Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A congruous approach with realistic cross section towards limiting sub-GeV dark matter from LUX-ZEPLIN

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that cosmic-ray-boosted dark matter, analyzed with realistic energy-dependent cross sections, lets LUX-ZEPLIN exclude keV-scale dark matter at cross sections near 10^-40 cm^2 rather than the ~10^-33 cm^2 implied by constan

desk verdict Solid recast of LZ CRBDM limits; the reader's main worry about the heavy-mediator conversion vanishes once you compute q^2 correctly. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02301 v1 pith:RHH2VNPD submitted 2025-09-02 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Atanu Guha , Jong-Chul Park This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE
keywords cosmic-rayboosteddarkmattersub-GeVLUX-ZEPLINphotonU(1)_{B-L}nuclearrecoilenergy-dependentcrosssectionEarthshielding
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 argues that the usual shortcut in cosmic-ray-boosted dark matter searches—treating the dark-matter–nucleon cross section as a constant—does not adequately represent what LUX-ZEPLIN data can say about sub-GeV dark matter. Working through two concrete models, a secluded dark photon and a U(1)_{B-L} gauge boson, the authors insert realistic, energy-dependent cross sections into the boosted flux, the LZ nuclear-recoil event rate, and the Earth-crust attenuation calculation. Their headline result is quantitative: at a dark-matter mass of 1 keV and a mediator mass of 1 GeV, the lower bound on the spin-independent cross section moves from about 4x10^-33 cm^2 (constant cross section) to about 6.4x10^-40 cm^2 (dark photon) or 2.5x10^-40 cm^2 (U(1)_{B-L}). If correct, this means sub-GeV dark matter of the kind described is already excluded by LZ over a much wider parameter region than constant-cross-section analyses implied, and energy dependence is not a minor refinement but the dominant effect. The same framework also sets an upper bound from Earth shielding, comparable in both scenarios.

What carries the argument

The carrying device is the energy-dependent differential scattering cross section, whose mediator propagator makes the limits depend on recoil energy. It is fed into the cosmic-ray-boosted flux built from electron, proton, and helium cosmic-ray fluxes, and into the LZ event-rate integral with the LZ efficiency and energy window. The Earth-crust attenuation formula converts energy loss into an upper bound on the coupling. Finally, a heavy-mediator conversion formula, which the paper labels valid only in that regime, turns the coupling bound into the quoted spin-independent cross-section limit.

What would settle it

Recompute the exclusion limit for m_chi = 1 keV and m_A' = 1 GeV from the published LZ data using the full momentum-dependent form factor with an explicit choice of reference momentum (for example q_ref = m_A' or q_ref = 100 MeV), instead of the heavy-mediator conversion formula. If the resulting lower bound on the spin-independent cross section moves by an order of magnitude or more, or if different reasonable reference-momentum choices disagree, the central claim that realistic energy dependence pushes the limit to about 10^-40 cm^2 is not quantitatively robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the LUX-ZEPLIN nuclear-recoil data (2–70 keV window, 5.5-tonne fiducial mass, 60 days, no excess events above background), the paper derives 90% confidence exclusion limits on cosmic-ray-boosted dark matter for the secluded dark-photon and U(1)_{B-L} models. The central move is to replace the energy-independent cross section with the full t-channel, finite-mediator cross section, so limits are set in the coupling plane and then converted to the DM–nucleon spin-independent cross section. At m_chi = 1 keV and m_A' = 1 GeV, the lower exclusion bounds are about 6.4x10^-40 cm^2 (dark photon) and 2.5x10^-40 cm^2 (B-L), versus about 4x10^-33 cm^2 for the constant-cross-section treatment; the

Load-bearing premise

The headline cross-section limits assume the heavy-mediator conversion formula, which the paper itself flags as valid only when the mediator is much heavier than the momentum transfer; at the quoted 1 GeV mediator mass that condition is not met over the LZ recoil window, and the conversion then depends on a reference momentum that is never specified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sub-GeV (keV-to-GeV) dark matter with these mediator structures is excluded by LZ nuclear-recoil data above the derived cross sections—roughly 10^-40 cm^2 at 1 keV for a 1 GeV mediator—rather than only above about 10^-33 cm^2.
  • Because the lower bound tightens by about seven orders of magnitude when energy dependence is included, constant-cross-section analyses do not provide a conservative envelope; they underestimate the excluded region.
  • The Earth-shielding upper bound is comparable in the energy-dependent and constant scenarios, so the allowed parameter window is bounded above and below.
  • The reach of this method extends to dark-matter masses near 1 keV, well below the roughly 1 GeV threshold of conventional direct searches, though existing beam-dump, collider, and stellar-cooling constraints still restrict the couplings.
  • For mediator masses much heavier than the momentum transfer, the energy-dependent results reduce toward the constant-cross-section limit, making the mediator mass a key dial for future searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The headline numbers assume the DM–mediator coupling g_chi = 1; rescaling that coupling shifts both the coupling limits and the cross-section bounds, so the specific excluded window is a benchmark rather than a universal ceiling.
  • A consistent treatment at m_A' = 1 GeV—where LZ momentum transfers can exceed the mediator mass—would require choosing the reference momentum q_ref of the paper's normalization equations explicitly; until that choice is made, the quantitative superiority of the energy-dependent limits over the constant scenario is not fully settled.
  • The same machinery can be applied to electron-recoil data and to future detectors; if energy dependence matters this strongly for xenon nuclear recoils, it likely shifts projected sensitivities elsewhere as well.
  • The Earth-shielding upper bound implies that deeply buried detectors cannot probe strongly interacting light dark matter at all—a generic property that would apply to any model predicting large cross sections, not only the two studied here.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives 90% CL exclusion limits on sub-GeV dark matter (DM) from LUX-ZEPLIN nuclear-recoil data under the cosmic-ray boosted dark matter (CRBDM) mechanism, using two U(1)' models: a secluded dark photon and U(1)_{B-L}. The authors compute the CRBDM flux from cosmic-ray protons, electrons, and helium, include an approximate Earth-shielding attenuation, and translate LZ's null result into bounds on the mediator–nucleon coupling and then on the DM–nucleon spin-independent cross section. Their central quantitative claim is that energy-dependent, mediator-mediated cross sections improve the lower bound by about seven orders of magnitude compared with the constant-cross-section scenario: for m_chi = 1 keV and m_A' = 1 GeV they quote lower bounds of ~6.4e-40 cm^2 (secluded) and ~2.5e-40 cm^2 (U(1)_{B-L}) versus ~4e-33 cm^2 for the constant-cross-section case. I verified the heavy-mediator condition for the headline mass: with m_N ~ 122 GeV and E_R <= 70 keV, q^2 = 2 m_N E_R <= 0.017 GeV^2, which is two orders of magnitude below m_A'^2 = 1 GeV^2, so Eq. (5.15) is applicable for the quoted numbers and the q_ref ambiguity cancels in that limit.

Significance. If the quoted limits are correct, the paper would substantially strengthen CRBDM constraints for keV-to-GeV DM and would demonstrate that model-dependent energy dependence matters greatly for the interpretation of direct-detection null results. The approach is standard: it recasts published LZ data using an analytic flux calculation, and the heavy-mediator conversion for the headline m_A' = 1 GeV is internally consistent. The main strength is the use of two concrete, physically motivated mediator models rather than a phenomenological constant cross section. The main weaknesses are a lack of clarity in the nuclear-coherence convention between the event-rate formula and the cross-section conversion, and a qualitative criterion for the Earth-shielding upper bound. Neither issue necessarily invalidates the qualitative conclusion, but the quantitative limits in Sec. 6 and Fig. 4 need clarification or recomputation before the result can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.1–5.3, Eqs. (5.5), (5.6), (5.15)] The convention for g_i is inconsistent. In §5.2, g_i is defined as the coupling between the SM nucleon and the mediator, but Eq. (5.5) is written for a xenon nucleus without displaying the coherent enhancement factor (Z^2 for the secluded model, A^2 for U(1)_{B-L}). If Eq. (5.5) is intended to be a DM–nucleus cross section with per-nucleon g_i, then the right-hand side is missing the nuclear coherence factor. If, instead, g_i in Eq. (5.5) is meant to be the effective nuclear coupling, then Eq. (5.15), which converts g_i into a per-nucleon σ_SI, is not correct unless g_i is first divided by Z or A. These two readings lead to quoted σ_SI limits that differ by a factor of Z (secluded) or A (B–L). The manuscript never states which convention is used, and the event-rate formula in Eq. (5.6), the flux in Eq. (4.1), and the cross-section conversion in Eq. (5.15) all depend on this point. Since
  2. [§4.2 and §5.2 (Earth-shielding upper bound)] The upper bound from Earth shielding is defined only by 'the value ... at which the suppression starts' (Sec. 5.2) and 'drops to a significantly lower value' (Sec. 4.2). No quantitative criterion is given, so the dotted upper-edge curves in Fig. 4 are not reproducible from the text. Even if the lower-bound claim is unaffected, the abstract and conclusion present the shielding bound as part of the results. Please replace the qualitative threshold with an operational definition (e.g., attenuation by a stated factor at the minimum recoil energy), or clearly label the upper edge as an approximate band.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Sec. 1] The sentence 'Without the mechanism of boosted dark matter, sub-GeV DM particles are cold enough to produce detectable nuclear recoil' appears to say the opposite of what is meant. Sub-GeV DM is generally too light to produce observable nuclear recoils above threshold; please reword.
  2. [Eqs. (5.11)–(5.14)] The reference momentum q_ref is never specified. Although q_ref cancels in the heavy-mediator limit used for the headline m_A'=1 GeV numbers, the paper should state this explicitly so readers do not misinterpret the intermediate formulas.
  3. [§5.2, Eq. (5.9)] The alternative calibration route uses the approximation m_CDM >> m_N with m_CDM = 36 GeV and m_N ~ 122 GeV, which is not satisfied. Since the authors state they do not use this route for the reported limits, this should either be corrected or removed to avoid confusion.
  4. [General] The manuscript does not mention whether the numerical code or tabulated limits will be released. For a paper whose main product is an updated exclusion plot, making the limits available in machine-readable form would increase its value and reproducibility.
  5. [Typos and formatting] There are several typos: 'covert' should be 'convert' in Sec. 5.3, 'a a new' in Sec. 1, 'sub-Ge V' in the title, and the coupling notation in Eq. (4.2) is typeset awkwardly. Please also ensure that all subscripts such as A' are consistently formatted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central LZ limits are computed from external LZ data and standard CR flux inputs; self-citations to [47] are method-level and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) external CR flux parameterizations [61,63,72,73]; (ii) standard U(1)' t-channel cross sections (Eqs. 3.1–3.3, 4.2); (iii) LZ null observation setting 2.3 events at 90% CL (Sec. 5.1); (iv) coupling limit g_i = (2.3/N_R)^{1/4} (Eq. 5.6); (v) mapping to σ_SI via Eq. 5.15. None of these steps restates its own output: the coupling limit is a direct Poisson rescaling of the LZ non-observation, and the cross-section conversion is a model definition. The heavy-mediator condition for Eq. 5.15 is satisfied for the quoted mA'=1 GeV: with the LZ recoil window ending at E_R=70 keV, q^2 ≤ 2 m_N E_R ≈ 0.017 GeV^2 << m_A'^2, so |F_DM| = 1 and the never-specified q_ref drops out. The constant-cross-section limit is benchmarked against the external LZ CRBDM result [116], so the model-dependent limits are not a renaming of a known result. The self-citations to [47] concern the Earth-attenuation upper bound (Sec. 4.2) and detailed flux maps; [47] was cross-checked against [46], and the attenuation treatment is explicitly built on independent work [112]. The central lower-bound claim therefore does not reduce to a self-citation chain or to a fitted input. The only explicit limitation in the text is that 'Rigorous monte carlo simulation is beyond the scope of this work' (Sec. 4.2), which affects the qualitative upper (attenuation) bound, not the headline lower bound. Consequently no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central limits rest on the CRBDM flux model, the LZ null-event count, and the model cross sections. The main added assumptions beyond standard CRBDM practice are the heavy-mediator conversion applied at mA' = 1 GeV and the qualitative Earth-shielding criterion; both are author-chosen and only partially specified.

free parameters (3)
  • gχ = 1 = 1
    The DM-mediator coupling is fixed to 1 by hand (Sec. 5.2), and all coupling bounds scale as g_i = (2.3/NR)^{1/4} with gχ = 1; the final σ limits depend on this choice.
  • q_ref
    Reference momentum transfer in the DM form factor definition, Eqs. (5.11)-(5.14); never given a numerical value, which changes the light-mediator σ limits and is needed for reproducibility.
  • Earth-shielding 'suppression starts' threshold
    The upper bound on the cross section is set where the attenuated CRBDM flux 'drops to a significantly lower value' (Sec. 4.2); no quantitative criterion is given, so the upper edge of each exclusion region is not precisely defined.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CRBDM flux formula Eq. (4.1) with D_eff = 10 kpc and ρ_local = 0.3 GeV cm^-3
    Sec. 4.1: the boosted DM flux factorizes as an effective diffusion zone times local DM density divided by mχ, times CR fluxes and scattering cross sections.
  • domain assumption Cosmic ray flux parameterizations from Refs. [61,63,72,73]
    Sec. 2: electron, proton, and helium fluxes are taken from published fits; the proton/helium fit parameters are not reproduced in the text.
  • domain assumption LZ null result corresponds to 2.3 events at 90% CL over efficiency-weighted {2,70} keV, 5.5 t, 60 days
    Sec. 5.1: the recast uses the published LZ exposure and zero-background Poisson limit; this is a simplified likelihood treatment.
  • ad hoc to paper Cross section conversion Eq. (5.15) is applied for mA' = 1 GeV despite the 'valid only for heavy mediator' caveat
    Sec. 5.3 defines σ via the heavy-mediator formula, and Sec. 6 quotes headline numbers for mA' = 1 GeV, where q^2 = 2 m_N E_R can exceed mA'^2 over the LZ window.
  • domain assumption Earth crust composition and constant electron density n_e = 8e23 cm^-3 with exponential attenuation Eq. (4.8)
    Sec. 4.2: crust composition from Ref. [113] and electron density from Ref. [39]; a single exponential attenuation approximation replaces a Monte Carlo simulation, which the paper explicitly states is beyond scope.
  • domain assumption Deep inelastic cutoff q_p < 2 GeV for proton-DM scattering
    Eq. (4.7): the maximum momentum transfer for elastic proton scattering is restricted to avoid deep inelastic scattering; a similar explicit cutoff is not given for helium.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A congruous approach with realistic cross section towards limiting sub-GeV dark matter from LUX-ZEPLIN." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHH2VNPD

@misc{pith2026250902301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A congruous approach with realistic cross section towards limiting sub-GeV dark matter from LUX-ZEPLIN},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHH2VNPD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02301}
}
abstract

We present constraints on sub-GeV dark matter (DM) through the mechanism of being boosted by cosmic rays (CRs). We utilize the nuclear recoil data from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment for this purpose. Without the mechanism of boosted dark matter (BDM), sub-GeV DM particles are cold enough to produce detectable nuclear recoil in the LZ experiment above the detector threshold. We choose to work with the leading components of cosmic rays to take into account the boost due to them towards the cold DM. In the present discussion we worked on models consisting of a Dirac fermion $\chi$ with a new $U(1)'$ gauge symmetry and DM particles have non-zero coupling to the nucleons as per the model parameters. Specific examples of the energy dependence of the scattering cross section have been invoked through the secluded dark photon model and $U(1)_{B-L}$ model. Additionally, we present the upper bound on the interaction cross section due to the Earth shielding effect in the light of a systematic analysis of the energy loss by the BDM while traveling to the underground detector through the Earth's crust.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cosmic ray electron, proton and Helium nuclei boosted DM flux for various DM mass and mediator mass considering gχ = 1, eε cos θW = 10−3 (left panel) and gχ = 1, gB−L = 10−3 (right panel). The + and − sign in Eq. (4.6) stand for the scenario where Tχ > 2mi and Tχ < 2mi , respectively. For two different benchmark models, the corresponding coupling schemes used in Eq. (4.2) are defined as • Secluded U(1)′ [PITH_FULL_… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Exclusion limits at 90% confidence level for gχ = 1, in the coupling vs mχ plane for secluded dark photon model (left) and U(1)B−L model (right) with different values of the mediator mass. Dotted lines with the same color code stands for the upper limit due to the earth shielding effect. In general this expression is dependent on the mass of the mediator. We found that the two different approaches to constrain the o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Exclusion limits at 90% confidence level for gχ = 1, in the coupling vs mA′ plane for secluded dark photon model (left) and U(1)B−L model (right) with different values of the DM mass. Dotted lines with the same color code stands for the upper limit due to the earth shielding effect. In the upper and lower panel we show our results along with the existing limits. Invisible decay denotes the scenario where the mediato… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Exclusion limits at 90% confidence level in the σ SI χ vs mχ plane for secluded dark photon model (left) and U(1)B−L model (right) with different values of the mediator mass. The constant cross section scenario is defined by the consideration of energy independent cros…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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

    nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk,Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279 [hep-ph/0404175]

    arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    Lisanti,Lectures on Dark Matter Physics, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and Strings, pp

    M. Lisanti,Lectures on Dark Matter Physics, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and Strings, pp. 399–446, 2017, DOI [1603.03797]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Bauer and T

    M. Bauer and T. Plehn,Yet Another Introduction to Dark Matter: The Particle Physics Approach, vol. 959 ofLecture Notes in Physics, Springer (2019), 10.1007/978-3-030-16234-4, [1705.01987]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and J. Zupan,Dark Matter, arxiv:hep-ph (2024) [ 2406.01705]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Rubin and W.K

    V.C. Rubin and W.K. Ford, Jr.,Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions, Astrophys. J. 159 (1970) 379

    1970

  6. [6]

    Rubin, W.K

    V.C. Rubin, W.K. Ford, Jr. and N. Thonnard,Extended rotation curves of high-luminosity spiral galaxies. IV. Systematic dynamical properties, Sa through Sc, Astrophys. J. Lett.225 (1978) L107

    1978

  7. [7]

    Freeman,On the disks of spiral and SO Galaxies, Astrophys

    K.C. Freeman,On the disks of spiral and SO Galaxies, Astrophys. J. 160 (1970) 811

    1970

  8. [8]

    Brainerd, R.D

    T.G. Brainerd, R.D. Blandford and I. Smail,Measuring galaxy masses using galaxy - galaxy gravitational lensing, Astrophys. J. 466 (1996) 623 [astro-ph/9503073]

    arXiv 1996

Show all 116 references
  1. [9]

    Dell’Antonio and J.A

    I.P. Dell’Antonio and J.A. Tyson,Galaxy dark matter: Galaxy-galaxy lensing in the Hubble deep field, Astrophys. J. Lett.473 (1996) L17 [astro-ph/9608043]

    1996 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hoekstra, H.K.C

    H. Hoekstra, H.K.C. Yee and M.D. Gladders,Properties of galaxy dark matter halos from weak lensing, Astrophys. J. 606 (2004) 67 [astro-ph/0306515]

    2004 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.594 (2016) A13 [1502.01589]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Clowe, M

    D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A.H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S.W. Randall, C. Jones et al.,A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter, Astrophys. J. Lett.648 (2006) L109 [astro-ph/0608407]

    2006 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Randall, M

    S.W. Randall, M. Markevitch, D. Clowe, A.H. Gonzalez and M. Bradac,Constraints on the Self-Interaction Cross-Section of Dark Matter from Numerical Simulations of the Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E 0657-56, Astrophys. J. 679 (2008) 1173 [0704.0261]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Fermi-LAT collaboration, The Large Area Telescope on the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope Mission, Astrophys. J. 697 (2009) 1071 [0902.1089]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    AMS collaboration, High Statistics Measurement of the Positron Fraction in Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5–500 GeV with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 121101

    2014

  8. [16]

    AMS collaboration, Precision Measurement of the (e+ + e−) Flux in Primary Cosmic Rays from 0.5 GeV to 1 TeV with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 221102

    2014

  9. [17]

    Boudaud, J

    M. Boudaud, J. Lavalle and P. Salati,Novel cosmic-ray electron and positron constraints on MeV dark matter particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) 021103 [1612.07698]. – 12 –

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    IceCube collaboration, Observation of High-Energy Astrophysical Neutrinos in Three Years of IceCube Data, Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 101101 [1405.5303]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    DAMPE collaboration, Direct detection of a break in the teraelectronvolt cosmic-ray spectrum of electrons and positrons, Nature 552 (2017) 63 [1711.10981]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    PAMELAcollaboration, Cosmic-Ray Positron Energy Spectrum Measured by PAMELA, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 081102 [1308.0133]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    PAMELAcollaboration, An anomalous positron abundance in cosmic rays with energies 1.5-100 GeV, Nature 458 (2009) 607 [0810.4995]

    2009 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Goodman and E

    M.W. Goodman and E. Witten,Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates, Phys. Rev. D31 (1985) 3059

    1985

  15. [23]

    DAMA collaboration, First results from DAMA/LIBRA and the combined results with DAMA/NaI, Eur. Phys. J. C56 (2008) 333 [0804.2741]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    CRESST collaboration, Results on light dark matter particles with a low-threshold CRESST-II detector, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 25 [1509.01515]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    DarkSide collaboration, Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark-Matter–Electron Scattering from the DarkSide-50 Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 111303 [1802.06998]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    SuperCDMS collaboration, First Dark Matter Constraints from a SuperCDMS Single-Charge Sensitive Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 051301 [1804.10697]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    (XENON Collaboration)††, XENON collaboration, First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) 041003 [2303.14729]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    LUX collaboration, Fast and flexible analysis of direct dark matter search data with machine learning, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 072009 [2201.05734]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    PandaX-IIcollaboration, Search for Cosmic-Ray Boosted Sub-GeV Dark Matter at the PandaX-II Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.128 (2022) 171801 [2112.08957]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    LZ collaboration, First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) 041002 [2207.03764]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    XENON collaboration, Search for New Physics in Electronic Recoil Data from XENONnT, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 161805 [2207.11330]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    CRESST collaboration, First results from the CRESST-III low-mass dark matter program, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 102002 [1904.00498]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    EDEL WEISScollaboration, First germanium-based constraints on sub-MeV Dark Matter with the EDELWEISS experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020) 141301 [2003.01046]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    SuperCDMS collaboration, Constraints on low-mass, relic dark matter candidates from a surface-operated SuperCDMS single-charge sensitive detector, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 091101 [2005.14067]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Giudice, D

    G.F. Giudice, D. Kim, J.-C. Park and S. Shin,Inelastic Boosted Dark Matter at Direct Detection Experiments, Phys. Lett. B780 (2018) 543 [1712.07126]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Chatterjee, A

    A. Chatterjee, A. De Roeck, D. Kim, Z.G. Moghaddam, J.-C. Park, S. Shin et al.,Searching for boosted dark matter at ProtoDUNE, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 075027 [1803.03264]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    D. Kim, K. Kong, J.-C. Park and S. Shin,Boosted Dark Matter Quarrying at Surface Neutrino Detectors, JHEP 08 (2018) 155 [1804.07302]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kim, J.-C

    D. Kim, J.-C. Park and S. Shin,Searching for boosted dark matter via dark-photon bremsstrahlung, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 035033 [1903.05087]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Y. Ema, F. Sala and R. Sato,Light Dark Matter at Neutrino Experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett.122 (2019) 181802 [1811.00520]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Cho, K.-Y

    W. Cho, K.-Y. Choi and S.M. Yoo,Searching for boosted dark matter mediated by a new gauge boson, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 095010 [2007.04555]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bringmann and M

    T. Bringmann and M. Pospelov,Novel direct detection constraints on light dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 171801 [1810.10543]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Xia, Y.-H

    C. Xia, Y.-H. Xu and Y.-F. Zhou,Production and attenuation of cosmic-ray boosted dark matter, JCAP 02 (2022) 028 [2111.05559]. – 13 –

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Cappiello and J.F

    C.V. Cappiello and J.F. Beacom,Strong New Limits on Light Dark Matter from Neutrino Experiments, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 103011 [1906.11283]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bardhan, S

    D. Bardhan, S. Bhowmick, D. Ghosh, A. Guha and D. Sachdeva,Bounds on boosted dark matter from direct detection: The role of energy-dependent cross sections, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 015010 [2208.09405]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Ghosh, A

    D. Ghosh, A. Guha and D. Sachdeva,Exclusion limits on dark matter-neutrino scattering cross section, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 103029 [2110.00025]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Q.-H. Cao, R. Ding and Q.-F. Xiang,Searching for sub-MeV boosted dark matter from xenon electron direct detection, Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) 045002 [2006.12767]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Guha and J.-C

    A. Guha and J.-C. Park,Constraints on cosmic-ray boosted dark matter with realistic cross section, JCAP 07 (2024) 074 [2401.07750]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bell, J.L

    N.F. Bell, J.L. Newstead and I. Shaukat-Ali,Cosmic-ray boosted dark matter confronted by constraints on new light mediators, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 063034 [2309.11003]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Guo, Y.-L.S

    G. Guo, Y.-L.S. Tsai, M.-R. Wu and Q. Yuan,Elastic and Inelastic Scattering of Cosmic-Rays on Sub-GeV Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 103004 [2008.12137]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Cappiello, Q

    C. Cappiello, Q. Liu, G. Mohlabeng and A.C. Vincent,Cosmic Ray-Boosted Dark Matter at IceCube, arXiv (2024) [ 2405.00086]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Jho, J.-C

    Y. Jho, J.-C. Park, S.C. Park and P.-Y. Tseng,Cosmic-Neutrino-Boosted Dark Matter (νBDM), 2101.11262

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Jho, J.-C

    Y. Jho, J.-C. Park, S.C. Park and P.-Y. Tseng,Leptonic New Force and Cosmic-ray Boosted Dark Matter for the XENON1T Excess, Phys. Lett. B811 (2020) 135863 [2006.13910]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Das and M

    A. Das and M. Sen,Boosted dark matter from diffuse supernova neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 075029 [2104.00027]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Maity and R

    T.N. Maity and R. Laha,Cosmic-ray boosted dark matter in Xe-based direct detection experiments, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 117 [2210.01815]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Alvey, T

    J. Alvey, T. Bringmann and H. Kolesova,No room to hide: implications of cosmic-ray upscattering for GeV-scale dark matter, JHEP 01 (2023) 123 [2209.03360]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Diurba and H

    R. Diurba and H. Kolešová,Prospects of detecting cosmic ray up-scattered dark matter with DUNE, 2504.16996

  49. [57]

    Alhazmi, D

    H. Alhazmi, D. Kim, K. Kong, G. Mohlabeng, J.-C. Park and S. Shin,Direct Detection of Fast-Moving Low-Mass Dark Matter, 2503.13598

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Kumar and G

    N. Kumar and G. Lekshmi,Attenuation of boosted dark matter in two component dark matter scenario, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 055022 [2410.17727]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A. Das, T. Herbermann, M. Sen and V. Takhistov,Energy-dependent boosted dark matter from diffuse supernova neutrino background, JCAP 07 (2024) 045 [2403.15367]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  53. [61]

    Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 030001

    2018

  54. [62]

    Cambridge University Press

    M.S. Longair, ed.,High-energy astrophysics. Vol. 1: Particles, photons and their detection, "Cambridge University Press" (2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    Boschini et al.,HelMod in the works: from direct observations to the local interstellar spectrum of cosmic-ray electrons, Astrophys

    M.J. Boschini et al.,HelMod in the works: from direct observations to the local interstellar spectrum of cosmic-ray electrons, Astrophys. J. 854 (2018) 94 [1801.04059]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Fermi-LAT collaboration, Measurement of separate cosmic-ray electron and positron spectra with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Phys. Rev. Lett.108 (2012) 011103 [1109.0521]

    2012 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Fermi-LATcollaboration, Measurement of the Cosmic Ray e+ plus e- spectrum from 20 GeV to 1 TeV with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Phys. Rev. Lett.102 (2009) 181101 [0905.0025]

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Fermi-LAT collaboration, Fermi LAT observations of cosmic-ray electrons from 7 GeV to 1 TeV, Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 092004 [1008.3999]

    2010 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Fermi-LAT collaboration, Cosmic-ray electron-positron spectrum from 7 GeV to 2 TeV with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 082007 [1704.07195]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [68]

    PAMELAcollaboration, The cosmic-ray electron flux measured by the PAMELA experiment between 1 and 625 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.106 (2011) 201101 [1103.2880]. – 14 –

    2011 arXiv

  61. [69]

    CALET collaboration, Energy Spectrum of Cosmic-Ray Electron and Positron from 10 GeV to 3 TeV Observed with the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 181101 [1712.01711]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Cummings, E.C

    A.C. Cummings, E.C. Stone, B.C. Heikkila, N. Lal, W.R. Webber, G. Jóhannesson et al.,Galactic Cosmic Rays in the Local Interstellar Medium: Voyager 1 Observations and Model Results, Astrophys. J. 831 (2016) 18

    2016

  63. [71]

    Stone, A.C

    E.C. Stone, A.C. Cummings, F.B. McDonald, B.C. Heikkila, N. Lal and W.R. Webber,Voyager 1 observes low-energy galactic cosmic rays in a region depleted of heliospheric ions, Science 341 (2013) 150 [https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1236408]

    2013 doi

  64. [72]

    Boschini et al.,Solution of heliospheric propagation: unveiling the local interstellar spectra of cosmic ray species, Astrophys

    M.J. Boschini et al.,Solution of heliospheric propagation: unveiling the local interstellar spectra of cosmic ray species, Astrophys. J. 840 (2017) 115 [1704.06337]

    2017 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Della Torre et al.,From Observations near the Earth to the Local Interstellar Spectra, in25th European Cosmic Ray Symposium, 12, 2016 [1701.02363]

    S. Della Torre et al.,From Observations near the Earth to the Local Interstellar Spectra, in25th European Cosmic Ray Symposium, 12, 2016 [1701.02363]

    2016 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Chun, J.-C

    E.J. Chun, J.-C. Park and S. Scopel,Dark matter and a new gauge boson through kinetic mixing, JHEP 02 (2011) 100 [1011.3300]

    2011 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli and G. Lanfranchi,The Dark Photon, 2005.01515

    2005 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Gu and X.-G

    P.-H. Gu and X.-G. He,Electrophilic dark matter with dark photon: from DAMPE to direct detection, Phys. Lett. B778 (2018) 292 [1711.11000]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Bauer, P

    M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer and J. Jaeckel,Hunting All the Hidden Photons, JHEP 07 (2018) 094 [1803.05466]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [78]

    İnan and A.V

    S.C. İnan and A.V. Kisselev,Search for invisible dark photon inγe scattering at future lepton colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C82 (2022) 592 [2112.13070]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Filippi and M

    A. Filippi and M. De Napoli,Searching in the dark: the hunt for the dark photon, Rev. Phys. 5 (2020) 100042 [2006.04640]

    2020 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Gninenko, N.V

    S.N. Gninenko, N.V. Krasnikov and V.A. Matveev,Search for dark sector physics with NA64, Phys. Part. Nucl. 51 (2020) 829 [2003.07257]

    2020 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Andreev et al.,Improved exclusion limit for light dark matter from e+e- annihilation in NA64, Phys

    Y.M. Andreev et al.,Improved exclusion limit for light dark matter from e+e- annihilation in NA64, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) L091701 [2108.04195]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Banerjee et al.,Dark matter search in missing energy events with NA64, Phys

    D. Banerjee et al.,Dark matter search in missing energy events with NA64, Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (2019) 121801 [1906.00176]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    NA62 collaboration, Search for production of an invisible dark photon inπ0 decays, JHEP 05 (2019) 182 [1903.08767]

    2019 arXiv

  76. [84]

    BABAR collaboration, Dark Photon Studies at BABAR, EPJ Web Conf.218 (2019) 06001

    2019

  77. [85]

    BaBar collaboration, Search for Invisible Decays of a Dark Photon Produced ine+e− Collisions at BaBar, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) 131804 [1702.03327]

    2017 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, M. Papucci, T. Volansky and Y.-M. Zhong,Constraining Light Dark Matter with Low-Energy e+e− Colliders, JHEP 11 (2013) 167 [1309.5084]

    2013 arXiv

  79. [87]

    NA64 collaboration, Improved limits on a hypothetical X(16.7) boson and a dark photon decaying into e+e− pairs, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 071101 [1912.11389]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [88]

    NA48/2 collaboration, Search for the dark photon inπ0 decays, Phys. Lett. B746 (2015) 178 [1504.00607]

    2015 arXiv

  81. [89]

    W ASA-at-COSYcollaboration, Search for a dark photon in theπ0 → e+e−γ decay, Phys. Lett. B726 (2013) 187 [1304.0671]

    2013 arXiv

  82. [90]

    BESIII collaboration, Dark Photon Search in the Mass Range Between 1.5 and 3.4 GeV/c2, Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017) 252 [1705.04265]

    2017 arXiv

  83. [91]

    BaBar collaboration, Search for a Dark Photon ine+e− Collisions at BaBar, Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 201801 [1406.2980]

    2014 arXiv

  84. [92]

    LSND collaboration, Evidence for muon-neutrino —> electron-neutrino oscillations from pion decay in flight neutrinos, Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 2489 [nucl-ex/9706006]

    1998 arXiv

  85. [93]

    HADES collaboration, Searching a Dark Photon with HADES, Phys. Lett. B731 (2014) 265 [1311.0216]. – 15 –

    2014 arXiv

  86. [94]

    KLOE-2 collaboration, Limit on the production of a light vector gauge boson in phi meson decays with the KLOE detector, Phys. Lett. B720 (2013) 111 [1210.3927]

    2013 arXiv

  87. [95]

    KLOE-2 collaboration, Search for light vector boson production ine+e− → µ+µ−γ interactions with the KLOE experiment, Phys. Lett. B736 (2014) 459 [1404.7772]

    2014 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Anastasi et al.,Limit on the production of a low-mass vector boson ine+e− → Uγ, U → e+e− with the KLOE experiment, Phys

    A. Anastasi et al.,Limit on the production of a low-mass vector boson ine+e− → Uγ, U → e+e− with the KLOE experiment, Phys. Lett. B750 (2015) 633 [1509.00740]

    2015 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Riordan et al.,A Search for Short Lived Axions in an Electron Beam Dump Experiment, Phys

    E.M. Riordan et al.,A Search for Short Lived Axions in an Electron Beam Dump Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.59 (1987) 755

    1987

  90. [98]

    Bjorken, S

    J.D. Bjorken, S. Ecklund, W.R. Nelson, A. Abashian, C. Church, B. Lu et al.,Search for Neutral Metastable Penetrating Particles Produced in the SLAC Beam Dump, Phys. Rev. D38 (1988) 3375

    1988

  91. [99]

    Batell, R

    B. Batell, R. Essig and Z. Surujon,Strong Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Sectors from SLAC Beam Dump E137, Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 171802 [1406.2698]

    2014 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Marsicano, M

    L. Marsicano, M. Battaglieri, M. Bondi’, C.D.R. Carvajal, A. Celentano, M. De Napoli et al.,Dark photon production through positron annihilation in beam-dump experiments, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 015031 [1802.03794]

    2018 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Bross, M

    A. Bross, M. Crisler, S.H. Pordes, J. Volk, S. Errede and J. Wrbanek,A Search for Shortlived Particles Produced in an Electron Beam Dump, Phys. Rev. Lett.67 (1991) 2942

    1991

  94. [102]

    Blumlein and J

    J. Blumlein and J. Brunner,New Exclusion Limits for Dark Gauge Forces from Beam-Dump Data, Phys. Lett. B701 (2011) 155 [1104.2747]

    2011 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Blümlein and J

    J. Blümlein and J. Brunner,New Exclusion Limits on Dark Gauge Forces from Proton Bremsstrahlung in Beam-Dump Data, Phys. Lett. B731 (2014) 320 [1311.3870]

    2014 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Gninenko,Constraints on sub-GeV hidden sector gauge bosons from a search for heavy neutrino decays, Phys

    S.N. Gninenko,Constraints on sub-GeV hidden sector gauge bosons from a search for heavy neutrino decays, Phys. Lett. B713 (2012) 244 [1204.3583]

    2012 arXiv

  97. [105]

    APEX collaboration, Search for a New Gauge Boson in Electron-Nucleus Fixed-Target Scattering by the APEX Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.107 (2011) 191804 [1108.2750]

    2011 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Merkel et al.,Search at the Mainz Microtron for Light Massive Gauge Bosons Relevant for the Muon g-2 Anomaly, Phys

    H. Merkel et al.,Search at the Mainz Microtron for Light Massive Gauge Bosons Relevant for the Muon g-2 Anomaly, Phys. Rev. Lett.112 (2014) 221802 [1404.5502]

    2014 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Chang, R

    J.H. Chang, R. Essig and S.D. McDermott,Revisiting Supernova 1987A Constraints on Dark Photons, JHEP 01 (2017) 107 [1611.03864]

    2017 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Rrapaj and S

    E. Rrapaj and S. Reddy,Nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung of dark gauge bosons and revised supernova constraints, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 045805 [1511.09136]

    2016 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Hardy and R

    E. Hardy and R. Lasenby,Stellar cooling bounds on new light particles: plasma mixing effects, JHEP 02 (2017) 033 [1611.05852]

    2017 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Perdrisat, V

    C.F. Perdrisat, V. Punjabi and M. Vanderhaeghen,Nucleon Electromagnetic Form Factors, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 59 (2007) 694 [hep-ph/0612014]

    2007 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Z.-H. Lei, J. Tang and B.-L. Zhang,Constraints on cosmic-ray boosted dark matter in CDEX-10 *, Chin. Phys. C 46 (2022) 085103 [2008.07116]

    2022 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Emken and C

    T. Emken and C. Kouvaris,How blind are underground and surface detectors to strongly interacting Dark Matter?, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 115047 [1802.04764]

    2018 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Emken and C

    T. Emken and C. Kouvaris,DaMaSCUS: The Impact of Underground Scatterings on Direct Detection of Light Dark Matter, JCAP 10 (2017) 031 [1706.02249]

    2017 arXiv

  106. [114]

    J.A. Dror, R. Lasenby and M. Pospelov,New constraints on light vectors coupled to anomalous currents, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) 141803 [1705.06726]

    2017 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon and T. Volansky,Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 076007 [1108.5383]

    2012 arXiv

  108. [116]

    LZ collaboration, New Constraints on Cosmic Ray-Boosted Dark Matter from the LUX-ZEPLIN Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.134 (2025) 241801 [2503.18158]. – 16 –

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.