Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Measurement of the ionization yield from nuclear recoils in liquid xenon between 0.3 -- 6 keV with single-ionization-electron sensitivity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the lowest-energy calibration of nuclear-recoil ionization yield in liquid xenon, down to 0.296 keV, where the average recoil produces 1.1 electrons, and a statistically significant field dependence between 1 and 6 keV.

desk verdict A careful, genuinely new calibration of nuclear-recoil ionization yield in liquid xenon down to 0.3 keV, with sub-keV points that are model-inferred but not fatally so; deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00518 v1 pith:3RDGNRHH submitted 2019-08-01 physics.ins-det hep-ex

Brian Lenardo , Jingke Xu , Sergey Pereverzev , Oluwatomi A. Akindele , Daniel Naim , James Kingston , Adam Bernstein , Kareem Kazkaz
show 7 more authors
Mani Tripathi Connor Awe Long Li James Runge Samuel Hedges Peibo An Phil S. Barbeau
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-dethep-ex
keywords ionizationyieldliquidxenonnuclearrecoillow-energycalibrationsingle-electronsensitivitydual-phasetimeprojectionchamberdarkmatterdirectdetectioncoherentelasticneutrino-nucleusscattering
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

The paper aims to pin down how many ionization electrons a low-energy nuclear recoil produces in liquid xenon, the calibration that dark-matter and neutrino detectors need to convert measured charge into recoil energy. Using monoenergetic neutrons scattered at fixed angles and a detector sensitive to single extracted electrons, the authors measured the ionization yield from 0.3 to 6 keV, reaching 0.296 keV, the lowest nuclear-recoil calibration reported to date. At that energy the average signal is 1.1 electrons, or $3.47$ e-/keV at 220 V/cm. The yields agree with earlier results between 2 and 6 keV but with better precision, and below 1 keV they fall faster than the smooth extrapolation commonly used in the field. The paper also reports a 10-15% rise in yield between 220 V/cm and 6240 V/cm over 1-6 keV, the first statistically significant field dependence seen in this range.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing setup is a dual-phase xenon time projection chamber operated with single-extracted-electron triggering, paired with ten fixed-angle liquid-scintillator neutron detectors. Kinematics of monoenergetic 579 keV neutrons scattering on xenon nuclei fixes each event's recoil energy from the scattering angle, and time-of-flight plus pulse-shape cuts isolate single-scatter neutron events. The analysis then fits simulated ionization spectra, generated by a Monte Carlo model of the setup and re-sampled through measured electron lifetime, extraction efficiency, and single-electron resolution, to the observed charge-count spectra using a Bayesian Markov chain with the ionization yield $Q_y$ and a width parameter $\omega$ as free parameters. For the two lowest-energy bins the ionization count is modeled as a Poisson process, which introduces the main systematic at those points.

What would settle it

Measure the ionization spectrum of roughly 0.3 keV xenon recoils in a detector that can count zero, one, and two electrons without relying on a high-energy normalization prior, and compare the mean to $3.47\pm0.4$ e-/keV; a significantly different mean would show that the Poisson or normalization assumption is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the nuclear-recoil ionization yield in liquid xenon, measured by tagging neutron scatters and counting electroluminescence pulses at single-electron resolution, declines steeply below 1 keV: the 0.296 keV bin has yield $3.47^{+0.41}_{-0.40}$ e-/keV at 220 V/cm and the 0.442 keV bin $4.58^{+0.39}_{-0.38}$ e-/keV, both below a straightforward extrapolation of higher-energy data. Between 1 and 6 keV the yield is roughly flat at fixed drift field, and the new measurements agree with the prior fixed-angle measurement there but with smaller uncertainties. The same data show that the yield increases by 10-15% as the drift field is raised from 220 V/cm to 6240 V/cm, contrary to a recent measurement that found no field dependence in the 5-14 keV range.

Load-bearing premise

The two lowest-energy yields are extracted by assuming the ionization count follows a Poisson distribution and by using a normalization fixed by fits at higher energies; if the true distribution is narrower than Poisson or the normalization is biased, the reported 0.30 and 0.44 keV yields shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Between 2 and 6 keV the new yields agree with prior measurements but with smaller uncertainty, so existing WIMP and coherent-scattering sensitivity estimates in that range rest on firmer ground.
  • Below 1 keV the measured falloff means that ionization-only detectors will see fewer electrons per recoil than the common extrapolation predicts; a 0.3 keV recoil typically makes just one electron.
  • The 10-15% field dependence implies that raising the drift field from about 200 V/cm to several kV/cm can modestly increase the charge signal for 1-6 keV nuclear recoils, a factor experiments can weigh when choosing operating parameters.
  • Because the measurement reaches single-electron counting, future lower-threshold searches can calibrate at the few-electron level instead of extrapolating from higher energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the sub-keV decline is confirmed independently, liquid-xenon searches for low-mass dark matter and coherent neutrino scattering will need to assume smaller signals at fixed threshold, which weakens projected sensitivity unless thresholds reach one or two electrons.
  • The reported field dependence, combined with single-electron reach, suggests that operating at high drift field could recover part of the signal lost to the low yield; a dedicated background-versus-field study would show whether that gain is usable in practice.
  • The Poisson-model systematic at 0.30 and 0.44 keV could be resolved by a detector that records the full zero-, one-, and two-electron counting distribution without relying on a high-energy normalization prior, or by an independent measurement of the nuclear-recoil Fano factor.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a measurement of the nuclear-recoil ionization yield Qy in liquid xenon from 0.3 to 6 keV using monoenergetic 579 keV neutrons from TUNL and an array of fixed-angle liquid-scintillator detectors. The dual-phase TPC is calibrated in situ for single-electron response, trigger efficiency, electron lifetime, and extraction efficiency; recoil spectra are compared with a Geant4-based simulation via MCMC fits that float Qy, a width parameter ω, and a normalization A. The authors report Qy at four drift fields from 220 V/cm to 6240 V/cm, observe a 10–15% increase of Qy with field between 1 and 6 keV, and find a downward trend below 1 keV, reaching Qy = 3.47 e−/keV at 0.296 keV. The two lowest-energy points are extracted using a Poisson ionization model and a Gaussian prior on A inherited from the higher-energy fits.

Significance. If the results hold, this is an important calibration for low-mass WIMP and CEνNS searches: it extends nuclear-recoil charge-yield data below 1 keV for the first time, with single-electron sensitivity, and it provides a field-dependent calibration relevant to many dual-phase xenon detectors. The paper is careful in its treatment of backgrounds, time-of-flight and PSD selection, in-situ calibrations, and Monte Carlo framework; the statistical precision in Table I is sufficient to make the field dependence above 1 keV clearly visible. The principal caveat is that the two sub-keV yields are inference-dependent because zero-electron events are unobservable; the Poisson shape and extrapolated A are used to convert the observed few-electron spectra into a mean yield. The authors quantify this with an 11% modeling systematic, but a free-width robustness fit would materially strengthen the quantitative claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV A/B; Table I, BD9/BD10] The two lowest-energy yields (0.442 and 0.296 keV) are extracted from spectra in which zero-electron events are unobservable, so the mapping from the measured 1e/2e/3e ratios to Qy depends on the assumed shape of the ionization-count distribution and on the extrapolated normalization A. Please report the fitted width parameter ω for BD1–8 and add a robustness fit for BD9/10 in which the width is floated (or the distribution is generalized, e.g., to a negative binomial with a Fano factor), so the reader can see how Qy changes when the Poisson assumption is relaxed. The 11% modeling systematic in Table I is based on a cross-check that still uses the same high-energy A and simulated recoil spectra; it does not fully probe the shape-sensitivity of the fit.
  2. [Section IV B/D and Table I] The Gaussian prior on A for the two lowest-energy bins is taken from the mean and standard deviation of A fitted at BD1–8, and the scaling systematic is estimated from a left/right split of the data. This is one specific model of a possible A bias. Please show the fitted A (and ω) values as functions of energy for the BD1–8 fits, and test the sensitivity of the BD9/10 yields to the prior width, for instance by using a flat prior or a prior broadened by the observed scatter. Without this, the absolute normalization of the sub-keV yields rests on an assumption that A is energy-independent up to the specific corrections considered.
  3. [Section IV B (multiple-scatter interpolation)] In the iterative fitting, the multiple-scatter background is modeled using an empirical yield-vs-energy function interpolated from the first-stage fits, but no systematic uncertainty is assigned to the choice of this interpolation function. If the multiple-scatter component is non-negligible in the low-energy channels, an incorrect interpolation could bias Qy. Please quantify this by repeating the fits with alternative interpolation forms or by reporting the fractional size of the multiple-scatter component in each channel.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 6 caption] The caption states a drift field of 200 V/cm, while the text and Table I use 220 V/cm; please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Section III D] The expression pextr(6.24 V/cm) should be pextr(6.24 kV/cm) to match the extraction-field value quoted earlier in the paper.
  3. [References [20] and [23]] Reference [20] is listed as '(????), Submitted to Phys. Rev. C' and reference [23] as 'In preparation'; since the LUX comparison and the extraction-efficiency uncertainty rely on these works, please update them with published versions or provide the relevant values in the text.
  4. [Section II C] There is a typo in 'while the the other two cells'; please remove the duplicated article.
  5. [Section VI] The conclusion contains 'a new measurement of the the nuclear recoil ionization yield'; please delete the duplicated 'the'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ionization yields are measured by fitting simulated spectra to data, and the only in-house calibration input is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a direct experimental measurement: the charge yield Qy and the width parameter ω are free parameters in an MCMC fit of simulated recoil spectra (including single- and multiple-scatter contributions) to background-subtracted data (Secs. IV A–IV C), so the reported yields are not defined in terms of the quantity they are meant to determine. The Poisson model used for the two lowest-energy channels is an explicit, acknowledged assumption with an assigned 11% modeling systematic (Sec. IV D), and the Gaussian prior on the normalization A is a calibration transfer from higher-energy fits whose effect is separately quantified as a scaling systematic; neither step forces the low-energy values by construction. The one in-house calibration input, the electron-extraction efficiency from Ref. [23] (in preparation), is a previously measured property of the same detector used only as a ~2% scaling correction with propagated uncertainty; it does not encode the target result or the field/energy dependence. NEST is used only as an external comparison benchmark. Model dependence of the sub-keV points is a systematic/correctness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, mediators, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the measurement is purely instrumental. The fitted parameters are the spectral width, spectrum normalization, and an empirical background interpolation function, none of which are the target result itself. The domain assumptions are standard simulation physics, detector calibration inputs, and empirical fluctuation models, all acknowledged in the text.

free parameters (3)
  • omega (spectral width parameter) = not reported (fitted per spectrum)
    Introduced in Eq. 3 to set sigma_Ne = omega * sqrt(Qy * E); free in MCMC fits for channels 1-8; absorbs unknown recombination and Fano fluctuation effects and affects the likelihood, though the reported yields are not strongly sensitive to it.
  • normalization A (per spectrum) = not reported (fitted per spectrum)
    Scales simulated event counts to data; fitted in all 40 spectra. For the 0.3 and 0.4 keV bins, A is constrained by a Gaussian prior built from the higher-energy fits, so the lowest-energy yields depend on this extrapolation.
  • empirical yield-energy interpolation for multiple-scatter background = not reported
    An empirical function is fit to the preliminary yields from channels 1-8 and used to assign ionization to multiple-scatter events in the second fit stage; parameters are not given, and the background model therefore depends on this fitted curve.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Geant4/BACCARAT simulation with standard neutron elastic scattering cross sections correctly models the experimental geometry and interaction rates.
    The recoil energy distributions per BD channel and the normalization A are derived from this simulation; errors in cross-section models or geometry propagate into both energy and yield.
  • domain assumption Electron extraction efficiency pextr = 0.955 from Ref [23] applies to this detector at 6.24 kV/cm.
    Not measured in this work; taken from an in-preparation reference; a 2% scaling correction to all yields.
  • ad hoc to paper Ionization fluctuations in the 0.3-0.4 keV bins follow a Poisson distribution with mean Qy * E.
    Explicitly stated in Section IV A; a simplifying assumption with an 11% assigned systematic; if the true distribution is sub-Poisson, the reported sub-keV yields could shift.
  • ad hoc to paper For energies above about 1 keV, ionization counts follow a Gaussian with sigma = omega * sqrt(Qy * E).
    Empirical model in Eqs. 2-3; the width parameter omega is fitted, and the model is used for all channels above 0.4 keV.
  • domain assumption Random-coincidence background drift-time distribution above 13 us can be extrapolated exponentially into the signal region.
    Used for background subtraction in Section III C; the extrapolation is visually checked but is a modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of the ionization yield from nuclear recoils in liquid xenon between 0.3 -- 6 keV with single-ionization-electron sensitivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3RDGNRHH

@misc{pith2026190800518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of the ionization yield from nuclear recoils in liquid xenon between 0.3 -- 6 keV with single-ionization-electron sensitivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3RDGNRHH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00518}
}
abstract

Dual-phase xenon TPC detectors are a highly scalable and widely used technology to search for low-energy nuclear recoil signals from WIMP dark matter or coherent nuclear scattering of $\sim$MeV neutrinos. Such experiments expect to measure O(keV) ionization or scintillation signals from such sources. However, at $\sim1\,$keV and below, the signal calibrations in liquid xenon carry large uncertainties that directly impact the assumed sensitivity of existing and future experiments. In this work, we report a new measurement of the ionization yield of nuclear recoil signals in liquid xenon down to 0.3$\,$keV$\,\,$-- the lowest energy calibration reported to date -- at which energy the average event produces just 1.1~ionized~electrons. Between 2 and 6$\,$keV, our measurements agree with existing measurements, but significantly improve the precision. At lower energies, we observe a decreasing trend that deviates from simple extrapolations of existing data. We also study the dependence of ionization yield on the applied drift field in liquid xenon between 220V/cm and 6240V/cm, allowing these measurements to apply to a broad range of current and proposed experiments with different operating parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00518 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic of the dual-phase xenon detector. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Diagram of experimental setup. The collimator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Efficiency of the three-fold coincidence trigger [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Time-of-flight (TOF) distribution (top) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Coincidence data from Detector 6 (1.61 keV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Field-dependence of the measured charge yield [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Measurements of the energy-dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Searches for Light Dark Matter and Evidence of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering of Solar Neutrinos with the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment

    hep-ex 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    LZ's new 5.7-tonne-year search reports a 4.5σ hint of solar 8B neutrino CEνNS and world-leading dark matter limits down to 5 GeV/c².

  2. First constraints on the coherent elastic scattering of reactor antineutrinos off xenon nuclei

    hep-ex 2024-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    The RED-100 experiment sets the first constraints on reactor antineutrino coherent scattering off xenon nuclei, with 90% C.L. upper limits 60 to 90 times the Standard Model expectation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [23]

    (2019), In preparation

    work page 2019

  2. [20]

    (????), Submitted to Phys. Rev. C

    work page

  3. [1]

    D. S. Akerib, S. Alsum, H. M. Ara´ ujo, X. Bai, A. J. Bailey, J. Balajthy, P. Beltrame, E. P. Bernard, A. Bern- stein, T. P. Biesiadzinski, et al. (LUX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett., 118, 021303 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [2]

    Aprile, J

    E. Aprile, J. Aalbers, F. Agostini, M. Alfonsi, L. Al- thueser, F. D. Amaro, M. Anthony, F. Arneodo, L. Baudis, B. Bauermeister, et al. (XENON Collabora- tion), Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 111302 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [3]

    A. Tan, M. Xiao, X. Cui, X. Chen, Y. Chen, D. Fang, C. Fu, K. Giboni, F. Giuliani, H. Gong, et al. (PandaX-II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 121303 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [4]

    D. S. Akerib, H. M. Ara´ ujo, X. Bai, A. J. Bailey, J. Bal- ajthy, P. Beltrame, E. P. Bernard, A. Bernstein, T. P. Biesiadzinski, E. M. Boulton, et al. (LUX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 161301 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [5]

    Angle, E

    J. Angle, E. Aprile, F. Arneodo, L. Baudis, A. Bernstein, A. I. Bolozdynya, L. C. C. Coelho, C. E. Dahl, L. De- Viveiros, A. D. Ferella, et al. (XENON10 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, 051301 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [6]

    Akimov, J

    D. Akimov, J. B. Albert, P. An, C. Awe, P. S. Bar- beau, B. Becker, V. Belov, A. Brown, A. Bolozdynya, B. Cabrera-Palmer, et al., Science, (2017), ISSN 0036- 8075

    work page 2017

Show all 33 references
  1. [7]

    Dutta, R

    B. Dutta, R. Mahapatra, L. E. Strigari, and J. W. Walker, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 013015 (2016)

    2016

  2. [8]

    Dutta, Y

    B. Dutta, Y. Gao, A. Kubik, R. Mahapatra, N. Mirabol- fathi, L. E. Strigari, and J. W. Walker, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 093002 (2016)

    2016

  3. [9]

    A. J. Anderson, J. M. Conrad, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, C. Ignarra, G. Karagiorgi, K. Scholberg, M. H. Shaevitz, and J. Spitz, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 013004 (2012)

    2012

  4. [10]

    Cadeddu, C

    M. Cadeddu, C. Giunti, K. A. Kouzakov, Y. F. Li, A. I. Studenikin, and Y. Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 113010 (2018)

    2018

  5. [11]

    B. Caas, E. Garcs, O. Miranda, and A. Parada, Physics Letters B, 784, 159 (2018), ISSN 0370-2693

    2018

  6. [12]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX-ZEPLIN), :1802.06039 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  7. [13]

    R. F. Lang, C. McCabe, S. Reichard, M. Selvi, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 103009 (2016)

    2016

  8. [14]

    Hagmann and A

    C. Hagmann and A. Bernstein, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 51, 2151 (2004), ISSN 0018-9499

    2004

  9. [15]

    Aprile, C

    E. Aprile, C. E. Dahl, L. de Viveiros, R. J. Gaitskell, K. L. Giboni, J. Kwong, P. Majewski, K. Ni, T. Shutt, and M. Yamashita, Phys. Rev. Lett., 97, 081302 (2006)

    2006

  10. [16]

    M. Horn, V. Belov, D. Akimov, H. Ara´ ujo, E. Barnes, A. Burenkov, V. Chepel, A. Currie, B. Edwards, C. Ghag, et al., Physics Letters B, 705, 471 (2011), ISSN 0370-2693

    2011

  11. [17]

    Sorensen, A

    P. Sorensen, A. Manzur, C. Dahl, J. Angle, E. Aprile, F. Arneodo, L. Baudis, A. Bernstein, A. Bolozdynya, L. Coelho, et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 601, 339 (2009), ISSN 0168-9002

    2009

  12. [18]

    Aprile, M

    E. Aprile, M. Alfonsi, K. Arisaka, F. Arneodo, C. Balan, L. Baudis, B. Bauermeister, A. Behrens, P. Beltrame, K. Bokeloh, et al. (XENON100 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D, 88, 012006 (2013)

    2013

  13. [19]

    Manzur, A

    A. Manzur, A. Curioni, L. Kastens, D. N. McKinsey, K. Ni, and T. Wongjirad, Phys. Rev. C, 81, 025808 (2010)

    2010

  14. [21]

    Aprile, M

    E. Aprile, M. Anthony, Q. Lin, Z. Greene, P. de Perio, F. Gao, J. Howlett, G. Plante, Y. Zhang, and T. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 112003 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    Edwards, E

    B. Edwards, E. Bernard, E. Boulton, N. Destefano, M. Gai, M. Horn, N. Larsen, B. Tennyson, L. Tvrznikova, C. Wahl, et al., Journal of Instrumentation, 13, P01005 (2018). 13

    2018

  16. [24]

    Stephenson, J

    S. Stephenson, J. Haefner, Q. Lin, K. Ni, K. Pushkin, R. Raymond, M. Schubnell, N. Shutty, G. Tarl´ e, C. Weaverdyck, et al., ArXiv e-prints:1507.01310 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Akerib, X

    D. Akerib, X. Bai, S. Bedikian, E. Bernard, A. Bernstein, A. Bradley, S. Cahn, M. Carmona-Benitez, D. Carr, J. Chapman, et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A,675, 63 (2012), ISSN 0168-9002

    2012

  18. [26]

    T. Doke, A. Hitachi, S. Kubota, A. Nakamoto, and T. Takahashi, Nuclear Instruments and Methods, 134, 353 (1976), ISSN 0029-554X

    1976

  19. [27]

    D. S. Akerib, S. Alsum, H. M. Ara´ ujo, X. Bai, A. J. Bailey, J. Balajthy, P. Beltrame, E. P. Bernard, A. Bern- stein, T. P. Biesiadzinski, et al. (LUX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D, 95, 012008 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    D. S. Akerib, H. M. Ara´ ujo, X. Bai, A. J. Bailey, J. Bal- ajthy, P. Beltrame, E. P. Bernard, A. Bernstein, T. P. Biesiadzinski, E. M. Boulton, et al. (LUX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D, 93, 072009 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    J. B. Albert, P. S. Barbeau, D. Beck, V. Belov, M. Brei- denbach, T. Brunner, A. Burenkov, G. F. Cao, W. R. Cen, C. Chambers, et al. (EXO-200 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C, 95, 025502 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Baker and R

    S. Baker and R. D. Cousins, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, 221, 437 (1984), ISSN 0167-5087

    1984

  23. [31]

    Szydagis, N

    M. Szydagis, N. Barry, K. Kazkaz, J. Mock, D. Stolp, M. Sweany, M. Tripathi, S. Uvarov, N. Walsh, and M. Woods, J. Instrum., 6, P10002 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Szydagis, A

    M. Szydagis, A. Fyhrie, D. Thorngren, and M. Tripathi, J. Instrum., 8, C10003 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Szydagis, J

    M. Szydagis, J. Balajthy, J. Brodsky, J. Cutter, J. Huang, E. Kozlova, B. Lenardo, A. Manalaysay, D. McKinsey, M. Mooney, et al., Noble Element Simulation Technique v2.0 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 1314669

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.