Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 57 references

DarkSHINE Baseline Design Report: Physics Prospects and Detector Technologies

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper makes the case that a new fixed-target electron-beam experiment can search for invisibly decaying dark photons with almost no background, projecting sensitivity roughly two orders of magnitude beyond current limits.

desk verdict A credible, detailed baseline design for a fixed-target dark photon search at SHINE, but the exposure numbers do not add up—3e14 EOT is not one year at 1 MHz single-electron—and the background estimate rests on an under-documented extrapolation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09345 v2 pith:KMT376LJ submitted 2024-11-14 physics.ins-det hep-ex

Jing Chen , Ji-Yuan Chen , Jun-Feng Chen , Xiang Chen , Chang-Bo Fu , Jun Guo , Yi-Han Guo , Kim Siang Khaw
show 34 more authors
Jia-Lin Li Liang Li Shu Li Yu-ming Lin Dan-Ning Liu Kang Liu Kun Liu Qi-Bin Liu Zhi Liu Ze-Jia Lu Meng Lv Si-Yuan Song Tong Sun Jian-Nan Tang Wei-Shi Wan Dong Wang Xiao-Long Wang Yu-Feng Wang Zhen Wang Zi-Rui Wang Wei-Hao Wu Hai-Jun Yang Lin Yang Yong Yang Dian Yu Rui Yuan Jun-Hua Zhang Yu-Lei Zhang Yun-Long Zhang Zhi-Yu Zhao Bai-Hong Zhou Chun-Xiang Zhu Xu-Liang Zhu Yi-Fan Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-dethep-ex
keywords darkphotoninvisibledecayfixed-targetexperimentmissingenergysignaturekineticmixingparameterbremsstrahlungLYSOcalorimeterhadronicveto
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper lays out a baseline design for DarkSHINE, a proposed fixed-target experiment that would use the SHINE facility's 1 MHz, 8 GeV single-electron beam to search for dark photons that decay invisibly into dark matter. The experimental signature is a single recoiling electron carrying large missing momentum and little energy in the calorimeters, produced by dark bremsstrahlung off a thin tungsten target. Simulating the full detector, the authors estimate 0.015 background events for 3×$10^{14}$ electrons on target after all selection cuts, and derive a projected 90% confidence exclusion limit on the kinetic-mixing parameter ε² as a function of dark photon mass that improves on current experiments by nearly two orders of magnitude. If the projection holds, the setup could also probe thermally produced dark matter in the MeV mass range.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the missing-momentum signature combined with a layered veto. Dark bremsstrahlung $e^-Z \to e^-Z A'$ with the dark photon $A'$ decaying invisibly leaves one low-energy, high-transverse-momentum electron; backgrounds leave extra particles and more calorimeter energy. The paper's selection requires exactly one track, tagging-minus-recoil momentum greater than 4 GeV, ECAL total energy below 2.5 GeV, and HCAL total and maximum-cell energy below 0.1 GeV and 2 MeV. The LYSO crystal ECAL gives better than 2% statistical energy resolution and the 4×4 m² sampling HCAL provides a neutron veto with inefficiency below $10^{-5}$ for energetic neutrons, together reducing the estimated background to 0.015 events in the nominal dataset.

What would settle it

Take data with the full detector and beam on a 0.35 mm tungsten target for the equivalent of 3×$10^{14}$ electrons on target and count events passing the five selection cuts: one track, missing momentum above 4 GeV, ECAL total energy below 2.5 GeV, HCAL total energy below 0.1 GeV, and HCAL maximum cell energy below 2 MeV. If more than about one event is observed, the 0.015 background estimate is falsified and the projected ε² exclusion curve does not hold at face value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an experiment built around a high-repetition-rate electron beam can detect the invisible decay of dark photons through a missing-energy and missing-momentum signature with essentially background-free sensitivity. DarkSHINE would use a 0.35 mm tungsten target and measure the incoming and outgoing electron with silicon strip trackers in a 1.5 T dipole field, then require a single recoil track, missing momentum above 4 GeV, ECAL energy below 2.5 GeV, and HCAL energy below 0.1 GeV. With these selections no simulated background event survives; an extrapolation procedure yields 0.015 expected background events per 3×$10^{14}$ electrons on target. The paper derives a 90% C.L. exclusion curve on ε² versus dark photon mass for 3×$10^{14}$ to $10^{16}$ electrons on target, claiming sensitivity nearly two orders of magnitude better than current experiments and reach into the MeV-scale thermal relic dark matter parameter space.

Load-bearing premise

The whole sensitivity projection rests on the estimated background of 0.015 events per 3×$10^{14}$ electrons on target, obtained by extrapolating from simulated rare processes; if the real detector produces even a few times more background in the signal box, the claimed limits weaken substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the projected sensitivity is correct, the experiment can set the strongest laboratory limits on invisibly decaying dark photons in the roughly 1 MeV to 1 GeV mass range.
  • The reach in the dark-matter interaction-strength plane would cover benchmark thermal-relic dark matter models for dark matter masses around the MeV scale.
  • At 3×10^14 electrons on target the sensitivity is comparable to the LDMX Phase-1 design; at 10^16 EOT it complements LDMX, doing better at low mass because of the precise LYSO calorimeter.
  • The staggered ECAL layout studied in the report would reduce inclusive backgrounds entering the signal region by more than an order of magnitude relative to the uniform layout.
  • A 1.5 m × 1.5 m HCAL transverse size meets the low-energy-neutron veto requirement while reducing weight, an option for the real hall constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the background extrapolation is the weakest link, a dedicated control run with an empty target and a beam-off-target sample would directly calibrate the rare-process rates before the physics run; the report does not describe such a control.
  • The same detector, with vertex reconstruction added, could search for visible dark photon decays and other long-lived signatures, extending the physics case beyond invisible decays.
  • Because the projected reach hinges on the 1 MHz single-electron beam and 3×10^14 EOT per year, a near-term prototype test of beam delivery and triggerless readout on the SHINE linac would be the fastest way to de-risk the sensitivity claim.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is the baseline design report of the DarkSHINE experiment, a proposed fixed-target search for invisibly decaying dark photons at the SHINE 8 GeV electron facility. It specifies a detector consisting of a tagging and a recoil silicon-strip tracker, a 350-micron tungsten target, a homogeneous 20x20x11 LYSO electromagnetic calorimeter, and a large iron/scintillator hadronic calorimeter, together with the associated magnets, mechanics, and readout electronics. The physics studies use CalcHEP-generated dark-bremsstrahlung events and Geant4 simulations of inclusive and rare Standard Model backgrounds, supplemented by prototype measurements of AC-LGAD strip sensors, LYSO/SiPM modules, HCAL scintillator strips, and 1 MHz readout electronics. The central quantitative results are a background estimate of 0.015 events per 3e14 electrons on target and projected 90% C.L. exclusion limits on the kinetic mixing parameter epsilon^2 versus dark-photon mass, claimed to improve on current experiments by nearly two orders of magnitude, together with a thermal-relic dark-matter projection in the MeV range.

Significance. If the projected sensitivity were realized, DarkSHINE would provide an independent and competitive probe of sub-GeV invisible dark photons, complementary to NA64 and LDMX, and could reach thermal-relic dark-matter parameter space in the MeV region. The report's strengths are its detailed full-detector Geant4 simulation, biased rare-process samples with quoted effective exposures, and a substantial set of small-scale prototype measurements: AC-LGAD spatial resolutions of 6.5-12.3 microns, DESY beam-test data on LYSO/SiPM modules, electronics tests at 1 MHz, and HCAL neutron-veto studies. These elements make the detector concept credible as a baseline. However, the quantitative sensitivity claim inherits load-bearing inconsistencies: the one-year exposure label disagrees with the stated beam rate by an order of magnitude, the beam energy differs between sections, and the central background yield is not reproduced in this report and appears to omit the neutrino-production backgrounds estimated in Table 2.3. The physics case is plausible, but the headline projection should be treated as preliminary until these points are corrected or documented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.4, Sec. 2.5, Sec. 3.2, Sec. 3.3, Table 2.3] The beam energy is stated inconsistently. Section 2.4 says DarkSHINE uses a 4 GeV electron beam and that the tagging tracker must track 4 GeV incoming electrons, while Sections 2.5, 3.2, and 3.3 and Fig. 3.10 use an 8 GeV beam, and Table 2.3 is labeled with Ebeam = 10 GeV. The dark-photon production cross section, recoil kinematics, tracker momentum acceptance, and calorimeter containment all depend on the beam energy, so these values cannot all be correct simultaneously. The report should state a single baseline beam energy and verify that the tracker performance numbers in Figs. 2.6-2.8 and the signal efficiencies in Fig. 3.7 are computed with it.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Sec. 2.5, Sec. 3.3, Conclusion] The exposure per year is off by an order of magnitude. Section 2.1 describes a 1 MHz single-electron beam and estimates about 1e13 EOT per year; at 1 MHz continuous operation, one year is 3.15e13 electrons. Yet Section 2.5 says 'after the first run DarkSHINE can collect 3e14 electron-on-target', and the Conclusion labels 3e14, 9e14, and 1.5e15 as one, three, and five years of running, while also listing 1e16 EOT without a time label. Equation (3.2) and Fig. 3.9 normalize the sensitivity to L = 3e14 EOT. If the real one-year exposure is about 3e13, the projected epsilon^2 limits worsen by roughly sqrt(10) about 3.2; if 3e14 per year is intended, the beam must carry about 10 electrons per bunch on average, contradicting the single-electron assumption used in the tracker, ECAL, and background simulations. The beam rate, per-bunch multiplicity, and exposure labels must be reconciled.
  3. [Sec. 2.5, Table 2.3, Sec. 3.2, Table 3.3] The neutrino-production backgrounds estimated in Section 2.5 are not included in the background count. Table 2.3 reports 3.6e-4 events (Moller + CCQE) and 0.3-0.6 events (CCQE with exclusive pi0) per 3e14 EOT for the tungsten target, and the text says such real-missing-energy backgrounds are 'an important component'. Section 3.2 then states that 'neutrino production reactions can be ignored for now', and Table 3.3 contains no samples for these processes. The extrapolated total of 0.015 events therefore appears to exclude the CCQE-with-pi0 contribution, which is 20-40 times larger than 0.015 before any selection. If these events are rejected by the one-track, ECAL, or HCAL cuts, the survival fractions must be demonstrated; if they are not rejected, the background estimate must be revised. The use of Ebeam = 10 GeV in Table 2.3 should also be reconciled with the 8 GeV baseline.
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.1)-(3.2), Sec. 2.6.1] The central background estimate of 0.015 events per 3e14 EOT is not supported within this manuscript. Section 3.2 states that after the listed cuts 'no background survives' and then obtains 0.015 by 'an extrapolation method [22]', but the per-process surviving counts, effective exposures, extrapolation procedure, and uncertainties are not given. Reference [22] is also the source for the ECAL signal-region definition in Section 2.6.1. Since this number enters directly into the expected-limit formula, Eq. (3.1)-(3.2), and since only the GMM-target sample has effective EOT (4.3e14) larger than the 3e14 baseline, the central result is not independently checkable from this report. The authors should present the extrapolation in detail, state whether 0.015 is a best estimate or an upper limit, and show how the sensitivity changes for plausible values of the background, for example b = 0, 0.015, 0.1, and 1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Table 3.3] The quantity 'effective EOT' is not defined; the report should state how biasing weights convert generated events to effective electrons-on-target and how statistical uncertainties on the extrapolated yields are assessed.
  2. [Fig. 3.7] The signal-efficiency axis extends above 1.0, which conflicts with the text's statement that the overall acceptance is 'over 60%'; please clarify whether the plotted quantity is a cumulative efficiency or includes an additional normalization.
  3. [Sec. 2.6.2-2.6.3, Table 2.5] The ECAL smearing parameters A, B, C are extracted from a single-crystal optical simulation and applied to the full 20x20x11 array; the report should state explicitly that the full-array response has not yet been validated by beam data and should add this validation to the R&D roadmap.
  4. [Throughout] A proofreading pass is needed: examples include 'statitics' in the Conclusion, 'F uture Plan' in the table of contents, 'electromagetic' in Section 2.2, 'ralative rate' in Section 3.2, and 'magentic' in the Fig. 3.1 caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Projected sensitivity leans on a self-cited background extrapolation, but the core cross-section-to-limit derivation is not circular.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec 3.2 (background estimate) and Sec 2.6.3 (signal region definition); used in Sec 3.3 Eqs. (3.1)-(3.2)]
    "Due to lack of statistics, an extrapolation method [22] is used to estimate background yields. In the end, 0.015 background yield per 3×10^14 is derived. ... This signal region is designed to achieve low background within 3×10^14 electrons-on-target events. It is derived from the combined analysis of all sub-detectors, using thresholds for the ECAL and other sub-detectors, and applying extrapolation methods to exclude all backgrounds[22]."

    The 0.015 events, which Eq. (3.1) inserts as nobs=b and Eq. (3.2) converts into the epsilon^2 limit, are not computed in this report; they are taken from reference [22], a paper by overlapping authors. The signal-region cuts that produce the 'no background survives' statement were themselves defined using the same extrapolation method [22] (Sec 2.6.3). Thus the low-background premise and the sensitivity derived from it are mutually justified by the same self-cited source rather than by an independent derivation in this report. The remaining physics chain—CalcHEP cross sections, tracking/ECAL/HCAL simulation, and external NA64/BaBar/PandaX comparisons—is independent, so this is partial rather than total circularity.

full rationale

Walk: the signal rate Eq. (2.1), the acceptance/efficiency curves (Figs. 3.5-3.7), and the limit formula Eq. (3.2) form a standard, non-circular chain: CalcHEP cross-section x target thickness x exposure x efficiency gives N_sig, and the 90% CL limit is the epsilon^2 value that makes N_sig equal to the background-based quantile. The detector simulation, ECAL smearing parameterization, and HCAL veto studies are internally consistent simulation work, not fitted-to-data predictions presented as discoveries. The single genuinely load-bearing self-reference is the background estimate: the report states that no background survives its cuts, then invokes reference [22] to convert insufficient statistics into 0.015 events per 3x10^14 EOT, and Eq. (3.1) feeds that 0.015 directly into the 90% CL limit. Reference [22] is authored by overlapping collaboration members and the extrapolation is not reproduced here, so the headline sensitivity is not fully self-contained. Separately, the paper contains an exposure inconsistency—Sec. 2.1 gives ~10^13 EOT/year at 1 MHz, while Sec. 2.5 and the Conclusion label 3x10^14 as one year—but this is a correctness/consistency issue, not a circularity, and does not change the derivation-chain analysis. Overall: some self-citation is load-bearing, but the central physics still has independent content, warranting a moderate score of 4.

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

The central sensitivity projection depends on several fitted simulation parameters (ECAL smearing, HCAL calibration), hand-optimized selection cuts, and assumed run conditions. No new physical entities are introduced; the dark photon is an established hypothetical particle from prior literature.

free parameters (5)
  • ECAL energy smearing parameters A, B, C = A=1.00%, B=0.00%, C=0.0000 (setup-1)
    Fitted to the DarkSHINE single-crystal Geant4 simulation (Table 2.5) and then applied to full detector simulation; these parameters set the energy resolution used in the sensitivity estimate.
  • HCAL calibration scale factor = slope from Fig 2.42
    Obtained by fitting the simulated neutron energy deposition versus incident energy; used to calibrate HCAL energy for the E_ECAL+E_HCAL balance and for HCAL veto cuts.
  • Signal selection cuts = E_ECAL < 2.5 GeV, missing momentum > 4 GeV, HCAL total < 0.1 GeV, HCAL max cell < 2 MeV
    Chosen to maximize signal efficiency and background rejection; the sensitivity curves depend directly on these choices.
  • Dark sector parameters = alpha_D = 0.5, Br(A' -> invisible) = 1, mA' = 3 mchi
    Assumed for the thermal relic sensitivity projection (Sec 3.3); not required for the main epsilon^2 exclusion curve.
  • Run statistics = 3x10^14 EOT (and 9e14, 1.5e15, 1e16 scenarios)
    Assumed number of electrons on target based on the SHINE beam parameters; the sensitivity scales directly with this number.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The kinetic mixing Lagrangian L = L_SM + epsilon F^{mu nu} F'_{mu nu} + ... describes the dark photon coupling.
    Adopted as the theoretical framework in Sec 1.3; the search sensitivity is computed within this model.
  • domain assumption The dark bremsstrahlung cross-section formula d sigma/dx_e = ... is correct.
    Taken from the literature (ref [9]) and implemented in CalcHEP for signal generation (Sec 1.3, 3.2).
  • domain assumption Geant4 with FTFP_BERT physics list reliably simulates electromagnetic, hadronic, and muon processes relevant for background estimation.
    Used for all detector simulation (Sec 3.1); the background rates and veto efficiencies are derived from it.
  • domain assumption The extrapolation method from ref [22] correctly estimates the background yield when no events survive in the generated samples.
    The 0.015 background yield is obtained via this method (Sec 3.2); it is not independently verified in this report.
  • domain assumption CalcHEP correctly computes dark photon production cross sections for a tungsten target.
    Used for signal sample generation (Sec 3.2); the cross-section ratios and yields depend on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DarkSHINE Baseline Design Report: Physics Prospects and Detector Technologies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KMT376LJ

@misc{pith2026241109345,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DarkSHINE Baseline Design Report: Physics Prospects and Detector Technologies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KMT376LJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09345}
}
read the original abstract

DarkSHINE is a newly proposed fixed-target experiment initiative to search for the invisible decay of Dark Photon via missing energy/momentum signatures, based on the high repetition rate electron beam to be deployed/delivered by the Shanghai High repetition rate XFEL and Extreme light facility (SHINE). This report elaborates the baseline design of DarkSHINE experiment by introducing the physics goals, experimental setups, details of each sub-detector system technical designs, signal and backgground modelings, expected search sensitivities and future prospects, which mark an important step towards the further prototyping and technical demonstrations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09345 by the authors.

Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. The expected 95% C.L. exclusion limits on dark photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2. The schematic illustration of the NA64 experiment setup to search for dark photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.3. The prototype-like illustration of the LDMX experiment under proposal to search for dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (72 more)
Figure 1.4
Figure 1.4. Figure 1.4: The prototype-like illustration of the DarkQuest experiment under proposal to search for dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1_4.png]
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.5. Figure 1.5: The prototype-like illustration of the DarkLight experiment under proposal to search for dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1_5.png]
Figure 1.6
Figure 1.6. Figure 1.6: The prototype-like illustration of the DarkMESA experiment under proposal to search for dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1_6.png]
Figure 1.7
Figure 1.7. Figure 1.7: The Experimental setup comparison between DarkSHINE ECAL and NA64/LDMX. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1_7.png]
Figure 1.8
Figure 1.8. Figure 1.8: The Experimental setup comparison between DarkSHINE HCAL and NA64/LDMX. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1_8.png]
Figure 1.9
Figure 1.9. Figure 1.9: (Color online) Production of dark photons: bremsstrahlung, annihilation, meson decay, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1_9.png]
Figure 1.10
Figure 1.10. Figure 1.10: Decay of the massive dark photon into visible (SM leptons or hadrons) and invisible (DM) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1_10.png]
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: (Color online) Illustration of the SHINE linac [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2_1.png]
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2: (Color online) The detector sketch picture. Along the electron incident direction from left to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2_2.png]
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.3. Figure 2.3: . The left plot shows a skeleton of DarkSHINE tracker. The right plot shows the vector of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2_3.png]
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.4. Figure 2.4: The left plot shows magnetic field as a function distance along beam direction ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2_4.png]
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.5. Figure 2.5: Left: Sketch of the DarkSHINE tracking system. From left to right: tagging tracker (with seven [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2_5.png]
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.6. Figure 2.6: As a function of number of tagging tracker layers, the left plot shows acceptance efficiency, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2_6.png]
Figure 2.7
Figure 2.7. Figure 2.7: Left: Recoil tracker momentum reconstruction resolution. Right: Comparison of resolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2_7.png]
Figure 2.8
Figure 2.8. Figure 2.8: Left: Recoil tracker acceptance efficiency for 30 MeV electrons vs number of layers. Right: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2_8.png]
Figure 2.9
Figure 2.9. Figure 2.9: Left: I-V. Right: C-V The position reconstruction performance of the silicon strip detector is key to the DarkSHINE experiment. These aspects are investigated using a laser system with precisely defined positions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2_9.png]
Figure 2.10
Figure 2.10. Figure 2.10: Equipment and wiring setup for the position test. Left: schematic diagram of the laser TCT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2_10.png]
Figure 2.11
Figure 2.11. Figure 2.11: Left: Schematic diagram of sensor strips. Two lines along the x coordinate indicate the paths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2_11.png]
Figure 2.12
Figure 2.12. Figure 2.12: Left: Cross section ratios derived from CalcHep as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2_12.png]
Figure 2.13
Figure 2.13. Figure 2.13: Left: Rare processes cross sections per atom with different target material. Right: Rare [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_2_13.png]
Figure 2.14
Figure 2.14. Figure 2.14: Distributions of ECAL energy (a) and recoil angle of electrons (b) for dark photon signals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2_14.png]
Figure 2.15
Figure 2.15. Figure 2.15: Structure of DarkSHINE ECAL, which consists of an array of LYSO crystal units, each coupled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_2_15.png]
Figure 2.16
Figure 2.16. Figure 2.16: (a) The energy deposited in individual crystals in the ECAL. For inclusive background processes, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_2_16.png]
Figure 2.17
Figure 2.17. Figure 2.17: (a) ECAL energy distributions of 8 GeV electrons for the truth and digitization information. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_2_17.png]
Figure 2.18
Figure 2.18. Figure 2.18: Signal efficiencies of ECAL for dark photon with various masses. ECAL signal efficiency is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_2_18.png]
Figure 2.19
Figure 2.19. Figure 2.19: Distributions of several reconstructed variables. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_2_19.png]
Figure 2.20
Figure 2.20. Figure 2.20: Distribution of radiation damage in the ECAL region under 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_2_20.png]
Figure 2.21
Figure 2.21. Figure 2.21: The schematic and photograph of the pre-amplifier board. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_2_21.png]
Figure 2.22
Figure 2.22. Figure 2.22: The block diagram and photograph of the ADC board. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_2_22.png]
Figure 2.23
Figure 2.23. Figure 2.23: The FPGA board for the DarkSHINE ECAL readout electronics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_2_23.png]
Figure 2.24
Figure 2.24. Figure 2.24: (a) The block diagram and photograph of the DAQ system. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_2_24.png]
Figure 2.25
Figure 2.25. Figure 2.25: (a) SiPM (HAMAMATSU S13360-6025PE [30]) soldered on the front-end electronics board. (b) LED signals detected by SiPM. (c) QDC Spectra corresponding to several photoelectrons response of SiPM. [31] The gain of a SiPM is defined as the number of charge carriers (elec…
Figure 2.26
Figure 2.26. Figure 2.26: (a) Setup of an experiment to measure the SiPM intrinsic dynamic range under pico-second [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_2_26.png]
Figure 2.27
Figure 2.27. Figure 2.27: (a) LYSO-SiPM detection unit. (b) Signal waveform output by LYSO-SiPM unit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_2_27.png]
Figure 2.28
Figure 2.28. Figure 2.28: (a) LYSO scintillators with different sizes. (b) Light yield of LYSO scintillator with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_2_28.png]
Figure 2.29
Figure 2.29. Figure 2.29: (a) Decay scheme of Lutetium-176. [36] (b) Intrinsic radioactive background spectrum of a 2.5×2.5×2.5 cm3 LYSO crystal scintillator. (c) The average ECAL noise energy introduced by LYSO intrinsic radiation across all channels without energy threshold. The LYSO scint…
Figure 2.30
Figure 2.30. Figure 2.30: (a) Configuration of a four-channel crystal module. (b) Experimental setup of beam test on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_2_30.png]
Figure 2.31
Figure 2.31. Figure 2.31: The energy spectrum of the crystal(2.5×2.5×5cm3 ) unit’s response to 1-5 GeV electrons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_2_31.png]
Figure 2.32
Figure 2.32. Figure 2.32: The frequency spectrum of the ADC output with the output of 10.3 MHz sine wave. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_2_32.png]
Figure 2.33
Figure 2.33. Figure 2.33: (a) Signal waveform of the LYSO-SiPM detection unit under a real particle beam. (b) A 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_2_33.png]
Figure 2.34
Figure 2.34. Figure 2.34: (a) The waveform measured by Channel-0 at a 1 kHz repetition rate. (b) The waveform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_2_34.png]
Figure 2.35
Figure 2.35. Figure 2.35: (a) Pedestal distribution measured by Channel-0 at a 1 MHz repetition rate. (b) Amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_2_35.png]
Figure 2.36
Figure 2.36. Figure 2.36: Signal completeness of readout electronics prototype for single channels at 1 MHz repetition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_2_36.png]
Figure 2.37
Figure 2.37. Figure 2.37: Energy resolution of one LYSO-SiPM detection unit for 1–5 GeV electron beams under varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_2_37.png]
Figure 2.38
Figure 2.38. Figure 2.38: Neutron energy distribution after applying cut on ECAL energy to request E [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_2_38.png]
Figure 2.39
Figure 2.39. Figure 2.39: HCAL design, a cuboid formed by the sequential arrangement of iron absorbers and plastic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_2_39.png]
Figure 2.40
Figure 2.40. Figure 2.40: Arrangement of scintillators and absorbers is such that the translucent layers consist of scintil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_2_40.png]
Figure 2.41
Figure 2.41. Figure 2.41: The veto inefficiency of neutrons is investigated as a function of the depth of the HCAL, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_2_41.png]
Figure 2.42
Figure 2.42. Figure 2.42: The total energy deposited in HCAL as the function of incident neutron energy. Good linearity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_2_42.png]
Figure 2.43
Figure 2.43. Figure 2.43: ECAL vs. HCAL total energy after calibration. Sum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_2_43.png]
Figure 2.44
Figure 2.44. Figure 2.44: The schematic drawing (left) and the photo (right) of the new digitizer. The digitizer is a 16- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_2_44.png]
Figure 2.45
Figure 2.45. Figure 2.45: Scintillators, wavelength shift fiber, and it’s coupling to SiPM. In the top plots, the upper side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_2_45.png]
Figure 2.46
Figure 2.46. Figure 2.46: Dark current rate of SiPMs used in HCAL unit test. The choice of s13360-3050PS can obtain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_2_46.png]
Figure 2.47
Figure 2.47. Figure 2.47: Left is the photo of plastic scintillator inside the gamma spectrometer, right is the test result. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_2_47.png]
Figure 2.48
Figure 2.48. Figure 2.48: Cosmic ray test plateform. 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1 cm thickness 3 grooves 1 cm thickness 2 grooves 2 cm thickness 3 grooves 2 cm thickness 2 grooves Simu 1 cm thickness Simu 2 cm thickness N fiber used P.E/MeV DarkSHINE 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 …
Figure 2.49
Figure 2.49. Figure 2.49: Photon yields test results. Y-axis is the photon yield per MeV energy deposited, X-axis is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_2_49.png]
Figure 2.50
Figure 2.50. Figure 2.50: An overview of DarkSHINE detector mechanical design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_2_50.png]
Figure 2.51
Figure 2.51. Figure 2.51: An overview of the tracking systems and target mechanical design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_2_51.png]
Figure 2.52
Figure 2.52. Figure 2.52: Support structure of ECAL along with tracking system, target and magnets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_2_52.png]
Figure 2.53
Figure 2.53. Figure 2.53: An overview of HCAL mechanical design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_2_53.png]
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: Overview of default geometry used in the DarkSHINE simulation, and an example background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_3_1.png]
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. Figure 3.2: Workflow for the whole Dark SHINE Software package. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p060_3_2.png]
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3: Inclusive cross section of dark photon bremsstrahlung from electron interacting with tungtsen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_3_3.png]
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: Flow and relative rates of background processes. ”ECAL” and ”target” refer to the locations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p062_3_4.png]
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.5. Figure 3.5: The signal kinetics distribution simulated with Geant4, comparing to the backgrounds. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p062_3_5.png]
Figure 3.6
Figure 3.6. Figure 3.6: Missing momentum: difference between tagging track momentum and recoil track momentum. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p063_3_6.png]
Figure 3.7
Figure 3.7. Figure 3.7: Signal efficiency. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 100 200 300 400 500 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 Reco. energy in ECAL [MeV] Reco. energy in HCAL [MeV] DarkSHINE Simulation 90124 events @ 8 GeV E ECAL vs. E HCAL 10MeV 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 …
Figure 3.8
Figure 3.8. Figure 3.8: Left: 2-dimensional deposit energy map in HCAL and ECAL with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p064_3_8.png]
Figure 3.9
Figure 3.9. Figure 3.9: The DarkSHINE expected 90% C.L. exclusion limits in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p065_3_9.png]
Figure 3.10
Figure 3.10. Figure 3.10: The DarkSHINE expected 90% C.L. exclusion limits in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p066_3_10.png]
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1: (a) ECAL with staggered structure, where the placement of crystals in successive layers is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p070_5_1.png]
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2: Veto inefficiency as a function of different incident neutron energies. Larger size HCAL is showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p071_5_2.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Chen et al., Sci

    J. Chen et al., Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 211062 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Zhang, W.-T

    Y. Zhang, W.-T. Zhang, M. Song, X.-A. Pan, Z.-M. Niu, and G. Li, Phys. Rev. D 100, 115016 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Banerjee, V

    D. Banerjee, V. E. Burtsev, A. G. Chumakov, D. Cooke, P. Crivelli, E. Depero, A. V. Dermenev, S. V. Donskov, R. R. Dusaev, T. Enik, N. Charitonidis, A. Feshchenko, V. N. Frolov, A. Gardikiotis, S. G. Gerassimov, S. N. Gninenko, M. H¨ osgen, M. Jeckel, A. E. Karneyeu, G. Kekelidze, B. Ket- zer, D. V. Kirpichnikov, M. M. Kirsanov, I. V. Konorov, S. G. Koval...

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Light dark matter experiment (ldmx),

    T. ˚Akesson, A. Berlin, N. Blinov, O. Colegrove, G. Collura, V. Dutta, B. Echenard, J. Hiltbrand, D. G. Hitlin, J. Incandela, J. Jaros, R. Johnson, G. Krnjaic, J. Mans, T. Maruyama, J. McCormick, O. Moreno, T. Nelson, G. Niendorf, R. Petersen, R. P¨ ottgen, P. Schuster, N. Toro, N. Tran, and A. Whitbeck, “Light dark matter experiment (ldmx),” (2018), arXi...

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    A. A. et al (DarkQuest), (2022), arXiv:2203.08322 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    Pachal, https://indico-tdli.sjtu.edu.cn/event/1130/contributions/5825/attachments/ 2480/3765/DarkLight-MEPA-2022.pdf

    K. Pachal, https://indico-tdli.sjtu.edu.cn/event/1130/contributions/5825/attachments/ 2480/3765/DarkLight-MEPA-2022.pdf

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    S. P. et al (DarkMESA), EPJ Web of Conferences 303, 05006 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    K. S. Khaw, https://indico-tdli.sjtu.edu.cn/event/192/contributions/678/attachments/ 341/597/DarkPhotonMeeting_20200529.pdf

    work page

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Y. M. Andreev et al. (NA64), (2024), arXiv:2409.10128 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi, The Physics of the Dark Photon: A Primer(Springer International Publishing, 2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    Sclf: An 8-gev cw scrf linac-based x-ray fel facility in shanghai,

    Z. H. Y. Z. Zhao, D. Wang and L. Yin, “Sclf: An 8-gev cw scrf linac-based x-ray fel facility in shanghai,” (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Nosochkov, T

    Y. Nosochkov, T. Beukers, A. Fry, C. Hast, T. Markiewicz, T. Nelson, N. Phinney, T. Raubenheimer, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, in 8th International Particle Accelerator Conference(2017)

    2017

  5. [12]

    Kimble, M

    T. Kimble, M. Chou, and B. Chai, in 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Vol. 3 (2002) pp. 1434–1437 vol.3. 72 BIBLIOGRAPHY 73

    2002

  6. [13]

    K. Liu, M. Li, J. Zhang, W. Sun, Y. Fan, Z. Liang, Y. Wang, M. Zhao, and K. Liu (DarkSHINE), (2023), arXiv:2310.13926 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Missio (ATLAS HGTD), JINST 19, C04008 (2024)

    M. Missio (ATLAS HGTD), JINST 19, C04008 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    Agapopoulou et al., JINST 18, P08019 (2023), arXiv:2306.08949 [physics.ins-det]

    C. Agapopoulou et al., JINST 18, P08019 (2023), arXiv:2306.08949 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    Izaguirre, G

    E. Izaguirre, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D 91, 094026 (2015), arXiv:1411.1404 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Klanner, Nucl

    R. Klanner, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 926, 36 (2019), arXiv:1809.04346 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Simon, Nucl

    F. Simon, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 926, 85 (2019), arXiv:1811.03877 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Design of high-speed readout electronics for the darkshine electromagnetic calorimeter,

    Y. Guo, S. Li, K. Liu, Y. Liu, Y. Tan, J. Tang, W. Wu, H. Yang, Z. Zhao, W. Zhi, and Z. Zhou, “Design of high-speed readout electronics for the darkshine electromagnetic calorimeter,” (2024), arXiv:2407.20723 [physics.ins-det]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Design of a lyso crystal electromagnetic calorimeter for darkshine experiment,

    Z. Zhao, Q. Liu, J. Chen, J. Chen, J. Chen, X. Chen, C. Fu, J. Guo, K. S. Khaw, L. Li, S. Li, D. Liu, K. Liu, S. Song, T. Sun, J. Tang, Y. Wang, Z. Wang, W. Wu, H. Yang, Y. Lin, R. Yuan, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang, B. Zhou, X. Zhu, and Y. Zhu, “Design of a lyso crystal electromagnetic...

    2024 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Zhu et al., J

    R.-Y. Zhu et al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1162, 012022 (2019)

    2019

  16. [25]

    Ulyanov, D

    A. Ulyanov, D. Murphy, J. Mangan, V. Gupta, W. Hajdas, D. De Faoite, B. Shortt, L. Hanlon, and S. Mcbreen, (2020), 10.1016/j.nima.2020.164203, arXiv:2007.10919 [physics.ins-det]

    2020

  17. [26]

    Sanchez Majos et al., Nucl

    S. Sanchez Majos et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 602, 506 (2009)

    2009

  18. [27]

    Preghenella et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1046, 167661 (2023)

    R. Preghenella et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1046, 167661 (2023)

    2023

  19. [28]

    S14160-3010ps,

    HAHAMATSU, “S14160-3010ps,” https://www.hamamatsu.com.cn/cn/zh-cn/product/ optical-sensors/mppc/mppc_mppc-array/S14160-3010PS.html ()

  20. [29]

    Eqr06 11-3030d-s,

    N. D. Laboratory, “Eqr06 11-3030d-s,” http://www.ndl-sipm.net/PDF/Datasheet-EQR06.pdf

  21. [30]

    S13360-6025pe,

    HAHAMATSU, “S13360-6025pe,” https://www.hamamatsu.com.cn/cn/zh-cn/product/ optical-sensors/mppc/mppc_mppc-array/S13360-6025PE.html ()

  22. [31]

    Dynamic range of sipms with high pixel densities,

    Z. Zhao, B. Qi, S. Li, and Y. Liu, “Dynamic range of sipms with high pixel densities,” (2024), arXiv:2407.17794 [physics.ins-det]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Tsang, T

    T. Tsang, T. Rao, S. Stoll, and C. Woody, JINST 11, P12002 (2016)

    2016

  24. [33]

    Cordelli, E

    M. Cordelli, E. Diociaiuti, A. Ferrari, S. Miscetti, S. M¨ uller, G. Pezzullo, and I. Sarra, JINST 16, T12012 (2021), arXiv:1804.09792 [physics.ins-det] . 74 BIBLIOGRAPHY

    2021 arXiv

  25. [34]

    F. Gu, Y. Liu, X. Sun, Y. Xu, D. Zhang, Z. An, K. Gong, X. Li, X. Wen, S. Xiong, F. Zhang, C. Wang, and G. Qu, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1053, 168381 (2023)

    2023

  26. [35]

    Kalinnikov, E

    V. Kalinnikov, E. Velicheva, and A. Rozhdestvensky, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 20, 995 (2023)

    2023

  27. [36]

    A.-S. H. et al., Sci Rep. 8(1), 17310 (2018)

    2018

  28. [37]

    He et al., JINST 16, T12015 (2021), arXiv:2108.11804 [physics.ins-det]

    C. He et al., JINST 16, T12015 (2021), arXiv:2108.11804 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Luo et al., Nucl

    G. Luo et al., Nucl. Sci. Tech. 34, 99 (2023), arXiv:2302.12669 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [39]

    S14160-3015ps,

    HAHAMATSU, “S14160-3015ps,” https://www.hamamatsu.com.cn/cn/zh-cn/product/ optical-sensors/mppc/mppc_mppc-array/S14160-3015PS.html ()

  31. [40]

    S13360-3025cs,

    HAHAMATSU, “S13360-3025cs,” https://www.hamamatsu.com.cn/cn/zh-cn/product/ optical-sensors/mppc/mppc_mppc-array/S13360-3025CS.html ()

  32. [41]

    S13360-3050cs,

    HAHAMATSU, “S13360-3050cs,” https://www.hamamatsu.com.cn/cn/zh-cn/product/ optical-sensors/mppc/mppc_mppc-array/S13360-3050CS.html ()

  33. [42]

    root-project/root: v6.18/02,

    R. Brun, F. Rademakers, P. Canal, A. Naumann, O. Couet, L. Moneta, V. Vassilev, S. Linev, D. Pi- paro, G. GANIS, B. Bellenot, E. Guiraud, G. Amadio, wverkerke, P. Mato, TimurP, M. Tadel, wlav, E. Tejedor, J. Blomer, A. Gheata, S. Hageboeck, S. Roiser, marsupial, S. Wunsch, O. ...

    2019

  34. [43]

    Agostinelli et al

    S. Agostinelli et al. (GEANT4), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  35. [44]

    Belyaev, N

    A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen, and A. Pukhov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1729 (2013), arXiv:1207.6082 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Belyaev, N

    A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen, and A. Pukhov, Computer Physics Communications 184, 1729–1769 (2013)

    2013

  37. [46]

    Y. M. Andreev et al. (NA64), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 161801 (2023), arXiv:2307.02404 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Huang et al

    D. Huang et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 191002 (2023), arXiv:2308.01540 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [48]

    J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 131804 (2017), arXiv:1702.03327 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Zhang, W.-T

    Y. Zhang, W.-T. Zhang, M. Song, X.-A. Pan, Z.-M. Niu, and G. Li, Phys. Rev. D 100, 115016 (2019), arXiv:1907.07046 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Y. M. Andreev et al., Phys. Rev. D 104, L091701 (2021), arXiv:2108.04195 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [51]

    deNiverville, M

    P. deNiverville, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 84, 075020 (2011), arXiv:1107.4580 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Batell, M

    B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 80, 095024 (2009), arXiv:0906.5614 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Batell, R

    B. Batell, R. Essig, and Z. Surujon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171802 (2014), arXiv:1406.2698 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [54]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221803 (2017), arXiv:1702.02688 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Essig, A

    R. Essig, A. Manalaysay, J. Mardon, P. Sorensen, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 021301 (2012), arXiv:1206.2644 [astro-ph.CO] . BIBLIOGRAPHY 75

    2012 arXiv

  47. [56]

    ˚Akesson et al., in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08192 [hep-ex]

    T. ˚Akesson et al., in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08192 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Akimov et al

    D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 051803 (2023), arXiv:2110.11453 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Banerjee et al

    D. Banerjee et al. (NA64), Phys. Rev. D 97, 072002 (2018), arXiv:1710.00971 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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