Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering off $^{203/205}$Tl in terms of the nuclear recoil energy using a hybrid nuclear model

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a hybrid shell-model/MQPM model of 203/205Tl makes inelastic neutrino-nucleus cross sections far larger than pure shell-model values at high energies, and that for DSNB neutrinos the inelastic νx rate overtakes CEνNS…

desk verdict New hybrid NSM+MQPM scheme gives inelastic Tl cross sections and DSNB rates, but the headline accuracy gain rides on one unvalidated M1 resonance. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07909 v1 pith:Z54SRQ27 submitted 2025-02-11 nucl-th hep-ph

Matti Hellgren , Dimitrios K. Papoulias , Jouni Suhonen This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph
keywords neutrino-nucleusscatteringhybridnuclearmodelinelasticneutral-currentrecoilenergystopped-pionneutrinoscoherentelasticdiffusesupernovaneutrinobackgroundthalliumisotopes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to establish that a hybrid nuclear model—the shell model for low-lying states up to 3 MeV excitation and the microscopic quasiparticle-phonon model (MQPM) above that threshold—gives a more accurate description of inelastic neutral-current neutrino scattering off the stable thallium isotopes 203Tl and 205Tl. Its central prediction is that the high-lying states the shell model cannot reach, especially a cluster of 1/2+ and 3/2+ states near 7.4 MeV interpreted as a spin-flip M1 giant resonance, contribute over half of the folded 8B solar-neutrino cross section and make the hybrid cross sections 1.5–2 times larger than pure shell-model values at 9 MeV and about an order of magnitude larger at 20 MeV. The paper computes recoil-energy-dependent event rates for solar, stopped-pion, and diffuse supernova background neutrinos, and finds that for DSNB neutrinos the inelastic νx rate exceeds the coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEνNS) rate for recoil energies T ≳ 20 keV. If correct, these rates would mean that inelastic scattering is a non-negligible part of the neutrino floor for dark-matter detectors and that BSM analyses of high-energy CEνNS spectra need to include it.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the argument is the hybrid nuclear model, which splices two structure calculations: the nuclear shell model supplies the one-body transition densities for final states with excitation energy below 3 MeV, while the microscopic quasiparticle-phonon model (MQPM), built from BCS quasiparticles and QRPA phonons, supplies the states above 3 MeV. The load-bearing piece is the MQPM high-energy spectrum, in particular the 7.4 MeV cluster of 1/2+ and 3/2+ states assigned to a spin-flip M1 giant resonance, since that cluster alone accounts for more than half of the 8B folded cross section. The scattering calculation itself uses the standard Donnelly-Walecka multipole decomposition—Coulomb, longitudinal, transverse electric, and transverse magnetic operators—with the recoil-energy kinematics taken from the authors' previous formalism, so the nuclear-structure input is the only new ingredient relative to the earlier shell-model results.

What would settle it

A high-resolution (e,e') or (γ,γ') measurement of the M1 response of 203Tl or 205Tl in the 6–9 MeV region would settle the claim: if the measured spin-flip M1 strength around 7.4 MeV is much weaker or at a different energy than the MQPM predicts, the hybrid-model enhancement, including the DSNB νx dominance above 20 keV, would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that excluding high-lying nuclear states strongly underestimates the inelastic neutral-current response of 203/205Tl. The hybrid model, using shell-model transition densities below 3 MeV and MQPM densities above, predicts that over 50% of the folded 8B solar-neutrino cross section comes from a small set of 1/2+ and 3/2+ states clustered near 7.4 MeV, which the paper identifies as a likely spin-flip M1 giant resonance. The same states drive the enhancement at higher neutrino energies: comparing with the earlier pure-shell-model calculation, the hybrid cross sections are already 1.5–2 times larger at 9 MeV and differ by an order of magnitude at 20 MeV. Event rates follow: solar-neutrino rates are enhanced by a factor of 2 or more below 1 keV recoil, stopped-pion inelastic rates approach CEνNS in the high-energy tail, and for DSNB neutrinos the inelastic νx component dominates CEνNS above about 20 keV recoil—results presented for the first time for DSNB.

Load-bearing premise

The whole accuracy gain rests on the unverified claim that the high-lying states the shell model cannot reach—above all the spin-flip M1 resonance near 7.4 MeV that contributes more than half of the 8B folded cross section—are placed at the right energies and carry the right transition strengths in the MQPM.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For DSNB neutrinos, the inelastic νx channel dominates CEνNS for recoil energies T ≳ 20 keV, so accurate neutrino-floor calculations for thallium-based dark-matter detectors must include the inelastic channel.
  • At stopped-pion sources, the inelastic channel is subdominant but becomes competitive with CEνNS at high recoil energies, meaning BSM analyses of high-energy CEνNS spectra should treat the inelastic contamination carefully.
  • Pure shell-model calculations underestimate the inelastic response of 203/205Tl by factors of roughly 1.5–2 at 9 MeV and about an order of magnitude at 20 MeV, so previous NSM-based cross sections are incomplete above the 3 MeV threshold.
  • The same hybrid construction is portable: the authors state plans to apply it to charged-current scattering, muon capture, and higher-energy neutrino beamlines such as those at Fermilab.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 7.4 MeV spin-flip M1 resonance really carries the predicted strength, other odd-mass target nuclei used in dark-matter searches (iodine, cesium, xenon) may show similar high-lying enhancements, implying that shell-model-only neutrino-floor estimates for those detectors tend to be too low.
  • The hybrid prediction can be checked independently with inclusive electron or proton scattering on 203/205Tl in the 6–9 MeV region, since those probes excite the same multipole response; a mismatch would directly bound the DSNB rate claims.
  • A thallium-loaded low-threshold detector at a stopped-pion source could test the folded inelastic cross sections in the 20–50 keV recoil window, where the inelastic and coherent channels have different spectral shapes.
  • Because the νx DSNB spectrum in the adopted parametrization has an 8 MeV temperature, the 20 keV crossover location is sensitive to the assumed supernova neutrino temperature; measuring or limiting that crossover could feed back into supernova neutrino spectra.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a hybrid nuclear-structure approach for inelastic neutral-current neutrino-nucleus scattering off 203/205Tl. The hybrid model uses shell-model states below a 3 MeV threshold and MQPM states above it. Using the Donnelly-Walecka formalism with recoil-energy-dependent kinematics, the authors compute cross sections as functions of the neutrino energy and the nuclear recoil energy, folded stopped-pion and solar-neutrino event rates, and DSNB rates. They compare with their earlier pure-NSM calculation and find that high-lying MQPM states, especially a group near 7.4 MeV, enhance the 8B and stopped-pion cross sections. They also report that the DSNB inelastic νx rate can exceed the CEνNS rate for recoil energies above about 20 keV.

Significance. If the nuclear-structure input were validated, this would be a useful contribution: it extends the recoil-energy formalism to higher neutrino energies, provides concrete predictions for Tl-based detectors, and draws attention to the fact that inelastic DSNB contributions can rival CEνNS at keV recoil energies. The Donnelly-Walecka derivation appears standard, the fitted parameters target external benchmarks rather than the scattering observables, and the previous NSM results are reused consistently, which are all strengths. However, the central claim of “improved accuracy” is not yet demonstrated: no measured inelastic cross section or high-energy transition strength is used as a benchmark. The paper’s own Fig. 1 shows that the MQPM part of the hybrid model is inferior to the NSM at low energies, and the high-lying states that drive the enhancement are not compared with any data. The quantitative predictions are therefore best regarded as model-dependent estimates until the high-lying MQPM response is benchmarked.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4] The abstract and conclusions claim “improved accuracy” of the hybrid model at higher neutrino energies, but no experimental inelastic cross section or measured transition strength is compared anywhere in the paper. The only experimental benchmark is the low-energy spectrum in Fig. 1, where the authors state that the MQPM agreement is “fair, but inferior to pure NSM”. Since the claimed improvement comes from high-lying MQPM states, the accuracy claim is not supported by the evidence presented. The authors should either benchmark the high-lying states against data or reframe the results as unvalidated predictions with explicit uncertainties.
  2. [Section 3, center panel of Fig. 3] More than 50% of the folded 8B cross section is attributed to a small number of states near 7.4 MeV with Jπ = 1/2+ and 3/2+, identified as a likely spin-flip M1 giant resonance. The QRPA/MQPM parameters were fitted to the lowest natural-parity states and pairing gaps, not to M1 strength, and no comparison with measured B(M1), excitation energies, or transition densities is given. No sensitivity of the results to gpp/gph or to a ~1 MeV centroid shift is provided. Because the hybrid-vs-NSM enhancement and the DSNB crossing at T ≈ 20 keV depend on this unvalidated state group, the central quantitative claims are not robustly established.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2] The paper states that, after the 3 MeV hybrid threshold, the hybrid results are “over 1.5/nearly 2 times larger” than the pure NSM results at 9 MeV and differ by “an order of magnitude” at 20 MeV, but Tables 1 and 2 list only the hybrid-model cross sections. The claimed ratios to the NSM cannot be checked from the presented data. The authors should include the corresponding NSM values, either in the same tables or in a comparison figure, so that the central enhancement claim is directly verifiable.
  4. [Section 2, paragraph on combining models] The hybrid threshold energy of 3 MeV is introduced without a sensitivity study. Since the NSM states are used below the threshold and MQPM states above it, and since the high-lying MQPM states dominate the higher-energy cross sections, the choice of threshold could materially affect the event rates. A short scan over threshold values, or a justification based on data, would strengthen the paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The word “rector” in the list of reactor antineutrino experiments is a typo for “reactor”.
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] The column headers repeat σν for all four cross-section columns, so it is not clear which columns correspond to neutrinos and which to antineutrinos; adding a bar or a label would remove the ambiguity.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says “Integrated … cross sections”, but the plotted quantity appears to be the angle-integrated differential cross section dσ/dT; “angle-integrated differential cross section” would be less ambiguous.
  4. [Section 3] The sentence describing the lower limit of T for the resonance excitation energy, with the accompanying footnote, is easy to misread; the footnote marker placement after “2.4 keV” should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cross sections and rates are computed from nuclear-structure wave functions, with the only fitted parameters tied to external level/pairing benchmarks, not to the target scattering observables.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against the circularity patterns. The hybrid-model cross sections are obtained by inserting NSM (below 3 MeV) and MQPM (above 3 MeV) transition densities into the Donnelly-Walecka formalism, and the resulting cross sections and event rates are predictions from those wave functions rather than quantities used to tune the model. The fitted parameters are the BCS pairing gaps, matched to experimental neutron/proton pairing gaps, and the QRPA parameters g_pp and g_ph, matched to the lowest natural-parity states; these are external nuclear-structure benchmarks, not the inelastic neutrino-nucleus cross sections, folded rates, or DSNB event rates being reported. The comparison with the pure-NSM results of Ref. [24] is a comparison between two model calculations, and Ref. [24] supplies the recoil-energy formalism and NSM baseline rather than an unverified uniqueness theorem or a fitted answer. The statement that the hybrid model is 'optimized' and the identification of the 7.4 MeV spin-flip M1 resonance as the origin of the enhancement are accuracy and validation claims: the paper does not benchmark the high-lying MQPM transition densities against measured B(M1) or equivalent data, so the quantitative reliability of the enhancement is uncertain. That is a genuine limitation, but it is not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs. No equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation is invoked in a way that makes the reported cross sections or DSNB/stopped-pion rates equal to the model inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on two fitted nuclear-structure parameters (gpp/gph and the BCS pairing fit) plus a hand-chosen hybrid threshold. The MQPM truncation and kinematic approximations are standard modeling assumptions. No new particles or fictitious entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • gpp/gph QRPA strength parameters = not stated numerically
    Fitted so the lowest natural-parity MQPM states match experimental energies (Sec. 2).
  • Hybrid threshold energy = 3 MeV
    Chosen by hand as the energy below which NSM states are used and above which MQPM states are used (Sec. 2).
  • BCS pairing gap fit = experimental pairing gaps for 204/206Pb and 206/208Po
    BCS quasiparticle energies fitted to pairing gaps to define the single-quasiparticle basis (Sec. 2).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Donnelly-Walecka current-current effective Hamiltonian and multipole decomposition
    Used to derive the cross section formula (Eqs. 5-8).
  • domain assumption MQPM truncation to one- and three-quasiparticle configurations
    Five-quasiparticle configurations are neglected in the MQPM states (Sec. 2).
  • domain assumption Kinematic approximations T << E_nu and T << m_N
    Used for lepton traces in Eqs. (9)-(13), valid for the studied recoil energies.
  • domain assumption The NSM model space jj56pn with khhe interaction adequately describes low-lying states below 3 MeV
    Borrowed from previous work [24]; no independent check for Tl in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering off $^{203/205}$Tl in terms of the nuclear recoil energy using a hybrid nuclear model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z54SRQ27

@misc{pith2026250207909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering off $^203/205$Tl in terms of the nuclear recoil energy using a hybrid nuclear model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z54SRQ27}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07909}
}
read the original abstract

Nuclear structure calculations in the context of a novel hybrid nuclear model, combining the nuclear shell model and the microscopic quasiparticle-phonon model are presented. The predictivity of the hybrid model is tested by computing inelastic neutral-current neutrino-nucleus scattering cross sections off the stable thallium isotopes. The cross sections are presented in terms of the incoming neutrino energy, taking also into account the effect of nuclear recoil energy. Also reported are the expected event rates assuming neutrinos emerging from pion-decay at rest and the diffuse supernova neutrino background. Regarding solar neutrino rates, new results are presented in the context of the hybrid model and compared with previously reported results based solely on nuclear shell model calculations, demonstrating the improved accuracy of the adopted hybrid model at higher neutrino energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07909 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Lowest states in the nuclear spectra obtained by using MQPM com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Integrated inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering cross sections as a function of the nuclear recoil energy, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Differential (left) and integrated (right) number of events above threshold for solar neutrino scattering off 203/205Tl using the hybrid model compared to our previously obtained pure NSM result. The center panel shows the contributions to the total folded 8B solar-neutrino scattering cross section off 205Tl from individual final nuclear states with excitation energy ω, normalized to the total folded cross section. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Differential (left) and integrated (right) number of events above threshold for inelastic stopped-pion neutrino scattering off 203/205Tl nuclei using the hybrid model. The results are given for the individual neutrino flavors and their sum. The corresponding CEνNS spec…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as Fig. 4, but for the case of DSNB neutrinos. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akimov, et al., Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering, Science 357 (6356) (2017) 1123–1126

    D. Akimov, et al., Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering, Science 357 (6356) (2017) 1123–1126. arXiv:1708.01294, doi:10.1126/science.aao0990

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Akimov, et al., First Measurement of Coherent Elastic Neutrino- Nucleus Scattering on Argon, Phys

    D. Akimov, et al., First Measurement of Coherent Elastic Neutrino- Nucleus Scattering on Argon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (1) (2021) 012002. arXiv:2003.10630, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.012002

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Akimov, et al., Measurement of the Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering Cross Section on CsI by COHERENT, Phys

    D. Akimov, et al., Measurement of the Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering Cross Section on CsI by COHERENT, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (8) (2022) 081801. arXiv:2110.07730, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 129.081801

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Adamski, et al., First detection of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering on germanium (6 2024)

    S. Adamski, et al., First detection of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering on germanium (6 2024). arXiv:2406.13806

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Aprile, et al., First Indication of Solar 8B Neutrinos via Coher- ent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering with XENONnT, Phys

    E. Aprile, et al., First Indication of Solar 8B Neutrinos via Coher- ent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering with XENONnT, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (19) (2024) 191002. arXiv:2408.02877, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.133.191002

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Bo, et al., First Indication of Solar 8B Neutrinos through Co- herent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in PandaX-4T, Phys

    Z. Bo, et al., First Indication of Solar 8B Neutrinos through Co- herent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (19) (2024) 191001. arXiv:2407.10892, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.133.191001

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Colaresi, J

    J. Colaresi, J. I. Collar, T. W. Hossbach, C. M. Lewis, K. M. Yocum, Measurement of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering from Re- actor Antineutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (21) (2022) 211802. arXiv: 2202.09672, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.211802

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Ackermann, et al., First observation of reactor antineutrinos by coher- ent scattering (1 2025)

    N. Ackermann, et al., First observation of reactor antineutrinos by coher- ent scattering (1 2025). arXiv:2501.05206

    arXiv 2025

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Abdullah, et al., Coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering: Terres- trial and astrophysical applications (3 2022)

    M. Abdullah, et al., Coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering: Terres- trial and astrophysical applications (3 2022). arXiv:2203.07361

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo, et al., First dark matter search results from Co- herent CAPTAIN-Mills, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 012001. arXiv: 2105.14020, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.012001

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Alekseev, et al., First results of theνGeN experiment on coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering, Phys

    I. Alekseev, et al., First results of theνGeN experiment on coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) L051101. arXiv: 2205.04305, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L051101

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Angloher, et al., Exploring CE νNS with NUCLEUS at the Chooz nuclear power plant, Eur

    G. Angloher, et al., Exploring CE νNS with NUCLEUS at the Chooz nuclear power plant, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (12) (2019) 1018. arXiv: 1905.10258, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7454-4

    2019

  5. [13]

    Billard, et al., Coherent Neutrino Scattering with Low Temperature Bolometers at Chooz Reactor Complex, J

    J. Billard, et al., Coherent Neutrino Scattering with Low Temperature Bolometers at Chooz Reactor Complex, J. Phys. G 44 (10) (2017) 105101. arXiv:1612.09035, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aa83d0

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Agnolet, et al., Background Studies for the MINER Coherent Neutrino Scattering Reactor Experiment, Nucl

    G. Agnolet, et al., Background Studies for the MINER Coherent Neutrino Scattering Reactor Experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 853 (2017) 53–

    2017

  7. [15]

    Fernandez-Moroni, P

    G. Fernandez-Moroni, P. A. N. Machado, I. Martinez-Soler, Y . F. Perez- Gonzalez, D. Rodrigues, S. Rosauro-Alcaraz, The physics potential of a reactor neutrino experiment with Skipper CCDs: Measuring the weak mixing angle, JHEP 03 (2021) 186. arXiv:2009.10741, doi:10. 1007/JHE...

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Karmakar, et al., New Limits on Coherent Neutrino Nucleus Elastic Scattering Cross Section at the Kuo-Sheng Reactor Neutrino Laboratory (11 2024)

    S. Karmakar, et al., New Limits on Coherent Neutrino Nucleus Elastic Scattering Cross Section at the Kuo-Sheng Reactor Neutrino Laboratory (11 2024). arXiv:2411.18812

    2024

  9. [17]

    K. Ni, J. Qi, E. Shockley, Y . Wei, Sensitivity of a Liquid Xenon Detec- tor to Neutrino–Nucleus Coherent Scattering and Neutrino Magnetic Mo- ment from Reactor Neutrinos, Universe 7 (3) (2021) 54. doi:10.3390/ universe7030054

    2021

  10. [18]

    E. P. Bernard, et al., Thermodynamic stability of xenon-doped liquid ar- gon detectors, Phys. Rev. C 108 (4) (2023) 045503.arXiv:2209.05435, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.108.045503

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    D. Y . Akimov, et al., First constraints on the coherent elastic scattering of reactor antineutrinos off xenon nuclei (11 2024). arXiv:2411.18641

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    L. J. Flores, et al., Physics reach of a low threshold scintillating argon bubble chamber in coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering reactor experiments, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) L091301. arXiv:2101.08785, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L091301

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kolbe, K

    E. Kolbe, K. Langanke, G. Martinez-Pinedo, The Inclusive 56Fe(νe, e−)56Co cross-section, Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 052801. arXiv:nucl-th/9905001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.60.052801

    1999 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Juodagalvis, K

    A. Juodagalvis, K. Langanke, G. Martinez-Pinedo, W. R. Hix, D. J. Dean, J. M. Sampaio, Neutral-current neutrino-nucleus cross-sections for A ˜ 50 - 65 nuclei, Nucl. Phys. A 747 (2005) 87–108. arXiv:nucl-th/ 0404078, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.09.005

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    A. A. Dzhioev, A. I. Vdovin, G. Mart ´ınez-Pinedo, J. Wambach, C. Stoy- anov, Thermal quasiparticle random-phase approximation with Skyrme interactions and supernova neutral-current neutrino-nucleus reactions, Phys. Rev. C 94 (1) (2016) 015805. arXiv:1602.07869, doi:10. 1103/P...

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    D. K. Papoulias, M. Hellgren, J. Suhonen, Incoherent solar-neutrino scat- tering off the stable Tl isotopes, Phys. Rev. C 110 (3) (2024) 034309. arXiv:2407.09889, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.034309

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Adhikari, et al., Search for a Dark Matter-Induced Annual Modu- lation Signal in NaI(Tl) with the COSINE-100 Experiment, Phys

    G. Adhikari, et al., Search for a Dark Matter-Induced Annual Modu- lation Signal in NaI(Tl) with the COSINE-100 Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (3) (2019) 031302. arXiv:1903.10098, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.123.031302

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bernabei, et al., First results from DAMA /LIBRA and the combined results with DAMA /NaI, Eur

    R. Bernabei, et al., First results from DAMA /LIBRA and the combined results with DAMA /NaI, Eur. Phys. J. C 56 (2008) 333–355. arXiv: 0804.2741, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0662-y

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Fushimi, et al., Dark matter search project PICO-LON, J

    K. Fushimi, et al., Dark matter search project PICO-LON, J. Phys. 7 Conf. Ser. 718 (4) (2016) 042022. arXiv:1512.04645, doi:10.1088/ 1742-6596/718/4/042022

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Amar ´e, et al., First Results on Dark Matter Annual Modulation from the ANAIS-112 Experiment, Phys

    J. Amar ´e, et al., First Results on Dark Matter Annual Modulation from the ANAIS-112 Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (3) (2019) 031301.arXiv: 1903.03973, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.031301

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Antonello, et al., The SABRE project and the SABRE Proof-of- Principle, Eur

    M. Antonello, et al., The SABRE project and the SABRE Proof-of- Principle, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (4) (2019) 363. arXiv:1806.09340, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6860-y

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kostensalo, J

    J. Kostensalo, J. Suhonen, K. Zuber, Calculated solar-neutrino cap- ture rate for a radiochemical 205Tl-based solar-neutrino detector, Phys. Rev. C 101 (3) (2020) 031302. arXiv:1912.05334, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.101.031302

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. F. Beacom, The Di ffuse Supernova Neutrino Background, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 439–462. arXiv:1004.3311, doi:10.1146/ annurev.nucl.010909.083331

    2010 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Aristizabal Sierra, V

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, V . De Romeri, L. J. Flores, D. K. Papoulias, Im- pact of COHERENT measurements, cross section uncertainties and new interactions on the neutrino floor, JCAP 01 (01) (2022) 055. arXiv: 2109.03247, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/055

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, New Definition of the Neutrino Floor for Direct Dark Matter Searches, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (25) (2021) 251802.arXiv:2109. 03116, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.251802

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Toivanen, J

    J. Toivanen, J. Suhonen, Microscopic quasiparticle-phonon description of odd-A Xe isotopes, J. Phys. G 21 (1995) 1491–1497. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/21/11/007

    1995 doi

  27. [35]

    Toivanen, J

    J. Toivanen, J. Suhonen, Microscopic quasiparticle-phonon description of odd-mass 127−133Xe isotopes and their β decay, Phys. Rev. C 57 (1998) 1237–1245. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.57.1237

    1998 doi

  28. [36]

    Suhonen, From Nucleons to Nucleus: Concepts of Microscopic Nu- clear Theory, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2007

    J. Suhonen, From Nucleons to Nucleus: Concepts of Microscopic Nu- clear Theory, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2007. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-48861-3

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    Baranger, Extension of the Shell Model for Heavy Spherical Nuclei, Phys

    M. Baranger, Extension of the Shell Model for Heavy Spherical Nuclei, Phys. Rev. 120 (3) (1960) 957. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.120.957

    1960 doi

  30. [38]

    A. Bohr, B. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, V ol. 1, Benjamin, New York, 1969

    1969

  31. [39]

    B. A. Brown, W. D. M. Rae, The Shell-Model Code NuShellX@MSU, Nucl. Data Sheets 120 (2014) 115–118. doi:10.1016/j.nds.2014. 07.022

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    Hellgren, J

    M. Hellgren, J. Suhonen, Neutral-current supernova neutrino-nucleus scattering o ff 127I and 133Cs, Phys. Rev. C 106 (2) (2022) 025808. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.106.025808

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    Hellgren, J

    M. Hellgren, J. Suhonen, Charged-current neutrino-nucleus scattering o ff 127I and 133Cs, Phys. Rev. C 109 (3) (2024) 035802. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.109.035802

    2024

  34. [42]

    F. G. Kondev, Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 203, Nucl. Data Sheets 105 (2005) 1–108. doi:10.1016/j.nds.2005.05.001

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    F. G. Kondev, Nuclear Data Sheets for A =205, Nucl. Data Sheets 166 (2020) 1–230. doi:10.1016/j.nds.2020.05.001

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    T. W. Donnelly, R. D. Peccei, Neutral Current E ffects in Nuclei, Phys. Rept. 50 (1979) 1. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(79)90010-3

    1979 doi

  37. [45]

    Walecka, Theoretical Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics, Imperial Col- lege, London, 2004

    J. Walecka, Theoretical Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics, Imperial Col- lege, London, 2004

    2004

  38. [46]

    Ydrefors, K

    E. Ydrefors, K. G. Balasi, J. Suhonen, T. S. Kosmas, Nuclear responses to supernova neutrinos for the stable molybdenum isotopes, in: J. Greene (Ed.), Neutrinos: Properties, Sources and Detection, Nova Science, New York, 2011, pp. 151–175

    2011

  39. [47]

    Baxter, et al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches, Eur

    D. Baxter, et al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (10) (2021) 907. arXiv: 2105.00599, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09655-y

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    W. C. Louis, Searches for muon-to-electron (anti) neutrino flavor change, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 63 (2009) 51–73. doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2009. 01.002

    2009 doi

  41. [49]

    Aalbers, et al., DARWIN: towards the ultimate dark matter de- tector, JCAP 11 (2016) 017

    J. Aalbers, et al., DARWIN: towards the ultimate dark matter de- tector, JCAP 11 (2016) 017. arXiv:1606.07001, doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2016/11/017

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Aristizabal Sierra, J

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, J. L. Barrow, B. Dutta, D. Kim, D. Snowden-I fft, L. Strigari, M. H. Wood, Rock neutron backgrounds from FNAL neutrino beamlines in the νBDX-DRIFT detector, Phys. Rev. D 107 (1) (2023) 013003. arXiv:2210.08612, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.013003. 8

    2023 arXiv

  43. [60]

    arXiv:1609.02066, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2017.02.024

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.