Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Search for Solar Boosted Dark Matter Particles at the PandaX-4T Experiment

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first xenon-based search for solar-boosted dark matter sets the strongest limit yet, down to a cross-section of $3.51\times10^{-39}$ cm$^2$ at 0.08 MeV/$c^2$.

desk verdict A careful, workmanlike first xenon-TPC limit on solar-boosted dark matter; the main caveat is the imported flux model, which sets a model-dependent floor but does not overturn the result. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19970 v2 pith:OMVCYT6R submitted 2024-12-28 hep-ex hep-ph

Guofang Shen , Zihao Bo , Wei Chen , Xun Chen , Yunhua Chen , Zhaokan Cheng , Xiangyi Cui , Yingjie Fan
show 95 more authors
Deqing Fang Zhixing Gao Lisheng Geng Karl Giboni Xunan Guo Xuyuan Guo Zichao Guo Chencheng Han Ke Han Changda He Jinrong He Di Huang Houqi Huang Junting Huang Ruquan Hou Yu Hou Xiangdong Ji Xiangpan Ji Yonglin Ju Chenxiang Li Jiafu Li Mingchuan Li Shuaijie Li Tao Li Zhiyuan Li Qing Lin Jianglai Liu Congcong Lu Xiaoying Lu Lingyin Luo Yunyang Luo Wenbo Ma Yugang Ma Yajun Mao Yue Meng Xuyang Ning Binyu Pang Ningchun Qi Zhicheng Qian Xiangxiang Ren Dong Shan Xiaofeng Shang Xiyuan Shao Manbin Shen Wenliang Sun Yi Tao Anqing Wang Guanbo Wang Hao Wang Jiamin Wang Lei Wang Meng Wang Qiuhong Wang Shaobo Wang Siguang Wang Wei Wang Xiuli Wang Xu Wang Zhou Wang Yuehuan Wei Weihao Wu Yuan Wu Mengjiao Xiao Xiang Xiao Kaizhi Xiong Yifan Xu Shunyu Yao Binbin Yan Xiyu Yan Yong Yang Peihua Ye Chunxu Yu Ying Yuan Zhe Yuan Youhui Yun Xinning Zeng Minzhen Zhang Peng Zhang Shibo Zhang Shu Zhang Tao Zhang Wei Zhang Yang Zhang Yingxin Zhang Yuanyuan Zhang Li Zhao Jifang Zhou Jiaxu Zhou Jiayi Zhou Ning Zhou Xiaopeng Zhou Yubo Zhou Zhizhen Zhou (PandaX Collaboration) Haipeng An Haoming Nie
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exhep-ph
keywords solarboosteddarkmattermatter-electronscatteringPandaX-4Tliquidxenontimeprojectionchambersub-MeVelectronicrecoilexclusionlimit
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 reports the first search for solar-boosted dark matter (SBDM) with a xenon detector, using $1.54$ tonne$\cdot$year of PandaX-4T exposure. It asks whether light dark matter particles, too slow to trigger direct detection, are accelerated by scattering on hot electrons in the Sun's core to keV energies, then detected through electron recoils in liquid xenon. The analysis finds no significant signal above background and sets the most stringent cross-section limit to date, $3.51\times10^{-39}~\mathrm{cm}^2$ at $0.08~\mathrm{MeV}/c^2$ for masses from $0.02$ to $10~\mathrm{MeV}/c^2$, 23 times stronger than the previous best. This matters because it constrains a window of sub-MeV dark matter that ordinary WIMP searches cannot reach.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the solar-boosted dark matter flux: the Sun acts as an accelerator, boosting halo DM through electron scattering in its core, and the boosted component is then detectable through DM-electron scattering in xenon. The calculation chain is Eq. (2) for the flux from the Monte Carlo simulation, Eq. (3) for the velocity-averaged ionization cross-section with xenon bound electrons, and Eq. (4) for the differential recoil rate, with atomic form factors taken from [55]. The paper reconstructs each event as an electron-equivalent energy from the S1 and S2 signals and tests background-only versus background-plus-signal hypotheses with a profile-likelihood fit.

What would settle it

Recompute the predicted SBDM rate with an independent Monte Carlo using a different standard solar model, for example high- versus low-metallicity compositions, and propagate the resulting flux through Eq. (4); if the expected event rate in the 0--4 keV window moves by more than the quoted systematic uncertainties, the stated cross-section limit would shift and the central claim would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Low-mass dark matter (below a few MeV/$c^2$) can be gravitationally captured by the Sun, scatter elastically on thermal electrons in the solar core, and leave with enough kinetic energy to produce a few-keV electronic recoil when it hits a xenon electron. Assuming a contact interaction ($F_{\mathrm{DM}}(q)=1$), the paper computes the boosted flux from the Monte Carlo simulation of [46], convolves it with xenon ionization form factors, and compares the predicted recoil spectrum in the $0$--$30$ keV region of interest with $1.54$ tonne$\cdot$years of PandaX-4T data. The best fit to the data is consistent with background alone, so the paper reports a 90% C.L. upper limit that excludes a DM-electron cross-section down to $3.51\times10^{-39}~\mathrm{cm}^2$ at $m=0.08~\mathrm{MeV}/c^2$, covering masses $0.02$--$10~\mathrm{MeV}/c^2$. This is the first xenon-based SBDM exclusion and improves the previous experimental limit by a factor of 23.

Load-bearing premise

The entire result rests on the simulated spectrum of dark matter particles boosted by the Sun: if that flux is systematically over- or under-estimated, the quoted cross-section limit shifts by the same factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For SBDM masses between $0.02$ and $10~\mathrm{MeV}/c^2$, the DM-electron scattering cross-section is now bounded to roughly $10^{-39}$--$10^{-38}~\mathrm{cm}^2$, so any sub-MeV dark matter with contact electron interactions at the canonical halo density must scatter more weakly than this.
  • The conservative freeze-out scenario for sub-MeV dark matter in this mass window is excluded under the assumed boosted flux, not merely constrained.
  • The same $1.54$ tonne$\cdot$year dataset used for WIMP searches has demonstrable sensitivity to boosted sub-MeV dark matter through the electronic recoil channel, so the SBDM spectrum can be included in future signal models for the same exposure.
  • The best-fit signal is compatible with zero ($1.7^{+3.1}_{-1.7}$ and $2.5^{+4.6}_{-2.5}$ events in Run0 and Run1), so the reported number is an upper bound rather than a discovery.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the assumed SBDM flux carries an unmodeled factor-of-two uncertainty, the quoted cross-section limit moves by the same factor, so the absolute values are conditional on the solar model and Monte Carlo of [46].
  • A detector with a lower S2-only threshold, as the paper notes for future upgrades, could close the remaining $10$--$30~\mathrm{MeV}/c^2$ gap, but the background model would then need validation at sub-keV energies.
  • The same analysis template could be applied to other astrophysical boost mechanisms, for example cosmic-ray boosted dark matter, with the identical detector response, allowing one exposure to constrain several boost channels simultaneously.
  • A future positive signal could be cross-checked by comparing its spectral shape against the predicted xenon-shell ionization structure; a mismatch would point to a non-contact form factor or a different boost mechanism than assumed.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a search for solar boosted dark matter (SBDM) in the PandaX-4T liquid xenon detector using 1.54 tonne·year of Run0 and Run1 data. The signal model adopts the SBDM flux from the Monte Carlo simulation of An et al. (Ref. [46]), computes DM-electron scattering on atomic xenon with a heavy-mediator form factor FDM(q)=1, and uses the same low-energy electronic-recoil data and background model as the PandaX WIMP analysis. A profile-likelihood fit with ten background components per run finds no significant SBDM excess; the resulting 90% confidence-level upper limit reaches 3.51e-39 cm^2 at 0.08 MeV/c^2 and is claimed to improve on the CDEX result by a factor of 23.

Significance. If the signal normalization is confirmed, this is the first xenon-based SBDM search and the strongest experimental constraint in the sub-MeV dark-matter mass range for the heavy-mediator scenario. The paper's strengths are the detailed ten-component electronic-recoil background model, the use of a standard profile-likelihood framework with nuisance parameters, and a clear statement of the null result. The main caveat is that the absolute limit is conditional on the externally simulated solar flux, and the current equations contain normalization ambiguities that must be resolved before the numerical limit can be taken at face value. These issues are fixable and do not, by themselves, invalidate the experimental methodology.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The normalization of the SBDM flux in Eq. (2) is inconsistent with the physics of solar scattering. The text states that F_Aρ(E) is normalized such that ∫F_Aρ(E)dE = 1 and that Aρ = πρ_max^2 with ρ_max = 4R_sun; taken literally, the integrated boosted flux is then Φ_halo Aρ/(4π AU^2), which is independent of σ_e. This contradicts Eq. (1), where the small-σ_e flux scales linearly with σ_e, and would be numerically wrong because most DM particles passing within 4R_sun do not scatter (for σ_e ~ 1e-39 cm^2 the solar scattering probability is ~1e-4). The simulation must produce a σ_e-dependent total boost probability; Eq. (2) should include it explicitly, e.g., as dΦ/dE = Φ_halo/(4π AU^2) ∫ d^2ρ P(ρ,σ_e) F_E(E;ρ,σ_e) with ∫F_E dE = 1. Please correct the equation and state the normalization convention actually used in the code, since this prefactor directly sets the event rate in Eq. (4) and hence the derived limit.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The definition of n_t in Eq. (4) is ambiguous: the text calls it the electron number density in the xenon target, while the sum over atomic shells (n,l) in Eq. (3) corresponds to the standard per-atom DM-electron ionization rate of Ref. [15]. If the atomic form factors are per atom, using the electron number density would overcount by Z=54 and shift the expected rate, and therefore the limit, by a large factor; if the form factors are per electron, this should be stated explicitly. Please give the numerical value of n_t used in the analysis and confirm that the target atom number density (not the electron density) enters the implemented rate formula.
  3. [Eq. (2) / Summary] Even after the normalization is clarified, the absolute limit and the summary statement 'robustly excluding sub-MeV DM with a scattering cross-section with electrons within 10^-39 to 10^-38 cm^2' are conditional on the Monte Carlo flux model of Ref. [46] and its assumptions: the standard solar model of Ref. [54], ρ_DM = 0.4 GeV/cm^3, ρ_max = 4R_sun, and the halo velocity distribution. No in-paper cross-check or uncertainty estimate for this flux is provided. Because the event rate in Eq. (4) is proportional to the flux, a factor-of-two flux error shifts the cross-section limit by about sqrt(2); the relative factor-of-23 improvement over CDEX is less sensitive only if both analyses share the same flux model. Please quantify the sensitivity to these assumptions or explicitly label the result as model-dependent and soften the 'robustly' wording in the summary.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'considering the Sun's acceleration with heavy mediators' is awkward and should be reworded; the Sun is better described as an accelerator of dark matter, and the heavy-mediator qualification refers to the contact interaction form factor.
  2. [References] References [35] and [49] are the same paper by C. Kouvaris (Phys. Rev. D 92, 075001 (2015)); the duplicate citation should be merged.
  3. [Fig. 4 and Summary] The gray 'Freeze-out' curve in Fig. 4 is cited to Planck [67], a cosmological-parameter paper; this citation appears inappropriate for a DM-electron thermal-target curve. Please cite the actual calculation of the freeze-out target and state the annihilation channel assumed.
  4. [Statistical method] The phrase 'two-side upper limit' is non-standard; a 90% confidence-level upper limit should be based on a one-sided (or CLs) construction, or the convention should be explained.
  5. [Table I] The fitted signal yields of 1.7 and 2.5 events have large asymmetric uncertainties; quoting the local significance or a p-value would make the 'no significant SBDM signal' statement more quantitative.
  6. [Detector description] The sentence describing the photomultiplier arrays contains a duplicated number ('169 and 199 three-inch Hamamatsu R11410-23 photomultiplier tubes (PMT) 169 and 199'); please correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PandaX-4T SBDM limit is a data-driven result conditional on an externally published flux model.

full rationale

Derivation-chain walk: the paper's output is an upper limit on the DM-electron cross section extracted from 1.54 tonne·year of PandaX-4T electronic-recoil data. The signal model is Eq. (4), dR/dE_R = n_t Σ_nl ∫ dE (dΦ_boost/dE)(d⟨σ_nl⟩/dE_R), where dΦ_boost/dE is the solar-boosted flux of Eq. (2) taken from the published Monte Carlo simulation of Ref. [46]. Although Ref. [46] has author overlap with the present paper (H. An), the citation is independent support in the relevant sense: the flux is a parameterized model prediction depending on the scanned variables m_DM and σ_e, built from stated external inputs (ρ_DM = 0.4 GeV cm^-3, impact parameter cutoff at 4R_sun, solar model of Ref. [54]). It is not fitted to the PandaX event counts, the background model, or the final limit. Varying or mis-modeling that flux would shift the exclusion curve, but that is a model-dependence or systematic-uncertainty concern, not a circular reduction of the claimed result to its own inputs. The limit itself comes from a profile-likelihood fit of background-plus-signal to the observed counts (1197 events in Run0, 1431 in Run1), with backgrounds constrained by calibration sources and prior measurements; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-defined quantity is recovered. The 23-fold improvement over CDEX is a comparison of two experimental limits under the same SBDM flux model. None of the enumerated circularity patterns applies.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim, an upper limit on the DM-electron cross-section, depends on the assumed SBDM flux model and the atomic response of xenon, both taken from prior literature. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Signal strength mu (SBDM signal yield) = Run0: 1.7 (+3.1/-1.7) events; Run1: 2.5 (+4.6/-2.5) events
    Best-fit signal yields from the profile likelihood; the 90% upper limit on sigma_e is derived from the likelihood ratio over mu.
  • Background normalizations (10 components per run) = See Table I: Tritium, 214Pb, 212Pb, 85Kr, Material, 136Xe, 127Xe, 124Xe, Solar nu, Accidental
    Nuisance parameters in the PLR fit, constrained by data and auxiliary measurements; they determine the background-only prediction against which the signal limit is set.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard Halo Model with local DM density rho_DM = 0.4 GeV/cm^3 and a DM velocity distribution
    Used to compute the halo DM flux Phi_halo that enters Eq. (2); value taken from Ref. [52].
  • domain assumption SBDM flux from the Sun is given by the Monte Carlo simulation of Ref. [46] using solar model [54]
    The paper adopts this flux without re-derivation; the simulation is not public and was authored in part by a co-author of this paper.
  • domain assumption Xenon atomic ionization form factors from Ref. [55] are accurate
    Determines the signal spectrum shape in Eq. (3); the same form factors were used in the PandaX cosmic-ray boosted DM search [45].
  • domain assumption Contact interaction with FDM(q)=1 (heavy mediator)
    Defines the physical scenario being constrained; the limit does not apply to light-mediator models.
  • standard math Background model from Ref. [63] and profile likelihood from Refs. [64,65] correctly describe the ER data
    The statistical interpretation assumes the background components and the PLR implementation model the data without bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for Solar Boosted Dark Matter Particles at the PandaX-4T Experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OMVCYT6R

@misc{pith2026241219970,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for Solar Boosted Dark Matter Particles at the PandaX-4T Experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OMVCYT6R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19970}
}
abstract

We present a novel constraint on light dark matter utilizing $1.54$ tonne$\cdot$year of data acquired from the PandaX-4T dual-phase xenon time projection chamber. This constraint is derived through detecting electronic recoil signals resulting from the interaction with solar-enhanced dark matter flux. Low-mass dark matter particles, lighter than a few MeV/$c^2$, can scatter with the thermal electrons in the Sun. Consequently, with higher kinetic energy, the boosted dark matter component becomes detectable via contact scattering with xenon electrons, resulting in a few keV energy deposition that exceeds the threshold of PandaX-4T. We calculate the expected recoil energy in PandaX-4T considering the Sun's acceleration and the detection capabilities of the xenon detector. The first experimental search results using the xenon detector yield the most stringent cross-section of $3.51 \times 10^{-39}~\mathrm{cm}^2$ at $0.08~\mathrm{MeV}$/$c^2$ for a solar boosted dark matter mass ranging from $0.02$ to $10~ \mathrm{MeV}$/$c^2$, achieving a 23 fold improvement compared with earlier experimental studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19970 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: SBDM kinetic energy spectrum. The first value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The expected interaction rate of SBDM in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: 90% confidence level (C.L.) exclusion upper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Best combined fit results of Run0 and Run1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.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. Performance of FBK VUV-HD3 and HPK VUV4 SiPMs in the Light-only Liquid Xenon (LoLX) Detector

    physics.ins-det 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    In-situ comparison in liquid xenon finds HPK VUV4 SiPMs detect 33–38% less scintillation light than FBK VUV-HD3 SiPMs, attributed to surface shadowing at oblique photon incidence.

  2. Sub-GeV Dark Matter Under Pressure from Direct Detection

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    PandaX-4T S2-only data yields world-leading sub-GeV dark matter-electron scattering limits for heavy mediators in the 20-200 MeV range, although the result largely overlaps with the collaboration's own just-released analysis.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [46]

    H. An, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 141801 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [15]

    Essig, A

    R. Essig, A. Manalaysay, J. Mardon, P. Sorensen, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 021301 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [54]

    A. M. Serenelli, S. Basu, J. W. Ferguson, and M. Asplund, The Astrophysical Journal 705, L123 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [1]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405, 279 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [2]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045002 (2018)

    2018

  6. [3]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [4]

    Steigman, B

    G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 86, 023506 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [5]

    T. M. Undagoitia and L. Rauch, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 43, 013001 (2015)

    2015

Show all 70 references
  1. [6]

    J. Liu, X. Chen, and X. Ji, Nature Phys. 13, 212 (2017)

    2017

  2. [7]

    Roszkowski, E

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, Re- ports on Progress in Physics 81, 066201 (2018)

    2018

  3. [8]

    Schumann, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 46, 103003 (2019)

    M. Schumann, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 46, 103003 (2019)

    2019

  4. [9]

    Dark matter search results from 1.54 tonne ·year exposure of pandax-4t,

    Z. Bo et al.(PandaX Collaboration), “Dark matter search results from 1.54 tonne ·year exposure of pandax-4t,” (2024), arXiv:2408.00664 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Dark matter search results from 4.2 tonne-years of exposure of the lux-zeplin (lz) experiment,

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ Collaboration), “Dark matter search results from 4.2 tonne-years of exposure of the lux-zeplin (lz) experiment,” (2024), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041003 (2023)

    2023

  7. [12]

    Supersymmetric dark matter after lhc run 1,

    E. A. Bagnaschi, O. Buchmueller, et al., “Supersymmetric dark matter after lhc run 1,” (2015), arXiv:1508.01173 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Essig, J

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

    2012

  9. [14]

    Emken, R

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

    2019

  10. [16]

    Essig, M

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

    2016

  11. [17]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111303 6 Data Tritium Pb214 Pb212 Kr 85 Material νSolar Xe 127 Xe124 Xe 136 Accidental Total Backgrounds Solar Boosted DM 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Energy [keV] 10 −7 6− 10 5− 10 4−10Counts/kg/day/keV year)⋅Run0 (0.55 ton 0 5 10 15 20...

    2018

  12. [18]

    D. W. Amaral et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. D 102, 091101 (2020)

    2020

  13. [19]

    Barak et al

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

    2020

  14. [20]

    Aguilar-Arevalo et al.(DAMIC), Phys

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

    2019

  15. [21]

    Cheng et al.(PandaX-II), Phys

    C. Cheng et al.(PandaX-II), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 211803 (2021)

    2021

  16. [22]

    Pirro and P

    S. Pirro and P. Mauskopf, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 67, 161 (2017)

    2017

  17. [23]

    Abdelhameed et al

    A. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST), Phys. Rev. D 100, 102002 (2019)

    2019

  18. [24]

    Mancuso et al

    M. Mancuso et al. (CRESST), J. Low Temp. Phys. 199, 547 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    Agnes et al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys

    P. Agnes et al.(DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 081307 (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    M. Ibe, W. Nakano, Y. Shoji, and K. Suzuki, JHEP 03, 194 (2018)

    2018

  21. [28]

    Baxter, Y

    D. Baxter, Y. Kahn, and G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. D 101, 076014 (2020). 0.02 0.1 1 10 100 1000 DM mass [MeV/c2] 10−42 10−41 10−40 10−39 10−38 10−37 10−36 DM-electron cross section [cm2] XENON1T (S2-only) PandaX-II (S2-only) XENON10 (S2-only) (Essig) Freeze-out CDEX-SBDM H.P.An-SB...

    2020

  22. [29]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Pradler, M. Sholapurkar, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 021801 (2020)

    2020

  23. [30]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 131301 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Armengaud et al

    E. Armengaud et al. (EDEL WEISS), Phys. Rev. D 99, 082003 (2019)

    2019

  25. [32]

    Z. Z. Liu et al. (CDEX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 161301 (2019)

    2019

  26. [33]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 241803 (2019)

    2019

  27. [34]

    Necib, J

    L. Necib, J. Moon, T. Wongjirad, and J. M. Conrad, Phys. Rev. D 95, 075018 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Cui et al

    X. Cui et al. (PandaX-II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 171801 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Aoki and T

    M. Aoki and T. Toma, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2018, 020 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    G. F. Giudice, D. Kim, J.-C. Park, and S. Shin, Physics Letters B 780, 543 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Kachulis et al

    C. Kachulis et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 221301 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Fornal, P

    B. Fornal, P. Sandick, J. Shu, M. Su, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 161804 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    W. Wang, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, H. Zhou, and B. Zhu, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020, 72 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Bondarenko, A

    K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, T. Bringmann, M. Hufnagel, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and A. Sokolenko, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020, 118 (2020). 7

    2020

  35. [43]

    Calabrese, M

    R. Calabrese, M. Chianese, D. F. G. Fiorillo, and N. Sa- viano, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103024 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    S.-F. Ge, J. Liu, Q. Yuan, and N. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 091804 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Shang et al

    X. Shang et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 101805 (2024)

    2024

  38. [47]

    Emken, C

    T. Emken, C. Kouvaris, and N. G. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. D 97, 063007 (2018)

    2018

  39. [48]

    H. An, H. Nie, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103026 (2021)

    2021

  40. [49]

    Kouvaris, Phys

    C. Kouvaris, Phys. Rev. D 92, 075001 (2015)

    2015

  41. [50]

    Emken, Phys

    T. Emken, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063020 (2022)

    2022

  42. [51]

    Meng et al

    Y. Meng et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 261802 (2021)

    2021

  43. [52]

    Catena and P

    R. Catena and P. Ullio, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2010, 004 (2010)

    2010

  44. [53]

    J. N. Bahcall, A. M. Serenelli, and S. Basu, The Astro- physical Journal 621, L85 (2005)

    2005

  45. [55]

    Catena, T

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

    2020

  46. [56]

    K. J. Kang, J. P. Cheng, Y. H. Chen, Y. J. Li, M. B. Shen, S. Y. Wu, and Q. Yue, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 203, 012028 (2010)

    2010

  47. [57]

    Guo et al

    Z. Guo et al. (JNE), Chin. Phys. C 45, 025001 (2021), arXiv:2007.15925 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [58]

    Ma et al., Journal of Instrumentation 15, P12038 (2020)

    W. Ma et al., Journal of Instrumentation 15, P12038 (2020)

    2020

  49. [59]

    Zhang et al

    D. Zhang et al. , Physical Review C 105 (2022), 10.1103/physrevc.105.014604

    2022 doi

  50. [60]

    Szydagis, N

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

    2011

  51. [61]

    Li et al., Chinese Physics C 48, 073001 (2024)

    J. Li et al., Chinese Physics C 48, 073001 (2024)

    2024

  52. [62]

    Luo et al

    Y. Luo et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 110, 023029 (2024)

    2024

  53. [63]

    Exploring new physics with pandax-4t low energy electronic recoil data,

    X. Zeng et al. (PandaX Collaboration), “Exploring new physics with pandax-4t low energy electronic recoil data,” (2024), arXiv:2408.07641 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [64]

    D. o. Baxter, The European Physical Journal C 81, 907 (2021)

    2021

  55. [65]

    M. Baak, G. J. Besjes, D. Cˆ ot´ e, A. Koutsman, J. Lorenz, and D. Short, The European Physical Journal C 75, 153 (2015)

    2015

  56. [66]

    Z. Y. Zhang et al. (CDEX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 171001 (2024)

    2024

  57. [67]

    Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., et al., A&A 594, A13 (2016)

    2016

  58. [68]

    Li et al.(PandaX Collaboration), Phys

    S. Li et al.(PandaX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 261001 (2023)

    2023

  59. [69]

    Cheng et al

    C. Cheng et al. (PandaX-II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 211803 (2021)

    2021

  60. [70]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 251801 (2019)

    2019

  61. [71]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and A. Reinert, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021, 141 (2021)

    2021

  62. [72]

    Abdukerim et al

    A. Abdukerim et al. (PandaX), Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 68, 221011 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.