Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Sensitivity of nEXO to $^{136}$Xe Charged-Current Interactions: Background-free Searches for Solar Neutrinos and Fermionic Dark Matter

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 90-ns isomer flash lets nEXO reject backgrounds to 10^-9

desk verdict The core idea—tagging 136Xe CC events via the measured 136Cs isomers—is sound and well modeled; the 10^-9 rejection number is an unvalidated MC tail and the headline sensitivities assume an aggressive 1 ns timing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22586 v1 pith:LKYUECS6 submitted 2025-06-27 nucl-ex hep-exphysics.ins-det

G. Richardson , B. G. Lenardo , D. Gallacher , R. Saldanha , P. Acharya , S. Al Kharusi , A. Amy , E. Angelico
show 130 more authors
A. Anker I. J. Arnquist A. Atencio J. Bane V. Belov E. P. Bernard T. Bhatta A. Bolotnikov J. Breslin P. A. Breur J. P. Brodsky S. Bron E. Brown T. Brunner B. Burnell E. Caden G. F. Cao L. Q. Cao D. Cesmecioglu D. Chernyak M. Chiu R. Collister T. Daniels L. Darroch R. DeVoe M. L. di Vacri M. J. Dolinski B. Eckert M. Elbeltagi A. Emara N. Fatemighomi W. Fairbank B. T. Foust N. Gallice G. Giacomini W. Gillis A. Gorham R. Gornea K. Gracequist G. Gratta C. A. Hardy S. C. Hedges M. Heffner E. Hein J. D. Holt A. Iverson P. Kachru A. Karelin D. Keblbeck I. Kotov A. Kuchenkov K. S. Kumar A. Larson M. B. Latif S. Lavoie K. G. Leach A. Lennarz D. S. Leonard K. K. H. Leung H. Lewis G. Li X. Li Z. Li C. Licciardi R. Lindsay R. MacLellan S. Majidi C. Malbrunot M. Marquis J. Masbou M. Medina-Peregrina S. Mngonyama B. Mong D. C. Moore X. E. Ngwadla K. Ni A. Nolan S. C. Nowicki J. C. Nzobadila Ondze A. Odian J. L. Orrell G. S. Ortega L. Pagani H. Peltz Smalley A. Peña Perez A. Piepke A. Pocar V. Radeka R. Rai H. Rasiwala D. Ray S. Rescia F. Retière V. Riot N. Rocco R. Ross P. C. Rowson S. Sangiorgio S. Sekula T. Shetty L. Si J. Soderstrom F. Spadoni V. Stekhanov X. L. Sun S. Thibado T. Totev S. Triambak R. H. M. Tsang O. A. Tyuka T. Vallivilayil John E. van Bruggen M. Vidal S. Viel J. Vuilleumier M. Walent H. Wang Q. D. Wang M. P. Watts W. Wei M. Wehrfritz L. J. Wen U. Wichoski S. Wilde M. Worcester X. M. Wu H. Xu H. B. Yang L. Yang O. Zeldovich
This is my paper
classification nucl-exhep-exphysics.ins-det
keywords nEXO136Xecharged-currentsolarneutrinosCNOflux7BelineshiftfermionicdarkmatterdelayedcoincidenceliquidxenonTPC
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

This paper argues that the recently measured isomeric states of $^{136}$Cs turn the proposed nEXO liquid-xenon detector into a background-free solar neutrino and dark-matter observatory. When a solar neutrino or a fermionic dark-matter particle is captured by $^{136}$Xe, the excited $^{136}$Cs nucleus decays through a 90 ns or 157 ns isomer, producing a second, delayed scintillation flash. The paper's Monte Carlo shows this correlated prompt-delayed signature can reject backgrounds at the $10^{-9}$ level while keeping about 75% of signal events, so nEXO could run 10 years with fewer than 0.5 background counts. That would yield roughly 14.5 CNO, 134 $^{7}$Be, and 12.5 $pep$ neutrino events, a ~25% statistical measurement of the CNO flux, a $\pm$1.5 keV measurement of the $^{7}$Be line position, and a three-orders-of-magnitude improvement in charged-current fermionic dark matter limits for masses 0.668–7 MeV. The whole projection hinges on a 1 ns photosensor timing resolution, whereas the best demonstrated nEXO readout resolution is 11 ns.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the delayed-coincidence tag: the $^{136}$Cs nucleus produced by charged-current capture decays through one of two long-lived isomers (90 ns and 157 ns) that emit a second, separate scintillation pulse. The detector response is modeled as $R(t;\sigma) = S(t)*T(t)*G(t;\sigma)$, where $S(t)$ is the xenon scintillation profile with fast (4 ns) and slow (26 ns) components, $T(t)$ is the photon transit-time distribution from a simulation of nEXO, and $G(t;\sigma)$ is a Gaussian timing resolution scanned from 1 to 50 ns. Signal events are fit with a three-parameter likelihood (decay time, event time, prompt-to-delayed photon ratio), and the log-likelihood ratio against a single-pulse background hypothesis provides the discriminant that reaches $10^{-9}$ background rejection. The simulation also includes SiPM correlated avalanches (after-pulses) and external crosstalk, whose tail modeling is essential for the claimed rejection power.

What would settle it

Measure the single-photon timing resolution of the final nEXO readout chain in situ, or measure the LXe scintillation pulse tail beyond about 1 microsecond with nEXO materials; if the effective timing resolution $\sigma$ exceeds about 10 ns or any unexplained delayed-light component appears, the ROC curve shifts and the projected CNO, $^{7}$Be, and dark-matter sensitivities degrade accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the time-delayed coincidence created by the low-lying isomeric states of $^{136}$Cs gives nEXO a nearly background-free tag for charged-current interactions on $^{136}$Xe. The interaction $\nu_e + {}^{136}\mathrm{Xe} \to {}^{136}\mathrm{Cs}^* + e^-$ deposits the full neutrino energy promptly, then the excited nucleus de-excites through a 140 keV isomer (90 ns lifetime, ~70% branching) or a 74 keV isomer (157 ns lifetime, ~30% branching), producing a delayed scintillation pulse that no ordinary background reproduces. Modeling the scintillation pulse as the convolution of the LXe emission profile, photon transit times, and a Gaussian timing resolution, the paper's likelihood-ratio discriminator reaches a background efficiency of $7.8\times 10^{-9}$ with about 75% signal efficiency at 668 keV. At this operating point nEXO expects fewer than 0.5 background events in 10 years and can make the first real-time, low-threshold solar neutrino measurements in a xenon TPC, including a CNO flux measurement at ~25% statistical precision, a $^{7}$Be line centroid to $\pm$1.5 keV, and sensitivity to non-standard neutrino interactions comparable to current leading experiments. The same tag extends fermionic dark matter charged-current searches into the sub-MeV to few-MeV mass range with sensitivity about three orders of magnitude beyond existing limits.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the nEXO scintillation readout will reach a 1 ns timing resolution and that the Monte Carlo fully captures after-pulses, external crosstalk, and any other delayed-light sources; if the real timing resolution stays at the demonstrated 11 ns, or an unmodeled delayed photon source exists, the claimed $10^{-9}$ background rejection and the headline sensitivity numbers do not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • nEXO could make a background-free measurement of CNO solar neutrinos with roughly 25% statistical precision, independent of and complementary to existing measurements, helping address the solar metallicity problem.
  • The $^{7}$Be line centroid measurement to $\pm$1.5 keV would be sensitive to the predicted ~1.3 keV thermal line shift, giving a direct probe of the solar core temperature.
  • The survival probability $P_{ee}$ at $^{7}$Be and $pep$ energies would be measured with precision comparable to current world-leading results, constraining non-standard neutrino interactions.
  • The same tag extends fermionic dark matter charged-current searches to masses 0.668–7 MeV with sensitivity roughly three orders of magnitude better than current limits.
  • At the kiloton scale (an Origin-X-like detector), the same channel could distinguish high- and low-metallicity solar models at more than 5 sigma and measure the $^{7}$Be line shift to ~0.08 keV.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The discrimination power rests on the absence of any unmodeled delayed-light source in LXe; a dedicated lab measurement of the scintillation tail beyond ~1 microsecond with the actual nEXO materials would test this directly.
  • If timing resolution stays at 11 ns rather than 1 ns, the paper's own scan shows CNO precision degrading to roughly 40–60% and the $^{7}$Be centroid to $\pm$2–3 keV, so the background-free tag likely survives but the headline solar physics reach shrinks.
  • The same delayed-coincidence technique could be applied to other double-beta isotopes with odd-odd daughters and low-lying isomers, potentially extending this background-free neutrino-detection scheme beyond xenon.
  • For fermionic dark matter, the dominant residual background is the solar neutrino charged-current signal itself; spectral shape alone must separate them, so this channel's dark matter sensitivity is ultimately bounded by how well the solar neutrino spectrum is known.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the sensitivity of the proposed nEXO detector to charged-current interactions on 136Xe, using the recently measured low-lying isomeric states of 136Cs to form a time-delayed scintillation coincidence. A Monte Carlo model of scintillation emission, optical transport, SiPM after-pulses, and external crosstalk is used to build a likelihood-ratio discriminator, and the authors claim a background rejection of about 10^-9, allowing nEXO to make background-free measurements of CNO, 7Be, pep, and 8B solar neutrinos above 0.668 MeV. The paper further projects a 25% statistical measurement of the CNO flux, a ±1.5 keV measurement of the 7Be neutrino line position, sensitivity to non-standard neutrino interactions comparable to Borexino, and an FDM charged-current search improving on existing limits by about three orders of magnitude for masses between 0.668 and 7 MeV.

Significance. If the projections are robust, this work opens a genuinely new detection channel for low-energy solar neutrinos and for sub-MeV fermionic dark matter, leveraging external nuclear data on 136Cs isomers rather than fitting the target results. The paper is internally consistent in its rate calculations, uses measured isomer lifetimes and branching ratios, and gives detailed simulation descriptions for scintillation and optical transport. The central caveat is that the headline 10^-9 background efficiency is an extreme-tail MC prediction with no stated statistical uncertainty and no validation against alternative detector-response models; because the solar-neutrino and FDM projections are all evaluated at that operating point, the quantitative claims rest on a single unvalidated number.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eqs. (4)-(5), Fig. 3] The operating point of 7.8e-9 background efficiency, used in Sec. V to define a background-free measurement (<0.5 events in 10 years), is an extreme-tail property of the likelihood ratio constructed from the detector-response model R(t;sigma) and the two-pulse PDF P(t). The manuscript reports no MC statistics, no confidence interval on this efficiency, and no validation of the tail against measured single-photon timing or an alternative response model. The tail is governed by the after-pulse probability (P_AP ~ 10%, Ref. [43]) and the external-crosstalk rate (lambda_ExCT = 1.0 photons/avalanche, a weighted average of 1.23 +/- 0.43 and 0.5^{+0.3}_{-0.2}, Sec. III.A), and by the position-averaged photon-transit PDF from a 10^6-photon Chroma run. A factor-of-two change in lambda_ExCT, a small unmodeled delayed-light component, or a position-dependent transit tail can plausibly change a 10^-9 leakage by orders of magnitude. Please provide the MC statistics, uncertainty bands, and a robustness scan over the measured ranges of P_AP and lambda_ExCT, and test the tail against an alternative T(t) model.
  2. [Sec. II, Sec. V, Figs. 4, 6, 7] The quantitative solar-neutrino projections (14.5 CNO, 134 7Be, 12.5 pep, and 1.7 8B events in 10 years; 25% CNO precision; +/-1.5 keV 7Be line position) are all quoted at the aggressive reference timing resolution sigma = 1 ns. The best demonstrated coincidence resolution for nEXO readout is 11 ns [44], and the paper's own scans show the CNO precision degrading from about 25% at 1 ns to roughly 40-60% at 20-50 ns and the 7Be line precision from +/-1.5 keV to +/-2-3 keV. Since the final readout timing is not yet fixed, the abstract and conclusion should either present these numbers as functions of sigma or state them as requirements, and the sensitivity at the demonstrated 11 ns should be quoted as the baseline to allow a fair comparison with the claimed reach.
  3. [Sec. VI, Eq. (7), Fig. 9] The conversion from the 95% CL upper limit on the FDM event rate to the plotted exclusion in Fig. 9 is not documented. The spin-averaged matrix element |Mk|^2 in Eq. (7) is not defined, and the relation between the scale Lambda and the plotted cross-section m^2/Lambda^4 is not shown. Without these definitions the claimed three-order-of-magnitude improvement over EXO-200 cannot be independently checked. Please provide the explicit cross-section formula and define every factor in Eq. (7), or cite a specific equation in Refs. [33,34] that supplies the missing normalization.
  4. [Sec. V, Table I] There is an internal inconsistency in the central CNO precision claim: the abstract and Sec. V state a 25% statistical uncertainty on the CNO flux, while Table I reports phi_CNO = 29% for nEXO under the same sigma = 1 ns and HZ assumptions. This discrepancy should be resolved or explained, since the 25% number is a headline result and the table implies a somewhat weaker projection.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. VI] The abstract contains a duplicated word ('search for for') and Sec. VI contains typographical errors such as 'background' for 'background' and 'ineractions' for 'interactions'; these should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. II] The phrase 'square-cylindrical liquid xenon TPC' is unclear; if the TPC has a square cross-section and cylindrical overall envelope, please define the geometry explicitly.
  3. [Sec. IV.A] The pile-up estimate is appropriately conservative, but the statement that the coincidence window is 5<tau_Cs> = 550 ns should define <tau_Cs> explicitly, since the two isomer lifetimes are 90 and 157 ns and their branching-weighted average is not stated.
  4. [Sec. V, Fig. 7] The y-axis label 'Statistical uncertainty in 7Be peak [keV]' is consistent with the text, but the caption only mentions the line-shift; please clarify in the caption that the quoted uncertainty is the statistical component only, and state whether the 1.3 keV reference line includes the full theoretical prediction.
  5. [Sec. VII] The paper says an Origin-X detector would observe approximately 65 times the 136Xe-CC event rate of nEXO; this follows from a 100-fold exposure increase and a 35% efficiency loss, but a sentence explaining this arithmetic would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projected sensitivities are built from external nuclear, detector, and flux inputs, and the 1 ns timing assumption is stated openly rather than fitted to the target results.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The 136Xe-CC signal model uses measured isomer lifetimes and branching ratios from Ref. [6], and the scintillation response in Eq. 4 is constructed from measured LXe decay constants, a Chroma-based photon transit PDF, and an assumed Gaussian timing resolution, with no parameter fitted to the projected solar-neutrino or dark-matter sensitivities. The background rate, 6.4e7 events in 10 years, is an external nEXO background-model input, and the chosen operating point at 7.8e-9 background efficiency is then applied to count expected signal events via Eq. 6, which integrates external solar fluxes, survival probabilities, and cross sections. The CNO, 7Be, pep, and FDM projections all follow from these inputs plus 10,000 toy-MC fits; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly states that sigma = 1 ns is 'an aggressive' reference assumption while actual demonstrated resolution is 11 ns, and it scans over sigma, showing degraded precision at larger sigma. That makes the 1 ns timing a stated assumption and a robustness concern, not a circular step. The plausibility of the 10^-9 tail leakage is admittedly supported only by the authors' own MC with no reported MC statistics or uncertainty bands, but an unvalidated extreme-tail extrapolation is a correctness or calibration risk, not equation-level circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; Refs. [13] and [15] by the same community motivate the channel phenomenologically, while the projected sensitivities are computed within this paper from external inputs. Overall, the central claims have independent content, and the only meaningful caveats concern external validity of the MC tail and the aggressive timing assumption, which are not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All parameters are inherited from external measurements or stated model choices; the two load-bearing choices are the sigma = 1 ns timing reference and the 2% energy resolution. No new particles or entities are introduced; the FDM model (chi, W') is adopted from Refs [33,34]. The main unvalidated content is the MC fidelity at the 10^-9 tail of the likelihood ratio.

free parameters (6)
  • Scintillation readout timing resolution sigma = 1 ns (reference); 1-50 ns scanned
    The headline projections (25% CNO, plus or minus 1.5 keV 7Be line, P_ee precision) use sigma = 1 ns. Prototype systems reported 11 ns resolution (Ref [44]). The results degrade at larger sigma (Figs 4-8).
  • Energy resolution at 862 keV = 2% (reference); 1% and 3% scenarios shown
    The 7Be line-shift sensitivity scales directly with this resolution; 2% is the nEXO projection from Ref [11] provided calibration systematics are controlled.
  • External crosstalk mean photons per avalanche lambda_ExCT = 1.0 photon per avalanche
    Weighted average of two measurements, 1.23 plus or minus 0.43 from Ref [57] and 0.5 plus 0.3 minus 0.2 from Ref [58]. Affects the simulated delayed-light background in the scintillation MC.
  • Optical transport fit parameters A, B, C, D, tau_B, tau_C, tau_D = Fitted to Chroma simulation of 1e6 photons
    Empirical analytic model (Eq 3) for the photon travel-time PDF in nEXO; fitted to simulated, not measured, data.
  • Operating point background efficiency = 7.8e-9
    Chosen so total background is less than or equal to 0.5 events per 10 years; sets the signal efficiencies used for all rate calculations.
  • 85Kr contamination rate = (1.8 plus or minus 0.2) x 10^3 atoms per kg Xe
    From EXO-200 measurements; used for the conservative pileup background estimate.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The 136Cs level scheme, including the 140 keV (tau = 90 plus or minus 5 ns) and 74 keV (tau = 157 plus or minus 4 ns) isomers and the 70/30 branching, is as reported in Ref [6].
    Invoked in Sec. I and Fig. 1; if the isomer lifetimes or branching fractions differ, the delayed-coincidence efficiency and thus all rate projections change.
  • domain assumption The 136Xe ground-state to 136Cs 1+ charged-current cross section is given by the phenomenology in Ref [13] and the Gamow-Teller strength from charge-exchange measurements (Refs [67,68]).
    Entered in Eq 6 and Sec. V; an about 11% uncertainty in the GT strength is noted and assumed to be reducible in the future.
  • domain assumption LXe scintillation emission follows a two-component exponential with tau_s = 4 ns, tau_t = 26 ns, p_s = 0.05 (Eq 2).
    Used to build the detector response R(t;sigma) that defines both signal and background PDFs for the likelihood discriminator.
  • domain assumption Solar neutrino fluxes and spectra for the HZ and LZ models and Borexino measurements describe the incident neutrino flux (Refs [22,65]).
    Used in Eq 6 to compute the expected event rates; 1-20% flux uncertainties are propagated as bands in Figs 4-6.
  • standard math The MSW-LMA survival probability P_ee(E) describes solar neutrino oscillations at Earth (Refs [32,66]).
    Used in Eq 6 for the solar neutrino event rate; NSI modifications are parameterized as in Ref [32].
  • domain assumption The fermionic dark matter model with electron-flavored chi and a dark W' boson (Refs [33,34]) provides the charged-current interaction, and only excitation of the 1+ state is considered.
    Used in Eq 7 and Sec. VI; neglecting other excited states is stated as conservative.
  • domain assumption Background events in the 589 keV to 7 MeV window have no intrinsic delayed structure and follow the modeled single-pulse scintillation PDF (after-pulses and external crosstalk modeled separately).
    Underlies the ROC in Fig 3; if unmodeled delayed-light sources exist, the 10^-9 rejection tail would change.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity of nEXO to $^{136}$Xe Charged-Current Interactions: Background-free Searches for Solar Neutrinos and Fermionic Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LKYUECS6

@misc{pith2026250622586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity of nEXO to $^136$Xe Charged-Current Interactions: Background-free Searches for Solar Neutrinos and Fermionic Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LKYUECS6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22586}
}
abstract

We study the sensitivity of nEXO to solar neutrino charged-current interactions, $\nu_e + ^{136}$Xe$\rightarrow ^{136}$Cs$^* + e^-$, as well as analogous interactions predicted by models of fermionic dark matter. Due to the recently observed low-lying isomeric states of $^{136}$Cs, these interactions will create a time-delayed coincident signal observable in the scintillation channel. Here we develop a detailed Monte Carlo of scintillation emission, propagation, and detection in the nEXO detector to model these signals under different assumptions about the timing resolution of the photosensor readout. We show this correlated signal can be used to achieve background discrimination on the order of $10^{-9}$, enabling nEXO to make background-free measurements of solar neutrinos above the reaction threshold of 0.668 MeV. We project that nEXO could measure the flux of CNO solar neutrinos with a statistical uncertainty of 25%, thus contributing a novel and competitive measurement towards addressing the solar metallicity problem. Additionally, nEXO could measure the mean energy of the $^7$Be neutrinos with a precision of $\sigma \leq 1.5$ keV and could determine the survival probability of $^{7}$Be and $pep$ solar $\nu_e$ with precision comparable to state-of-the-art. These quantities are sensitive to the Sun's core temperature and to non-standard neutrino interactions, respectively. Furthermore, the strong background suppression would allow nEXO to search for for charged-current interactions of fermionic dark matter in the mass range $m_\chi$ = $0.668$-$7$ MeV with a sensitivity up to three orders of magnitude better than current limits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22586 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: A simplified level diagram indicating the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Example scintillation MC samples for a 157 ns decay time along the 74 keV decay path with incoming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (left) The calculated ROC curve for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The expected number of solar neutrino events in nEXO for CNO (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The expected solar neutrino spectrum in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The expected precision with which nEXO could [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The expected precision with which nEXO can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: 95% CL sensitivity of nEXO to FDM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: A comparison of the expected photon travel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Supernova cooling from neutrino-devouring dark matter

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Supernova cooling excludes fermionic dark matter produced by neutrino scattering down to cross sections of about 10^-58 cm^2 for electrons and 10^-56 cm^2 for nucleons across the keV to 100 MeV mass range.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [13]

    Solar neutrino detection in liquid xenon detectors via charged-current scattering to excited states

    S. Haselschwardt, B. Lenardo, P. Pirinen, and J. Suho- nen, Phys. Rev. D102, 072009 (2020), arXiv:2009.00535 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [43]

    Performance of novel VUV-sensitive Silicon Photo-Multipliers for nEXO

    G. Gallinaet al.(nEXO), Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1125 (2022), arXiv:2209.07765 [physics.ins-det]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [44]

    Tsanget al., in2021 IEEE Nuclear Science Sym- posium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC) (2021) pp

    T. Tsanget al., in2021 IEEE Nuclear Science Sym- posium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC) (2021) pp. 1–2

    2021

  4. [1]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [2]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 111802 (2025), arXiv:2409.17868 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [3]

    Liet al.(PandaX), Phys

    S. Liet al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 261001 (2023), arXiv:2212.10067 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [4]

    Antonet al.(EXO-200), Phys

    G. Antonet al.(EXO-200), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 161802 (2019), arXiv:1906.02723 [hep-ex]. 13

    arXiv 2019

  8. [5]

    S. A. Kharusiet al.(nEXO), (2018), arXiv:1805.11142 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 98 references
  1. [6]

    S. J. Haselschwardtet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 052502 (2023), arXiv:2301.11893 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Geet al., Phys

    Z. Geet al., Phys. Rev. C108, 045502 (2023), arXiv:2306.04604 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Fujioka, T

    M. Fujioka, T. Miyachi, and H. Adachi, Nucl. Phys. A 95, 577 (1967)

    1967

  4. [9]

    R. S. Raghavan, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 3618 (1997)

    1997

  5. [10]

    Spiering, Eur

    C. Spiering, Eur. Phys. J. H37, 515 (2012), arXiv:1207.4952 [astro-ph.IM]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Adhikariet al.(nEXO), J

    G. Adhikariet al.(nEXO), J. Phys. G49, 015104 (2022), arXiv:2106.16243 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [12]

    D. S. Akeribet al.(LUX-ZEPLIN), Phys. Rev. C102, 014602 (2020)

    2020

  8. [14]

    S. A. Kharusiet al.(EXO-200), Phys. Rev. D107, 012007 (2023), arXiv:2207.00897 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Hedgeset al.(nEXO), Phys

    S. Hedgeset al.(nEXO), Phys. Rev. D110, 093002 (2024), arXiv:2405.19419 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Davis, Prog

    R. Davis, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.32, 13 (1994)

    1994

  11. [17]

    V. N. Gavrinet al., Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Sup- plements28, 75 (1992)

    1992

  12. [18]

    Kirsten, J

    T. Kirsten, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.120, 052013 (2008)

    2008

  13. [19]

    Alimontiet al.(Borexino), Astropart

    G. Alimontiet al.(Borexino), Astropart. Phys.16, 205 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0012030

    2002 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Aharmimet al.(SNO), Phys

    B. Aharmimet al.(SNO), Phys. Rev. C88, 025501 (2013), arXiv:1109.0763 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Askinset al.(Theia), Eur

    M. Askinset al.(Theia), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 416 (2020), arXiv:1911.03501 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [22]

    G. D. Orebi Gannet al., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 491 (2021), arXiv:2107.08613 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Abuslemeet al.(JUNO), JCAP10, 022 (2023), arXiv:2303.03910 [hep-ex]

    A. Abuslemeet al.(JUNO), JCAP10, 022 (2023), arXiv:2303.03910 [hep-ex]

    2023

  18. [24]

    Albaneseet al.(SNO+), JINST16, P08059 (2021), arXiv:2104.11687 [physics.ins-det]

    V. Albaneseet al.(SNO+), JINST16, P08059 (2021), arXiv:2104.11687 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Wimmeret al., Phys

    K. Wimmeret al., Phys. Rev. C84, 014329 (2011), arXiv:1106.6240 [nucl-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [26]

    B. M. Rebeiroet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 052501 (2023), arXiv:2301.11371 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Vinyoleset al., Astrophys

    N. Vinyoleset al., Astrophys. J.835, 202 (2017), arXiv:1611.09867 [astro-ph.SR]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Christensen-Dalsgaard, Living Reviews in So- lar Physics18(2021), 10.1007/s41116-020-00028-3, arXiv:2007.06488v2 [astro-ph.SR]

    J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, Living Reviews in So- lar Physics18(2021), 10.1007/s41116-020-00028-3, arXiv:2007.06488v2 [astro-ph.SR]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [29]

    D. G. Cerdeno, J. H. Davis, M. Fairbairn, and A. C. Vincent, JCAP04, 037 (2018), arXiv:1712.06522 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [30]

    J. N. Bahcall and A. Ulmer, Phys. Rev. D53, 4202 (1996)

    1996

  25. [31]

    J. N. Bahcall, Phys. Rev. D49, 3923 (1994), arXiv:9401024v1 [astro-ph]

    1994

  26. [32]

    S. K. Agarwallaet al.(Borexino), JHEP02, 038 (2020), arXiv:1905.03512 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [33]

    J. A. Dror, G. Elor, and R. Mcgehee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 18 (2020), arXiv:1905.12635 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [34]

    J. A. Dror, G. Elor, and R. McGehee, Journal of High Energy Physics2020(2020), 10.1007/jhep02(2020)134

    2020 doi

  29. [35]

    Liet al.(nEXO), JINST14, P09020 (2019), arXiv:1907.07512 [physics.ins-det]

    Z. Liet al.(nEXO), JINST14, P09020 (2019), arXiv:1907.07512 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Jewellet al.(nEXO), JINST13, P01006 (2018), arXiv:1710.05109 [physics.ins-det]

    M. Jewellet al.(nEXO), JINST13, P01006 (2018), arXiv:1710.05109 [physics.ins-det]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [37]

    D. S. Akeribet al.(LUX), Phys. Rev. D97, 112002 (2018), arXiv:1802.06162 [physics.ins-det]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Takiyaet al., Nucl

    H. Takiyaet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A834, 192–196 (2016), arXiv:1604.01503v3 [physics.ins-det]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Kubotaet al., Phys

    S. Kubotaet al., Phys. Rev. B20, 3486 (1979)

    1979

  34. [40]

    Hitachiet al., Phys

    A. Hitachiet al., Phys. Rev. B27, 5279 (1983)

    1983

  35. [41]

    Gallinaet al.(nEXO), Nucl

    G. Gallinaet al.(nEXO), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A940, 371 (2019), arXiv:1903.03663 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Jamilet al.(nEXO), IEEE Trans

    A. Jamilet al.(nEXO), IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.65, 2823 (2018), arXiv:1806.02220 [physics.ins-det]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. B. Albertet al.(EXO-200), Phys. Rev. C95, 025502 (2017), arXiv:1609.04467 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Njoyaet al., Nucl

    O. Njoyaet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A972, 163965 (2020), arXiv:1911.11580 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Baudiset al., Eur

    L. Baudiset al., Eur. Phys. J. C83, 717 (2023), arXiv:2303.13963 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Akeribet al.(LUX-ZEPLIN), Phys

    D. Akeribet al.(LUX-ZEPLIN), Phys. Rev. D101, 052002 (2020), arXiv:1802.06039 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Eur

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 785 (2020), arXiv:2003.03825 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Al Kharusi, Ph.D

    S. Al Kharusi, Ph.D. thesis, McGill University (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Fast optical monte carlo sim- ulation with surface-based geometries,

    S. Seibert and A. Latorre, “Fast optical monte carlo sim- ulation with surface-based geometries,” (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    Jamil, Ph.D

    A. Jamil, Ph.D. thesis, Yale University (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Szydagiset al., JINST6, P10002 (2011), arXiv:1106.1613 [physics.ins-det]

    M. Szydagiset al., JINST6, P10002 (2011), arXiv:1106.1613 [physics.ins-det]

    2011 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Stiegleret al.(nEXO), Nucl

    T. Stiegleret al.(nEXO), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1000, 165239 (2021), arXiv:2009.10231 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Liuet al., Vacuum197, 110806 (2022)

    C. Liuet al., Vacuum197, 110806 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Butcheret al., Nucl

    A. Butcheret al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A875, 87 (2017), arXiv:1703.06204 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Raymondet al., IEEE Transactions on Electron De- vices71, 6871 (2024), arXiv:2402.09634 [physics.ins-det]

    K. Raymondet al., IEEE Transactions on Electron De- vices71, 6871 (2024), arXiv:2402.09634 [physics.ins-det]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Gallacheret al., (2025), arXiv:2502.15991 [physics.ins-det]

    D. Gallacheret al., (2025), arXiv:2502.15991 [physics.ins-det]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

    2011 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), (2020), arXiv:2007.08796 [physics.ins-det]

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), (2020), arXiv:2007.08796 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Kib´ ediet al., Nucl

    T. Kib´ ediet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A589, 202 (2008)

    2008

  54. [62]

    J. B. Albertet al.(EXO-200), JCAP04, 029 (2016), arXiv:1512.06835 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    J. B. Albertet al.(EXO-200), Phys. Rev. D96, 092001 (2017), arXiv:1704.05042 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    M. R. Bhat, inNuclear Data for Science and Technology, edited by S. M. Qaim (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany,

  57. [65]

    Basilicoet al.(BOREXINO), Phys

    D. Basilicoet al.(BOREXINO), Phys. Rev. D108, 102005 (2023), arXiv:2307.14636 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Agostiniet al.(BOREXINO), Nature562, 505 (2018)

    M. Agostiniet al.(BOREXINO), Nature562, 505 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    R. G. T. Zegerset al., Phys. Rev. C74, 024309 (2006), arXiv:nucl-ex/0512025

    2006 arXiv

  60. [68]

    K. G. Balasi, K. Langanke, and G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.85, 33 (2015), arXiv:1503.08095 [nucl-th]. 14

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Ejiri, J

    H. Ejiri, J. Suhonen, and K. Zuber, Phys. Rep.797, 1 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    Puppeet al., Phys

    P. Puppeet al., Phys. Rev. C84, 051305(R) (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 191002 (2024), arXiv:2408.02877 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  64. [72]

    Boet al.(PandaX), Phys

    Z. Boet al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 191001 (2024), arXiv:2407.10892 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Luet al.(PandaX), Chin

    X. Luet al.(PandaX), Chin. Phys. C48, 091001 (2024), arXiv:2401.07045 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Aalberset al.(XLZD), (2024), arXiv:2410.17137 [hep- ex]

    J. Aalberset al.(XLZD), (2024), arXiv:2410.17137 [hep- ex]

    2024

  67. [75]

    J. L. Newstead, L. E. Strigari, and R. F. Lang, Phys. Rev. D99, 043006 (2019), arXiv:1807.07169 [astro- ph.SR]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Barlow, Nucl

    R. Barlow, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A297, 496 (1990)

    1990

  69. [77]

    Agostiniet al.(BOREXINO), Nature587, 577 (2020), arXiv:2006.15115 [hep-ex]

    M. Agostiniet al.(BOREXINO), Nature587, 577 (2020), arXiv:2006.15115 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Pereira and others

    G. Pereira and others. (LZ), JINST18, C04007 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    Gandoet al.(KamLAND), Phys

    A. Gandoet al.(KamLAND), Phys. Rev. C92, 055808 (2015), arXiv:1405.6190 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Grevesse and A

    N. Grevesse and A. J. Sauval, Space Science Reviews85, 161 (1998)

    1998

  73. [81]

    Grevesse, M

    N. Grevesse, M. Asplund, A. J. Sauval, and P. Scott, Astrophysics and Space Science328, 179 (2010)

    2010

  74. [82]

    Sukhoruchkin and Z

    S. Sukhoruchkin and Z. Soroko,Atomic Mass and Nu- clear Binding Energy for Cs-136 (Caesium), Vol. 22B (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2009)

    2009

  75. [83]

    Liet al., Chinese Physics C45, 074104 (2021)

    K. Liet al., Chinese Physics C45, 074104 (2021)

    2021

  76. [84]

    Zhanget al., Chinese Physics C45, 074107 (2021)

    H. Zhanget al., Chinese Physics C45, 074107 (2021)

    2021

  77. [85]

    Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Phys

    V. Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. D91, 092005 (2015), arXiv:1408.2745 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Ma, (2024), arXiv:2404.06419 [hep-ph]

    K. Ma, (2024), arXiv:2404.06419 [hep-ph]

    2024

  79. [87]

    Papavergou and E

    I. Papavergou and E. Vourliotis (CMS), J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2105, 012012 (2021), arXiv:2111.02266 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D100, 052013 (2019), arXiv:1906.05609 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Essiget al., JHEP11, 193 (2013), arXiv:1309.4091 [hep-ph]

    R. Essiget al., JHEP11, 193 (2013), arXiv:1309.4091 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Anet al.(COHERENT), Phys

    P. Anet al.(COHERENT), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 221801 (2023), arXiv:2305.19594 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Avasthiet al., Phys

    A. Avasthiet al., Phys. Rev. D104, 112007 (2021), arXiv:2110.01537 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Abdukerimet al.(PandaX-xT), Sci

    A. Abdukerimet al.(PandaX-xT), Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 221011 (2025), arXiv:2402.03596 [hep- ex]

    2025 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Althueseret al.(DAR WIN), JINST17, P07018 (2022), arXiv:2203.14354 [physics.ins-det]

    L. Althueseret al.(DAR WIN), JINST17, P07018 (2022), arXiv:2203.14354 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Origin-x — origin-x.llnl.gov,

    “Origin-x — origin-x.llnl.gov,”https://origin-x. llnl.gov, [Accessed 20-06-2025]

    2025

  87. [95]

    Ankeret al., (2024), arXiv:2404.19050 [nucl-ex]

    A. Ankeret al., (2024), arXiv:2404.19050 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Belyaevet al., Phys

    A. Belyaevet al., Phys. Rev. D99, 015006 (2019), arXiv:1807.03817 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  89. [97]

    J. N. Bahcall, Phys. Rev. D41, 2964 (1990)

    1990

  90. [1992]

    817, Data extracted using the NNDC On-Line Data Service from the ENSDF database, file revised as of Nov

    p. 817, Data extracted using the NNDC On-Line Data Service from the ENSDF database, file revised as of Nov. 2007

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.