Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Halo-dependent Anharmonic Effects in Collective Excitation for Light Dark Matter Direct Detection

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Anharmonicity of the silicon lattice changes sub-GeV dark-matter scattering rates enough to shift expected 95% exclusion limits by a factor of 2-3, with the direction and size set by the Milky Way's halo velocity substructure.

desk verdict A legitimate combination of known ingredients that yields a plausible but underdetermined sensitivity shift; the uncalibrated anharmonic strength lambda_M = 0.02 is the main issue. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18330 v1 pith:7NADAPZC submitted 2024-12-24 hep-ph

Jun Guo , Lei Wu , Bin Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d63.20.-e
keywords lightdarkmatterdirectdetectionphononexcitationanharmonicityMorsepotentialsiliconcrystalhalosubstructureAsimovsensitivity
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

Light dark matter below about 100 MeV deposits too little energy for conventional noble-liquid detectors; instead it can excite collective lattice vibrations (phonons) in a silicon crystal. This paper argues that the crystal potential is not purely harmonic, and that the anharmonic part, represented by a Morse potential, materially changes the multi-phonon production rate in the low-momentum, high-energy-transfer region. That region is reached only by dark-matter particles with the right speeds, so the size of the anharmonic correction depends on the Milky Way's dark-matter velocity distribution. Combining the stellar-halo substructures seen by the Gaia satellite with an Asimov likelihood analysis, the paper finds that 95% exclusion limits on the dark-matter-nucleon cross section differ from the standard halo model by a factor of 2-3. If correct, future phonon-based detectors cannot state their reach accurately without fixing both the anharmonic crystal response and the halo model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dynamic structure factor $S(q,\omega)$ evaluated in the incoherent, isolated-atom approximation; it maps a momentum transfer $q$ and energy transfer $\omega$ into the rate for producing final states with $n$ phonons. In the harmonic limit the $n$-phonon matrix element is Poisson with rate $q^2/(2m_d\omega_0)$. The anharmonic version replaces the harmonic potential by a Morse potential, a one-parameter potential with anharmonicity strength $\lambda_M = 0.02$, whose exact matrix elements (Eq. 9) and non-equally-spaced energy levels (Eq. 10) generate the extra low-$q$, high-$\omega$ scattering that the harmonic approximation misses. The second mechanism is the halo speed distribution $F_{\rm lab}(v)$, since it fixes the integration range in $(q,\omega)$: substructures with higher most-probable speed push the integral into the region where the anharmonic structure factor is largest.

What would settle it

Measure the dynamic structure factor $S(q,\omega)$ of silicon by inelastic neutron or X-ray scattering at low momentum transfer and energy transfers of a few hundred meV; if the multi-phonon response matches the harmonic Poisson prediction rather than the Morse-potential formula (Eq. 9), the anharmonic enhancement and the factor 2-3 sensitivity shift would not occur.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a silicon crystal's dynamic structure factor $S(q,\omega)$ must be evaluated with an anharmonic potential, and the correction changes the predicted dark-matter event rate in a halo-dependent way. In the harmonic approximation the $n$-phonon excitation probability is Poisson with rate $\lambda = q^2/(2m_d\omega_0)$. Replacing the oscillator by a Morse potential with anharmonicity parameter $\lambda_M = 0.02$ changes the matrix elements to Eq. (9) and the energy gaps to Eq. (10), producing extra strength at low momentum transfer $q$ and high energy transfer $\omega$ where the harmonic expression is exponentially suppressed. The event-rate integral (Eq. 11) inherits this through the integration limits $q_\pm$ and $\omega_{\rm up}$, which are set by the laboratory-frame speed distribution $F_{\rm lab}(v)$. When the halo is built from the standard SHM, the Sausage component, and the six stellar streams and dark shards, the expected 95% exclusion sensitivity on the dark-matter-proton cross section $\sigma_p$ changes by a factor of 2-3 relative to the SHM-only prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each stellar substructure observed in the halo has a dark-matter counterpart with exactly the same velocity distribution, so the stream parameters can be used as dark-matter parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A silicon phonon detector targeting dark matter below roughly 100 MeV must include anharmonicity, or its quoted 95% exclusion limit will be off by a factor of 2-3 in cross section.
  • High-speed retrograde substructures such as S1 and Rg6b generate more events and more high-phonon-number final states, so they set the strongest limits if present.
  • The anharmonic correction is largest for low-speed, small-dispersion substructures such as S2a, S2b, and Rg5a, because their scattering sits in the low-$q$, high-$\omega$ part of the structure factor.
  • Raising the energy threshold from 80 meV to 120 meV makes the anharmonic correction more pronounced, since it selects exactly the region where the Morse-potential structure factor dominates.
  • For dark-matter masses above about 100 MeV the anharmonic effect and the threshold choice both become subdominant, so the halo-dependent shift is a low-mass feature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Morse-potential treatment applied to other detector crystals would likely show a different mass window and different-sized correction, because $\omega_0$, $\sigma$, and $\lambda_M$ are material-specific; this is a direct extrapolation the paper does not compute.
  • The factor 2-3 is quoted for a background-only Asimov sensitivity; in a real positive signal, the degeneracy between halo composition and anharmonic strength could make the inferred cross section or mass uncertain by more than that.
  • A decisive check of the physical channel could come from inelastic neutron or X-ray scattering on silicon at low momentum transfer and energy transfers of a few hundred meV, where the anharmonic structure factor is predicted to exceed the harmonic one; if the measured $S(q,\omega)$ follows the harmonic form, the factor 2-3 shift would disappear.
  • Future astrometric data that revise the stream velocity parameters would move the factor 2-3 by roughly its own size, because the anharmonic correction is controlled by most-probable speed and dispersion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies sub-GeV dark matter direct detection via phonon excitations in a silicon crystal, including lattice anharmonicity modeled by a one-dimensional Morse potential and dark-matter velocity distributions with substructures motivated by Gaia stellar streams. The authors compute the structure factor and event rates analytically, then use a one-bin Asimov likelihood with a 3 events/kg-yr background to project 95% exclusion sensitivities on the dark matter-nucleon cross section. They find that turning on anharmonicity and replacing the standard halo model with substructure-rich halos changes the projected sensitivity by a factor of 2-3.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim is correct, the paper has a useful message for the phonon direct-detection program: anharmonic corrections to the crystal response are not negligible in the sub-GeV region, and their size is halo-dependent. The work is mostly a forward model rather than a fit, and it contains a welcome cross-check: in the harmonic SHM limit, the likelihood-based exclusion line reproduces the 3-events method of Refs. [25,40] (Fig. 4). The main limitation is that the anharmonic strength lambda_M = 0.02 is asserted without derivation or calibration, yet it controls the size of the reported factor 2-3; the paper therefore needs either a physical calibration of lambda_M or an explicit scan over its plausible range before the headline number can be considered robust.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (10)] The value lambda_M = 0.02 is introduced directly after Eq. (10) with no derivation, citation, or calibration. This single parameter controls the anharmonic matrix element in Eq. (9), the eigenenergy spacing in Eq. (10), the bound-state cutoff K = 1/(32 lambda_M^2), and the anharmonicity criterion in Eq. (22). Since the headline result - a factor 2-3 change in the expected 95% exclusion sensitivity relative to SHM - is a quantitative statement about the anharmonic correction, the reported factor is underdetermined unless lambda_M is justified for silicon. Please either derive lambda_M from a physical potential or published data, or show how the factor 2-3 varies over a plausible range of lambda_M.
  2. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (15)] The paper assumes, without direct evidence, that each stellar substructure seen by Gaia has a dark matter counterpart with exactly the same velocity distribution. This assumption is explicit in Sec. II.B and is load-bearing for the halo-dependence claim: the differences between the SHM case and the substructure cases in Figs. 3-6 are driven by the mean velocities and dispersions in Table I. The authors should either strengthen the justification for the stellar-DM velocity correspondence beyond the statement that it is 'reasonable,' or add a robustness test (e.g., varying the stream dispersions or mean velocities) to show that the factor 2-3 is not an artifact of this assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The discriminant in the expression for q_+- is missing a factor of 2: it should be q_+- = m_chi v (1 +- sqrt(1 - 2 omega_th/(m_chi v^2))). Please check whether the numerical implementation uses the correct expression.
  2. [Eq. (17)] The Gaussian exponent in the SHM speed distribution is written as -|v|^2/(2 pi sigma_v^2); the denominator should be 2 sigma_v^2, not 2 pi sigma_v^2.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption states omega_th = 80 MeV, which should presumably be 80 meV, and the y-axis labels such as '2 x 100' and '3 x 100' are confusing; please rewrite the axis labels to show the numeric ratios directly.
  4. [Table I and Sec. II.B] The text says 'we consider other 6 DM substructures except SHM and Gaia Sausage,' but Table I lists seven additional components (S1, S2a, S2b, Rg5a, Rg6b, Cand10, Cand13). Please correct the count or the table.
  5. [Eq. (3)] The function f(n) is used to denote the nth eigenenergy difference but is not explicitly defined; please define it (presumably f(n) = n - n(n+1)/(2K) from Eq. (10)) so that the Gaussian smearing and the energy threshold are unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper's sensitivity projections are forward computations from external inputs and published phonon/anharmonic formalism.

full rationale

The central derivation chain starts from the structure-factor formalism of Refs. [25, 26, 30], the Morse-potential matrix element of Ref. [32], and astrophysical substructure parameters from Refs. [36, 37, 39]. The event rate in Eq. (11) is then evaluated with these inputs, and the exclusion sensitivities in Figs. 4-6 are obtained by a standard Asimov likelihood procedure. No quantity that is later called a prediction is fitted to the data being predicted; in particular, the Morse-potential parameter lambda_M = 0.02 is an uncalibrated modeling input, not a value extracted from the reported sensitivity ratio, so any concern about it is a robustness or calibration caveat rather than circularity. The assumption that DM substructures share the stellar velocity distributions is an explicit astrophysical premise, not a consequence derived from the paper's own outputs. The paper's citations to its own previous works [17-24] appear only as background on atomic, ionic, and electronic effects in condensed-matter targets and are not load-bearing for the anharmonicity or substructure calculation. The comparison to SHM is a direct computation with the same scattering formalism and different halo inputs, so the reported factor 2-3 is an output of the model rather than an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The computation is a forward model built from external ingredients: phonon structure factor formulas, silicon parameters, Gaia-derived stream kinematics, and an assumed experimental background. The main free parameters are the anharmonic strength lambda_M, the background rate, the substructure fractions, and the energy threshold; none is fitted to the reported factor 2-3, but the quantitative result is not independent of them. The axioms include the incoherent and isolated-atom approximations, the one-dimensional Morse potential model, and the assumption that dark matter traces stellar substructures. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda_M (Morse anharmonicity) = 0.02
    Sets the strength of the cubic anharmonic term in the structure factor; fixed without derivation in Sec. II.A and directly controls the size of the effect the paper highlights.
  • mu_b (background event rate) = 3 kg^-1 yr^-1
    Assumed in Sec. III.A for the Asimov likelihood; affects the absolute exclusion limits in Figs. 4-6.
  • eta_GS (Gaia Sausage fraction) = 0.2
    SHM++ model input from [37] and Auriga simulations; chosen as benchmark, not directly measured.
  • eta_DS (dark shard fraction) = 0.1 and 0.2
    Hand-set scenarios in Sec. III.B; eta_SHM is then 0.8 minus eta_DS.
  • omega_th (energy threshold) = 80 and 120 meV
    Assumed experimental thresholds used in Figs. 5-6; the anharmonic and halo effects are threshold dependent.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Incoherent approximation: scattering is localized to a single lattice site (q <= 1/a); inter-site interference in the structure factor is dropped.
    Invoked in Sec. II.A to go from Eq. (1) to Eq. (2); standard for small momentum transfer but a simplification of the full crystal response.
  • domain assumption Phonon final states are treated as isolated atomic states; the energy-conserving delta function is replaced by a Gaussian broadening function.
    Used to write Eq. (3) following [25,30]; ignores the full phonon band structure and crystal coherence.
  • ad hoc to paper The anharmonic crystal potential is modeled as a one-dimensional Morse potential with a single parameter lambda_M.
    Eq. (8) in Sec. II.A; this is a tractable model, not a first-principles silicon anharmonicity, and lambda_M = 0.02 is fixed by hand without derivation.
  • domain assumption Dark matter substructures have the same velocity distributions as the stellar substructures observed by Gaia.
    Stated in Sec. II.B: 'Even though there is no direct evidence... it is reasonable to assume that the DM halo shares the same velocity distribution as the stellar halo.' This is the key astrophysical premise for the halo-dependent conclusion.
  • domain assumption The local DM density is rho_chi = 0.4 GeV/cm^3 and the galactic escape speed is vesc = 528 km/s.
    Standard astrophysical inputs taken from [35] and used in Eq. (11); their uncertainties are not propagated.
  • ad hoc to paper Only one dark shard component is present at a time, with eta_SHM + eta_GS + eta_DS = 1.
    Assumed in Sec. III.B to make the multi-component halo tractable; the real halo likely contains many substructures simultaneously.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Halo-dependent Anharmonic Effects in Collective Excitation for Light Dark Matter Direct Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7NADAPZC

@misc{pith2026241218330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Halo-dependent Anharmonic Effects in Collective Excitation for Light Dark Matter Direct Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7NADAPZC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18330}
}
read the original abstract

Phonon, the collective excitation of lattice vibration in the crystal, has been put forward as a means to search for light dark matter. However, the accurate modeling of the multi-phonon production process is challenging in theory. The anharmonicity of the crystal must be taken into account, as it has a significant impact on dark matter-nucleus scattering cross section in the low dark matter mass region. Notably, such an effect is sensitive to the velocity distribution of the dark matter halo. In this work, we consider the potential dark matter substructures indicated by the recent Gaia satellite observation and investigate their impact on the anharmonicity of the silicon crystal. By employing the likelihood analysis with the Asimov dataset, we present the expected sensitivity of dark matter-nucleus interactions, which can differ from the standard halo model by a factor of 2-3.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18330 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Left: the structure factor function for the harmonic case. Right: the structure factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The speed distributions for the DM substructures we considered. Compared with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The Quantized rate spectrum for individual n-phonon final state event, with the solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In the case of S2a, S2b, and Rg5a, the anharmonic effect is particularly significant. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The excluding lines for the DM substructures we considered in this work, with the solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The ratio of cross section limitations between harmonic and anharmonic. The dashed lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The final excluding result for the DM substructure models we considered in our work, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Probing Supernova Neutrino Boosted Dark Matter with Collective Excitation

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Galactic supernova neutrino boosted dark matter can produce plasmon excitations in silicon detectors, improving sub-MeV dark matter sensitivity by 3 to 4 orders of magnitude over Super-K.

  2. Constraints on Axion-Like Particles with the Silicon Detector at a Nuclear Reactor

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    New 90% C.L. limits on the ALP–photon coupling in the 0.1–100 keV range are derived from Connie and Atucha-II reactor data via plasmon excitation in silicon; a 30 kg·yr Oscura-style run could improve on NEON by about tenfold.

  3. Neutrino lines and photon continua from cascade dark matter decay

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In cascade dark-matter decay, neutrino-line searches can beat gamma-ray limits whenever the intermediate mediator is long-lived enough to suppress the photon flux.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D 85, 076007 (2012), 1108.5383

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, S. Rajendran, and M. T. Walters, Phys. Dark Univ. 1, 32 (2012), 1203.2531

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    S. K. Lee, M. Lisanti, S. Mishra-Sharma, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. D 92, 083517 (2015), 1508.07361

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Essig, M

    R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP 05, 046 (2016), 1509.01598

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Essig, T

    R. Essig, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043017 (2017), 1703.00910

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Catena, T

    R. Catena, T. Emken, N. A. Spaldin, and W. Tarantino, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033195 (2020), 1912.08204

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Derenzo, R

    S. Derenzo, R. Essig, A. Massari, A. Soto, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 96, 016026 (2017), 1607.01009

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Agnese et al

    R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 051301 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 122, 069901 (2019)], 1804.10697

    arXiv 2018

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    N. A. Kurinsky, T. C. Yu, Y. Hochberg, and B. Cabrera, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123005 (2019), 1901.07569

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Abramoff et al

    O. Abramoff et al. (SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 161801 (2019), 1901.10478

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aguilar-Arevalo et al

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (DAMIC), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 181802 (2019), 1907.12628

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Trickle, Z

    T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, K. M. Zurek, K. Inzani, and S. M. Griffin, JHEP 03, 036 (2020), 1910.08092. 17

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S. M. Griffin, K. Inzani, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 101, 055004 (2020), 1910.10716

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Andersson, A

    E. Andersson, A. B¨ okmark, R. Catena, T. Emken, H. K. Moberg, and E. ˚Astrand, JCAP 05, 036 (2020), 2001.08910

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Barak et al

    L. Barak et al. (SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 171802 (2020), 2004.11378

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Catena, T

    R. Catena, T. Emken, M. Matas, N. A. Spaldin, and E. Urdshals, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033149 (2021), 2105.02233

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    V. V. Flambaum, L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 271011 (2023), 2012.09751

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    W. Wang, L. Wu, W.-N. Yang, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 107, 073002 (2023), 2111.04000

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Wang, K.-Y

    W. Wang, K.-Y. Wu, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Nucl. Phys. B 983, 115907 (2022), 2112.06492

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Y. Gu, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 075004 (2022), 2203.06664

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    J. Li, L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, JCAP 04, 020 (2023), 2210.15474

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    L. Su, L. Wu, N. Zhou, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 035004 (2023), 2212.02286

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Y. Gu, J. Tang, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C 47, 125105 (2023), 2309.09740

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Liang, L

    Z.-L. Liang, L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu (2024), 2401.11971

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Y. Kahn, G. Krnjaic, and B. Mandava, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 081804 (2021), 2011.09477

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Lin, C.-H

    T. Lin, C.-H. Shen, M. Sholapurkar, and E. Villarama, Phys. Rev. D 109, 095020 (2024), 2309.10839

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A. G. A. Brown et al. (Gaia), Astron. Astrophys. 595, A2 (2016), 1609.04172

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A. G. A. Brown et al. (Gaia), Astron. Astrophys. 616, A1 (2018), 1804.09365

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Prusti et al

    T. Prusti et al. (Gaia), Astron. Astrophys. 595, A1 (2016), 1609.04153

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Campbell-Deem, S

    B. Campbell-Deem, S. Knapen, T. Lin, and E. Villarama, Phys. Rev. D 106, 036019 (2022), 2205.02250

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Knapen, J

    S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 105, 015014 (2022), 2104.12786

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Berrondo, A

    M. Berrondo, A. Palma, and J. L´ opez-Bonilla, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 31, 243–249 (1987), ISSN 1097-461X, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/qua.560310205

    1987 doi

  25. [33]

    P. J. McMillan, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 465, 76–94 (2016), ISSN 1365-2966, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2759

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Sch¨ onrich, J

    R. Sch¨ onrich, J. Binney, and W. Dehnen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 403, 1829–1833 (2010), ISSN 1365-2966, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966. 18 2010.16253.x

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A. J. Deason, A. Fattahi, V. Belokurov, N. W. Evans, R. J. J. Grand, F. Marinacci, and R. Pakmor, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 485, 3514–3526 (2019), ISSN 1365-2966, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz623

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    J. Buch, M. A. Buen-Abad, J. Fan, and J. S. C. Leung, Phys. Rev. D 102, 083010 (2020), 2007.13750

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    N. W. Evans, C. A. J. O’Hare, and C. McCabe, Phys. Rev. D 99, 023012 (2019), 1810.11468

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    N. W. Evans, R. M. Hafner, and P. T. de Zeeuw, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 286, 315–328 (1997), ISSN 1365-2966, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ 286.2.315

    1997 doi

  31. [39]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, N. W. Evans, C. McCabe, G. Myeong, and V. Belokurov, Phys. Rev. D 101, 023006 (2020), 1909.04684

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Trickle, Z

    T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 105, 015001 (2022), 2009.13534

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], 1007.1727

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    C. Wegg, O. Gerhard, and M. Bieth, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 485, 3296 (2019), 1806.09635

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  36. [44]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi (2020), 2005.01515

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    T. G. Rizzo, JHEP 07, 118 (2018), 1801.08525

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Pospelov, Phys

    M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D 80, 095002 (2009), 0811.1030

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A. E. Nelson and J. Scholtz, Phys. Rev. D 84, 103501 (2011), 1105.2812

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    L. I. Schiff, Phys. Rev. 83, 252 (1951)

    1951

  41. [49]

    Tsai, Rev

    Y.-S. Tsai, Rev. Mod. Phys. 46, 815 (1974), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 49, 421–423 (1977)]

    1974

  42. [50]

    Emken, R

    T. Emken, R. Essig, C. Kouvaris, and M. Sholapurkar, JCAP 09, 070 (2019), 1905.06348. 19

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.