Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A new generation of silicon cryogenic detectors reaches sub-eV energy resolution and reveals a consistent ~0.8 eV energy loss for every absorbed photon, bringing phonon-based detectors close to the theoretical limit for reading out single c

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

2026-08-03 08:35 UTC pith:ER3YNCP7

load-bearing objection Sub-eV resolution is real and important; the efficiency and E_loss numbers are plausible but rest on a model that deserves more scrutiny, and the abstract-body numeric mismatch must be fixed. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.16307 v2 pith:ER3YNCP7 submitted 2026-01-22 physics.ins-det hep-ex

Performance of a SuperCDMS HVeV Detector with Sub-eV Energy Resolution and Single Charge-sensitivity

Kyle Kennard , Aditi Pradeep , Mason Buchanan , Hope Fu , Aviv Simchony , Qihua Wang , Emanuele Michielin , Taylor Aralis
show 36 more authors
Elspeth Cudmore Priscilla Cushman Miriam Diamond Enectali Figueroa-Feliciano Caleb Fink Simon Harms Bruce A. Hines Ziqing Hong Martin E. Huber Andrew Kubik Noah Kurinsky Rupak Mahapatra Valentina Novati Lekhraj Pandey Pratyush K. Patel Weigeng Peng Mark Platt Ry Pressman-Cyna Wolfgang Rau Runze Ren Tyler Reynolds James Ryan Tarek Saab David Sadek Benjamin Schmidt Zo\"e Smith Sidney Stevens Kelly Stifter Matthew Stukel Julius Viol Yongqi Wang Matthew James Wilson Betty Young Stefan Zatschler Hazal Zenger Ariel Zu\~niga-Reyes
This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det hep-ex
keywords HVeVtransition edge sensorsub-eV resolutionphonon collection efficiencyenergy losssilicon detectorsingle charge sensitivitylow-mass dark matter
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.

An improved silicon cryogenic detector reaches sub-eV baseline energy resolution — around 0.6 eV — while retaining sensitivity to single electron-hole pairs. Using devices operating at two different facilities, the authors find a consistent ~0.8 eV energy loss for each absorbed optical photon, a value well below the silicon band gap that they attribute to surface effects rather than to the phonon readout. They also show that detector noise is fully captured by a standard transition-edge-sensor model with one free parameter, and that phonon collection efficiency reaches about 45%, near the theoretical limit set by quasiparticle generation. If these results hold, they provide a calibrated, near-optimal platform for low-mass dark matter searches and other eV-scale physics.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that lowering the critical temperature of the tungsten transition-edge sensors from ~65 mK to ~40 mK improves a silicon HVeV detector's baseline resolution to sub-eV levels — 612 meV for the CUTE device and 589 meV claimed in the abstract — without sacrificing single-charge sensitivity. With this resolution, the authors resolve quantized electron-hole-pair peaks from individual optical photons and, by fitting a detector-response model simultaneously to four datasets, extract a per-photon energy loss of about 0.8 eV in the body text (0.92 eV per the abstract) that is consistent between the CUTE and SLAC facilities. They further claim that the measured noise is des

What carries the argument

The load-bearing pieces are the QET (quasiparticle-trap-assisted electrothermal-feedback TES) detector with lower-Tc tungsten films, and a detector-response model (Eq. 8) that relates the reconstructed energy of each event to the number of electron-hole pairs produced and the number of photons absorbed, minus an energy-loss term E_loss. A Markov-chain Monte Carlo fit simultaneously constrains E_loss, charge trapping, surface trapping, impact ionization, Poisson photon statistics, and calibration factors. Noise is modeled as the quadrature sum of SQUID readout noise, thermal-fluctuation power noise, and Johnson noise, with only the thermal conductance G treated as a free parameter.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute energy scale and the '0.8 eV loss' value rest on the detector-response model of Ref [21] (Eq. 8), which simultaneously fits many charge-mobility parameters; if those parameters are degenerate, the energy-loss claim and the derived efficiency would change.

What would settle it

Take the same device, illuminate it with photons spanning a range of energies (1.5–4.4 eV) and bias voltages, and test whether the fitted E_loss stays constant at ~0.8 eV or scales with photon energy or bias; a clear dependence would falsify the claim of a single consistent per-photon loss.

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

If this is right

  • If the sub-eV resolution and single-charge sensitivity hold, these detectors can calibrate eV-scale energy deposits in silicon with per-photon accuracy, sharpening low-mass dark matter and coherent neutrino scattering searches.
  • The consistent ~0.8 eV per-photon loss implies that calibration of HVeV-style detectors must correct for a bias-dependent energy offset, else reconstructed spectra are systematically shifted.
  • The measured 45% phonon collection efficiency, close to the ~60% quasiparticle-generation limit, suggests this design is near-optimal and further gains in efficiency will require addressing the quasiparticle conversion step itself.
  • The one-free-parameter noise model, validated across two facilities, provides an unbiased way to measure thermal conductance and to bound parasitic power in TES-based phonon detectors.
  • The absence of excess correlated noise in these devices, once scaled for volume and efficiency, tentatively rules out a common intrinsic correlated-phonon source in silicon at the reported sensitivity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The energy-loss value of ~0.8 eV per photon, if confirmed across a wider range of photon energies and bias voltages, would provide a direct handle on surface band-bending and could inform models of charge collection in cryogenic semiconductor detectors.
  • The claim that the detector is at the quasiparticle-generation limit could be tested by fabricating devices with different absorber or trap geometries and checking whether the 45% efficiency moves with the 60% limit or with the phonon collection from the substrate.
  • One could extend the technique to other absorber materials (e.g., germanium or diamond) to see whether the per-photon loss scales with band gap or with surface state density, separating intrinsic material effects from surface preparation effects.
  • The paper's correlated-noise analysis could be sharpened by operating the same device in the same cryostat with and without a pulse-tube cooler, isolating mechanical coupling as the dominant noise source.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the characterization of a new generation of SuperCDMS HVeV silicon detectors with lower- Tc TESs, claiming sub-eV baseline energy resolution (612 meV in the body; 589 meV in the abstract), single-photon sensitivity with a consistent energy loss of ~0.81 eV per absorbed photon across two facilities (0.92 eV in the abstract), a noise description by a standard TES model with one free parameter (G_inferred), and a nominal phonon collection efficiency of 45% at CUTE. The analysis combines TES admittance measurements, noise PSD fitting, LED/background calibrations, and an MCMC detector-response model (Eq. 8), with appendices on efficiency, triggering, cross-talk, and a decorrelation algorithm.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the 0.6 eV baseline resolution and ~45% phonon collection efficiency represent a meaningful advance for single-charge/phonon detectors, with direct implications for low-mass dark matter searches and eV-scale calibration techniques. The cross-facility comparison of detector performance and the validation of the TES noise model with a single free parameter are valuable contributions. The paper also provides a careful treatment of correlated noise and includes a Monte Carlo validation of the decorrelation procedure, which strengthens the noise-related claims. However, the internal numeric inconsistencies and the lack of identifiability diagnostics for the MCMC model currently prevent the results from being taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. §1; Table 2] The abstract quotes a baseline resolution of 589±5 meV and E_loss = 0.92±0.02 eV, while the body reports σ_m = 612±4 meV and E_loss = 0.81±0.03 eV (Table 2). §1 further states '612 meV ± 0.04 meV'. In addition, the abstract describes the efficiency as 'place upper bounds on the nominal phonon collection efficiency of 45%', whereas Appendix A and Table 4 report a measurement of 45%±3%±6%. These are the headline numbers of the paper and must be made consistent before the claims can be evaluated.
  2. [§4.1–4.2; Table 2; Appendix C] The 'consistent energy loss' claim rests on the MCMC fit of Eq. (8), which simultaneously determines E_loss, P_CT, P_II, P_ST, c1, c2, λ, and ACT. No identifiability diagnostics (posterior corner plots, profile likelihoods, or prior sensitivity) are shown. The CUTE posterior is narrow (0.81±0.03 eV), but the SLAC posterior is 0.8+0.2/−0.1 eV, so the two-facility consistency is weak. Furthermore, ACT is assumed energy-independent (Appendix C); if ACT varies with LED drive amplitude, E_loss will absorb the residual. Please provide degeneracy checks and a sensitivity test for the ACT assumption.
  3. [§3.3; Tables 1 and 2] The predicted resolutions in Table 1 (σ_didv ≈ 0.24 eV at SLAC, 0.34 eV at CUTE) are factors of ~4 and ~2 smaller than the measured resolutions in Table 2 (σ_m ≈ 0.90 eV and 0.612 eV). The paper does not address this discrepancy. If Eq. (7) is an approximation, that should be stated and the direct evaluation of Eq. (6) provided. Without this, the claim that the standard TES noise model describes the detectors is not fully supported by the resolution comparison.
  4. [Appendix A; Table 4] The quoted systematic uncertainty of 6% on the CUTE efficiency is not documented. Figure 8 shows the efficiency as a function of integration length, but the procedure for deriving the systematic from the plateau variation is not described. Since the central efficiency claim (45%) is load-bearing, the authors should specify which sources contribute to the 6% systematic and how they were estimated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] There are several typos and formatting issues: 'Moku:Proto' should likely be 'Moku:Pro'; 'Zö 𝑒Smith' contains a stray character; 'e.g.,' often lacks spaces. These should be corrected.
  2. [Table 1 caption] The sentence 'The theoretical energy resolutions quoted below is estimated' is grammatically incorrect; 'is' should be 'are'.
  3. [Eq. (7)] The symbol ζ_TES is defined in the text as 'fractional volume of the TES film separate from the Al/W trapping regions', but the definition is not fully clear. Please provide a precise definition or a reference.
  4. [§5.2] When comparing to TESSERACT, the text says 'assuming the same tungsten Tc as that reported in Ref [8]' but does not state the numerical value. Please specify it for clarity.
  5. [Appendix A] The efficiency for SLAC is based on LED single e−/h+ peaks and therefore depends on E_loss via Eq. (8), while the CUTE efficiency uses background events and does not. This important difference should be stated explicitly when reporting the efficiencies in Table 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the headline measurements are direct, and cited prior models are independent published work rather than imported conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities are measured or fitted with new data rather than derived from their own definitions. Baseline resolution (612 ± 4 meV at CUTE; Table 2, Sec. 4.1) comes from optimal-filter widths of LED/background event histograms; the TES noise model is benchmarked by fitting only G_inferred to the measured NEP spectra and comparing to measured resolution, which is a consistency check, not a fitted-input prediction (Sec. 3.2–3.3, Table 1). The headline 45% phonon-collection efficiency uses background single-e/h events at CUTE for which E_expected = V in Eq. 8, independent of the fitted E_loss (Appendix A, Eq. 11). The E_loss parameter (~0.8 eV) is reported as a fit result of the MCMC response model shared across four CUTE datasets, with SLAC as an independent (if less precise) dataset; this is parameter estimation, not a prediction forced by construction. Cross-talk ACT is estimated by extrapolating the 0th-peak position to λ_m = 0 with a stated prior, and is varied in the fit (Appendix C). Self-citations to Refs. [11] and [21] provide detector design and a previously published response model; the current data and external TESSERACT comparison provide independent support, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported as proof. The abstract/full-text numeric mismatches (589 vs 612 meV; 0.92 vs 0.81 eV) are manuscript consistency issues that must be fixed, but they do not constitute circular reasoning under the required standard.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard TES noise model, the detector-response model of Ref [21], and a handful of fitted parameters (G_inferred, E_loss, trapping probabilities, calibration factors, cross-talk shift). No new physical entities are introduced; the only ad hoc assumption is the energy-independence of the cross-talk amplitude.

free parameters (7)
  • G_inferred (thermal conductance per channel) = SLAC ~83.4 pW/K; CUTE ~80.7 pW/K
    Single free parameter in TES power-noise model; inferred by fitting measured NEP spectra at both facilities (Table 1, Fig. 4).
  • E_loss (lost photon energy per absorbed photon) = 0.80+0.2-0.1 eV (SLAC); 0.81±0.03 eV (CUTE)
    Fitted in MCMC detector-response model; the reported 'consistent energy loss' is this fitted parameter (Table 2, Fig. 6).
  • P_CT, P_II, P_ST (charge trapping, impact ionization, surface trapping probabilities) = SLAC 10/7/29%; CUTE 27.1/1.2/18.5%
    Shared model parameters fit to calibration spectra; needed to describe peak shapes and tails.
  • c1, c2 (calibration factors) = SLAC 290/27; CUTE 340.6/55.2
    Convert pulse amplitude to energy; fitted per facility.
  • λ (mean photon number per LED pulse) = varied per dataset
    Allowed to vary across LED amplitude settings in simultaneous fits.
  • ACT (cross-talk amplitude shift) = 0.25±0.02 nA
    Fitted with gaussian prior from independent estimate; corrects LED cross-talk in CUTE data.
  • Integration cutoff for efficiency = >5 fall times
    Choice of integration range in Appendix A where efficiency plateaus; hand-selected.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Standard TES electro-thermal feedback and thermal fluctuation noise model (four noise components) describes the detector.
    Invoked in Sec. 3.2; this is the framework being validated, so it is background physics not proven here.
  • domain assumption Thermal conduction power-law exponent n=5 for the TES-bath coupling.
    Used in Eq. 1 and Eq. 2; standard for electron-phonon coupling in tungsten at low T.
  • domain assumption Crystal is in thermal equilibrium with the mixing chamber stage (T_b = T_mixing chamber).
    Stated in footnote on page 4; needed to estimate G from bias power.
  • ad hoc to paper Cross-talk amplitude ACT is independent of deposited energy.
    Assumed in Appendix C to subtract a constant shift from LED spectra; if false, energy scale and E_loss shift.
  • domain assumption Detector-response model of Wilson et al. [21] correctly describes charge transport, trapping, and impact ionization.
    The MCMC fit in Sec. 4.1 relies on this published model; its correctness is imported.
  • domain assumption Theoretical quasiparticle-generation efficiency limit of ~60% (Guruswamy et al.) is accurate.
    Used in Sec. 5 to claim the detector is limited only by intrinsic quasiparticle generation; not independently verified here.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22105 in / 12465 out tokens · 117564 ms · 2026-08-03T08:35:50.951618+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a detailed characterization of a new generation of athermal-phonon single-charge sensitive Si HVeV detectors, the best of which achieved 589~meV~$\pm$~5~meV baseline resolution. Our sub-eV energy resolution enables precise measurements of single-photon events and reveal consistent energy losses of 0.92~eV~$\pm$~0.02~eV per charge excitation across two facilities. We demonstrate that the noise for these detectors is well described using a standard Transition Edge Sensor noise model. We also measure a nominal phonon collection efficiency of 45\%~$\pm$~3\%~(stat.)~$\pm$~6\%~(syst.) in the best performing device, establishing these detectors as the most efficient athermal phonon detectors to date, limited only by intrinsic limitations of quasiparticle generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.16307 by Aditi Pradeep, Andrew Kubik, Ariel Zu\~niga-Reyes, Aviv Simchony, Benjamin Schmidt, Betty Young, Bruce A. Hines, Caleb Fink, David Sadek, Elspeth Cudmore, Emanuele Michielin, Enectali Figueroa-Feliciano, Hazal Zenger, Hope Fu, James Ryan, Julius Viol, Kelly Stifter, Kyle Kennard, Lekhraj Pandey, Mark Platt, Martin E. Huber, Mason Buchanan, Matthew James Wilson, Matthew Stukel, Miriam Diamond, Noah Kurinsky, Pratyush K. Patel, Priscilla Cushman, Qihua Wang, Runze Ren, Rupak Mahapatra, Ry Pressman-Cyna, Sidney Stevens, Simon Harms, Stefan Zatschler, Tarek Saab, Taylor Aralis, Tyler Reynolds, Valentina Novati, Weigeng Peng, Wolfgang Rau, Yongqi Wang, Ziqing Hong, Zo\"e Smith.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left The SLAC mounting scheme for a single device of the NFC design clamped in a copper housing. Right The mounting scheme used at CUTE for two devices (NFC design on the left and NFH on the right) clamped in a similar housing. Both detector housings have an interlocking ridge to create an improved light-tight connection to a lid or other housing (in the case of a stacked payload geometry). The Si detector… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Measured TES bias power 𝑃0 = 𝑃TES as a function of TES operating points, defined in terms of relative TES resistance. The shaded regions correspond to ± 1𝜎 bands bracketing the data. The error bands are constructed by propagating statistical uncertainties from the measured TES baseline currents and systematic uncertainties dominated by measurements of the shunt resistor in the TES circuit. A fully normal Q… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top Left Constant current TES fall time as a function of the TES bias point (resistance of the TES in steady-state operation here expressed as a percentage of the normal resistance) extracted from fits to the TES complex admittance. Top right Isothermal TES logarithmic current sensitivity 𝛽 = 𝑑(𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑅) 𝑑(𝑙𝑜𝑔𝐼) |𝑇 as a function of TES bias point. Bottom Fall time of the delta function response in the small si… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: A comparison of the measured Noise Equivalent Power for a single QET channel at the two test facilities (SLAC and CUTE). The left panel compares the lowest-noise spectrum measured at each of the two facilities along with their corresponding best fit noise models, represented by a quadrature sum of the four noise components described in Section 3.2. The red spectrum was computed using SLAC data acquir… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Cross-talk-subtracted LED energy spectrum (black) from a data set taken at CUTE with 2.0 eV photons. Error bars for the y-axis represent the standard deviation of a Poisson distribution with the mean number of counts equal to that of a given bin. The fit shown in red corresponds to the detector response model described in this work. The energy distribution for events consistent with noise is shaded i… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Samples from the posterior distributions of event energy loss per photon using LED data from SLAC (red) and CUTE (blue). The corresponding shaded regions represent ±1 standard deviation from the mean. The posterior distribution from CUTE results from the simultaneous fit to four data sets whereas the distribution from SLAC results from a fit to a single data set. The gray band shows the band-gap of silicon… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The phonon collection efficiency with 1𝜎 uncertainty (√ 𝜎 2 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡 + 𝜎 2 𝑠𝑦𝑠 ) as a function of integration range. The x axis is time/fall time from the double exponential fit of the pulse template. Left shows the efficiency of the quantized 1e−/h+ peak from SLAC data. Right shows the efficiency of only the 1e−/h+ pair at CUTE. each 500 ms window of the continuous time series. For calibration data, an extern… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The input signal templates (for CUTE in blue and for SLAC in red) supplied at inputs for the OF. The templates are the same length as the analysis windows saved for each event trigger. Here we have zoomed in around the pulse to facilitate comparisons. Refer to 3.1 for a discussion on the difference in fall times between facilities. operated in the past. The signal templates were then con￾structed by averag… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ) between the 0th peak mean and 𝜆𝑚 thus ACT was taken to be the y-intercept of the best fit line. To account for any systematic uncertainty introduced by cross-talk, we included ACT as a fitting parameter which would shift the detector response model along the x-axis. In accordance with our original estimate, we included a gaussian prior on ACT with a mean of 0.35 nA and standard deviation of 0.05 nA. The… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left. A heat map showing the distribution of the ratio of the estimated pulse amplitude to the injected amplitude as a function of the number of samples and injected pulse amplitude normalized to the measured NEP. The white square indicates the measured correlated noise from CUTE measured normalized by the NEP measured from 261 samples. Right. This heat map shows the same information as the left plot but … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Photon Calibration Techniques for High Resolution Cryogenic Detectors

    physics.ins-det 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Realistic detector models violate Poisson-calibration assumptions and introduce bias whose size depends on specific performance parameters.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Y. Kahn, T. Lin, Searches for light dark matter using condensed mattersystems,Rep.Prog.Phys.85(6)(2022)066901. doi:10.1088/ 1361-6633/ac5f63

    2022

  2. [2]

    K. M. Zurek, Dark Matter Candidates of a Very Low Mass, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 74 (2024) 287–319.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023542. : Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 11 of 16

    2024

  3. [3]

    Cyr-Racine, S

    H.Murayama,S.Asai,K.Heeger,A.Ballarino,T.Bose,K.Cranmer, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, S. Demers, C. Geddes, Y. Gershtein, et al., Explor- ing the Quantum Universe: Pathways to Innovation and Discovery in Particle Physics, 2023.doi:10.2172/2368847

    doi:10.2172/2368847 2023

  4. [4]

    Augier, G

    C. Augier, G. Baulieu, V. Belov, L. Bergé, J. Billard, G. Bres, J.-L. Bret, A. Broniatowski, M. Calvo, A. Cazes, et al., Results from a prototype TES detector for the Ricochet experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 1057 (2023) 168765.doi:10.1016/j.nima.2023.168765

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Cardani, N

    C.Goupy,H.Abele,G.Angloher,A.Bento,L.Canonica,F.Cappella, L. Cardani, N. Casali, R. Cerulli, I. Colantoni, et al., Exploring coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering of reactor neutrinos with the NUCLEUS experiment, SciPost Phys. Proc. 12 (2023) 053.doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhysProc.12.053

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphysproc.12.053 2023

  6. [6]

    Baudis, A

    L. Baudis, A. Bismark, N. Brugger, C. Capelli, I. Charaev, J. C. García, G. D. Hadas, Y. Hochberg, J. K. Hohmann, A. Kavner, et al., First Sub-MeV Dark Matter Search with the QROCODILE Exper- iment Using Superconducting Nanowire Single-Photon Detectors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (2025) 081002.doi:10.1103/4hb6-f6jl

    doi:10.1103/4hb6-f6jl 2025

  7. [7]

    J.Billard,J.Gascon,S.Marnieros,S.Scorza,TransitionEdgeSensors with Sub-eV Resolution And Cryogenic Targets (TESSERACT) at the underground laboratory of Modane (LSM), Nucl. Phys. B 1003 (2024) 116465, special Issue of Nobel Symposium 182 on Dark Matter. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2024.116465

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    R.Anthony-Petersen,C.L.Chang,Y.-Y.Chang,L.Chaplinsky,C.W. Fink, M. Garcia-Sciveres, W. Guo, S. A. Hertel, X. Li, J. Lin, et al., Low energy backgrounds and excess noise in a two-channel low- threshold calorimeter, Appl. Phys. Lett. 126 (10) (Mar. 2025).doi: 10.1063/5.0247343

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0247343 2025

  9. [9]

    R. K. Romani, P. L. Brink, B. Cabrera, M. Cherry, T. Howarth, N. Kurinsky, R. A. Moffatt, R. Partridge, F. Ponce, M. Pyle, et al., Thermal detection of single e-h pairs in a biased silicon crystal detector, Appl. Phys. Lett. 112 (4) (2018) 043501.doi:10.1063/1. 5010699

    doi:10.1063/1 2018

  10. [10]

    Z. Hong, R. Ren, N. Kurinsky, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, L. Wills, S.Ganjam,R.Mahapatra,N.Mirabolfathi,B.Nebolsky,H.D.Pinck- ney, et al., Single electron–hole pair sensitive silicon detector with surface event discrimination, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 963 (2020) 163757. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2020.163757

    arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    R. Ren, C. Bathurst, Y. Y. Chang, R. Chen, C. W. Fink, Z. Hong, N. A. Kurinsky, N. Mast, N. Mishra, V. Novati, et al., Design and characterization of a phonon-mediated cryogenic particle detector with an eV-scale threshold and 100 keV-scale dynamic range, Phys. Rev. D 104 (3) (2021) 032010.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.032010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.032010 2021

  12. [12]

    Agnese, T

    R. Agnese, T. Aralis, T. Aramaki, I. Arnquist, E. Azadbakht, W. Baker, S. Banik, D. Barker, D. Bauer, T. Binder, et al., First Dark Matter Constraints from a SuperCDMS Single-Charge Sensitive De- tector,Phys.Rev.Lett.121(5)(Aug.2018). doi:10.1103/physrevlett. 121.051301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2018

  13. [13]

    Barker, C

    D.Amaral,T.Aralis,T.Aramaki,I.Arnquist,E.Azadbakht,S.Banik, D. Barker, C. Bathurst, D. Bauer, L. Bezerra, et al., Constraints on low-mass, relic dark matter candidates from a surface-operated SuperCDMS single-charge sensitive detector, Phys. Rev. D 102 (9) (Nov. 2020).doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.091101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.091101 2020

  14. [14]

    M. F. Albakry, I. Alkhatib, D. Alonso-González, D. W. P. Amaral, J.Anczarski,T.Aralis,T.Aramaki,I.J.Arnquist,I.AtaeeLangroudy, E. Azadbakht, et al., Light dark matter constraints from SuperCDMS HVeV detectors operated underground with an anticoincidence event selection, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 012006.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 111.012006

    doi:10.1103/physrevd 2025

  15. [15]

    M. F. Albakry, I. Alkhatib, D. Alonso-González, J. Anczarski, T. Ar- alis, T. Aramaki, I. A. Langroudy, C. Bathurst, R. Bhattacharyya, A. J. Biffl, et al., Search for low-mass electron-recoil dark matter using a single-charge sensitive SuperCDMS-HVeV Detector (2025). arXiv:2509.03608

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Arnquist, I

    M.Albakry,I.Alkhatib,D.Alonso,D.Amaral,T.Aralis,T.Aramaki, I. Arnquist, I. Ataee Langroudy, E. Azadbakht, S. Banik, et al., First Measurement of the Nuclear-Recoil Ionization Yield in Silicon at 100 eV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (9) (Aug. 2023). doi:10.1103/ physrevlett.131.091801

    2023

  17. [17]

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13844-4

    G.Bratrud,C.Chang,R.e.a.Chen,Firstdemonstrationofatesbased cryogenic limoo detector for neutrinoless double beta decay search, Eur.Phys.J.C85(2025)118. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13844-4

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13844-4 2025

  18. [18]

    M. F. Albakry, I. Alkhatib, D. Alonso-Gonźalez, D. W. P. Amaral, J. Anczarski, T. Aralis, T. Aramaki, I. A. Langroudy, C. Bathurst, R. Bhattacharyya, et al., Low-Energy Calibration of SuperCDMS HVeVCryogenicSiliconCalorimetersUsingComptonSteps(2025). arXiv:2508.02402

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Ataee Langroudy, E

    M.Albakry,I.Alkhatib,D.Amaral,T.Aralis,T.Aramaki,I.Arnquist, I. Ataee Langroudy, E. Azadbakht, S. Banik, C. Bathurst, et al., Investigating the sources of low-energy events in a SuperCDMS- HVeV detector, Phys. Rev. D 105 (11) (Jun. 2022).doi:10.1103/ physrevd.105.112006

    2022

  20. [21]

    Wilson, A

    M. Wilson, A. Zaytsev, B. von Krosigk, I. Alkhatib, M. Buchanan, R. Chen, M. Diamond, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, S. Harms, Z. Hong, et al., Improved modeling of detector response effects in phonon- based crystal detectors used for dark matter searches, Phys. Rev. D 109 (11) (Jun. 2024).doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.112018

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.112018 2024

  21. [22]

    Kelsey, R

    M. Kelsey, R. Agnese, Y. Alam, I. A. Langroudy, E. Azadbakht, D. Brandt, R. Bunker, B. Cabrera, Y.-Y. Chang, et al., G4CMP: Condensed matter physics simulation using the Geant4 toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 1055 (2023) 168473.doi:10.1016/j.nima.2023. 168473

    doi:10.1016/j.nima.2023 2023

  22. [23]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce, M. Asai, D. Axen, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, et al., Geant4 - A Simulation Toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250 – 303

    2003

  23. [24]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce Dubois, M. Asai, G. Barrand, R. Capra, S. Chauvie, R. Chytracek, et al., Geant4 Developments and Applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270 – 278

    2006

  24. [25]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, P. Arce, M. Asai, T. Aso, E. Bagli, A. Bagulya, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, et al., Recent devel- opments in Geant4, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 835 (2016) 186–225. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125

    doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125 2016

  25. [26]

    Camus, A

    P. Camus, A. Cazes, A. Dastgheibi-Fard, K. Dering, G. Gerbier, W.Rau,S.Scorza,X.Zhang,CUTE:ALowBackgroundFacilityfor TestingCryogenicDarkMatterDetectors,J.LowTemp.Phys.193(5-

  26. [27]

    (2018) 813–818.doi:10.1007/s10909-018-2014-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10909-018-2014-0 2018

  27. [28]

    P.Camus,J.Corbett,S.Crawford,K.Dering,E.Fascione,G.Gerbier, R.Germond,M.Ghaith,J.Hall,Z.Hong,etal.,CUTE:ACryogenic Underground TEst facility at SNOLAB, Front. Phys. 11 (Jan. 2024). doi:10.3389/fphy.2023.1319879

    arXiv 2024

  28. [29]

    Adari, A

    P. Adari, A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo, D. Amidei, G. Angloher, E. Ar- mengaud, C. Augier, L. Balogh, S. Banik, D. Baxter, C. Beaufort, etal., EXCESSworkshop:Descriptions ofrisinglow-energy spectra, SciPost Phys. Proc. 9 (2022) 001.doi:10.21468/scipostphysproc.9. 001

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphysproc.9 2022

  29. [30]

    K. D. Irwin, S. W. Nam, B. Cabrera, B. Chugg, B. A. Young, A quasiparticle-trap-assisted transition-edge sensor for phonon- mediated particle detection, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 66 (11) (1995) 5322–

    1995

  30. [31]

    M. E. Huber, P. A. Neil, R. G. Benson, D. A. Burns, A. Corey, C. S. Flynn, Y. Kitaygorodskaya, O. Massihzadeh, J. M. Martinis, G. Hilton, DC SQUID series array amplifiers with 120 MHz band- width(corrected),IEEETrans.Appl.Supercond.11(2)(2001)4048–

    2001

  31. [32]

    Hansen, F

    S. Hansen, F. DeJongh, J. Hall, B. A. Hines, M. E. Huber, T. Kiper, V. Mandic, W. Rau, T. Saab, D. Seitz, K. Sundqvist, The cryogenic darkmattersearchteststandwarmelectronicscard,in:IEEENuclear ScienceSymposium&MedicalImagingConference,2010,pp.1392–

    2010

  32. [33]

    C. W. Fink, S. L. Watkins, QETpy (Jan. 2022).doi:10.5281/zenodo. 5903353

    doi:10.5281/zenodo 2022

  33. [34]

    Irwin, G

    K. Irwin, G. Hilton, Cryogenic Particle Detection, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005, Ch. Transition-Edge Sensors, pp. 63–150. doi:10.1007/10933596_3

    doi:10.1007/10933596_3 2005

  34. [35]

    C. W. Fink, S. L. Watkins, T. Aramaki, P. L. Brink, S. Ganjam, B. A. Hines, M. E. Huber, N. A. Kurinsky, R. Mahapatra, N. Mirabolfathi, et al., Characterizing TES power noise for future single optical- phonon and infrared-photon detectors, AIP Adv. 10 (8) (Aug. 2020). doi:10.1063/5.0011130

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0011130 2020

  35. [36]

    K. D. Irwin, G. C. Hilton, Transition-edge sensors, in: Cryogenic particle detection, Springer, 2005, pp. 63–150

    2005

  36. [37]

    Ramanathan, N

    K. Ramanathan, N. Kurinsky, Ionization yield in silicon for eV-scale electron-recoil processes, Phys. Rev. D 102 (6) (2020) 063026.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063026

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.063026 2020

  37. [38]

    T.Guruswamy,D.J.Goldie,S.Withington,Quasiparticlegeneration efficiency in superconducting thin films, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 27 (5) (2014) 055012.doi:10.1088/0953-2048/27/5/055012

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-2048/27/5/055012 2014

  38. [39]

    F.Ponce,W.Page,P.Brink,B.Cabrera,M.Cherry,C.Fink,N.Kurin- sky,R.Partridge,M.Pyle,B.Sadoulet,etal.,ModelingofImpactIon- izationandChargeTrappinginSuperCDMSHVeVDetectors,J.Low Temp. Phys. 199 (2020) 598–605.doi:10.1007/s10909-020-02349-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10909-020-02349-x 2020

  39. [40]

    I. J. Maasilta, Complex impedance, responsivity and noise of transition-edgesensors:Analyticalsolutionsfortwo-andthree-block thermal models, AIP Advances 2 (2012) 042110

    2012

  40. [41]

    C. L. Chang, Y.-Y. Chang, M. Garcia-Sciveres, W. Guo, S. A. Her- tel, X. Li, J. Lin, M. Lisovenko, R. Mahapatra, W. Matava, et al., Spontaneousgenerationofathermalphononburstswithinbulksilicon causingexcessnoise,lowenergybackgroundeventsandquasiparticle poisoning in superconducting sensors (2025).arXiv:2505.16092

    arXiv 2025

  41. [42]

    Fink, A Gram-Scale low-Tc Low-Surface-Coverage Athermal- Phonon Sensitive Dark Matter Detector, Ph.D

    C. Fink, A Gram-Scale low-Tc Low-Surface-Coverage Athermal- Phonon Sensitive Dark Matter Detector, Ph.D. thesis, UC Berkeley (2022). Appendix A. Phonon Collection Efficiency The phonon collection efficiency refers to the fraction of phonon energy that is absorbed by the TES, and can be thoughtofastheQETtotalquantumefficiency,asitincludes both phonon and i...

    2022

  42. [44]

    Ponce, C

    F. Ponce, C. Stanford, S. Yellin, W. Page, C. Fink, M. Pyle, B. Sadoulet, B. Serfass, S. L. Watkins, P. L. Brink, et al., Measuring the impact ionization and charge trapping probabilities in Super- CDMS HVeV phonon sensing detectors, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 031101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.031101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.031101 2020

  43. [47]

    Phonon collection efficiency

  44. [48]

    Phonon to quasiparticle conversion efficiency

  45. [49]

    QP collection efficiency

  46. [50]

    Efficiency Statistical Systematic SLAC 61% ± 16% ± 7% CUTE 45% ± 3% ± 6% bias voltage

    Trapped QP to TES thermal energy conversion effi- ciency Theabsorbedenergyiscomputedastheintegralofthepower pulse over the time it takes to return to baseline𝑇 as 𝐸abs= ∫ 𝑇 0 Δ𝑃𝑑𝑡 (9) = ∫ 𝑇 0 [(𝑉𝑏−2𝐼0𝑅𝑙 )Δ𝐼(𝑡)−Δ 𝐼(𝑡)2𝑅𝑙 ]𝑑𝑡, (10) whereΔ𝐼 refers to the change in TES current from a small change in temperature,𝑅𝑙 = 𝑅𝑝 + 𝑅shunt, and𝑉𝑏 is the Table 4 Phonon co...

  47. [1395]

    doi:10.1109/NSSMIC.2010.5874000

    arXiv 2010

  48. [4053]

    : Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 12 of 16

    doi:10.1109/77.919577. : Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 12 of 16

    doi:10.1109/77.919577

  49. [5326]

    doi:10.1063/1.1146105

    doi:10.1063/1.1146105

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.