Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 130 references

Dark matter in Milky Way-like galaxies typically corotates with the disk, and that corotation systematically changes direct-detection predictions.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 01:08 UTC pith:ZFPKQAWI

load-bearing objection A credible simulation-based case that DM corotation is the key astrophysical uncertainty in direct detection; numbers depend on an under-documented scaling but the core result should withstand scrutiny. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00161 v1 pith:ZFPKQAWI submitted 2026-07-31 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

Ubiquitous Corotation of Dark Matter Halos: Implications for Direct Detection

Dylan Folsom , Carlos Blanco , Mariangela Lisanti , Mark Vogelsberger This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords dark matter direct detectionstandard halo modelTNG50 simulationdark matter corotationlocal dark matter velocity distributiondirectional detectionhalo integralspin-independent cross section
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tries to establish that the dark matter in the solar neighborhood of a typical Milky Way-like galaxy does not have an isotropic velocity distribution, but instead moves with a nonzero median azimuthal velocity in the same direction as the stellar disk's rotation. Using 98 halos from the TNG50 simulation, it finds corotation in 91% of halos, with a median azimuthal speed of about 31 km/s (range 6–70 km/s). This corotation slows the Earth-frame dark matter wind, suppressing predicted scattering rates for dark matter lighter than about 50 GeV and making the spin-independent cross-section upper limit at peak sensitivity 21% uncertain, reducible to 7% if the Milky Way's rotation speed is pinned down. The result matters because current direct-detection interpretations assume the isotropic Standard Halo Model, which this work argues is rarely realized and systematically biases both counting experiments and directional modulation searches.

Core claim

The authors find that the dominant source of astrophysical uncertainty for dark matter direct detection is not the overall speed scale or density but the halo-to-halo spread in the median azimuthal velocity of local dark matter, vbar_phi. In the TNG50 sample, the median vbar_phi is +31 km/s with 91% of halos corotating, and the local dark matter's angular momentum aligns with the baryonic disk to within about 5 degrees. This corotation reduces the geocentric dark matter speeds and shifts the halo integral eta(v_min) down at high v_min, which suppresses recoil rates for dark matter below ~50 GeV and spreads the directional flux over a wider sky angle, reducing the daily modulation amplitude.

What carries the argument

The central quantity is the median azimuthal velocity vbar_phi of dark matter in the solar neighborhood (cylindrical radius 8.3 ± 1 kpc, |z| < 1 kpc), which quantifies the strength of corotation. The predictions flow through the halo integral eta(v_min), the kinematic factor in the differential scattering rate, and its correlation with vbar_phi; the paper also uses a scaled version of each TNG50 halo's gravitational potential (the coordinate scaling of Ref [33]) to put all halos on the Milky Way's footing.

Load-bearing premise

The coordinate scaling procedure of Ref [33], which resets each simulated halo's monopole potential to the Milky Way's value, preserves the distribution of dark matter azimuthal velocities vbar_phi; if this rescaling artificially produces or reorients the corotation, the claimed signal and its detection consequences could be partly manufactured.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the same halos without the scaling procedure, or with the coordinate system oriented randomly, that shows the vbar_phi distribution collapses to zero would falsify the claim. Observationally, a stellar-stream measurement that pins the local dark matter azimuthal velocity to zero (or retrograde) with uncertainty below ~10 km/s would also contradict the ubiquitous corotation prediction.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For dark matter masses below ~50 GeV, corotating halos produce weaker spin-independent cross-section upper limits than the Standard Halo Model predicts, by roughly 40% at peak sensitivity.
  • The daily modulation amplitude for directional detectors is suppressed in corotating halos, with the 68% containment radius of the DM flux growing from about 47 to 51 degrees; the directional figure of merit is reduced by up to ~70%.
  • The 21% astrophysical uncertainty on the peak-sensitivity cross-section limit drops to 7% if the Milky Way's rotation speed is measured, because vbar_phi is strongly correlated with the limit.
  • The Standard Halo Model's isotropic assumption is rarely realized in the simulated sample; 91% of halos have positive vbar_phi.
  • The corotation signal appears in a second, independent simulation suite (FIRE-2 Latte), with a Kolmogorov–Smirnov p-value of 99% against the TNG50 distribution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the corotation is real, the 'neutrino fog' for light dark matter may arrive later than SHM-based schedules suggest, since suppressed rates make it harder to see sub-50 GeV WIMPs.
  • A direct measurement of the Milky Way's local dark matter azimuthal velocity—via stellar streams, the vertical structure of the disk, or a future directional detector—would test the central claim without waiting for a new simulation.
  • The same corotation would affect other dark matter signals that depend on the local velocity distribution, such as the annual modulation in phonon or electron-scattering experiments, though those are not analyzed here.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses a sample of 98 Milky Way-like halos from the TNG50 simulation to characterize the local dark-matter velocity distribution and its implications for direct detection. The authors report that the dark-matter median azimuthal velocity \bar{v}_\phi is preferentially aligned with the baryonic disk (median 31 km/s, 16th–84th percentile 6–70 km/s, with 91% of halos corotating). They argue that this corotation suppresses the high-speed dark-matter population, leading to weaker spin-independent cross-section limits for dark matter lighter than about 50 GeV, a 21% halo-to-halo spread in the 90% upper limit at peak sensitivity, and a reduced daily modulation amplitude in directional detectors. They further claim that the astrophysical uncertainty is reducible to 7% if the relevant rotation is measured.

Significance. If the corotation signal is genuine, it challenges the isotropic standard halo model and has concrete consequences for light-WIMP searches and directional detectors. The paper's kinematic framework connecting \bar{v}_\phi to the halo integral is clear, and the use of a 98-halo sample is a strength. The FIRE-2 comparison is a useful, though limited, robustness check. However, the quantitative conclusions rest on the coordinate-scaling procedure of Ref. [33], which is not validated in this manuscript, and the 7% 'reducible' claim is conditioned on a quantity whose measurability is not established. With those caveats addressed, the paper would be a valuable contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Effects on DM direct detection] The paper states that 'we present all results for the scaled halos' after applying the coordinate-scaling procedure of Ref. [33], but the explicit transformation is not given, and no test is shown that the scaling preserves the halo-to-halo distribution of the dark-matter azimuthal velocity. Since the headline numbers — \bar{v}_\phi = 31(+39/-24) km/s, 91% corotation, and the 21%/7% uncertainties on \sigma_{SI} — are all computed for scaled halos, an unrecognized dependence on this scaling could bias the central quantitative claims. The FIRE-2 comparison (KS p-value of 99% with only 6 halos) is not a substitute, especially because it is not stated whether the FIRE-2 halos are scaled in the same way. Please provide the unscaled \bar{v}_\phi distribution and demonstrate that the qualitative and quantitative conclusions survive, or present a direct test of the scaling's effect on the \bar{v
  2. [Effects on DM direct detection] The 7% conditional uncertainty is defined as the spread of the \sigma_{SI} upper limit at fixed \bar{v}_\phi from a two-dimensional Gaussian fit. However, the abstract and concluding statements say this uncertainty is reduced if 'the rotation speed' of the Milky Way is determined. \bar{v}_\phi is the dark-matter azimuthal velocity, not the baryonic circular speed, and the paper does not establish that \bar{v}_\phi is measurable from studies of the Milky Way's formation history. Please correct the wording or provide a concrete mapping from observables (e.g., stellar rotation, circular velocity) to \bar{v}_\phi.
  3. [Effects on DM direct detection] The 21% and 7% uncertainties are extracted by modeling the joint distribution of (\bar{v}_\phi, \sigma_{SI}) as a two-dimensional Gaussian. With 98 halos, the tails of the distribution are not well constrained, and the conditional 7% is a property of that Gaussian model rather than a direct sample statistic. It would be more robust to quote the actual sample percentiles and their bootstrap uncertainties, and to state explicitly that the Gaussian is an idealized model used for illustration.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and full text] There are numerous spacing errors in units, e.g., 'Ge V' and 'ke V' appear in the body and in the abstract. These should be corrected to 'GeV' and 'keV'.
  2. [Conclusions] The claim that the FIRE-2 \bar{v}_\phi values 'match' the TNG50 distribution with a KS p-value of 99% is overstated for a sample of 6 halos; the test has very low power. Please soften the language or provide a more quantitative statement of the comparison's limitations.
  3. [Fig. 3 inset] The inset reports \Gamma = 10^{-3} km^{-1} s sr^{-1}. The units should be defined explicitly in the caption, as they are unusual for a rate-like quantity.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'lack DM with the speed required' is ambiguous; consider rewording to 'are depleted in dark matter with the required speed'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the corotation signal is a simulation output, not an input; direct-detection effects are computed against an external SHM benchmark.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central quantity vbar_phi is measured from TNG50 DM particles after a calibration ('we present all results for the scaled halos'); the calibration is a coordinate/potential rescaling from Ref. [33], but the paper does not define corotation in terms of the scaling, and Fig. 4 explicitly computes the DM-baryon angular-momentum alignment 'without the scaling procedure of Ref. [33]'. The direct-detection consequences follow from Eq. (1) applied to the simulated geocentric speed distributions; the SHM is an external Maxwell-Boltzmann benchmark ('the SHM is a Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution with mode v0 = 238 km/s'), and the recoil limits are computed with the independent wimprates package and XENON1T pipeline. The 21% marginal and 7% conditional uncertainties are the spread and conditional spread of the simulated sigma_SI limits correlated with vbar_phi; they are statistics of the simulation output, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The FIRE-2 comparison ('the distribution of vbar_phi values matches the TNG50 sample with a Kolmogorov–Smirnov p-value of 99%') provides external support. The main gap is that the Ref. [33] scaling is not derived or validated here, so the quantitative vbar_phi distribution inherits a calibration assumption; this is a correctness risk, not a definitional identity, and does not make the central claim circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the simulations being fair stand-ins for the Milky Way and on the scaling procedure preserving the velocity anisotropy; no new particles or forces are introduced. The Gaussian fit used for the 21% and 7% numbers is the only in-paper statistical model, and its values are not tabulated.

free parameters (2)
  • 2D Gaussian parameters for (vbar_phi, sigma_SI upper limit) = not reported numerically; fit to 98 TNG50 halos
    The 21% marginal and 7% conditional uncertainty statements are derived from a two-dimensional Gaussian model of the halo sample; the mean, variance, and covariance are descriptive statistics and are not tabulated in the paper.
  • Coordinate scaling parameters from Ref [33]
    All vbar_phi values and direct-detection limits use the scaling procedure of Ref [33], which matches the monopole potential to the expected MW value; the parameters of that rescaling are adopted from prior work and not re-derived here.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption TNG50 provides converged, representative Milky Way-like halos at the solar neighborhood (98-halo selection from Ref [108]).
    Central claim relies on the simulated halos representing the Milky Way's local DM velocity distribution; resolution and subgrid physics may bias vbar_phi.
  • domain assumption The Ref [33] coordinate scaling procedure preserves the shape of the local DM velocity distribution while correcting the monopole potential.
    All reported vbar_phi values and direct-detection limits use the scaled halos; if the rescaling artificially aligns DM angular momentum with the disk, the corotation signal is an artifact.
  • domain assumption Standard Halo Model benchmark parameters (v0 = 238 km/s, vesc = 544 km/s, rho_chi = 0.4 GeV/cm^3) are appropriate inputs.
    Used for SHM comparison and for converting halo integrals to cross-section limits; values taken from Refs [118,122].
  • domain assumption The XENON1T emulation pipeline of Ref [107] adequately models the detector response and backgrounds for the 21%/7% claims.
    The sigma_SI upper limits are produced by an approximate pipeline, not the full XENON analysis; errors in the background model propagate into the quoted uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The idealized cos^2(theta) detector point-spread function and f_RMS * sqrt(Gamma) figure of merit approximate directional detector sensitivity.
    The modulation-suppression conclusions for directional detectors depend on this simplified angular response model (Appendix B).
  • domain assumption The distribution of vbar_phi across halos can be modeled as Gaussian for the 21%/7% uncertainty decomposition.
    The reducibility statement ('reduced to 7%') follows from conditionalizing a fitted 2D Gaussian; if the joint distribution is non-Gaussian, the conditional spread could differ.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15125 in / 16892 out tokens · 187889 ms · 2026-08-04T01:08:18.592371+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cosmological simulations have recently begun to quantify the halo-to-halo variance in the phase-space distribution of dark matter around the Sun. We use a sample of nearly one hundred Milky Way-like galaxies from the TNG50 simulation to determine what aspects of this variance control the predictions for dark matter direct detection. Contrary to the isotropy assumed in the standard halo model, we find the dark matter median azimuthal velocity is nonzero and preferentially corotating, i.e., in the direction of the baryonic disk's rotation, ranging from 6-70 km/s (16th-84th percentile). This corotation suppresses predicted scattering rates in laboratory experiments searching for dark matter lighter than 50 GeV and significantly affects the expected daily modulation amplitude for directional detectors. In particular, this induces a 21% uncertainty on the upper limit of the dark matter-nucleon interaction cross section at peak sensitivity for a typical isotropic ton-scale experiment. This uncertainty is not irreducible, however: it is strongly correlated with the rotational velocity. If studies of the Milky Way's formation history determine the rotation speed, this astrophysical uncertainty is reduced to 7%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00161 by Carlos Blanco, Dylan Folsom, Mariangela Lisanti, Mark Vogelsberger.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: highlights the alignment between the DM and bary￾onic angular momenta even at early times. In detail, it shows the angle between the DM and baryonic angular momentum in purple, with a band spanning the 16th–84th percentiles and a solid line denoting the median. The angular momenta are computed—without the scaling procedure of Ref. [33]— within twice the instantaneous stellar half-mass radius. This is shown… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 112 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    O. Y . Gnedin, A. V . Kravtsov, A. A. Klypin, and D. Nagai, Astrophys. J. 616, 16 (2004) , arXiv:astro-ph/0406247

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  2. [2]

    Wojtak, E

    R. Wojtak, E. L. Lokas, S. Gottloeber, and G. A. Mamon, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 361, L1 (2005) , arXiv:astro- ph/0503391

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    S. H. Hansen, B. Moore, M. Zemp, and J. Stadel, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01, 014, arXiv:astro-ph/0505420

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    Vogelsberger, S

    M. Vogelsberger, S. D. M. White, A. Helmi, and V . Springel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.385, 236 (2008), arXiv:0711.1105 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Bruch, J

    T. Bruch, J. Read, L. Baudis, and G. Lake, Astrophys. J. 696, 920 (2009), arXiv:0804.2896 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    J. I. Read, G. Lake, O. Agertz, and V . P . Debattista,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 389, 1041 (2008) , arXiv:0803.2714 [astro- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Vogelsberger, A

    M. Vogelsberger, A. Helmi, V . Springel, S. D. M. White, J. Wang, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, A. D. Ludlow, and J. F. Navarro, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 395, 797 (2009) , arXiv:0812.0362 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Kuhlen, N

    M. Kuhlen, N. Weiner, J. Diemand, P . Madau, B. Moore, D. Potter, J. Stadel, and M. Zemp, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 030, arXiv:0912.2358 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    F. S. Ling, E. Nezri, E. Athanassoula, and R. Teyssier, J. Cos- mol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 012, arXiv:0909.2028 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2028

  10. [10]

    C. W. Purcell, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat, Astrophys. J. 703, 2275 (2009), arXiv:0906.5348 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    J. I. Read, L. Mayer, A. M. Brooks, F. Governato, and G. Lake, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 397, 44 (2009), arXiv:0902.0009 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    K. B. Schmidt, S. H. Hansen, J. H. An, L. L. R. Williams, and A. V . Macci’o,Astrophys. J. 694, 893 (2009), arXiv:0901.0928 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  13. [13]

    P . B. Tissera, S. D. M. White, S. Pedrosa, and C. Scannapieco, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.406, 922 (2010), arXiv:0911.2316 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

    A. M. Green, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10, 034 , arXiv:1009.0916 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Vogelsberger and J

    M. Vogelsberger and J. Zavala, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 430, 1722 (2013), arXiv:1211.1377 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    Kuhlen, A

    M. Kuhlen, A. Pillepich, J. Guedes, and P . Madau, Astrophys. J. 784, 161 (2014), arXiv:1308.1703 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Butsky, A

    I. Butsky, A. V . Macciò, A. A. Dutton, L. Wang, A. Obreja, G. S. Stinson, C. Penzo, X. Kang, B. W. Keller, and J. Wadsley, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 462, 663 (2016) , arXiv:1503.04814 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Zavala, C

    J. Zavala, C. S. Frenk, R. Bower, J. Schaye, T. Theuns, R. A. Crain, J. W. Trayford, M. Schaller, and M. Furlong, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 460, 4466 (2016), arXiv:1512.02636 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Bozorgnia, F

    N. Bozorgnia, F. Calore, M. Schaller, M. Lovell, G. Bertone, C. S. Frenk, R. A. Crain, J. F. Navarro, J. Schaye, and T. The- uns, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05, 024 , arXiv:1601.04707 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Kelso, C

    C. Kelso, C. Savage, M. Valluri, K. Freese, G. S. Stin- son, and J. Bailin, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08, 071 , arXiv:1601.04725 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    J. D. Sloane, M. R. Buckley, A. M. Brooks, and F. Gover- nato, Astrophys. J. 831, 93 (2016) , arXiv:1601.05402 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Bozorgnia and G

    N. Bozorgnia and G. Bertone, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32, 1730016 (2017), arXiv:1705.05853 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    Necib, M

    L. Necib, M. Lisanti, S. Garrison-Kimmel, A. Wetzel, R. Sanderson, P . F. Hopkins, C.-A. Faucher-Giguère, and D. Kereš, Astrophys. J. 883, 27 (2019) , arXiv:1810.12301 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    M. C. Artale, S. E. Pedrosa, P . B. Tissera, P . Cataldi, and A. Di Cintio, Astron. Astrophys. 622, A197 (2019) , arXiv:1901.02269 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Bozorgnia, A

    N. Bozorgnia, A. Fattahi, C. S. Frenk, A. Cheek, D. G. Cer- deno, F. A. Gómez, R. J. J. Grand, and F. Marinacci,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07, 036, arXiv:1910.07536 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  26. [26]

    Hryczuk, E

    A. Hryczuk, E. Karukes, L. Roszkowski, and M. Talia, J. High Energy Phys. 07, 081, arXiv:2001.09156 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  27. [27]

    Poole-McKenzie, A

    R. Poole-McKenzie, A. S. Font, B. Boxer, I. G. McCarthy, S. Burdin, S. G. Stafford, and S. T. Brown, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys. 11, 016, arXiv:2006.15159 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  28. [28]

    G. E. Lawrence, A. R. Duffy, C. A. Blake, and P . F. Hopkins, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524, 2606 (2023) , 6 arXiv:2207.07644 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    L. V . Sales, A. Wetzel, and A. Fattahi, Nature Astron. 6, 897 (2022), arXiv:2206.05295 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Núñez-Castiñeyra, E

    A. Núñez-Castiñeyra, E. Nezri, P . Mollitor, J. Devriendt, and R. Teyssier, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05, 012 , arXiv:2301.06189 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Sheng, L

    M.-J. Sheng, L. Zhu, H.-R. Yu, H. Ma, H. Li, P . Wang, and X. Kang, Phys. Rev. D109, 123548 (2024), arXiv:2311.07969 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    P . G. Staudt, J. S. Bullock, M. Boylan-Kolchin, D. Kirkby, A. Wetzel, and X. Ou, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08, 022 , arXiv:2403.04122 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Folsom, C

    D. Folsom, C. Blanco, M. Lisanti, L. Necib, M. Vogels- berger, and L. Hernquist, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 211004 (2025), arXiv:2505.07924 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Lilie et al

    E. Lilie et al. , Astrophys. J. 1002, 168 (2026) , arXiv:2512.04157 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Nelson et al

    D. Nelson et al. , Comput. Astrophys. Cosmol. 6, 2 (2019) , arXiv:1812.05609 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Pillepich et al

    A. Pillepich et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 490, 3196 (2019), arXiv:1902.05553 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Nelson, A

    D. Nelson, A. Pillepich, V . Springel, R. Pakmor, R. Wein- berger, S. Genel, P . Torrey, M. Vogelsberger, F. Marinacci, and L. Hernquist, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 490, 3234 (2019) , arXiv:1902.05554 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Wasserman, Phys

    I. Wasserman, Phys. Rev. D 33, 2071 (1986)

    2071

  39. [39]

    A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, and D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. D 33, 3495 (1986)

    1986

  40. [40]

    Freese, J

    K. Freese, J. A. Frieman, and A. Gould, Phys. Rev. D37, 3388 (1988)

    1988

  41. [41]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 011802 (2025) , arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Bo et al

    Z. Bo et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 011805 (2025) , arXiv:2408.00664 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 221003 (2025), arXiv:2502.18005 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 241803 (2019), arXiv:1907.12771 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX), Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 021303 (2017), arXiv:1608.07648 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    V . N. Lebedenko et al. , Phys. Rev. D 80, 052010 (2009) , arXiv:0812.1150 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  47. [47]

    Ajaj et al

    R. Ajaj et al. (DEAP), Phys. Rev. D 100, 022004 (2019) , arXiv:1902.04048 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Agnes et al

    P . Agnes et al. (DarkSide-50), Phys. Rev. D 107, 063001 (2023), arXiv:2207.11966 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    A. H. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST), Phys. Rev. D 100, 102002 (2019), arXiv:1904.00498 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Hehn et al

    L. Hehn et al. (EDELWEISS), Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 548 (2016) , arXiv:1607.03367 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [51]

    Ahmed et al

    Z. Ahmed et al. (CDMS-II), Science 327, 1619 (2010) , arXiv:0912.3592 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  52. [52]

    Agnese et al

    R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. D 99, 062001 (2019), arXiv:1808.09098 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Arnaud et al

    Q. Arnaud et al. (NEWS-G), Astropart. Phys. 97, 54 (2018) , arXiv:1706.04934 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    M. M. Arora et al. (NEWS-G), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 141002 (2025), arXiv:2407.12769 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Adhikari et al

    G. Adhikari et al. , Nature 564, 83 (2018) , [Erratum: Nature 566, E2 (2019)], arXiv:1906.01791 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [56]

    Ma et al

    W. Ma et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 021802 (2023) , arXiv:2207.04883 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Amole et al

    C. Amole et al. (PICO), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 251301 (2017) , arXiv:1702.07666 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    Amole et al

    C. Amole et al. (PICO), Phys. Rev. D 100, 022001 (2019) , arXiv:1902.04031 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    Archambault et al

    S. Archambault et al. (PICASSO), Phys. Lett. B 711, 153 (2012), arXiv:1202.1240 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  60. [60]

    Angloher et al

    G. Angloher et al. (CRESST), Phys. Rev. D 106, 092008 (2022), arXiv:2207.07640 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    Behnke et al

    E. Behnke et al. (COUPP), Phys. Rev. D 86, 052001 (2012) , [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 079902 (2014)], arXiv:1204.3094 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  62. [62]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 251801 (2019), arXiv:1907.11485 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    Li et al

    S. Li et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 261001 (2023) , arXiv:2212.10067 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    Cheng et al

    C. Cheng et al. (PandaX-II), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 211803 (2021), arXiv:2101.07479 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    Z. Y . Zhang et al. (CDEX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 221301 (2022), arXiv:2206.04128 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

    Agnes et al

    P . Agnes et al. (DarkSide), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 101002 (2023), arXiv:2207.11968 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    Arnquist et al

    I. Arnquist et al. (DAMIC-M), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 171003 (2023), arXiv:2302.02372 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Arnquist et al

    I. Arnquist et al. (DAMIC-M), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 101006 (2024), arXiv:2307.07251 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    Aggarwal et al

    K. Aggarwal et al. (DAMIC-M), Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 071002 (2025), arXiv:2503.14617 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Barak et al

    L. Barak et al. (SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 171802 (2020), arXiv:2004.11378 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  71. [71]

    I. M. Bloch et al. (SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 161002 (2025), arXiv:2410.18716 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    D. W. Amaral et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. D 102, 091101 (2020), arXiv:2005.14067 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    Arnaud et al

    Q. Arnaud et al. (EDELWEISS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 141301 (2020), arXiv:2003.01046 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  74. [74]

    Essig, T

    R. Essig, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043017 (2017), arXiv:1703.00910 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  75. [75]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. , J. Phys. G 50, 013001 (2023) , arXiv:2203.02309 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LZ), (2025), arXiv:2512.08065 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Bo et al

    Z. Bo et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 191001 (2024) , arXiv:2407.10892 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Burgos et al

    S. Burgos et al. , Astropart. Phys. 28, 409 (2007) , arXiv:0707.1488 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  79. [79]

    J. B. R. Battat et al. (DRIFT), Astropart. Phys. 91, 65 (2017) , arXiv:1701.00171 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  80. [80]

    Leyton (DMTPC), J

    M. Leyton (DMTPC), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 718, 042035 (2016)

    2016

Showing first 80 references.