Dark Matter Searches with Sodium Iodide Detectors

Maria Luisa Sarsa; Maria Martinez; Reina H. Maruyama

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 147 references

Dark Matter Searches with Sodium Iodide Detectors

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Combined NaI experiments find no annual modulation and exclude DAMA/LIBRA's dark-matter claim at up to 4.7 sigma.

desk verdict Solid, candid Annual Reviews synthesis of the NaI DM program; the 4.7σ combined exclusion is correctly reported from the literature, with systematics discussed at length rather than papered over. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24448 v1 pith:YIRGFACR submitted 2026-07-27 hep-ex astro-ph.IMhep-ph

Maria Martinez , Reina H. Maruyama , Maria Luisa Sarsa This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-exastro-ph.IMhep-ph

keywords sodiumiodidescintillatorsdarkmatterdirectdetectionannualmodulationDAMA/LIBRAANAIS-112COSINE-100quenchingfactor

topics 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

This review maps the role of thallium-doped sodium iodide detectors in the direct search for dark matter, from early experiments through the long-standing DAMA/LIBRA annual-modulation claim. It shows that two independent NaI experiments, ANAIS-112 and COSINE-100, each running for six years with the same target material, measure modulation amplitudes consistent with zero. When their data are combined, the DAMA/LIBRA signal is excluded at 4.7 sigma in the 1-6 keV range and 3.5 sigma in the 2-6 keV range, giving a model-independent argument against a dark-matter interpretation. The paper then surveys remaining experimental differences (quenching factors, event selection, backgrounds) and the next generation of NaI detectors that will push thresholds lower and test spin-dependent couplings. A sympathetic reader cares because a claimed dark-matter detection that has stood for more than two decades is now being closed by the same technology that first reported it.

What carries the argument

Model-independent annual-modulation search in NaI(Tl): residual single-hit rates in the same electron-equivalent energy windows used by DAMA/LIBRA, fitted for cosine amplitude, period and phase, with quenching-factor and efficiency systematics folded in.

What would settle it

A future NaI experiment (or a re-analysis of the preserved DAMA crystals) that recovers a statistically significant annual modulation with the same amplitude, period and phase as DAMA/LIBRA after the same energy calibration and event selection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the same NaI(Tl) target and annual-modulation technique as DAMA/LIBRA, the combined six-year data sets of ANAIS-112 and COSINE-100 yield modulation amplitudes consistent with zero and incompatible with DAMA/LIBRA at 4.7 sigma (1-6 keV) and 3.5 sigma (2-6 keV), furnishing a strong model-independent case that the DAMA/LIBRA signal is not dark matter.

Load-bearing premise

That differences in quenching factor, event-selection efficiency and time-dependent background treatment between DAMA/LIBRA and the ANAIS/COSINE detectors are not large enough to hide a true dark-matter modulation that would appear only under DAMA's analysis chain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A dark-matter interpretation of the DAMA/LIBRA annual modulation is strongly disfavored on model-independent grounds.
Next-generation NaI detectors can still set competitive limits on spin-dependent WIMP-proton and WIMP-neutron couplings once thresholds reach the 150-250 eV range.
Hybrid heat-light bolometers (COSINUS) and SiPM-readout crystals can convert residual energy-scale uncertainties into particle-identification power.
Independent characterization of the original DAMA crystals at LNGS becomes the cleanest remaining cross-check of the anomaly's origin.

Reading between the lines

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

If the remaining quenching-factor and efficiency systematics continue to shrink under shared open-data protocols, the community will treat the DAMA claim as experimentally closed rather than theoretically tuned away.
The same low-threshold NaI technology developed to settle the modulation puzzle is already competitive for sub-GeV dark-matter candidates that couple to electrons or to nuclear spin, so the infrastructure outlives the anomaly.
Preservation and public re-measurement of the original DAMA modules would set a reproducibility precedent for other large, non-replicable rare-event claims.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a commissioned Annual Reviews piece, not a new result. Its job is status and synthesis, and it does that job cleanly.

What it does well: the historical arc from BPRS/DM32 through DAMA/LIBRA to ANAIS-112 and COSINE-100 is accurate and usable. Table 1, the timeline, and the background spectra in Fig. 2 line up with the primary papers. Section 3.4 is unusually frank for a review—QF discrepancies, efficiency differences, residual-rate systematics, crystal contamination, and the absence of public DAMA data are all on the table. The authors disclose their ANAIS/COSINE memberships. The load-bearing claim (combined 6-year modulation amplitudes consistent with zero, incompatible with DAMA at 4.7σ/3.5σ) is taken from the published joint analysis (Ref. 31), not re-derived in private fits here.

Soft spot, in proportion: the headline 6-year combination is a “simple combination,” justified by equivalence of simple vs. full simulation-based joint analysis on the 3-year set. Equivalence at 3 years does not strictly guarantee it at 6 years once time-dependent backgrounds and COSINE’s early upward fluctuation are in play. That is a modest, checkable gap in the cited primary result, not a flaw invented by the review; the independent per-experiment exclusions and the 1–6 keV result still stand, so the qualitative conclusion survives. No other load-bearing problems. Math and citation pattern look solid for a review of this type.

Who it is for: anyone who needs a single, current map of the NaI landscape and the state of the DAMA test—students, theorists updating exclusion plots, and people planning next-generation NaI work (SABRE, COSINUS, PICOLON, SiPM readouts). It deserves a serious referee as a standard Annual Reviews article. I would engage with it and keep it on the shelf.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This is an invited-style review (Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.) of dark matter searches with NaI(Tl) detectors, covering the historical development from BPRS/DM32/ELEGANTS-V through DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA, the current-generation tests by ANAIS-112 and COSINE-100, interpretations of the DAMA/LIBRA annual-modulation signal (model-dependent, non-DM, and model-independent), a detailed discussion of systematic caveats for cross-experiment comparison (energy-scale linearity, event-selection efficiencies, crystal contamination, quenching factors, DAQ differences), and prospects for next-generation experiments (COSINE-100U, SABRE-North/South, PICOLON, COSINE-200, COSINUS, ANAIS+, ASTAROTH). The headline physics content is the reporting of the published 6-year ANAIS-112 + COSINE-100 results and their joint analysis (Ref. 31): modulation amplitudes consistent with zero, excluding the DAMA/LIBRA signal at 4.7σ (1–6 keV) and 3.5σ (2–6 keV).

Significance. If the reported numbers stand, this review documents the near-resolution of a ~25-year anomaly that has shaped the direct-detection field. Its strengths are real and should be named: (i) the tabulated exposures, background spectra (Fig. 2), and exclusion significances track the cited primary papers accurately; (ii) §3.4 is unusually candid about the very systematics (QF discrepancies, differing event-selection efficiencies, time-dependent backgrounds) that could undermine a model-independent comparison, rather than papering them over — including the toy-MC signal-injection validation and presentation of the exclusion on both ER and NR scales under multiple QF assumptions (Fig. 3b–c); (iii) §3.5 documents open data sharing by ANAIS-112 and COSINE-100, a genuinely useful community resource; (iv) author involvement in ANAIS/COSINE is explicitly disclosed. As a review it derives no new results, but it is a timely, balanced, and accurate synthesis of the state of play, and the concluding emphasis on reproducibility is well earned.

major comments (2)

[§3.3 (combined 6-year analysis; Fig. 3)] The headline 4.7σ (1–6 keV) / 3.5σ (2–6 keV) combined exclusion is quoted from Ref. 31, and the review correctly discloses that for the 6-year combined data 'only the simple combination was performed after it was demonstrated to be equivalent to the detailed combination' on the 3-year data set. However, equivalence at 3 years does not strictly imply equivalence at 6 years: time-dependent background components (tritium, 210Pb decay, surface contamination) accumulate differently over the longer baseline, and COSINE-100's early upward fluctuation is diluted differently in the longer set. The review does not need to redo the analysis, but since the 4.7σ figure is the load-bearing number behind the 'strong model-independent argument' language in §1 and §5, the text should state explicitly (one or two sentences) that the detailed simulation-based joint analysis has not yet been repeated for th
[§3.4.4 (quenching factors)] The review asserts that 'the QF cannot explain the fact that DAMA/LIBRA observed an annual modulation but other experiments found no signal.' This conclusion is defensible given Fig. 3b–c, but the supporting argument in this subsection is qualitative. Since §3.4.4 is the manuscript's own identification of the largest systematic, it would strengthen the central claim to add a compact quantitative statement — e.g., the range of QF_Na/QF_I values over which the ANAIS-112 and COSINE-100 exclusions hold (the 4.2σ incompatibility quoted in §2.5.5 under the QF-rescaled window is given, but only for one QF hypothesis) — or to point explicitly to the figure panels that demonstrate the exclusion under the most conservative published QF assumptions.

minor comments (7)

[Figure 1 caption] The caption says 'Timeline of NaI(Tl) dark matter experiments from 2013 to 2027', but the axis spans 1993–2027 and includes DM32, DAMA/NaI, and NAIAD. The start year in the caption should be 1993.
[Figure 2 caption] The legend label 'DAMA/LIBRA/NaI' is confusing; it appears to refer to the DAMA/NaI spectrum (red dots), distinct from DAMA/LIBRA Phase 1/2. Please harmonize legend and caption labels.
[Various (typos)] Several typographical errors: 'moduless' (§2.3.3); 'cpd kg−1 keV[−1' (mismatched bracket, §2.3.3); '30 km s−1s' (§2.1); 'woud' (§2.4.2); 'dow 1 keV' (§3.1); 'have rule out' twice (§3.1, should be 'have ruled out'); 'experient' (§5); 'ineracting' (Summary Points 2); 'fiancial' (Acknowledgments); 'Panda-X' should be 'PandaX' (§1); Eq. (1) is followed by a stray ',1.' rather than a standard equation number.
[Table 1 vs §2.5.4] Table 1 lists COSINE-100 mass as 61.3 kg while §2.5.4 states 61.4 kg for the physics analysis; please make consistent.
[§3.4.4] The statement that Fushimi et al. values 'significantly differed' from DAMA's QF_Na = 0.30±0.01 vs 0.40±0.2 is statistically odd given the large Fushimi uncertainty; rephrase as a central-value comparison.
[§2.5.5] §2.5.5: 'ANAIS-112 took data until January 2026, by which time it had a sensitivity of ∼5σ' — clarify 'sensitivity to what' (presumably to excluding the DAMA/LIBRA modulation amplitude), since 'sensitivity' is otherwise ambiguous here.
[Figure 4] Figure 4 is adapted from a community plotting repository; please confirm the projected NaI curves (250/150 eV thresholds, 0.2 cpd/kg/keV background) trace to a citable source or add the assumptions (exposure scaling, QF values used) to the caption for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Review paper with no circular derivation: claims rest on published experimental results, not self-defined predictions.

full rationale

This is a review of NaI dark-matter experiments. It does not present a first-principles derivation, fitted-parameter 'prediction,' uniqueness theorem, or ansatz that reduces to its own inputs. The strongest quantitative claim (combined ANAIS-112 + COSINE-100 exclusion of DAMA/LIBRA at 4.7σ / 3.5σ) is explicitly attributed to an external published joint analysis (Ref. 31) and to the individual 6-year papers (Refs. 29, 30), not re-derived here from private fits. Author membership in ANAIS/COSINE is disclosed and is normal for a field review; those citations point to peer-reviewed, externally falsifiable experimental measurements, not to an unverified self-citation chain that forces the conclusion by construction. Section 3.4 candidly lists systematics (QF, efficiencies, backgrounds) rather than smuggling them away. No equation equates a claimed prediction to a fitted input. Circularity score is therefore zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

A review inherits the standard experimental and astrophysical assumptions of the direct-detection literature; it introduces no new free parameters or entities of its own. Load-bearing premises are the usual halo model, the interpretation of annual modulation, and the transferability of quenching factors across crystals.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Standard halo model predicts annual modulation with period 1 yr and phase near 2 June for elastic WIMP scattering.
Used throughout Sections 2.1 and 3 to define the expected signal that DAMA claims and that ANAIS/COSINE test.
domain assumption Electron-equivalent energy scales anchored at the 3.2 keV 40K line are sufficiently linear for comparing 1–6 keV rates across experiments.
Section 3.4.1; required for the model-independent rate comparison.
domain assumption Quenching-factor differences between DAMA and ANAIS/COSINE crystals can be bounded by existing mono-energetic neutron and 252Cf measurements.
Section 3.4.4; if QFs differ by more than the measured factor ~1.5 the energy-window mapping changes and the exclusion significance shifts.
domain assumption Time-dependent backgrounds in ANAIS and COSINE are adequately modeled so that residual-rate or likelihood fits do not induce fake modulation of DAMA’s amplitude and phase.
Sections 3.2–3.3; toy-MC injection tests are cited as support.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Matter Searches with Sodium Iodide Detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIRGFACR

@misc{pith2026260724448,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Matter Searches with Sodium Iodide Detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIRGFACR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24448}
}

read the original abstract

The search for the identity of dark matter remains one of the most intriguing challenges in physics today, driving innovative advances in experiment and theory. Thallium-doped sodium iodide (NaI) detectors have played a pivotal role in this context. This review outlines the scientific landscape surrounding NaI detectors, emphasizing their role in the broader context of dark matter research. We begin with a brief description of characteristics that make these detectors well-suited for dark matter detection. We then provide a historical overview and explore the results from the DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA experiments, which have reported annual modulation signals consistent with dark matter interactions--a signal that to date no other experiment has replicated. We discuss recent results from NaI-based experiments launched, in part, to resolve this tantalizing anomaly. We conclude with a summary of the status and prospects for current and future NaI-based dark matter searches.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

[1]

Friedman JI, Little W A.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine79 (2001)

2001
[2]

Laboratory technique monograph

Curran SC, Craggs JD. Laboratory technique monograph. New York: Academic Press, [1st ed.] ed. (1949)

1949
[3]

Rev.49(1):69–84 (1989)

Kanbach G, et al.Space Sci. Rev.49(1):69–84 (1989)

1989
[4]

J.702:791–804 (2009)

Meegan C, et al.Astrophys. J.702:791–804 (2009)

2009
[5]

Goodman MW, Witten E.Phys. Rev. D31:3059 (1985)

1985
[6]

Drukier AK, Freese K, Spergel DN.Phys. Rev. D33:3495–3508 (1986)

1986
[7]

Ahlen SP, Avignone FT, Brodzinski RL, Drukier AK, Gelmini G, Spergel DN.Phys. Lett. B 195:603–608 (1987)

1987
[8]

Bacci C, et al.Phys. Lett. B293:460–464 (1992)

1992

Show all 147 references

[9]

Fushimi K, Ejiri H, Kinoshita H, Kudomi N, Kume K, et al.Phys. Rev. C47:R425–R428 (1993)

1993
[10]

Sarsa ML, Morales A, Morales J, Garcia E, Ortiz de Solorzano A, et al.Phys. Lett. B386:458– 462 (1996)

1996
[11]

Sarsa ML, Morales A, Morales J, Garcia E, Ortiz de Solorzano A, et al.Phys. Rev. D56:1856– 1862 (1997) 24 Martinez, Maruyama, and Sarsa

1997
[12]

Bernabei R, Belli P, Montecchia F, Di Nicolantonio D, Incicchitti A, et al.Physics Letters B 424(1):195–201 (1998)

1998
[13]

Nuovo Cim.26N1:1–73 (2003)

Bernabei R, et al.Riv. Nuovo Cim.26N1:1–73 (2003)

2003
[14]

Bernabei R, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C73:2648 (2013)

2013
[15]

Bernabei R, et al.Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.212-213:307–314 (2011)

2011
[16]

Bernabei R, et al.Nucl. Phys. Atom. Energy22(4):329–342 (2021)

2021
[17]

Feng JL.SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes71:1 (2023)

2023
[18]

Abdelhameed AH, et al.Phys. Rev. D100(10):102002 (2019)

2019
[19]

Agnese R, et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.120(6):061802 (2018)

2018
[20]

Agnes P, et al.Phys. Rev. D107(6):063001 (2023)

2023
[21]

Ajaj R, et al.Phys. Rev. D100(2):022004 (2019)

2019
[22]

Bo Z, et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.134(1):011805 (2025)

2025
[23]

Aprile E, et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.133(19):191002 (2024)

2024
[24]

Aalbers J, et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.135(1):011802 (2025)

2025
[25]

Navas S, et al.Phys. Rev. D110(3):030001 (2024)

2024
[26]

Billard J, et al.Rept. Prog. Phys.85(5):056201 (2022)

2022
[27]

Bo Z, et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.133(19):191001 (2024)

2024
[28]

Aprile E, et al.arXiv:2502.18005(2025)

2025
[29]

Amar´ e J, et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.135(5):051001 (2025)

2025
[30]

Adv.11(36):adv6503 (2025)

Carlin N, et al.Sci. Adv.11(36):adv6503 (2025)

2025
[31]

Carlin N, et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.135(12):121002 (2025)

2025
[32]

Graham PW, Irastorza IG, Lamoreaux SK, Lindner A, van Bibber KA.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.65:485–514 (2015)

2015
[33]

Choi K, Im SH, Sub Shin C.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71:225–252 (2021)

2021
[34]

Graham M, Hearty C, Williams M.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71:37–58 (2021)

2021
[35]

Hui L.Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.59:247–289 (2021)

2021
[36]

Berlin A, Kahn Y.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75(1):83–108 (2025)

2025
[37]

Zurek KM.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.74:287–319 (2024)

2024
[38]

Essig R, et al. 2022. InSnowmass 2021, arXiv:2203.08297

2022 arXiv
[39]

Fitzpatrick AL, Haxton W, Katz E, Lubbers N, Xu Y.JCAP02:004 (2013)

2013
[40]

Ibe M, Nakano W, Shoji Y, Suzuki K.JHEP03:194 (2018)

2018
[41]

Yi D, et al.Nature649(8097):580–583 (2026)

2026
[42]

Freese K, Lisanti M, Savage C.Rev. Mod. Phys.85:1561–1581 (2013)

2013
[43]

Miuchi K.JAIS2024:473 (2024)

2024
[44]

Phys.93:86–95 (2017)

Oliv´ an MA, et al.Astropart. Phys.93:86–95 (2017)

2017
[45]

Choi JJ, Park BJ, Ha C, Kim KW, Kim SK, et al.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A981:164556 (2020)

2020
[46]

Mater.36:316–320 (2013)

Cuesta C, et al.Opt. Mater.36:316–320 (2013)

2013
[47]

A104:1581– 1585 (1991)

Morales A, Morales J, Nunez-Lagos R, Puimedon J, Villar JA, et al.Nuovo Cim. A104:1581– 1585 (1991)

1991
[48]

Ejiri H, et al.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A302:304–314 (1991)

1991
[49]

Bernabei R, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C18:283–292 (2000)

2000
[50]

Bernabei R, et al.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A592:297–315 (2008)

2008
[51]

Bernabei R, et al.JINST7:P03009 (2012)

2012
[52]

Bernabei R, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C56:333–355 (2008)

2008
[53]

Bernabei R, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C67:39–49 (2010)

2010
[54]

Messina A, Nardecchia M, Piacentini S.JCAP04:037 (2020)

2020
[55]

Buttazzo D, Panci P, Rossi N, Strumia A.JHEP04:137 (2020)

2020
[56]

Rep.13(1):4676 (2023)

Adhikari G, et al.Sci. Rep.13(1):4676 (2023)

2023
[57]

Bernabei R, et al.Nucl. Phys. Atom. Energy19(4):307–325 (2018)

2018
[58]

Bernabei R, et al.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.114:103810 (2020)

2020
[59]

Bernabei R, et al.Phys. Lett. B389:757–766 (1996) www.annualreviews.org • Dark Matter Searches with NaI(Tl) 25

1996
[60]

Bernabei R, et al.Phys. Lett. B480:23–31 (2000)

2000
[61]

Alner GJ, et al.Phys. Lett. B616:17–24 (2005)

2005
[62]

Barbosa de Souza E, et al.Phys. Rev. D95(3):032006 (2017)

2017
[63]

Adv.7(46):abk2699 (2021)

Adhikari G, et al.Sci. Adv.7(46):abk2699 (2021)

2021
[64]

Calaprice F, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C82(12):1158 (2022)

2022
[65]

Barberio E, et al.JINST20(04):T04001 (2025)

2025
[66]

in Phys.11:1142765 (2023)

Lee H, et al.Front. in Phys.11:1142765 (2023)

2023
[67]

Smith PF, et al.Phys. Lett. B379:299–308 (1996)

1996
[68]

Cherwinka J, et al.Phys. Rev. D90(9):092005 (2014)

2014
[69]

Phys.35:749–754 (2012)

Cherwinka J, et al.Astropart. Phys.35:749–754 (2012)

2012
[70]

Cherwinka J, et al.Phys. Rev. D93(4):042001 (2016)

2016
[71]

Lee HS, et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.99:091301 (2007)

2007
[72]

Kim SC, et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.108:181301 (2012)

2012
[73]

Adhikari G, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C78(2):107 (2018)

2018
[74]

Adhikari G, et al.Nature564(7734):83–86 (2018), [Erratum: Nature 566, E2 (2019)]

2018
[75]

Adhikari P, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C78:490 (2018)

2018
[76]

Adhikari G, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C81(9):837 (2021)

2021
[77]

Yu GH, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C85(1):32 (2025)

2025
[78]

Yu GH, et al.arXiv:2501.13665(2025)

2025
[79]

Adhikari G, et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.123(3):031302 (2019)

2019
[80]

Adhikari G, et al.Phys. Rev. D106(5):052005 (2022)

2022
[81]

Amar´ e J, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C79(3):228 (2019)

2019
[82]

Amare J, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C79(5):412 (2019)

2019
[83]

Amar´ e J, et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.123(3):031301 (2019)

2019
[84]

Amar´ e J, et al.J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1468(1):012014 (2020)

2020
[85]

Amare J, et al.Phys. Rev. D103(10):102005 (2021)

2021
[86]

Cintas D, et al.Phys. Rev. C110(1):014613 (2024)

2024
[87]

Savage C, Gelmini G, Gondolo P, Freese K.JCAP04:010 (2009)

2009
[88]

Baum S, Freese K, Kelso C.Phys. Lett. B789:262–269 (2019)

2019
[89]

Bernabei R, et al.Nucl. Phys. Atom. Energy20(4):317–348 (2019)

2019
[90]

Anand N, Fitzpatrick AL, Haxton WC.Phys. Rev. C89(6):065501 (2014)

2014
[91]

Archambault S, et al.Phys. Lett. B711:153–161 (2012)

2012
[92]

Phys.76:48–60 (2016)

Fernandes AC, Kling A, Felizardo M, Girard TA, Ramos AR, et al.Astropart. Phys.76:48–60 (2016)

2016
[93]

Behnke E, et al.Phys. Rev. D86(5):052001 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 079902 (2014)]

2012
[94]

Amole C, et al.Phys. Rev. D100(2):022001 (2019)

2019
[95]

Green AM.Mod. Phys. Lett. A27:1230004 (2012)

2012
[96]

Fox PJ, Kribs GD, Tait TMP.Phys. Rev. D83:034007 (2011)

2011
[97]

Fox PJ, Liu J, Weiner N.Phys. Rev. D83:103514 (2011)

2011
[98]

Herrero-Garcia J, Schwetz T, Zupan J.Phys. Rev. Lett.109:141301 (2012)

2012
[99]

Herrero-Garcia J, Schwetz T, Zupan J.JCAP03:005 (2012)

2012
[100]

Bernabei R, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C53:205–213 (2008)

2008
[101]

Phys.108:50–56 (2019)

Joo HW, Park HS, Kim JH, Kim SK, Kim YD, et al.Astropart. Phys.108:50–56 (2019)

2019
[102]

Nygren D.arXiv:1102.0815(2011)

2011 arXiv
[103]

Ferenc D, Ferenc ˇSegedin D, Ferenc ˇSegedin I, ˇSegedin Ferenc M.arXiv:1901.02139(2019)

1901 arXiv
[104]

Ralston JP.arXiv:1006.5255(2010)

2010 arXiv
[105]

McKinsey DN.arXiv:1803.10110(2018)

2018 arXiv
[106]

Davis JH.Phys. Rev. Lett.113:081302 (2014)

2014
[107]

Rev.122(3):815–826 (1961)

Murray RB, Meyer A.Phys. Rev.122(3):815–826 (1961)

1961
[108]

Rooney B, Valentine J.IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science44(3):509–516 (1997)

1997
[109]

Moses WW.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A487:123–128 (2002) 26 Martinez, Maruyama, and Sarsa

2002
[110]

Choong WS, Vetter KM, Moses WW, Hull G, Payne SA, et al.IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science55(3):1753–1758 (2008)

2008
[111]

Hull G, Choong WS, Moses WW, Bizarri G, Valentine JD, et al.IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science56(1):331–336 (2009)

2009
[112]

Payne SA, Cherepy NJ, Hull G, Valentine JD, Moses WW, Choong WS.IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science56(4):2506–2512 (2009)

2009
[113]

Khodyuk IV, Rodnyi PA, Dorenbos P.J. Appl. Phys.107:113513 (2010)

2010
[114]

Payne SA, Moses WW, Sheets S, Ahle L, Cherepy NJ, et al.IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.58:3392– 3402 (2011)

2011
[115]

Phys.115:102390 (2020)

Barbosa de Souza E, et al.Astropart. Phys.115:102390 (2020)

2020
[116]

Phys.97:96–105 (2018)

Amare J, et al.Astropart. Phys.97:96–105 (2018)

2018
[117]

Advances in detector response and background modelling in the ANAIS-112 experiment for annual modulation and other rare event searches, arXiv:2510.19469 (2025)

Yanguas TP. Advances in detector response and background modelling in the ANAIS-112 experiment for annual modulation and other rare event searches, arXiv:2510.19469 (2025)

2025
[118]

Collar JI.Phys. Rev. C88(3):035806 (2013)

2013
[119]

Xu J, et al.Phys. Rev. C92(1):015807 (2015)

2015
[120]

Lee SH, et al.Phys. Rev. C110(1):014614 (2024)

2024
[121]

Proc.12:028 (2023)

Bharadwaj MR, et al.SciPost Phys. Proc.12:028 (2023)

2023
[122]

Phys.7:109–124 (1997)

Ambrosio M, et al.Astropart. Phys.7:109–124 (1997)

1997
[123]

Adamson P, et al.Phys. Rev. D81:012001 (2010)

2010
[124]

Adamson P, et al.Phys. Rev. D90(1):012010 (2014)

2014
[125]

Abrah˜ ao T, et al.JCAP02:017 (2017)

2017
[126]

Phys.84:29–35 (2016)

Agostini M, et al.Astropart. Phys.84:29–35 (2016)

2016
[127]

An FP, et al.JCAP01:001 (2018)

2018
[128]

Agostini M, et al.JCAP02:046 (2019)

2019
[129]

Agafonova N, et al.JCAP10:003 (2019)

2019
[130]

Agafonova NY, et al.Phys. Rev. D100(6):062002 (2019)

2019
[131]

Prihtiadi H, et al.JCAP02:013 (2021)

2021
[132]

Bernabei R, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C72:2064 (2012)
[133]

in Phys.12:1323991 (2024)

Park KS, Kim YD, Bang KM, Park HK, Lee MH, et al.Front. in Phys.12:1323991 (2024)

2024
[134]

Kim Y, Lee HS.AAPPS Bull.34(1):25 (2024)

2024
[135]

Choi JJ, et al.JINST19(10):P10020 (2024)

2024
[136]

Phys.8(1):135 (2025)

Lee D, et al.Commun. Phys.8(1):135 (2025)

2025
[137]

Phys.141:102709 (2022)

Lee SH, Kim GS, Kim HJ, Kim KW, Lee JY, Lee HS.Astropart. Phys.141:102709 (2022)

2022
[138]

Antonello M, et al.Eur. Phys. J. C81(4):299 (2021)

2021
[139]

Fushimi K, et al.PTEP2021(4):043F01 (2021)

2021
[140]

Kotera K, et al.arXiv:2509.22021(2025)

2025
[141]

Radioanal

Shin KA, Park HK, Gileva O, Aryal P, Karki S.J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem.317:1329–1332 (2017)

2017
[142]

Shin K, Choe J, Gileva O, Iltis A, Kim Y, et al.JINST15(07):C07031 (2020)

2020
[143]

in Phys.11:1142849 (2023)

Shin K, Choe J, Gileva O, Iltis A, Kim Y, et al.Front. in Phys.11:1142849 (2023)

2023
[144]

Angloher G, et al.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1045:167532 (2023)

2023
[145]

Angloher G, et al.Phys. Rev. D110(4):043010 (2024)

2024
[146]

Angloher G, et al.arXiv:2504.18263(2025)

2025
[147]

Martinenghi E, et al.arXiv:2510.24418(2025) www.annualreviews.org • Dark Matter Searches with NaI(Tl) 27

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Friedman JI, Little W A.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine79 (2001)

2001

[2] [2]

Laboratory technique monograph

Curran SC, Craggs JD. Laboratory technique monograph. New York: Academic Press, [1st ed.] ed. (1949)

1949

[3] [3]

Rev.49(1):69–84 (1989)

Kanbach G, et al.Space Sci. Rev.49(1):69–84 (1989)

1989

[4] [4]

J.702:791–804 (2009)

Meegan C, et al.Astrophys. J.702:791–804 (2009)

2009

[5] [5]

Goodman MW, Witten E.Phys. Rev. D31:3059 (1985)

1985

[6] [6]

Drukier AK, Freese K, Spergel DN.Phys. Rev. D33:3495–3508 (1986)

1986

[7] [7]

Ahlen SP, Avignone FT, Brodzinski RL, Drukier AK, Gelmini G, Spergel DN.Phys. Lett. B 195:603–608 (1987)

1987

[8] [8]

Bacci C, et al.Phys. Lett. B293:460–464 (1992)

1992