectors

    Pablo Blanco-Mas et al. “Clarity through the neutrino fog: constraining new forces in dark matter detectors”. In:JHEP 08 (2025), p. 043.doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2025)043. arXiv:2411. 14206 [hep-ph]. 19

    2025 doi

  65. [74]

    Neutrino roof: Single-scatter cross section ceilings in dark matter direct detection experiments

    Nirmal Raj and Biprajit Mondal. “Neutrino roof: Single-scatter cross section ceilings in dark matter direct detection experiments”. In:Phys. Rev. D 110.9 (2024), p. 095023.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.110.095023. arXiv:2406.17015 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Dark matter, CEνNS and neutrino new physics scrutinized by a statistical method in Xenon-based experiments

    Jian Tang and Bing-Long Zhang. “Dark matter, CEνNS and neutrino new physics scrutinized by a statistical method in Xenon-based experiments”. In:JHEP 12 (2024), p. 074.doi:10. 1007/JHEP12(2024)074. arXiv:2403.05819 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Bounds on new neu- trino interactions from the first CEνNS data at direct detection experiments

    Valentina De Romeri, Dimitrios K. Papoulias, and Christoph A. Ternes. “Bounds on new neu- trino interactions from the first CEνNS data at direct detection experiments”. In:JCAP 05 (2025), p. 012.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/05/012. arXiv:2411.11749 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Nuclear and electron scattering by neutrinos and dark matter in condensed systems

    James B. Dent et al. “Nuclear and electron scattering by neutrinos and dark matter in condensed systems”. In: (Oct. 2025). arXiv:2510.06574 [hep-ph]

    2025

  69. [78]

    Probing New Physics from Neutrinos at Dark Matter Direct Detection Ex- periments

    Gonzalo Herrera. “Probing New Physics from Neutrinos at Dark Matter Direct Detection Ex- periments”. In:25th International Workshop on Neutrinos from Accelerators. Jan. 2025. arXiv: 2501.10867 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Integrating Out Astrophysical Uncertainties

    Patrick J. Fox, Jia Liu, and Neal Weiner. “Integrating Out Astrophysical Uncertainties”. In: Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), p. 103514.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.103514. arXiv:1011.1915 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Interpreting Dark Matter Direct Detec- tion Independently of the Local Velocity and Density Distribution

    Patrick J. Fox, Graham D. Kribs, and Tim M. P. Tait. “Interpreting Dark Matter Direct Detec- tion Independently of the Local Velocity and Density Distribution”. In:Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), p. 034007.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.034007. arXiv:1011.1910 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Halo independent comparison of direct dark matter detection data

    Paolo Gondolo and Graciela B. Gelmini. “Halo independent comparison of direct dark matter detection data”. In:JCAP 12 (2012), p. 015.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/12/015. arXiv: 1202.6359 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Astrophysics independent bounds on the annual modulation of dark matter signals

    Juan Herrero-Garcia, Thomas Schwetz, and Jure Zupan. “Astrophysics independent bounds on the annual modulation of dark matter signals”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012), p. 141301.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.141301. arXiv:1205.0134 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Halo-independent analysis of direct detection data for light WIMPs

    Eugenio Del Nobile et al. “Halo-independent analysis of direct detection data for light WIMPs”. In: JCAP 10 (2013), p. 026.doi:10 . 1088 / 1475 - 7516 / 2013 / 10 / 026. arXiv:1304 . 6183 [hep-ph]

    2013

  75. [84]

    The unbearable lightness of being: CDMS versus XENON

    Mads T. Frandsen et al. “The unbearable lightness of being: CDMS versus XENON”. In:JCAP 07 (2013), p. 023.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/07/023. arXiv:1304.6066 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  76. [85]

    What is the probability that direct detection ex- periments have observed Dark Matter?

    Nassim Bozorgnia and Thomas Schwetz. “What is the probability that direct detection ex- periments have observed Dark Matter?” In:JCAP 12 (2014), p. 015.doi:10 . 1088 / 1475 - 7516/2014/12/015. arXiv:1410.6160 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  77. [86]

    A new halo-independent approach to dark matter direct detection analysis

    Brian Feldstein and Felix Kahlhoefer. “A new halo-independent approach to dark matter direct detection analysis”. In:JCAP 08 (2014), p. 065.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/08/065. arXiv: 1403.4606 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  78. [87]

    A halo-independent lower bound on the dark matter capture rate in the Sun from a direct detection signal

    Mattias Blennow, Juan Herrero-Garcia, and Thomas Schwetz. “A halo-independent lower bound on the dark matter capture rate in the Sun from a direct detection signal”. In:JCAP 05 (2015), p. 036.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/05/036. arXiv:1502.03342 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Halo-Independent Direct Detection Analyses Without Mass Assump- tions

    Adam J. Anderson et al. “Halo-Independent Direct Detection Analyses Without Mass Assump- tions”. In:JCAP 10 (2015), p. 012.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/10/012. arXiv:1504.03333 [hep-ph]. 20

    2015 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Assessing Compatibility of Direct Detection Data: Halo-Independent Global Likelihood Analyses

    Graciela B. Gelmini, Ji-Haeng Huh, and Samuel J. Witte. “Assessing Compatibility of Direct Detection Data: Halo-Independent Global Likelihood Analyses”. In:JCAP 10 (2016), p. 029. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/029. arXiv:1607.02445 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Studying generalised dark matter interactions with ex- tended halo-independent methods

    Felix Kahlhoefer and Sebastian Wild. “Studying generalised dark matter interactions with ex- tended halo-independent methods”. In:JCAP 10 (2016), p. 032.doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/ 2016/10/032. arXiv:1607.04418 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Halo-independent comparison of direct detection experiments in the effective theory of dark matter-nucleon interactions

    Riccardo Catena et al. “Halo-independent comparison of direct detection experiments in the effective theory of dark matter-nucleon interactions”. In:JCAP 07 (2018), p. 028.doi:10 . 1088/1475-7516/2018/07/028. arXiv:1801.08466 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  83. [93]

    Halo-Independent Analysis of Direct Dark Matter Detection Through Electron Scattering

    Muping Chen, Graciela B. Gelmini, and Volodymyr Takhistov. “Halo-Independent Analysis of Direct Dark Matter Detection Through Electron Scattering”. In: (May 2021). arXiv:2105.08101 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  84. [94]

    Halo-Independent Dark Matter Electron Scattering Analysis with In-Medium Effects

    Muping Chen, Graciela B. Gelmini, and Volodymyr Takhistov. “Halo-Independent Dark Matter Electron Scattering Analysis with In-Medium Effects”. In: (Sept. 2022). arXiv:2209 . 10902 [hep-ph]

    2022

  85. [95]

    Halo-independentboundsonthenon-relativistic effective theory of WIMP-nucleon scattering from direct detection and neutrino observations

    SunghyunKang,ArpanKar,andStefanoScopel.“Halo-independentboundsonthenon-relativistic effective theory of WIMP-nucleon scattering from direct detection and neutrino observations”. In: JCAP 03 (2023), p. 011.doi:10 . 1088 / 1475 - 7516 / 2023 / 03 / 011. arXiv:2212 . 05774 [hep-ph]

    2023

  86. [96]

    Halo-independent bounds on Inelastic Dark Matter

    Sunghyun Kang, Arpan Kar, and Stefano Scopel. “Halo-independent bounds on Inelastic Dark Matter”. In: JCAP 11 (2023), p. 077.doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2023/11/077. arXiv:2308. 13203 [hep-ph]

    2023 doi

  87. [97]

    Extracting Halo Independent Information from Dark Matter Electron Scattering Data

    Elias Bernreuther et al. “Extracting Halo Independent Information from Dark Matter Electron Scattering Data”. In: (Nov. 2023). arXiv:2311.04957 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  88. [98]

    Wavelet-Harmonic Integration Methods

    Benjamin Lillard. “Wavelet-Harmonic Integration Methods”. In: (Oct. 2023). arXiv:2310.01483 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  89. [99]

    Vector Space Integration for Dark Matter Scattering

    Benjamin Lillard. “Vector Space Integration for Dark Matter Scattering”. In: (Oct. 2023). arXiv: 2310.01480 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  90. [100]

    Dark matter substructures affect dark matter-electron scattering in xenon-based direct detection experiments

    Tarak Nath Maity and Ranjan Laha. “Dark matter substructures affect dark matter-electron scattering in xenon-based direct detection experiments”. In:JHEP 02 (2023), p. 200.doi:10. 1007/JHEP02(2023)200. arXiv:2208.14471 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  91. [101]

    Dark Matter Velocity Distributions for Direct Detection: Astrophysical Uncertainties Are Smaller Than They Appear

    Dylan Folsom et al. “Dark Matter Velocity Distributions for Direct Detection: Astrophysical Uncertainties Are Smaller Than They Appear”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett. 135.21 (2025), p. 211004. doi:10.1103/wmpq-mw4h. arXiv:2505.07924 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  92. [102]

    The DREAMS Project: Disentangling the Impact of Halo-to-Halo Variance and Baryonic Feedback on Milky Way Dark Matter Speed Distributions

    Ethan Lilie et al. “The DREAMS Project: Disentangling the Impact of Halo-to-Halo Variance and Baryonic Feedback on Milky Way Dark Matter Speed Distributions”. In: (Dec. 2025). arXiv: 2512.04157 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025

  93. [103]

    Generalized Halo Independent Comparison of Direct Dark Matter Detection Data

    Eugenio Del Nobile et al. “Generalized Halo Independent Comparison of Direct Dark Matter Detection Data”. In:JCAP 10 (2013), p. 048.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/10/048. arXiv: 1306.5273 [hep-ph]. 21

    2013 arXiv

  94. [104]

    Sensitivity of WIMP bounds on the velocity distribution in the limit of a massless mediator

    Koun Choi et al. “Sensitivity of WIMP bounds on the velocity distribution in the limit of a massless mediator”. In:JCAP 01 (2025), p. 007.doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/007. arXiv: 2408.09658 [hep-ph]

    2025

  95. [105]

    Information divergences to parametrize astrophysical uncertainties in dark matter direct detection

    Gonzalo Herrera and Andreas Rappelt. “Information divergences to parametrize astrophysical uncertainties in dark matter direct detection”. In: (Mar. 2024). arXiv:2403.04959 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  96. [106]

    First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experi- ment

    E. Aprile et al. “First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experi- ment”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett. 131.4 (2023), p. 041003.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041003. arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  97. [107]

    Dark Matter Search Results from the Complete Exposure of the PICO-60 C3F8 Bubble Chamber

    C. Amole et al. “Dark Matter Search Results from the Complete Exposure of the PICO-60 C3F8 Bubble Chamber”. In:Phys. Rev. D 100.2 (2019), p. 022001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 100.022001. arXiv:1902.04031 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  98. [108]

    The Local Dark Matter Density

    J. I. Read. “The Local Dark Matter Density”. In: J. Phys. G 41 (2014), p. 063101.doi:10. 1088/0954-3899/41/6/063101. arXiv:1404.1938 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  99. [109]

    Reviewofgalacticconstants

    F.J.KerrandDonaldLynden-Bell.“Reviewofgalacticconstants”.In: Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 221 (1986), p. 1023

    1986

  100. [110]

    Astrophysicaluncertaintiesondirectdetectionexperiments

    AnneM.Green.“Astrophysicaluncertaintiesondirectdetectionexperiments”.In: Mod. Phys. Lett. A27 (2012), p. 1230004.doi:10.1142/S0217732312300042. arXiv:1112.0524 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  101. [111]

    The RAVE Survey: Constraining the Local Galactic Escape Speed

    Martin C. Smith et al. “The RAVE Survey: Constraining the Local Galactic Escape Speed”. In: Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 379 (2007), pp. 755–772.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007. 11964.x. arXiv:astro-ph/0611671 [astro-ph]

    2007

  102. [112]

    The RAVE survey: the Galactic escape speed and the mass of the Milky Way

    Til Piffl et al. “The RAVE survey: the Galactic escape speed and the mass of the Milky Way”. In: Astron. Astrophys. 562 (2014), A91.doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322531. arXiv:1309.4293 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  103. [113]

    Substructure at High Speed. II. The Local Escape Velocity and Milky Way Mass with Gaia eDR3

    Lina Necib and Tongyan Lin. “Substructure at High Speed. II. The Local Escape Velocity and Milky Way Mass with Gaia eDR3”. In:Astrophys. J. 926.2 (2022), p. 189.doi:10.3847/1538- 4357/ac4244. arXiv:2102.02211 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  104. [114]

    Substructure at High Speed. I. Inferring the Escape Velocity in the Presence of Kinematic Substructure

    Lina Necib and Tongyan Lin. “Substructure at High Speed. I. Inferring the Escape Velocity in the Presence of Kinematic Substructure”. In:Astrophys. J. 926.2 (2022), p. 188.doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac4243. arXiv:2102.01704 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  105. [115]

    Local kinematics and the local standard of rest

    Ralph Schönrich, James Binney, and Walter Dehnen. “Local kinematics and the local standard of rest”. In: MNRAS 403.4 (Apr. 2010), pp. 1829–1833.doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2010. 16253.x. arXiv:0912.3693 [astro-ph.GA]

    2010

  106. [116]

    The Effective Field Theory of Dark Matter Direct Detection

    A. Liam Fitzpatrick et al. “The Effective Field Theory of Dark Matter Direct Detection”. In: JCAP 1302 (2013), p. 004.doi:10. 1088/1475- 7516 /2013/02/ 004. arXiv:1203.3542 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  107. [117]

    Weakly interacting massive particle- nucleus elastic scattering response

    Nikhil Anand, A. Liam Fitzpatrick, and W. C. Haxton. “Weakly interacting massive particle- nucleus elastic scattering response”. In:Phys. Rev. C89.6 (2014), p. 065501.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevC.89.065501. arXiv:1308.6288 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  108. [118]

    Present and projected sensitivities of Dark Matter direct detection experiments to effective WIMP-nucleus couplings

    Sunghyun Kang et al. “Present and projected sensitivities of Dark Matter direct detection experiments to effective WIMP-nucleus couplings”. In:Astropart. Phys. 109 (2019), pp. 50–68. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2019.02.006. arXiv:1805.06113 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  109. [119]

    On Information and Sufficiency

    S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler. “On Information and Sufficiency”. In:Ann. Math. Statist. 22.1 (1951), pp. 79–86. 22

    1951

  110. [120]

    Precise interpretations of traditional fine-tuning mea- sures

    Andrew Fowlie and Gonzalo Herrera. “Precise interpretations of traditional fine-tuning mea- sures”. In:Phys. Rev. D 111.1 (2025), p. 015020.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.015020. arXiv: 2406.03533 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  111. [121]

    Phase-space structure in the local dark matter distribution and its signature in direct detection experiments

    Mark Vogelsberger et al. “Phase-space structure in the local dark matter distribution and its signature in direct detection experiments”. In:Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 395 (2009), pp. 797– 811.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14630.x. arXiv:0812.0362 [astro-ph]

    2009

  112. [122]

    Inferred Evidence For Dark Matter Kinematic Substructure with SDSS-Gaia

    Lina Necib, Mariangela Lisanti, and Vasily Belokurov. “Inferred Evidence For Dark Matter Kinematic Substructure with SDSS-Gaia”. In: (July 2018).doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab095b. arXiv:1807.02519 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  113. [123]

    The EAGLE project: Simulating the evolution and assembly of galaxies and their environments

    Joop Schaye et al. “The EAGLE project: Simulating the evolution and assembly of galaxies and their environments”. In:Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 446 (2015), pp. 521–554.doi:10.1093/ mnras/stu2058. arXiv:1407.7040 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  114. [124]

    CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization

    Steven Diamond and Stephen Boyd. “CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization”. In:Journal of Machine Learning Research 17.83 (2016), pp. 1–5

    2016

  115. [125]

    WimPyDD: An object–oriented Python code for the calculation of WIMP direct detection signals

    Injun Jeong et al. “WimPyDD: An object–oriented Python code for the calculation of WIMP direct detection signals”. In:Comput. Phys. Commun. 276 (2022), p. 108342.doi:10.1016/j. cpc.2022.108342. arXiv:2106.06207 [hep-ph]

    2022

  116. [126]

    WimPyC:anextensionmoduleofWimPyDD for the calculation of WIMP capture in celestial bodies

    SunghyunKang,StefanoScopel,andGauravTomar.“WimPyC:anextensionmoduleofWimPyDD for the calculation of WIMP capture in celestial bodies”. In: (Oct. 2025). arXiv:2510.21185 [hep-ph]

    2025

  117. [127]

    On dark matter models with uniquely spin-dependent detec- tion possibilities

    Marat Freytsis and Zoltan Ligeti. “On dark matter models with uniquely spin-dependent detec- tion possibilities”. In:Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), p. 115009.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.115009. arXiv:1012.5317 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  118. [128]

    Direct and indirect limits on the electromagnetic form-factors of WIMPs

    Maxim Pospelov and Tonnis ter Veldhuis. “Direct and indirect limits on the electromagnetic form-factors of WIMPs”. In: Phys. Lett. B 480 (2000), pp. 181–186.doi:10 . 1016 / S0370 - 2693(00)00358-0. arXiv:hep-ph/0003010

    2000 arXiv

  119. [129]

    Dark Moments and the DAMA-CoGeNT Puzzle

    A. Liam Fitzpatrick and Kathryn M. Zurek. “Dark Moments and the DAMA-CoGeNT Puzzle”. In: Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010), p. 075004.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.075004. arXiv:1007.5325 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  120. [130]

    CancellationMechanismforDark-Matter–Nucleon Interaction

    ChristianGross,OlegLebedev,andTakashiToma.“CancellationMechanismforDark-Matter–Nucleon Interaction”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett. 119.19 (2017), p. 191801.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119. 191801. arXiv:1708.02253 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  121. [131]

    Effective Field Theory for Dark Matter Direct Detection up to Dimen- sion Seven

    Joachim Brod et al. “Effective Field Theory for Dark Matter Direct Detection up to Dimen- sion Seven”. In: JHEP 10 (2018). [Erratum: JHEP 07, 012 (2023)], p. 065.doi:10 . 1007 / JHEP10(2018)065. arXiv:1710.10218 [hep-ph]. 23

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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