Pith. sign in

REVIEW 8 cited by

Boosted Dark Matter Driven by Cosmic Rays and Diffuse Supernova Neutrinos

T0 review · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining cosmic-ray and diffuse-supernova boosts sharpens dark matter cross-section bounds.

desk verdict Real but DSNB-normalization-dependent improvement; worth refereeing with a request for flux-sensitivity checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11973 v2 pith:WETTKEUJ submitted 2024-11-18 hep-ph

Dilip Kumar Ghosh , Tushar Gupta , Matti Heikinheimo , Katri Huitu , Sk Jeesun This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d
keywords boosteddarkmattercosmic-rayupscatteringdiffusesupernovaneutrinobackgroundmatter–neutrinoscatteringsub-GeVXENONnTSuper-Kamiokandedirectdetection
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 claims that sub-GeV dark matter, normally too slow to leave detectable recoils, can be upscattered to MeV-scale kinetic energies by both cosmic-ray protons and electrons and by the diffuse supernova neutrino background (DSNB), and that treating the two boosters together gives materially stronger detector limits than cosmic rays alone. The quantitative core is the rate structure $R \propto \Phi_{\mathrm{CRe}}\,\sigma_{\chi e}^2 + \Phi_{\mathrm{DSNB}}\,\sigma_{\chi e}\sigma_{\chi\nu}$ (Eq. 23): the DSNB term carries the product of the dark-matter–electron and dark-matter–neutrino cross-sections, so even a neutrino coupling ten times the electron coupling visibly improves the bound on $\sigma_{\chi e}$. The analysis is model-independent, covers electrophilic and nucleophilic dark matter, and compares constant, heavy-scalar, and heavy-vector cross-sections in XENONnT and Super-Kamiokande. A sympathetic reader should care because current non-observation would then already exclude parts of sub-MeV parameter space that cosmic-ray-only analyses leave open.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the boosted dark matter flux formula of Eq. (1), $d\Phi_\chi/dT_\chi = D_{\mathrm{eff}}(\rho_\chi/M_\chi)\int d\Phi_i^{\mathrm{LIS}}/dT_i\,(d\sigma_{\chi i}/dT_\chi)\,dT_i$, applied separately to cosmic-ray electrons and protons (with local interstellar spectra from Voyager, Fermi-LAT, PAMELA, and AMS-02) and to the DSNB neutrino flux of Eq. (8), then summed in Eq. (11). Its load-bearing feature is the cross-section structure: the DSNB contribution enters through the product $\sigma_{\chi e}\sigma_{\chi\nu}$ (or $\sigma_{\chi n}\sigma_{\chi\nu}$), which is what creates the tilted exclusion contours and the improved $\sigma_{\chi e}$ limit. Energy-dependent heavy-mediator cross-sections in Eqs. (5)–(6) and (15)–(16) modulate the flux and recoil rate, while detector response in XENONnT and Super-Kamiokande is folded in through Eq. (12) with a 40% nuisance parameter on the DSNB normalization.

What would settle it

A direct DSNB measurement from a future large neutrino detector that places the flux at the low end of the predicted band, combined with a re-derivation of the XENONnT and Super-K exclusion contours, would settle the claim: if the tilted $\sigma_{\chi e}$–$\sigma_{\chi\nu}$ contour region disappears and the limits return to the cosmic-ray-only curves, the central improvement claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a non-zero dark-matter–neutrino interaction does not merely add an independent detection channel; it multiplies the reach of cosmic-ray-boosted dark matter searches. Because the DSNB flux exceeds the cosmic-ray-electron flux by only about a factor of ten in the MeV range, the recoil rate scales as $R \propto \Phi_{\mathrm{CRe}}\,\sigma_{\chi e}^2 + \Phi_{\mathrm{DSNB}}\,\sigma_{\chi e}\sigma_{\chi\nu}$ (Eq. 23), so the DSNB term dominates whenever $\sigma_{\chi\nu}$ is not tiny relative to $\sigma_{\chi e}$. With $\sigma_{\chi\nu} \approx 10\,\sigma_{\chi e}$, the combined signal rate stays competitive with cosmic-ray-only rates at an order-of-magnitude smaller $\sigma_{\chi e}$, and the 90% C.L. exclusion contours in the $(\sigma_{\chi\nu},\,\sigma_{\chi e})$ plane become tilted in the high-$\sigma_{\chi\nu}$ region, constraining the product of the two cross-sections. The same logic applies to nucleophilic dark matter with $\sigma_{\chi n}$, where the DSNB dominates the flux shape up to about 10 MeV and cosmic-ray protons take over at higher energies. Energy-dependent heavy scalar- and vector-mediated cross-sections sharpen the electrophilic bounds further, especially at low dark-matter mass.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the diffuse supernova neutrino background has roughly the predicted flux: the DSNB has not yet been directly detected, and if the real supernova rate or neutrino temperatures give a lower flux than assumed, the advertised improvement over cosmic-ray-only limits weakens, with the paper folding this into a single 40% nuisance parameter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A modest dark-matter–neutrino coupling, even one too small to be probed on its own, indirectly sharpens existing constraints on dark-matter–electron and dark-matter–nucleon scattering.
  • Super-Kamiokande gives the strongest limits for electrophilic dark matter because of its target volume, while XENONnT covers lower recoil thresholds; together they extend sensitivity from sub-MeV to about 100 MeV dark matter.
  • For electrophilic dark matter, heavy scalar- and vector-mediated cross-sections produce stronger bounds than a constant cross-section; for nucleophilic dark matter the DSNB contribution dominates the flux below about 10 MeV and cosmic-ray protons above it.
  • Non-observation in current data excludes parameter combinations of $\sigma_{\chi\nu}$ and $\sigma_{\chi e}$ (or $\sigma_{\chi n}$) that were allowed when only cosmic-ray boosting was considered.
  • The same combined-boost logic motivates proposed multi-ton detectors such as DUNE, Hyper-Kamiokande, and JUNO, which the paper expects to probe smaller cross-sections in the sub-MeV region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the DSNB is directly detected with a flux near the low end of the predicted band, the advertised improvement over cosmic-ray-only limits will shrink; the single 40% nuisance parameter may understate this systematic sensitivity, since it folds a normalization uncertainty rather than separate supernova-rate and neutrino-temperature uncertainties.
  • The two terms in Eq. (23) have different spectral shapes, so a joint fit to XENONnT's low-threshold and Super-K's high-threshold recoil spectra could break the degeneracy between $\sigma_{\chi e}$ and $\sigma_{\chi\nu}$.
  • The same mechanism should apply to other ambient neutrino fluxes, such as atmospheric neutrinos, which would extend boosted dark matter to higher kinetic energies and could be tested in the same detectors.
  • The authors do not model attenuation of boosted dark matter in the Earth; a detailed study of crust composition would refine the upper edge of the exclusion region, which the paper places near $\sigma \sim 10^{-28}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$.
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.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the combined CR+DSNB constraints follow from external flux inputs and non-observation, not from fitting the predicted cross-sections.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the claimed result. The boosted DM flux in Eq. (1) uses the measured local interstellar CR spectra (Eq. (3) and ref. [28]) and the predicted DSNB spectrum of Eqs. (8)-(9), whose normalization is taken from the empirical core-collapse supernova rate [63] and neutrino temperatures from simulations [64]; these are external inputs with stated assumptions, not quantities fitted to the XENONnT or Super-K data used for the limits. The event rate in Eq. (12) is computed from these fluxes with standard scattering kinematics, and the constraints are obtained from non-observation via the chi-squared in Eq. (22), with the DSNB normalization nuisance parameter marginalized. The central scaling R ~ Phi_CRe sigma_chi_e^2 + Phi_DSNB sigma_chi_e sigma_chi_nu (Eq. (23)) is a derived consequence of the flux and rate integrals, not a relation imposed by construction. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the DSNB is undetected and that its parameters carry uncertainty (Section II.B), which is a robustness caveat about the external flux, not a circularity. The concern that a single 40% normalization nuisance may not capture spectral-shape uncertainty affects the robustness of the limits against DSNB model variations, but it is not circular because the analysis does not use the DSNB flux to define the cross-section bounds. Self-citations to refs. [38] and [47] provide standard cross-section formulas and DSNB-boost kinematics, but they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems, and the combined CR+DSNB constraints with energy-dependent cross-sections are new content not contained in those references. No circular step reduces a prediction to a fitted input or to an author-defined quantity.

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

The central claim rests on the predicted DSNB flux, whose normalization is taken from simulations and supernova rate fits, plus standard halo and mediator assumptions. No new particles or forces are introduced; the paper uses a model-independent parameterization.

free parameters (6)
  • Effective distance Deff = 1 kpc
    Chosen as a conservative value for the CR upscattering region; constraints scale as sqrt(Deff), so a factor of a few does not change the conclusions. Section II.A.
  • DSNB neutrino temperatures = T_nu_e = 6.6 MeV, T_nu_bar_e = 7 MeV, T_nu_x = 10 MeV
    Taken from supernova simulations in the literature; the DSNB flux depends on these. Section II.B, Eq. (9).
  • DSNB total neutrino energy = 10^53 erg
    Standard supernova energy release adopted from ref. [62]. Section II.B.
  • Core-collapse supernova rate R_CCSN(z) = empirical formula from ref. [63]
    Fitted to star formation observations; the DSNB flux integrates over this rate. Section II.B, Eq. (8).
  • Local dark matter density rho_chi = 0.3 GeV/cm^3
    Assumed standard halo density; all flux calculations are proportional to it. Section II.A, Eq. (1).
  • DSNB flux uncertainty nuisance sigma_beta = 40%
    Assumed uncertainty on the DSNB flux, marginalized over in the chi-squared analysis. Section IV, Eq. (22).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption DM halo velocity distribution is Maxwell-Boltzmann with sigma_v about 10^-3, and DM is at rest when computing CR scattering.
    Section II: 'DM is assumed to be contained in the halo with a Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution... one may assume DM to be at rest initially.'
  • domain assumption Heavy mediator limit m_med >> q for all computed cross sections.
    Section I: 'we restrict our analysis to heavy mediators (m_med >> q) only.'
  • ad hoc to paper DM couples either to electrons (and neutrinos) or to nucleons (and neutrinos), never both.
    Section II: 'we assume that DM couples to either electrons or nucleons.' Simplifies the analysis; mixed scenarios are deferred to future work.
  • domain assumption Dipole nuclear form factor with Lambda_p = 770 MeV, Lambda_He = 410 MeV for DM-nucleus scattering.
    Section II.A, Eq. (7). Standard choice from the CR-boosted DM literature.
  • domain assumption DSNB flux is a real, isotropic flux of neutrinos from core-collapse supernovae with the predicted normalization.
    Section II.B, Eqs. (8)-(9). This is the load-bearing premise for the novel DSNB-boost contribution; the flux has not yet been directly detected.
  • domain assumption Attenuation of boosted DM in Earth is negligible for the parameter space of interest.
    Section V: 'we do not portray the possible upper bound... which may come from the attenuation of DM particles in the earth's core.' Argued to be high (about 10^-28 cm^2) and covered by other constraints.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boosted Dark Matter Driven by Cosmic Rays and Diffuse Supernova Neutrinos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WETTKEUJ

@misc{pith2026241111973,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boosted Dark Matter Driven by Cosmic Rays and Diffuse Supernova Neutrinos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WETTKEUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11973}
}
read the original abstract

Direct detection of light dark matter can be significantly enhanced by up-scattering of dark matter with energetic particles in the cosmic ambient. This boosted dark matter flux can reach kinetic energies up to tens of MeV, while the typical kinetic energies of GeV mass dark matter particles in the Milky Way halo are of the order of keV. Dark matter boosted by energetic diffuse supernova background neutrinos can be detected only through nuclear or electron scattering in ground-based detectors requiring a non-zero interaction of dark matter with nucleon or electron, in addition to its interaction with neutrino. However, in the presence of dark matter-nucleon (electron) interaction, the scattering of dark matter with cosmic rays is unavoidable. Thus, we consider boosted dark matter resulting from diffuse supernova neutrinos as well as cosmic protons (electrons) considering both energy-dependent and energy-independent scattering cross-sections between dark matter and standard model particles. We explore this scenario in dark matter detectors such as XENONnT and neutrino detectors like Super-Kamiokande.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11973 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Predicted differential flux of DSNB with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Boosted DM flux considering (a) cosmic ray electron and DSNB ; (b) cosmic ray nucleon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Expected recoil rate in XENONnT experiment with year long exposure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Contour lines of 90% C.L. constraints on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Contour lines of 90% C.L. constraints on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Primordial black holes as cosmic accelerators of light dark matter: Novel direct detection constraints

    hep-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Primordial black hole evaporation generates light fermionic dark matter capable of producing electron recoils in XENONnT, LZ, and PandaX-4T, enabling new constraints on DM-electron interactions after including Earth a...

  2. Probing Supernova Neutrino Boosted Dark Matter with Collective Excitation

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Galactic supernova neutrino boosted dark matter can produce plasmon excitations in silicon detectors, improving sub-MeV dark matter sensitivity by 3 to 4 orders of magnitude over Super-K.

  3. Inelastic Scattering Effects on Attenuation of Boosted Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Resonant excitation of nucleons into Δ(1232) during Earth passage is a non-negligible attenuation channel for boosted dark matter at E_χ ≈ 1–2 GeV, lowering the PandaX-4T upper bound on σ̄_n in the heavy-mediator regime.

  4. Dark Matter Heating of Compact Stars Beyond Capture: A Relativistic Framework for Energy Deposition by Particle Beams

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new relativistic formalism computes capture and energy deposition of directed particle beams in compact stars, applied to blazar-boosted dark matter heating of white dwarfs and neutron stars.

  5. Detecting light dark matter with prompt-delayed events in neutrino experiments

    hep-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The prompt-delayed knockout-neutron channel in KamLAND yields a sub-GeV dark matter-nucleon cross-section limit roughly one order of magnitude stronger than elastic nuclear recoil limits.

  6. Supernova-Boosted Dark Matter at Large-Volume Neutrino Detectors

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A sensitivity study shows large-volume neutrino detectors could discover supernova-boosted dark matter down to couplings of about 1e-22, with the Betelgeuse timing signal as a key multi-messenger signature.

  7. Cosmic-ray-electron boosted light dark matter: Implications of LZ 2025 data

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Using LZ 2025 data, cosmic-ray-electron boosted sub-MeV dark matter is constrained at levels at or below the previous XENONnT reach, with the strongest gains claimed for light mediators.

  8. Searching for MeV-mass neutrinophilic Dark Matter with Large Scale Dark Matter Detectors

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Xenon-based dark matter detectors, especially DARWIN, could detect neutrinos from MeV-mass dark matter that annihilates to the third neutrino mass eigenstate, with projected sensitivity competitive with Super-Kamiokande.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln,

    F. Zwicky, “Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln,” Helv. Phys. Acta6 (1933) 110–127

    1933

  2. [2]

    Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions,

    V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford, Jr., “Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions,” Astrophys. J. 159 (1970) 379–403

    1970

  3. [3]

    A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter,

    D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky, “A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 648 (2006) L109–L113, arXiv:astro-ph/0608407

    arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641 (2020) A6, arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. 21 [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses,

    B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, “Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses,” Phys. Rev. Lett.39 (1977) 165–168

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    On the Relic, Cosmic Abundance of Stable Weakly Interacting Massive Particles,

    R. J. Scherrer and M. S. Turner, “On the Relic, Cosmic Abundance of Stable Weakly Interacting Massive Particles,” Phys. Rev. D33 (1986) 1585. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 34, 3263 (1986)]

    work page 1986

  7. [7]

    Supersymmetric dark matter,

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, “Supersymmetric dark matter,” Phys. Rept. 267 (1996) 195–373, arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    Calculations of Relic Densities in the Early Universe,

    M. Srednicki, R. Watkins, and K. A. Olive, “Calculations of Relic Densities in the Early Universe,” Nucl. Phys. B310 (1988) 693

    work page 1988

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

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

    G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, “The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints,” Eur. Phys. J. C78 no. 3, (2018) 203, arXiv:1703.07364 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects,

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, “WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects,” Rept. Prog. Phys.81 no. 6, (2018) 066201, arXiv:1707.06277 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,

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

    2005 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection,

    J. L. Feng, “Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.48 (2010) 495–545, arXiv:1003.0904 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dark matter models and direct detection,

    T. Lin, “Dark matter models and direct detection,” PoS 333 (2019) 009, arXiv:1904.07915 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Direct detection of dark matter—APPEC committee report*,

    J. Billard et al., “Direct detection of dark matter—APPEC committee report*,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 85 no. 5, (2022) 056201, arXiv:2104.07634 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Search for Light Dark Matter Interactions Enhanced by the Migdal Effect or Bremsstrahlung in XENON1T,

    XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., “Search for Light Dark Matter Interactions Enhanced by the Migdal Effect or Bremsstrahlung in XENON1T,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123 no. 24, (2019) 241803, arXiv:1907.12771 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Search for New Physics in Electronic Recoil Data from XENONnT,

    XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., “Search for New Physics in Electronic Recoil Data from XENONnT,” Phys. Rev. Lett.129 no. 16, (2022) 161805, arXiv:2207.11330 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Consequently, the limit we obtain with this method is conservative

    is very low compared to the electron recoil search. Consequently, the limit we obtain with this method is conservative. For DSNB and CRp BDM, we consider σχν = σχe = 1 × 10−31 cm2 for three plots in right panel. For DM boosted by CRp only (σχν = 0), we consider σχe = 7 × 10−31...

    2020

  10. [18]

    First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,

    LZ Collaboration, J. Aalbers et al., “First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131 no. 4, (2023) 041002, arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils 22 from the XENONnT Experiment,

    XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., “First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils 22 from the XENONnT Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131 no. 4, (2023) 041003, arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,

    LZ Collaboration Collaboration, J. Aalbers et al., “Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,” arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Search for new physics in low-energy electron recoils from the first LZ exposure,

    LZ Collaboration, J. Aalbers et al., “Search for new physics in low-energy electron recoils from the first LZ exposure,” Phys. Rev. D108 no. 7, (2023) 072006, arXiv:2307.15753 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Results from a search for dark matter in the complete LUX exposure,

    LUX Collaboration, D. S. Akerib et al., “Results from a search for dark matter in the complete LUX exposure,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118 no. 2, (2017) 021303, arXiv:1608.07648 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Results of dark matter search using the full PandaX-II exposure,

    PandaX-II Collaboration, Q. Wang et al., “Results of dark matter search using the full PandaX-II exposure,” Chin. Phys. C44 no. 12, (2020) 125001, arXiv:2007.15469 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    DarkSide-50 532-day Dark Matter Search with Low-Radioactivity Argon,

    DarkSide Collaboration, P. Agnes et al., “DarkSide-50 532-day Dark Matter Search with Low-Radioactivity Argon,” Phys. Rev. D98 no. 10, (2018) 102006, arXiv:1802.07198 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Search for dark matter with a 231-day exposure of liquid argon using DEAP-3600 at SNOLAB,

    DEAP Collaboration, R. Ajaj et al., “Search for dark matter with a 231-day exposure of liquid argon using DEAP-3600 at SNOLAB,” Phys. Rev. D100 no. 2, (2019) 022004, arXiv:1902.04048 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    First Dark Matter Constraints from a SuperCDMS Single-Charge Sensitive Detector,

    SuperCDMS Collaboration, R. Agnese et al., “First Dark Matter Constraints from a SuperCDMS Single-Charge Sensitive Detector,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121 no. 5, (2018) 051301, arXiv:1804.10697 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 122, 069901 (2019)]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Results from the Super Cryogenic Dark Matter Search Experiment at Soudan,

    SuperCDMS Collaboration, R. Agnese et al., “Results from the Super Cryogenic Dark Matter Search Experiment at Soudan,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120 no. 6, (2018) 061802, arXiv:1708.08869 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Solution of heliospheric propagation: unveiling the local interstellar spectra of cosmic ray species,

    M. J. Boschini et al., “Solution of heliospheric propagation: unveiling the local interstellar spectra of cosmic ray species,” Astrophys. J. 840 no. 2, (2017) 115, arXiv:1704.06337 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    First results from the CRESST-III low-mass dark matter program,

    CRESST Collaboration, A. H. Abdelhameed et al., “First results from the CRESST-III low-mass dark matter program,” Phys. Rev. D100 no. 10, (2019) 102002, 23 arXiv:1904.00498 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Novel direct detection constraints on light dark matter,

    T. Bringmann and M. Pospelov, “Novel direct detection constraints on light dark matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122 no. 17, (2019) 171801, arXiv:1810.10543 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Highly-boosted dark matter and cutoff for cosmic-ray neutrinos through neutrino portal,

    W. Yin, “Highly-boosted dark matter and cutoff for cosmic-ray neutrinos through neutrino portal,” EPJ Web Conf.208 (2019) 04003, arXiv:1809.08610 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Light Dark Matter at Neutrino Experiments,

    Y. Ema, F. Sala, and R. Sato, “Light Dark Matter at Neutrino Experiments,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 no. 18, (2019) 181802, arXiv:1811.00520 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Detecting Light Dark Matter via Inelastic Cosmic Ray Collisions,

    J. Alvey, M. Campos, M. Fairbairn, and T. You, “Detecting Light Dark Matter via Inelastic Cosmic Ray Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (2019) 261802, arXiv:1905.05776 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bounds on Cosmic Ray-Boosted Dark Matter in Simplified Models and its Corresponding Neutrino-Floor,

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, J. L. Newstead, and I. M. Shoemaker, “Bounds on Cosmic Ray-Boosted Dark Matter in Simplified Models and its Corresponding Neutrino-Floor,” Phys. Rev. D101 no. 11, (2020) 116007, arXiv:1907.03782 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Reverse Direct Detection: Cosmic Ray Scattering With Light Dark Matter,

    C. V. Cappiello, K. C. Y. Ng, and J. F. Beacom, “Reverse Direct Detection: Cosmic Ray Scattering With Light Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D99 no. 6, (2019) 063004, arXiv:1810.07705 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Leptonic New Force and Cosmic-ray Boosted Dark Matter for the XENON1T Excess,

    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, arXiv:2006.13910 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Neutrino experiments probe hadrophilic light dark matter,

    Y. Ema, F. Sala, and R. Sato, “Neutrino experiments probe hadrophilic light dark matter,” SciPost Phys. 10 no. 3, (2021) 072, arXiv:2011.01939 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bounds on boosted dark matter from direct detection: The role of energy-dependent cross sections,

    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. D 107 no. 1, (2023) 015010, arXiv:2208.09405 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Present and future status of light dark matter models from cosmic-ray electron upscattering,

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, J. L. Newstead, I. M. Shoemaker, and N. T. Arellano, “Present and future status of light dark matter models from cosmic-ray electron upscattering,” Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 095015, arXiv:2010.09749 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    No room to hide: implications of cosmic-ray upscattering for GeV-scale dark matter,

    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, arXiv:2209.03360 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Cosmic-ray boosted dark matter in Xe-based direct detection experiments,

    T. N. Maity and R. Laha, “Cosmic-ray boosted dark matter in Xe-based direct detection experiments,” Eur. Phys. J. C84 no. 2, (2024) 117, arXiv:2210.01815 [hep-ph]. 24

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cosmic-ray boosted dark matter confronted by constraints on new light mediators,

    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 no. 6, (2024) 063034, arXiv:2309.11003 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Constraints on sub-GeV dark matter boosted by cosmic rays from the CDEX-10 experiment at the China Jinping Underground Laboratory,

    CDEX Collaboration, R. Xu et al., “Constraints on sub-GeV dark matter boosted by cosmic rays from the CDEX-10 experiment at the China Jinping Underground Laboratory,” Phys. Rev. D106 no. 5, (2022) 052008, arXiv:2201.01704 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Boosted Neutrinos and Relativistic Dark Particles as Messengers from Reheating,

    J. Jaeckel and W. Yin, “Boosted Neutrinos and Relativistic Dark Particles as Messengers from Reheating,” JCAP 02 (2021) 044, arXiv:2007.15006 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Prospects for Light Dark Matter Searches at Large-Volume Neutrino Detectors,

    B. Dutta, W.-C. Huang, D. Kim, J. L. Newstead, J.-C. Park, and I. S. Ali, “Prospects for Light Dark Matter Searches at Large-Volume Neutrino Detectors,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133 no. 16, (2024) 161801, arXiv:2402.04184 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Boosted dark matter from diffuse supernova neutrinos,

    A. Das and M. Sen, “Boosted dark matter from diffuse supernova neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 7, (2021) 075029, arXiv:2104.00027 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Probing light dark matter through cosmic-ray cooling in active galactic nuclei,

    G. Herrera and K. Murase, “Probing light dark matter through cosmic-ray cooling in active galactic nuclei,” Phys. Rev. D110 no. 1, (2024) L011701, arXiv:2307.09460 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    XENONnT and LUX-ZEPLIN constraints on DSNB-boosted dark matter,

    V. De Romeri, A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, and R. Srivastava, “XENONnT and LUX-ZEPLIN constraints on DSNB-boosted dark matter,” JCAP 03 (2024) 028, arXiv:2309.04117 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Exclusion limits on dark matter-neutrino scattering cross section,

    D. Ghosh, A. Guha, and D. Sachdeva, “Exclusion limits on dark matter-neutrino scattering cross section,” Phys. Rev. D105 no. 10, (2022) 103029, arXiv:2110.00025 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    The Neff at CMB challenges U (1)X light gauge boson scenarios,

    D. K. Ghosh, P. Ghosh, S. Jeesun, and R. Srivastava, “The Neff at CMB challenges U (1)X light gauge boson scenarios,” arXiv:2404.10077 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Energy-dependent boosted dark matter from diffuse supernova neutrino background,

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

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Neutrino Portals to Dark Matter,

    M. Blennow, E. Fernandez-Martinez, A. Olivares-Del Campo, S. Pascoli, S. Rosauro-Alcaraz, 25 and A. V. Titov, “Neutrino Portals to Dark Matter,” Eur. Phys. J. C79 no. 7, (2019) 555, arXiv:1903.00006 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Leptophilic Effective WIMPs,

    S. Chang, R. Edezhath, J. Hutchinson, and M. Luty, “Leptophilic Effective WIMPs,” Phys. Rev. D90 no. 1, (2014) 015011, arXiv:1402.7358 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Galactic Cosmic Rays in the Local Interstellar Medium: Voyager 1 Observations and Model Results,

    A. C. Cummings, E. C. Stone, B. C. Heikkila, N. Lal, W. R. Webber, G. J´ ohannesson, I. V. Moskalenko, E. Orlando, and T. A. Porter, “Galactic Cosmic Rays in the Local Interstellar Medium: Voyager 1 Observations and Model Results,” Astrophys. J. 831 no. 1, (2016) 18

    2016

  47. [55]

    A novel determination of the local dark matter density,

    R. Catena and P. Ullio, “A novel determination of the local dark matter density,” JCAP 08 (2010) 004, arXiv:0907.0018 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  48. [56]

    The cosmic-ray electron flux measured by the PAMELA experiment between 1 and 625 GeV,

    P AMELACollaboration, O. Adriani et al., “The cosmic-ray electron flux measured by the PAMELA experiment between 1 and 625 GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett.106 (2011) 201101, arXiv:1103.2880 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  49. [57]

    3. For CRe, we use the parametrization used in [38] and the flux ( dΦe/dTedΩ) is given by, dΦe dTedΩ =    1.799 × 1044T −12.061 e 1 + 2.762 × 1036T −9.269 e + 3.853 × 1040T −10.697 e if Te < 6880 MeV 3.259 × 1010T −3.505 e + 3.204 × 105T −2.620 e if Te ≥ 6880 MeV (3) 2 Si...

  50. [58]

    Measurement of separate cosmic-ray electron and positron spectra with the Fermi Large Area Telescope,

    F ermi-LA TCollaboration, M. Ackermann et al., “Measurement of separate cosmic-ray electron and positron spectra with the Fermi Large Area Telescope,” Phys. Rev. Lett.108 (2012) 011103, arXiv:1109.0521 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [59]

    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,

    AMS Collaboration, M. Aguilar et al., “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

  52. [60]

    From Observations near the Earth to the Local Interstellar Spectra,

    S. Della Torre et al., “From Observations near the Earth to the Local Interstellar Spectra,” in 25th European Cosmic Ray Symposium. 12, 2016. arXiv:1701.02363 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A consistent set of nuclear rms charge radii: properties of the radius surface R(N,Z),

    I. Angeli, “A consistent set of nuclear rms charge radii: properties of the radius surface R(N,Z),” Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.87 no. 2, (2004) 185–206

    2004

  54. [62]

    Dark matter detectors as a novel probe for light new physics,

    A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, and R. Srivastava, “Dark matter detectors as a novel probe for light new physics,” Phys. Rev. D106 no. 1, (2022) 013001, arXiv:2112.03309 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Fundamental physics with the diffuse supernova background neutrinos,

    A. De Gouvˆ ea, I. Martinez-Soler, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and M. Sen, “Fundamental physics with the diffuse supernova background neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 123012, arXiv:2007.13748 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    The Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background,

    J. F. Beacom, “The Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 439–462, arXiv:1004.3311 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  57. [65]

    The Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background is detectable in Super-Kamiokande,

    S. Horiuchi, J. F. Beacom, and E. Dwek, “The Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background is detectable in Super-Kamiokande,” Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 083013, arXiv:0812.3157 [astro-ph]. 26

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Diffuse supernova neutrino background from extensive core-collapse simulations of 8-100M ⊙ progenitors,

    S. Horiuchi, K. Sumiyoshi, K. Nakamura, T. Fischer, A. Summa, T. Takiwaki, H.-T. Janka, and K. Kotake, “Diffuse supernova neutrino background from extensive core-collapse simulations of 8-100M ⊙ progenitors,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475 no. 1, (2018) 1363–1374, arXiv:1709.0...

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Supernova Relic Neutrino Search with Neutron Tagging at Super-Kamiokande-IV,

    Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, H. Zhang et al., “Supernova Relic Neutrino Search with Neutron Tagging at Super-Kamiokande-IV,” Astropart. Phys.60 (2015) 41–46, arXiv:1311.3738 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Low-energy electronic recoil in xenon detectors by solar neutrinos,

    J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, C. P. Liu, and C.-P. Wu, “Low-energy electronic recoil in xenon detectors by solar neutrinos,” Phys. Lett. B774 (2017) 656–661, arXiv:1610.04177 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Supernova Relic Neutrino Search at Super-Kamiokande,

    Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, K. Bays et al., “Supernova Relic Neutrino Search at Super-Kamiokande,” Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 052007, arXiv:1111.5031 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Solar Neutrinos as a Signal and Background in Direct-Detection Experiments Searching for Sub-GeV Dark Matter With Electron Recoils,

    R. Essig, M. Sholapurkar, and T.-T. Yu, “Solar Neutrinos as a Signal and Background in Direct-Detection Experiments Searching for Sub-GeV Dark Matter With Electron Recoils,” Phys. Rev. D97 no. 9, (2018) 095029, arXiv:1801.10159 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Integral equations governing radiation effects. (notes on atomic collisions, iii),

    J. Lindhard, V. Nielsen, M. Scharff, and P. V. Thomsen, “Integral equations governing radiation effects. (notes on atomic collisions, iii),” Kgl. Danske Videnskab., Selskab. Mat. Fys. Medd. 33 no. 10, (1, 1963) . https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4701226

    1963

  64. [72]

    A Proposal for a different chi square function for Poisson distributions,

    F. M. L. Almeida, Jr., M. Barbi, and M. A. B. do Vale, “A Proposal for a different chi square function for Poisson distributions,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A449 (2000) 383–395, arXiv:hep-ex/9911042

    2000 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Chi-squared distribution table with sigma values,

    R. Reid, “Chi-squared distribution table with sigma values,” www.reid.ai/2012/09/chi-squared-distribution-table-with.html

    2012

  66. [74]

    SENSEI: First Direct-Detection Constraints on sub-GeV Dark Matter from a Surface Run,

    SENSEI Collaboration, M. Crisler, R. Essig, J. Estrada, G. Fernandez, J. Tiffenberg, M. Sofo haro, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, “SENSEI: First Direct-Detection Constraints on sub-GeV Dark Matter from a Surface Run,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121 no. 6, (2018) 061803, arXiv:1804.00088 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  67. [75]

    First Direct Detection Limits on sub-GeV Dark Matter from XENON10,

    R. Essig, A. Manalaysay, J. Mardon, P. Sorensen, and T. Volansky, “First Direct Detection Limits on sub-GeV Dark Matter from XENON10,” Phys. Rev. Lett.109 (2012) 021301, arXiv:1206.2644 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Directly Detecting MeV-scale Dark Matter 27 via Solar Reflection,

    H. An, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, “Directly Detecting MeV-scale Dark Matter 27 via Solar Reflection,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120 no. 14, (2018) 141801, arXiv:1708.03642 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 259903 (2018)]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Search for low-mass WIMPs in a 0.6 kg day exposure of the DAMIC experiment at SNOLAB,

    DAMIC Collaboration, A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al., “Search for low-mass WIMPs in a 0.6 kg day exposure of the DAMIC experiment at SNOLAB,” Phys. Rev. D94 no. 8, (2016) 082006, arXiv:1607.07410 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  70. [78]

    First results from the NEWS-G direct dark matter search experiment at the LSM,

    NEWS-G Collaboration, Q. Arnaud et al., “First results from the NEWS-G direct dark matter search experiment at the LSM,” Astropart. Phys.97 (2018) 54–62, arXiv:1706.04934 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  71. [79]

    CDEX Collaboration, Z. Z. Liu et al., “Constraints on Spin-Independent Nucleus Scattering with sub-GeV Weakly Interacting Massive Particle Dark Matter from the CDEX-1B Experiment at the China Jinping Underground Laboratory,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123 no. 16, (2019) 161301, arXiv:190...

    2019 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Search for sub-gev dark matter via the migdal effect with an edelweiss germanium detector with nbsi transition-edge sensors,

    EDEL WEISSCollaboration, E. Armengaud et al., “Search for sub-gev dark matter via the migdal effect with an edelweiss germanium detector with nbsi transition-edge sensors,” Physical Review D106 no. 6, (Sept., 2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    Search for Dark-Matter–Nucleon Interactions via Migdal Effect with DarkSide-50,

    DarkSide Collaboration, P. Agnes et al., “Search for Dark-Matter–Nucleon Interactions via Migdal Effect with DarkSide-50,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130 no. 10, (2023) 101001, arXiv:2207.11967 [hep-ex]

    2023

  74. [82]

    Constraints on Dark Matter with a moderately large and velocity-dependent DM-nucleon cross-section,

    M. S. Mahdawi and G. R. Farrar, “Constraints on Dark Matter with a moderately large and velocity-dependent DM-nucleon cross-section,” JCAP 10 (2018) 007, arXiv:1804.03073 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Search for Cosmic-Ray Boosted Sub-GeV Dark Matter at the PandaX-II Experiment,

    PandaX-II Collaboration, X. Cui et al., “Search for Cosmic-Ray Boosted Sub-GeV Dark Matter at the PandaX-II Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128 no. 17, (2022) 171801, arXiv:2112.08957 [hep-ex]. 28

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.