Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Laser induced Compton Scattering to Dark Matter in Effective Field Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Laser-assisted Compton scattering in an intense laser field can probe dark matter below 1 MeV, with predicted cutoff-scale reach of about 1 GeV for dimension-6 operators and as high as $2\times10^4$ GeV for magnetic-dipole operators.

desk verdict Sound Volkov calculation of laser-induced DM pair production, but the sensitivity projection ignores an overwhelming QED Compton background and is not supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12687 v3 pith:TNAJ4RM2 submitted 2025-01-22 hep-ph

Kai Ma , Tong Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords lightdarkmatternonlinearComptonscatteringintenselaserfieldseffectivefieldtheoryVolkovstatesmultiphotonabsorptionmono-electronsignatureleptophilic
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 claims that an ultra-relativistic electron colliding with an intense laser pulse can absorb multiple optical photons and decay into an electron plus a fermionic dark-matter pair, a process that opens a terrestrial window on dark matter lighter than about 1 MeV. This mass range is essentially inaccessible to direct-detection experiments because the recoil energies are too small. Using effective field theory for leptophilic dark matter, the paper computes decay widths for scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial-vector, and dipole operators, and finds that multiphoton absorption boosts the rate by orders of magnitude. For a benchmark 14 GeV electron beam and green laser, the projected sensitivity reaches energy scales of about 1 GeV for dimension-6 operators and $10^3$--$10^4$ GeV for dimension-5 dipole operators. This would make laser-electron collisions a complementary probe for the lightest dark-matter candidates.

What carries the argument

The central object is the laser-dressed electron state described by the Volkov wave function in a classical, infinite, monochromatic, circularly polarized plane wave. Expanding the periodic phase factor $e^{-iz\sin(\varphi-\varphi_0)}$ into Bessel functions generates the discrete photon number $n$, turning the classical field into a sum over multiphoton absorption channels. Each channel has an effective electron momentum $q^\mu = p^\mu + (e^2 a^2 / 2k\cdot p)\,k^\mu$ and a photon-number-dependent amplitude proportional to $J_n(z)$, and the total decay width is assembled from production and decay density matrices in the rest frame of the fictitious momentum $k' = p_\chi + p'_{\chi}$. The multiphoton channels with $n > 1$ are what make the process detectable, and the same machinery is applied to each effective operator structure.

What would settle it

Measure the spectrum of the outgoing electron in collisions of a 14 GeV electron beam with an intense green laser at intensity parameters around $\eta = 0.3$ to 2: if the predicted high-energy tail from $n \ge 2$ photon absorption is absent, or if the rate of mono-electron events with missing energy falls below the branching ratio predicted for $\Lambda \sim 1$ GeV with $0.6\,\text{ab}^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, then the plane-wave multiphoton picture or the luminosity conversion would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the laser-induced process $e^-(p) + n\omega(k) \to e^-(p') + \chi(p_\chi) + \bar\chi(p'_{\chi})$ can be used to search for Dirac fermionic dark matter lighter than about 1 MeV. In a circularly polarized, monochromatic laser field modeled as a classical plane wave, the electron is described by a Volkov wave function and the periodic phase factor is expanded in Bessel functions, producing discrete multiphoton channels labeled by $n$. The calculated decay widths show that channels with $n \ge 2$ contribute substantially, especially for light dark matter, enhancing the total width by over an order of magnitude relative to single-photon absorption. For a 14 GeV electron beam, a green laser with intensity parameter $\eta = 0.3$, and an integrated luminosity of $0.6\,\text{ab}^{-1}$, the projected upper limits on the effective UV cutoff scale are about 1 GeV for the dimension-6 operators with $m_\chi < 1$ MeV, and about $2\times10^4$ GeV ($3\times10^3$ GeV) for the magnetic (electric) dipole operators. These projected limits are weaker than existing direct-detection limits at higher masses, but they cover a mass region that direct detection cannot reach, so the process is complementary.

Load-bearing premise

The calculations assume the laser is a perfect, endlessly repeating plane wave and that each electron encounters an average laser photon density over a fixed pathlength; real pulsed and focused lasers could change the multiphoton rates and the number of useful collisions, and the paper does not quantify those corrections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the projected reach is correct, a 14 GeV electron beam colliding with an intense green laser could place new constraints on leptophilic dark-matter effective operators with cutoff scales around 1 GeV for dark matter below 1 MeV.
  • Multiphoton absorption with $n \ge 2$ increases the electron-to-dark-matter-pair decay width by over an order of magnitude for light dark matter, so the process becomes observable even at moderate laser intensities such as $\eta = 0.3$.
  • The dimension-5 magnetic and electric dipole operators give the strongest reach, with projected cutoff scales of $2\times10^4$ GeV and $3\times10^3$ GeV respectively, far exceeding the dimension-6 reach.
  • The mono-electron plus missing-energy signature could be searched for at high-intensity laser-electron collision facilities, complementing direct-detection experiments that lose sensitivity below about 1 MeV.
  • Because the effective operators remain valid for $m_\chi \lesssim m_e$, the same method can probe dark matter masses all the way down to the keV scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The classical plane-wave approximation is the largest systematic uncertainty: real laser pulses are finite and focused, and if these corrections suppress the higher-$n$ multiphoton channels, the projected cutoff-scale reach for light dark matter could be substantially reduced.
  • The luminosity conversion assumes each electron encounters the average laser photon density over a fixed pathlength; a more realistic pulsed-luminosity treatment that accounts for the spatial and temporal overlap of the two bunches might lower the effective number of collisions, making the quoted $0.6\,\text{ab}^{-1}$ optimistic.
  • The same Volkov machinery could be extended to other light new particles, such as millicharged particles or sterile neutrinos, and the reach in the cutoff scale would likely scale with the available center-of-mass energy per photon number if the electron beam energy is increased.
  • For the dimension-6 operators the projected reach of $\Lambda \sim 1$ GeV is only marginally above the electron-mass scale, so a careful check that the momentum transfer in each $n$-photon channel stays below $\Lambda$ would be needed to trust the EFT description in the highest-$n$ branches.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies, in the strong-field QED framework, the process e^- + n\omega -> e^- + \chi + \bar{\chi} induced by a high-intensity laser, for Dirac fermion dark matter with mass below the electron mass. Using Volkov wave functions, the authors compute the dressed-electron decay width for scalar, pseudo-scalar, vector, axial-vector, and dipole effective operators, and present differential distributions in the outgoing electron energy. They then convert the width into an event rate for LUXE-like beam and laser parameters, and project sensitivities to the EFT cutoff scale, claiming reaches of about 1 GeV for dimension-6 operators and 10^3-10^4 GeV for dipole operators, for m_chi < 1 MeV. The paper also compares these projections with direct detection and astrophysical constraints.

Significance. The analytic calculation is a first-principles derivation in a background field, with no free parameters except the signal threshold N_s=10, and the event-rate formulas are explicit. If the proposed signature were background-free, the search would be genuinely complementary to direct detection for sub-MeV DM, which is a gap in current experimental coverage. However, the paper does not address the Standard Model background from nonlinear Compton scattering, which produces the identical electron-plus-missing-momentum signature at a vastly higher rate. Consequently, the headline sensitivity claims are not currently supported; the value of the paper lies in the rate calculation, which could be useful for future studies if the background problem can be overcome.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.1)-(4.2), Figs. 7-9] The sensitivity projection is based on N_s=10 signal events with no background. The same final-state signature (one electron plus missing energy) is produced by standard nonlinear Compton scattering e^- + n\omega -> e^- + \gamma in the same laser field, with the photon escaping undetected. At eta=0.3, the probability per electron for nonlinear Compton emission is O(1) or at least many orders of magnitude above the DM signal probability of about 10^-19 inferred from Eqs. (4.1)-(4.2). Because m_chi < 1 MeV, the DM pair invariant mass is below about 1 MeV, far below the missing-mass resolution of a 14 GeV beam, so a cut on missing mass cannot separate the DM signal from a zero-mass photon. The differential distributions in Figs. 2, 4, and 6 show the signal populating the same low-Q'_Lab region that a Compton photon would occupy. Without a quantitative background model or a demonstrated kinematic discriminator, the claims of Lambda ~ 1 GeV (dim-6) and Lambda ~ 10^3-10^4 GeV (dipole) are not supported.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.9); Sec. 4] The laser is treated as an infinite, monochromatic, circularly polarized plane wave. The authors acknowledge in Sec. 2.2 that this model "may be oversimplified" for short or focused pulses, but they do not quantify finite-pulse or focusing corrections. The n-photon rates are computed from the Volkov solution for an infinite plane wave, and the sensitivity scales directly with these rates. A quantitative estimate of finite-pulse effects on the multiphoton probabilities is needed to support the claim that the chosen luminosity is conservative and that the resulting reach is reliable.
  3. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.2)] The luminosity formula L = N_e rho_omega ell N_b f t uses ell = 50 micrometers as the electron pathlength through the laser focus, but the overlap geometry between the electron bunch and the focused laser pulse is not modeled. The conversion from the plane-wave decay width Gamma to a collider-style event rate assumes that the electron remains in the constant field throughout the focus and that the field is uniform across the focus. The resulting L ~ 0.6 ab^-1 may therefore be an overestimate, and the sensitivity reach should be tested against a more realistic pulse structure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The typo "V olkov" appears in the text and references; it should read "Volkov".
  2. [Eq. (2.13)] The expression "ei ePhi'(phi)" appears to be a typographical error; it should be exp(i e Phi'(phi)).
  3. [Eq. (4.3)] The condition "m^2_{gamma'} >> (p_chi + p_chi)^2" should presumably read "(p_chi + p'_chi)^2", and similarly for the corresponding ALP expression.
  4. [Figs. 1, 3, 5] The legend entry "T otal" should read "Total".
  5. [Sec. 2.3] The paper relies on the phase-space parameterization of Ref. [24] with only a brief description; the presentation would be more self-contained if the key steps of that parameterization were summarized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: first-principles background-field calculation; sensitivity obtained by inverting the computed rate, not fitted.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The decay width (Eqs. 3.8, 3.25, 3.33) is computed from Volkov solutions in a classical circularly polarized plane wave (Eqs. 2.9-2.24) with the specified EFT operators (Eqs. 2.3-2.7); no parameter is fitted to data. The sensitivity curves (Figs. 7-9) are obtained by setting N_s=10 in Eq. (4.1) and inverting the analytically computed scaling of the width with the cutoff scale (1/Lambda^4 for dimension-6 operators and 1/Lambda^2 for dipole operators). This is a benchmark projection, not a prediction forced by an input. The only self-citation is Ref. [24] for the parameterization of the production two-body phase space (Eq. 2.29), which is a parameter-free kinematic identity and does not inject the target DM signal or the fitted scale; it is therefore independent support. The absence of a QED nonlinear Compton background estimate is a robustness/correctness concern for the projected sensitivity, not circularity, because the paper's equations do not define the DM signal in terms of that background. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation introduces no new fitted constants beyond a hand-chosen event threshold, and postulates no new particles or mediators. The main assumptions are modeling choices about the laser field, EFT validity, and the conversion from plane-wave widths to pulsed-laser luminosity.

free parameters (1)
  • Signal event threshold N_s = 10
    The projected reach is defined as the cutoff scale that yields N_s=10 signal events in Section 4; using a different threshold would shift the derived bounds.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The laser field is a classical, monochromatic, circularly polarized plane wave; finite pulse and focusing effects are neglected.
    Section 2.2, Eq. (2.9); the authors note the model 'may be oversimplified' for short or focused light pulses, and all rates are computed with Volkov states in this ideal background.
  • domain assumption The dark matter-electron interaction is governed by local EFT operators with a heavy mediator integrated out, valid when center-of-mass energy is well below the cutoff scale.
    Section 2.1; the paper deliberately avoids a UV-complete model and assumes mediator masses above the energy scales of the process.
  • domain assumption The fermionic dark matter does not appreciably interact with the laser field in the dipole operator case; corrections scale as ea/Λ approximately 10^-7.
    Section 2.2; the authors assert this scale factor is small and neglect non-perturbative Volkov dressing of the dark matter, but do not give the explicit derivation.
  • domain assumption The infinite-plane-wave decay width can be converted to an event rate in a pulsed laser using the luminosity L = Ne ρω ℓ Nb f t, and the LUXE benchmark parameters give L approximately 0.6 ab^-1.
    Section 4, Eqs. (4.1)-(4.2); this is the bridge from the analytical decay width to the projected sensitivity and is not validated against finite-pulse simulations.
  • ad hoc to paper A signal of 10 events with no background is sufficient to claim sensitivity.
    Section 4; no background estimate is provided, and N_s=10 is a chosen threshold rather than a full statistical analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Laser induced Compton Scattering to Dark Matter in Effective Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNAJ4RM2

@misc{pith2026250112687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Laser induced Compton Scattering to Dark Matter in Effective Field Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNAJ4RM2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12687}
}
read the original abstract

The detection of light dark matter (DM) is a longstanding challenge in terrestrial experiments. High-intensity facility of an intense electromagnetic field may provide a plausible strategy to study strong-field particle physics and search for light DM. In this work, we propose to search for light DM particle through the nonlinear Compton scattering in the presence of a high-intense laser field. An ultra-relativistic electron beam collides with an intense laser pulse of a number of optical photons and then decays to a pair of DM particles. We take into account the Dirac-type fermionic DM in leptophilic scenario and the DM-electron interactions in the framework of effective field theory. The decay rates of electron to a DM pair are calculated for effective DM operators of different bilinear products. We show the sensitivities of laser induced Compton scattering to the effective cutoff scale for DM lighter than 1 MeV and compare with direct detection experiments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Laser induced Compton Scattering to Dark Photon or Axion-like Particle

    K. Ma and T. Li, Laser induced Compton scattering to dark photon or axionlike particle, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 055001, [2410.17591]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279–390, [hep-ph/0404175]

    arXiv 2005

  3. [2]

    Young, A survey of dark matter and related topics in cosmology, Front

    B.-L. Young, A survey of dark matter and related topics in cosmology, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 12 (2017) 121201

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    Arbey and F

    A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Dark matter and the early Universe: a review, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 119 (2021) 103865, [2104.11488]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    R. K. Leane, Indirect Detection of Dark Matter in the Galaxy, in 3rd World Summit on Exploring the Dark Side of the Universe, pp. 203–228, 2020. 2006.00513

    arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

    T. R. Slatyer, Les Houches Lectures on Indirect Detection of Dark Matter, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 53 (2022) 1, [2109.02696]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    Bouquet, P

    A. Bouquet, P. Salati and J. Silk, γ-Ray Lines as a Probe for a Cold Dark Matter Halo, Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 3168

    work page 1989

  8. [7]

    E. A. Baltz and L. Bergstrom, Detection of leptonic dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 043516, [hep-ph/0211325]

    arXiv 2003

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    John and T

    I. John and T. Linden, Cosmic-Ray Positrons Strongly Constrain Leptophilic Dark Matter, JCAP 12 (2021) 007, [2107.10261]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Bi, X.-G

    X.-J. Bi, X.-G. He and Q. Yuan, Parameters in a class of leptophilic models from PAMELA, ATIC and FERMI, Phys. Lett. B 678 (2009) 168–173, [0903.0122]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Ibarra, A

    A. Ibarra, A. Ringwald, D. Tran and C. Weniger, Cosmic Rays from Leptophilic Dark Matter Decay via Kinetic Mixing, JCAP 08 (2009) 017, [0903.3625]

    2009 arXiv

  4. [11]

    M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates, Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 3059

    1985

  5. [12]

    Y . Bai, P. J. Fox and R. Harnik,The Tevatron at the Frontier of Dark Matter Direct Detection, JHEP 12 (2010) 048, [1005.3797]. – 22 –

    2010 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Goodman, M

    J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. P. Tait and H.-B. Yu,Constraints on Light Majorana dark Matter from Colliders, Phys. Lett. B 695 (2011) 185–188, [1005.1286]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Goodman, M

    J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. P. Tait and H.-B. Yu,Constraints on Dark Matter from Colliders, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 116010, [1008.1783]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [15]

    T. N. Wistisen, C. H. Keitel and A. Di Piazza, Transmutation of protons in a strong electromagnetic field, New J. Phys. 23 (2021) 065007, [2011.08031]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Ouhammou, M

    M. Ouhammou, M. Ouali, S. Taj, R. Benbrik and B. Manaut, Laser-induced proton decay, Appl. Phys. B 129 (2023) 103, [2209.12191]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Tiedau et al., Laser Excitation of the Th-229 Nucleus, Phys

    J. Tiedau et al., Laser Excitation of the Th-229 Nucleus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 182501

    2024

  11. [18]

    B. M. Dillon and B. King, ALP production through non-linear Compton scattering in intense fields, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 775, [1802.07498]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [19]

    King, Electron-seeded ALP production and ALP decay in an oscillating electromagnetic field, Phys

    B. King, Electron-seeded ALP production and ALP decay in an oscillating electromagnetic field, Phys. Lett. B 782 (2018) 737–743, [1802.07507]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [20]

    B. M. Dillon and B. King, Light scalars: coherent nonlinear Thomson scattering and detection, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 035048, [1809.01356]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Bai et al., New physics searches with an optical dump at LUXE, Phys

    Z. Bai et al., New physics searches with an optical dump at LUXE, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 115034, [2107.13554]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [22]

    B. King, B. M. Dillon, K. A. Beyer and G. Gregori, Axion-like-particle decay in strong electromagnetic backgrounds, JHEP 12 (2019) 162, [1905.05201]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    K. A. Beyer, G. Marocco, R. Bingham and G. Gregori, Light-shining-through-wall axion detection experiments with a stimulating laser, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 035031, [2109.14663]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. S. Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization, Phys. Rev. 82 (1951) 664–679

    1951

  18. [26]

    D. L. Burke et al., Positron production in multi - photon light by light scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 1626–1629

    1997

  19. [27]

    Bamber et al., Studies of nonlinear QED in collisions of 46.6-GeV electrons with intense laser pulses, Phys

    C. Bamber et al., Studies of nonlinear QED in collisions of 46.6-GeV electrons with intense laser pulses, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 092004

    1999

  20. [28]

    Greiner and J

    W. Greiner and J. Reinhardt, Quantum electrodynamics. 1992

    1992

  21. [29]

    Hartin, Strong field QED in lepton colliders and electron/laser interactions, Int

    A. Hartin, Strong field QED in lepton colliders and electron/laser interactions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 (2018) 1830011, [1804.02934]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya et al., Advances in QED with intense background fields, Phys. Rept. 1010 (2023) 1–138, [2203.00019]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bai and T

    Y . Bai and T. M. P. Tait,Searches with Mono-Leptons, Phys. Lett. B 723 (2013) 384–387, [1208.4361]

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ma, Exploring Four Fermion Contact Couplings of a Dark Fermion and an Electron at Hadron Colliders and Direct Detection Experiments, 2404.06419

    K. Ma, Exploring Four Fermion Contact Couplings of a Dark Fermion and an Electron at Hadron Colliders and Direct Detection Experiments, 2404.06419. – 23 –

  25. [33]

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for new particles in events with one lepton and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 09 (2014) 037, [1407.7494]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Khachatryan et al., Search for physics beyond the standard model in final states with a lepton and missing transverse energy in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV, Phys

    CMS collaboration, V . Khachatryan et al., Search for physics beyond the standard model in final states with a lepton and missing transverse energy in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 092005, [1408.2745]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J. Brod, A. Gootjes-Dreesbach, M. Tammaro and J. Zupan, Effective Field Theory for Dark Matter Direct Detection up to Dimension Seven, JHEP 10 (2018) 065, [1710.10218]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Busoni, A

    G. Busoni, A. De Simone, E. Morgante and A. Riotto, On the Validity of the Effective Field Theory for Dark Matter Searches at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 728 (2014) 412–421, [1307.2253]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Barman, S

    B. Barman, S. Bhattacharya, S. Girmohanta and S. Jahedi, Effective Leptophilic WIMPs at the e+e− collider, JHEP 04 (2022) 146, [2109.10936]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kundu, A

    S. Kundu, A. Guha, P. K. Das and P. S. B. Dev, EFT analysis of leptophilic dark matter at future electron-positron colliders in the mono-photon and mono-Z channels, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 015003, [2110.06903]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    D. M. Wolkow, ¨Uber eine klasse von l¨osungen der diracschen gleichung, Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik 94 (Mar, 1935) 250–260

    1935

  32. [40]

    Abramowicz et al., Technical Design Report for the LUXE Experiment, 2308.00515

    LUXE collaboration, H. Abramowicz et al., Technical Design Report for the LUXE Experiment, 2308.00515

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ablikim et al., Design and Construction of the BESIII Detector, Nucl

    BESIII collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Design and Construction of the BESIII Detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 614 (2010) 345–399, [0911.4960]

    2010 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Liang, Y

    J.-H. Liang, Y . Liao, X.-D. Ma and H.-L. Wang,A systematic investigation on dark matter-electron scattering in effective field theories, JHEP 07 (2024) 279, [2406.10912]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Li et al., Search for Light Dark Matter with Ionization Signals in the PandaX-4T Experiment, Phys

    P ANDA X collaboration, S. Li et al., Search for Light Dark Matter with Ionization Signals in the PandaX-4T Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 261001, [2212.10067]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Aprile et al., Light Dark Matter Search with Ionization Signals in XENON1T, Phys

    XENON collaboration, E. Aprile et al., Light Dark Matter Search with Ionization Signals in XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 251801, [1907.11485]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Essig, T

    R. Essig, T. V olansky and T.-T. Yu,New Constraints and Prospects for sub-GeV Dark Matter Scattering off Electrons in Xenon, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 043017, [1703.00910]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    CDEX collaboration, Z. Y . Zhang et al., Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Matter–Electron Scattering from the CDEX-10 Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 221301, [2206.04128]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Arnquist et al., First Constraints from DAMIC-M on Sub-GeV Dark-Matter Particles Interacting with Electrons, Phys

    DAMIC-M collaboration, I. Arnquist et al., First Constraints from DAMIC-M on Sub-GeV Dark-Matter Particles Interacting with Electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 171003, [2302.02372]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Adari et al., First Direct-Detection Results on Sub-GeV Dark Matter Using the SENSEI Detector at SNOLAB, Phys

    SENSEI collaboration, P. Adari et al., First Direct-Detection Results on Sub-GeV Dark Matter Using the SENSEI Detector at SNOLAB, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 011804, [2312.13342]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    SENSEI collaboration, I. M. Bloch et al., SENSEI at SNOLAB: Single-Electron Event Rate and Implications for Dark Matter, 2410.18716. – 24 –

  42. [50]

    A. Guha, P. S. B. Dev and P. K. Das, Model-independent Astrophysical Constraints on Leptophilic Dark Matter in the Framework of Tsallis Statistics, JCAP 02 (2019) 032, [1810.00399]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    W. D. Arnett, J. N. Bahcall, R. P. Kirshner and S. E. Woosley, SUPERNOVA SN1987A, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 27 (1989) 629–700

    1989

  44. [52]

    C. A. Manzari, J. Martin Camalich, J. Spinner and R. Ziegler, Supernova limits on muonic dark forces, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 103020, [2307.03143]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Chauhan and S

    B. Chauhan and S. Mohanty, Constraints on leptophilic light dark matter from internal heat flux of Earth, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 035024, [1603.06350]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Ali-Ha¨ımoud, J

    Y . Ali-Ha¨ımoud, J. Chluba and M. Kamionkowski, Constraints on Dark Matter Interactions with Standard Model Particles from Cosmic Microwave Background Spectral Distortions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 071304, [1506.04745]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    B ABAR collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., Search for Invisible Decays of a Dark Photon Produced in e+e− Collisions at BaBar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 131804, [1702.03327]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert and A. Thamm, Collider Probes of Axion-Like Particles, JHEP 12 (2017) 044, [1708.00443]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Heiles, M. Neubert and A. Thamm, Axion-Like Particles at Future Colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 74, [1808.10323]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. Liu, Y . Luo and M. Song, Investigation of the concurrent effects of ALP-photon and ALP-electron couplings in Collider and Beam Dump Searches, JHEP 09 (2023) 104, [2304.05435]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Liang, Y

    J.-H. Liang, Y . Liao, X.-D. Ma and H.-L. Wang,Comprehensive constraints on fermionic dark matter-quark tensor interactions in direct detection experiments*, Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024) 123103, [2401.05005]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Ma, Mono-γ production of a dark vector at future e + e − colliders, Chin

    K. Ma, Mono-γ production of a dark vector at future e + e − colliders, Chin. Phys. C 46 (2022) 113104, [2205.05560]. – 25 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.