Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Hydrogenated carbon targets—graphene or carbon nanotubes—could detect sub-GeV dark matter as light as ~1 MeV by ejecting protons from carbon–hydrogen bonds, with rates orders of magnitude beyond current experiments.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 05:17 UTC pith:5JMMRUYR

load-bearing objection A genuinely new, cheap directional sub-GeV detector idea built on a clean scattering calculation; the low-mass reach is hostage to an unquantified sudden-approximation correction, but the paper deserves a serious referee. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.02694 v2 pith:5JMMRUYR submitted 2026-02-02 hep-ph hep-ex

Hydrogenated carbon structures as directional sub-GeV dark matter detectors

Tom\'as Arias , Antonino Bellinvia , Gianluca Cavoto , Angelo Esposito , Francesco Pandolfi , Guglielmo Papiri , Antonio D. Polosa , Tyler Wu This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex PACS 95.35.+d
keywords dark mattersub-GeVhydrogenated graphenecarbon nanotubesproton ejectiondirectional detectionMigdal effectsudden approximation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper proposes using hydrogenated carbon structures—graphene, graphite, or carbon nanotubes—as dark matter detectors for sub-GeV particles in the ~1–100 MeV mass range. Because a proton bound to a carbon site is held by only a few eV, a dark matter nucleon collision can free it in a nearly elastic process, giving a clear charged-particle signal. The authors calculate that the ejected proton is a naked proton (no bound electron) at least 72% of the time, and that rates could outdo current Migdal-effect bounds by orders of magnitude. The design is room-temperature, inexpensive, and, with aligned nanotubes, directional, offering a strong handle for background rejection. If right, this would open an accessible route to probing dark matter masses that elude existing detectors.

Core claim

The central claim is that a hydrogenated carbon surface acts as an extremely low-threshold proton 'gun' for dark matter: a sub-GeV dark matter particle scattering off a proton bound to a carbon atom can eject the proton almost elastically because the C–H bond energy is only ~4.5 eV. The minimum dark matter mass probed is mχ_min ≈ 2|ε0|/(vesc+ve)^2 ≈ 1.1 MeV. Combining a DFT-computed naked-proton probability Pproton ≳ 72% with (for nanotubes) a Monte Carlo escape probability, the projected sensitivity for 100 cm² to 1 m² targets exceeds current Migdal-based limits—set by SENSEI and PandaX-4T—by orders of magnitude across the 1–100 MeV range. The proposal also puts forward strong directionalit

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the quasi-elastic ejection of a proton from a carbon–hydrogen covalent bond: the few-eV binding energy makes the recoil threshold tiny, and the ejected proton provides a charged, detectable signal. The quantitative workhorse is the sudden-approximation overlap probability Pproton ≳ 72%—computed with DFT as the ground-state electronic overlap between hydrogenated graphene before and after proton removal—which multiplies every projected rate; for CNTs, a Monte Carlo transport simulation yields the top-exit probability Pexit that depends on wind direction and encodes directionality.

Load-bearing premise

The entire rate projection is multiplied by the sudden-approximation probability that a ~72% naked proton is ejected, but the paper itself states that corrections are expected right around the MeV mass—the very region where the proposal claims its largest gain—and no numerical estimate of that correction is given.

What would settle it

An experiment sending epithermal neutrons (kinetic energy ~1–10 eV, matching the recoil of a ~1–10 MeV dark matter particle) at a hydrogenated graphene sample and counting collected protons: if the per-interaction naked-proton yield comes out far below ~72% at these recoil energies, the claimed dark matter reach near threshold collapses. A complementary check is measuring proton transmission through single- or few-layer graphene at sub-eV kinetic energies to test the assumed 0.2 eV capture threshold used in the nanotube escape calculation.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A 100 cm² graphene sheet (0.66 µg hydrogen target) could already beat current Migdal-based exclusion limits for dark matter masses from ~1 MeV to ~100 MeV.
  • A 1 m² vertically aligned carbon nanotube array (84 mg hydrogen target) could extend sensitivity further while providing a directional signal whose modulation (order one between wind parallel/anti-parallel) enables background rejection.
  • The detector operates at room temperature without cryogenics, uses a single silicon drift detector as readout, and requires only a moderate vacuum and a few-kV electric field.
  • Keeping environmental gamma flux below a few Hz keeps backgrounds negligible for a one-year exposure of the 100 cm² target.
  • The mechanism can be validated terrestrially with epithermal neutrons (eV-range energies) mimicking dark matter collisions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the sudden-approximation probability degrades near the 1 MeV threshold—as the paper itself flags—the claimed advantage at the lowest masses could shrink; a dedicated DFT or experiment at that recoil scale would settle this.
  • The same proton-ejection readout might be adapted to search for other light beyond-Standard-Model particles that couple to protons, such as axion-like particles or relic neutrinos, provided their momentum transfer can overcome the few-eV binding energy.
  • The strong directional modulation could be exploited not only for background rejection but also to map the local dark matter velocity distribution, effectively turning the target into a dark matter 'windometer'.
  • A straightforward near-term test: irradiate hydrogenated graphene with a monochromatic eV neutron beam and compare the collected proton rate to the calculated Pproton; this would calibrate the hardest theoretical input before any dark matter run.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes hydrogenated graphene and carbon-nanotube targets for direct detection of sub-GeV dark matter interacting with nucleons. A dark-matter particle scattering on a weakly bound hydrogen proton can eject it quasi-elastically; the charged proton is then accelerated and collected. The authors compute the scattering rate from a contact interaction and a Gaussian bound-proton wavefunction, multiply by a DFT-derived probability P_proton >= 72% that the ejected proton is naked, and for CNTs additionally by a Monte Carlo escape probability P_exit. They project sensitivities in the ~1.1 MeV to 100 MeV mass range that are orders of magnitude better than current Migdal-based limits, with directionality for aligned CNTs.

Significance. If the underlying efficiencies are confirmed, this is an attractive, technically feasible, room-temperature detection concept with a uniquely low energy threshold and a possible directional signal. The scattering-rate calculation is standard and transparent, the DFT overlap computation is a serious first-principles input, and the CNT transport simulation is described in sufficient detail to be reproduced. The main strengths are the concrete experimental proposal and the use of material-specific parameters from prior DFT work. However, the headline 'orders of magnitude' claim rests on two multiplicative efficiencies, P_proton and P_exit, whose numerical values carry unquantified and potentially O(1) uncertainties; the projected reach in Fig. 2 should currently be read as an upper envelope.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III and Appendix A, Eq. (A3)] The rate in Eqs. (7)-(8) is directly proportional to P_proton, quoted as >=72% in Eq. (6). The text explicitly states that the sudden approximation receives corrections 'right around the MeV,' which is precisely the mass region where the proposal claims its largest advantage (m_chi_min ~ 1.1 MeV). The overlap in Eq. (A3) is only one ground-to-ground contribution, and no numerical estimate of the correction or uncertainty is given. Please provide a quantitative estimate of the sudden-approximation correction in the 1-10 MeV window and a convergence/uncertainty analysis (functional, k-point sampling, supercell extrapolation) for the 72% value.
  2. [Section IV and Appendix C, Eq. (8), Table I] The escape probability P_exit is based on a binary threshold: protons with E_perp > 0.2 eV are captured, while those with E_perp < 0.2 eV scatter elastically and survive multiple wall collisions. This is inferred from experiments on proton transport through graphene membranes [54-59], not from multiple scattering in a nanotube forest, and the 0.2-1 eV interval is unconstrained. Calling the assumption 'conservative' is not fully justified: discarding high-E_perp protons lowers the rate, but assuming every low-E_perp proton survives many collisions without neutralization or inelastic loss may overestimate it. A sensitivity scan over the threshold and a treatment of inelastic channels are needed before Fig. 3 and Table I can be used quantitatively.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (7)] The graphene rate multiplies the ideal rate only by P_proton, with no acceptance factor for whether the ejected proton actually leaves the sheet and reaches the collector. A proton emitted with a large in-plane momentum may scatter on the carbon lattice or be recaptured, and protons emitted into the substrate are lost. The CNT analysis includes a dedicated transport simulation, but the graphene case does not. Unless the electric-field geometry guarantees O(1) collection for all initial angles, the graphene projections in Fig. 2 are optimistic. Please provide a geometric/transport acceptance estimate.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (2)] The initial wavefunction parameters lambda_parallel ~ 0.17 A, lambda_perp ~ 0.11 A, and epsilon_0 ~ -4.5 eV are taken from tritiated-graphene studies [29,31] 'upon a rescaling from the tritium to the proton mass,' but no rescaling formula is given. The rate, angular distributions, and threshold m_min depend directly on these numbers. A hydrogen atom is not simply a lighter triton: zero-point motion and anharmonicity change, and the C-H binding energy may differ from C-T. Please document the rescaling or compute the hydrogenated-graphene wavefunction directly, and give uncertainties.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states 'no background' but does not state the assumed exposure time. The text mentions one year in Section V; the caption should make this explicit.
  2. [Appendix A] The text says CNTs have 'radius of order tens of micrometers,' whereas Section IV uses a diameter of 10 nm. This appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption uses 'SSD' while the text uses 'SDD'; please unify the acronym.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C1)] The definitions of q_parallel and q_perp, and the signs in the anisotropic distribution, are not fully specified. A brief explanation would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Introduction] Ref. [22] (dark-matter-electron detectors for dark-matter-nucleon interactions) is closely related and should be cited in the introduction alongside the phonon and Migdal approaches.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the rate projections are built from external DFT material parameters, standard halo inputs, and Monte Carlo transport, with no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The single-proton ejection rate follows from Fermi's golden rule with a standard heavy-mediator contact interaction (Eqs. 3-4), then convolves the halo velocity distribution (Eq. 5) using standard values (v0, vesc, ve, rho_chi). The graphene rate multiplies this by Pproton (Eq. 7) and the CNT rate additionally by Pexit (Eq. 8). No parameter in Eqs. (7) or (8) is fitted to the projected sensitivity curves in Fig. 2, and the comparison benchmarks (SENSEI, PandaX-4T) are external experimental limits. The material inputs lambda_parallel, lambda_perp, and epsilon_0 are taken from prior DFT work [29,31]; one of these references shares a co-author (Esposito), but these are independently computed material properties with stated DFT methods and are not defined in terms of, or adjusted to reproduce, the dark-matter rates claimed here. Pproton is computed in-house in Appendix A via DFT overlap (Eq. A3) within the sudden approximation and is explicitly labeled a conservative lower bound, since it counts only the ground-to-ground electronic overlap; this is a physical approximation, not a circular re-use of the target result. The paper itself flags that corrections are expected 'right around the MeV' (Section III and Appendix A); this is an acknowledged uncertainty in the very mass region where the proposal is most novel, and it could affect the reach, but it is not a definitional or fitted circularity. Pexit is obtained from an independent Monte Carlo simulation (Appendix C) driven by external experimental results on proton-graphene interaction (refs. 54-59), again not fitted to the claimed sensitivity. Overall, no step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to the paper's own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central sensitivity estimate rests on external material parameters (λ, ε0) from prior DFT work, plus modeling assumptions about sudden-approximation overlap, 100% hydrogenation, and the 0.2 eV CNT capture threshold. The proposal introduces no new particles or forces; it relies entirely on known materials and standard scattering.

free parameters (5)
  • Proton wavefunction parallel spread λ|| = ≈ 0.17 Å (rescaled from tritium)
    Input from prior DFT [31]; controls momentum broadening in the rate integral.
  • Proton wavefunction perpendicular spread λ⊥ = ≈ 0.11 Å
    Input from prior DFT [31]; controls the directional dependence of the ejected proton.
  • Hydrogen binding energy ε0 = ≈ -4.5 eV
    Sets the minimum dark matter mass ≈ 1.1 MeV; taken from [31].
  • CNT wall capture threshold E⊥ = 0.2 eV
    Chosen from proton–graphene experiments [54–59]; if wrong, Pexit and CNT sensitivity change by a large factor.
  • CNT array geometry (diameter, spacing, height) = 10 nm, 50 nm, 100 µm
    Taken from [64]; determines target mass and proton transport.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Standard halo model: truncated Maxwellian with v0=230 km/s, vesc=600 km/s, ve=240 km/s, ρχ=0.4 GeV/cm³
    Used to normalize the rate and define the dark matter wind direction.
  • domain assumption Heavy-mediator contact interaction U = -(gχ gp/mφ²) δ(xχ - xp)
    Benchmark spin-independent interaction; mediator propagation and form factors ignored.
  • domain assumption Sudden approximation for the dark matter–proton scattering, so that Pproton ≈ |⟨Ψ0|Ψ′0⟩|²
    Authors state it is valid for mχ ≳ few MeV but corrections are expected near the 1 MeV threshold; no numerical estimate of these corrections is provided.
  • domain assumption 100% hydrogen coverage (graphane configuration) with binding parameters varying by at most O(1) for other coverages
    Allows use of the [29,31] parameters; the text argues results are unaffected but does not quantify this for realistic partial coverage.
  • domain assumption CNT transport rule: protons with E⊥ > 0.2 eV are captured after inelastic losses; protons with E⊥ < 0.2 eV scatter elastically with specular reflection
    Drives Pexit and hence the entire CNT sensitivity; the authors state permeability is hard to quantify and the rule is conservative but not validated.
  • domain assumption DFT ground-state overlap gives a lower bound on the naked-proton ejection probability
    Only the ground-to-ground electronic overlap is computed; other final states with a bare proton are ignored.
  • standard math Born–Oppenheimer approximation and PBE-level DFT accuracy
    Standard electronic-structure tooling; no convergence or functional-uncertainty error bars are reported.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13346 in / 11962 out tokens · 131054 ms · 2026-08-03T05:17:02.471018+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose hydrogenated carbon structures as targets with a remarkable sensitivity to dark matter-nucleon interactions, in the mass range between the 1 MeV and 100 MeV. The ejection of a proton following the interaction with a dark matter particle is a quasi-elastic process, with an extremely small energy threshold, and a clear experimental signature. The proposed detectors are simple, technologically ready, and inexpensive. Yet, they can be considerably more sensitive than current experiments. They also allow strong directionality, to be used towards efficient background rejection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.02694 by Angelo Esposito, Antonino Bellinvia, Antonio D. Polosa, Francesco Pandolfi, Gianluca Cavoto, Guglielmo Papiri, Tom\'as Arias, Tyler Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Projected reach at 90% C.L., assuming no background. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 33 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    This is done by an accept-reject method, from a distribu- tion given by a truncated Maxwellian following the standard halo model, as described in the main text

    Random sample of the dark matter velocity. This is done by an accept-reject method, from a distribu- tion given by a truncated Maxwellian following the standard halo model, as described in the main text

  2. [2]

    Given the dark matter velocity, we extract the momentum of the ejected proton, as dictated by the differential distribution obtained from Eq. (4). Due to bad numerical convergence, for masses mχ > 10 MeV, we approximate the proton wave function as isotropic, λ|| = λ⊥. For large exchanged momenta, anisotropic effects are anyway negligible. The two distribu...

  3. [3]

    In the first instance it is assumed that it undergoes (yet unknown) energy losses and eventually gets captured

    If E⊥ > 0.2 eV orthe proton is emitted downward, the event is discarded. In the first instance it is assumed that it undergoes (yet unknown) energy losses and eventually gets captured. In the second instance, instead, it is guaranteed that it will never leave the forest from the top

  4. [4]

    • If the proton is ejected outside the nanotube, instead, it will scatter off the walls of the other nanotubes in the forest

    If E⊥ < 0.2 eV andthe proton is emitted upward, we have two possible instances: • If the proton is ejected toward the interior of the nanotube, it can only undergo multiple scatterings inside the nanotube and eventually leave from the top. • If the proton is ejected outside the nanotube, instead, it will scatter off the walls of the other nanotubes in the...

  5. [5]

    Dark Matter Search Results from the PICO-60 C 3F8 Bubble Chamber,

    C. Amoleet al.(PICO), “Dark Matter Search Results from the PICO-60 C 3F8 Bubble Chamber,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 251301 (2017), arXiv:1702.07666 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Light Dark Matter Search with a High-Resolution Athermal Phonon Detector Operated Above Ground,

    I. Alkhatibet al.(SuperCDMS), “Light Dark Matter Search with a High-Resolution Athermal Phonon Detector Operated Above Ground,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 061801 (2021), arXiv:2007.14289 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Dark Matter Search Re- sults from the PandaX-4T Commissioning Run,

    Yue Menget al.(PandaX-4T), “Dark Matter Search Re- sults from the PandaX-4T Commissioning Run,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 261802 (2021), arXiv:2107.13438 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Search for low-mass dark matter WIMPs with 12 ton-day exposure of DarkSide- 50,

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide-50), “Search for low-mass dark matter WIMPs with 12 ton-day exposure of DarkSide- 50,” Phys. Rev. D107, 063001 (2023), arXiv:2207.11966 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    First Direct-Detection Results on Sub-GeV Dark Matter Using the SENSEI Detector at SNOLAB,

    Prakruth Adariet al.(SENSEI), “First Direct-Detection Results on Sub-GeV Dark Matter Using the SENSEI Detector at SNOLAB,” Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 011804 (2025), arXiv:2312.13342 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), “Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    First observation of sin- gle photons in a CRESST detector and new dark mat- ter exclusion limits,

    G. Angloheret al.(CRESST), “First observation of sin- gle photons in a CRESST detector and new dark mat- ter exclusion limits,” Phys. Rev. D110, 083038 (2024), arXiv:2405.06527 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    WIMP Dark Matter Search using a 3.1 tonne × year Exposure of the XENONnT Experiment,

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), “WIMP Dark Matter Search using a 3.1 tonne × year Exposure of the XENONnT Experiment,” (2025), arXiv:2502.18005 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Scalar dark matter candi- 8 dates,

    C. Boehm and Pierre Fayet, “Scalar dark matter candi- 8 dates,” Nucl. Phys. B683, 219–263 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0305261

    arXiv 2004

  14. [14]

    A Natural Super- symmetric Model with MeV Dark Matter,

    Dan Hooper and Kathryn M. Zurek, “A Natural Super- symmetric Model with MeV Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 087302 (2008), arXiv:0801.3686 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  15. [15]

    The WIMPless Mir- acle: Dark-Matter Particles without Weak-Scale Masses or Weak Interactions,

    Jonathan L. Feng and Jason Kumar, “The WIMPless Mir- acle: Dark-Matter Particles without Weak-Scale Masses or Weak Interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 231301 (2008), arXiv:0803.4196 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  16. [16]

    Asymmetric Dark Matter from Leptogenesis,

    Adam Falkowski, Joshua T. Ruderman, and Tomer Volan- sky, “Asymmetric Dark Matter from Leptogenesis,” JHEP 05, 106 (2011), arXiv:1101.4936 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  17. [17]

    Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,

    Yonit Hochberg, Eric Kuflik, Tomer Volansky, and Jay G. Wacker, “Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171301 (2014), arXiv:1402.5143 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Light Dark Matter from Forbidden Channels,

    Raffaele Tito D’Agnolo and Joshua T. Ruderman, “Light Dark Matter from Forbidden Channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 061301 (2015), arXiv:1505.07107 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    Elastically Decoupling Dark Matter,

    Eric Kuflik, Maxim Perelstein, Nicolas Rey-Le Lorier, and Yu-Dai Tsai, “Elastically Decoupling Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221302 (2016), arXiv:1512.04545 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Exponentially Light Dark Matter from Coannihilation,

    Raffaele Tito D’Agnolo, Cristina Mondino, Joshua T. Ruderman, and Po-Jen Wang, “Exponentially Light Dark Matter from Coannihilation,” JHEP08, 079 (2018), arXiv:1803.02901 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter,

    Rouven Essig, Jeremy Mardon, and Tomer Volansky, “Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D85, 076007 (2012), arXiv:1108.5383 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Probing sub-GeV Dark Matter with conventional detectors,

    Chris Kouvaris and Josef Pradler, “Probing sub-GeV Dark Matter with conventional detectors,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 031803 (2017), arXiv:1607.01789 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    A Strategy for Low- Mass Dark Matter Searches with Cryogenic Detectors in the SuperCDMS SNOLAB Facility,

    M. F. Albakryet al.(SuperCDMS), “A Strategy for Low- Mass Dark Matter Searches with Cryogenic Detectors in the SuperCDMS SNOLAB Facility,” inSnowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08463 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    BULLKID: BULky and Low- Threshold Kinetic Inductance Detectors,

    I. Colantoniet al., “BULLKID: BULky and Low- Threshold Kinetic Inductance Detectors,” J. Low Temp. Phys.199, 593–597 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    DELight: A Direct search Experiment for Light dark matter with superfluid helium,

    Belina von Krosigket al., “DELight: A Direct search Experiment for Light dark matter with superfluid helium,” SciPost Phys. Proc.12, 016 (2023), arXiv:2209.10950 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Dark- Matter–Electron Detectors for Dark-Matter–Nucleon Interactions,

    Sin´ ead M. Griffin, Guy Daniel Hadas, Yonit Hochberg, Katherine Inzani, and Benjamin V. Lehmann, “Dark- Matter–Electron Detectors for Dark-Matter–Nucleon Interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 141803 (2025), arXiv:2412.16283 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    The CRESST experiment: towards the next-generation of sub-GeV direct dark matter detec- tion,

    G. Angloheret al., “The CRESST experiment: towards the next-generation of sub-GeV direct dark matter detec- tion,” (2025), arXiv:2505.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    First Limits on Light Dark Matter Interactions in a Low Threshold Two- Channel Athermal Phonon Detector from the TESSER- ACT Collaboration,

    T. K. Buiet al.(TESSERACT), “First Limits on Light Dark Matter Interactions in a Low Threshold Two- Channel Athermal Phonon Detector from the TESSER- ACT Collaboration,” Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 161002 (2025), arXiv:2503.03683 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    The SWEET project: probing sugar crystals for direct dark matter searches,

    A. Bentoet al., “The SWEET project: probing sugar crystals for direct dark matter searches,” (2025), arXiv:2510.00068 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Search for Light Dark Matter Interactions Enhanced by the Migdal Effect or Bremsstrahlung in XENON1T,

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), “Search for Light Dark Matter Interactions Enhanced by the Migdal Effect or Bremsstrahlung in XENON1T,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 241803 (2019), arXiv:1907.12771 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Search for Dark- Matter–Nucleon Interactions via Migdal Effect with DarkSide-50,

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide), “Search for Dark- Matter–Nucleon Interactions via Migdal Effect with DarkSide-50,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 101001 (2023), arXiv:2207.11967 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Search for dark-matter–nucleon interactions with a dark mediator in pandax-4t,

    Di Huanget al.(PandaX Collaboration), “Search for dark-matter–nucleon interactions with a dark mediator in pandax-4t,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 191002 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in the PTOLEMY project: A theory update,

    A. Apponiet al.(PTOLEMY), “Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in the PTOLEMY project: A theory update,” Phys. Rev. D106, 053002 (2022), arXiv:2203.11228 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Multi- methodological analysis of hydrogen desorption from graphene,

    Francesco Delfino, Carles Ros, Sidney M. Palardonio, Nina M. Carretero, Sebasti´ an Murcia-L´ opez, Juan Ram´ on Morante, Jordi Martorell, Zacharias G. Fthenakis, Mauro Francesco Sgroi, Valentina Tozzini,et al., “Multi- methodological analysis of hydrogen desorption from graphene,” Carbon227, 119211 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    The β-decay spectrum of Tritiated graphene: combining nuclear quantum mechanics with Density Functional Theory,

    Andrea Casale, Angelo Esposito, Guido Menichetti, and Valentina Tozzini, “The β-decay spectrum of Tritiated graphene: combining nuclear quantum mechanics with Density Functional Theory,” (2025), arXiv:2504.13259 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Sub-GeV Dark Matter Detection with Electron Recoils in Car- bon Nanotubes,

    G. Cavoto, F. Luchetta, and A. D. Polosa, “Sub-GeV Dark Matter Detection with Electron Recoils in Car- bon Nanotubes,” Phys. Lett. B776, 338–344 (2018), arXiv:1706.02487 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Directional detection of dark matter with two- dimensional targets,

    Yonit Hochberg, Yonatan Kahn, Mariangela Lisanti, Christopher G. Tully, and Kathryn M. Zurek, “Directional detection of dark matter with two- dimensional targets,” Phys. Lett. B772, 239–246 (2017), arXiv:1606.08849 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    The dark-PMT: a novel directional light Dark Matter detector based on vertically-aligned carbon nanotubes,

    F. Pandolfi, A. Apponi, G. Cavoto, C. Mariani, I. Rago, and A. Ruocco, “The dark-PMT: a novel directional light Dark Matter detector based on vertically-aligned carbon nanotubes,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2156, 012051 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    Direct searches for general dark matter-electron interactions with graphene detectors: Part II. Sensitivity studies,

    Riccardo Catena, Timon Emken, Marek Matas, Nicola A. Spaldin, and Einar Urdshals, “Direct searches for general dark matter-electron interactions with graphene detectors: Part II. Sensitivity studies,” Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043258 (2023), arXiv:2303.15509 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Direct searches for general dark matter-electron interactions with graphene detectors: Part I. Electronic structure calculations,

    Riccardo Catena, Timon Emken, Marek Matas, Nicola A. Spaldin, and Einar Urdshals, “Direct searches for general dark matter-electron interactions with graphene detectors: Part I. Electronic structure calculations,” Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043257 (2023), arXiv:2303.15497 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Neutrino physics with the PTOLEMY project: active neutrino proper- ties and the light sterile case,

    M. G. Bettiet al.(PTOLEMY), “Neutrino physics with the PTOLEMY project: active neutrino proper- ties and the light sterile case,” JCAP07, 047 (2019), arXiv:1902.05508 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    Deuterium ad- sorption on free-standing graphene,

    Mahmoud Mohamed Saad Abdelnabi, Chiara Izzo, Elena Blundo, Maria Grazia Betti, Marco Sbroscia, Giulia Di Bella, Gianluca Cavoto, Antonio Polimeni, Isabel Garc ´ ıa-Cort´ es, Isabel Rucandio,et al., “Deuterium ad- sorption on free-standing graphene,” Nanomaterials11, 130 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    Gap opening in double-sided highly hydrogenated free-standing graphene,

    Maria Grazia Betti, Ernesto Placidi, Chiara Izzo, Elena Blundo, Antonio Polimeni, Marco Sbroscia, Jos´ e Avila, Pavel Dudin, Kailong Hu, Yoshikazu Ito,et al., “Gap opening in double-sided highly hydrogenated free-standing graphene,” Nano letters22, 2971–2977 (2022)

    2022

  44. [44]

    Spectromicroscopy study of in- 9 duced defects in ion-bombarded highly aligned carbon nanotubes,

    Sammar Tayyab, Alice Apponi, Maria Grazia Betti, Elena Blundo, Gianluca Cavoto, Riccardo Frisenda, Nuria Jim´ enez-Ar´ evalo, Carlo Mariani, Francesco Pandolfi, An- tonio Polimeni,et al., “Spectromicroscopy study of in- 9 duced defects in ion-bombarded highly aligned carbon nanotubes,” Nanomaterials14, 77 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    Highly hydro- genated monolayer graphene with wide band gap opening,

    Alice Apponi, Orlando Castellano, Daniele Paoloni, Domenica Convertino, Neeraj Mishra, Camilla Coletti, Carlo Mariani, and Alessandro Ruocco, “Highly hydro- genated monolayer graphene with wide band gap opening,” (2025), arXiv:2504.10238 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    arXiv 2025

  46. [47]

    Stability of Highly Hydrogenated Monolayer Graphene in Ultra-High Vacuum and in Air,

    Alice Apponiet al., “Stability of Highly Hydrogenated Monolayer Graphene in Ultra-High Vacuum and in Air,” (2025), arXiv:2504.11853 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [48]

    Detection of low-energy protons using a silicon drift detector,

    M. Simson, P. Holl, A.R. M¨ uller, A. Niculae, G. Petzoldt, K. Schreckenbach, H. Soltau, L. Str¨ uder, H.-F. Wirth, and O. Zimmer, “Detection of low-energy protons using a silicon drift detector,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrome- ters, Detectors and Associated Equipment581, 772–775 (2007)

    2007

  48. [49]

    Self-consistent equa- tions including exchange and correlation effects,

    Walter Kohn and Lu Jeu Sham, “Self-consistent equa- tions including exchange and correlation effects,” Physical review140, A1133 (1965)

    1965

  49. [50]

    Feliciano Giustino,Materials modelling using density func- tional theory: properties and predictions(Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2014)

    2014

  50. [51]

    Chemical vapor de- position of carbon nanotubes: a review on growth mecha- nism and mass production,

    Mukul Kumar and Yoshinori Ando, “Chemical vapor de- position of carbon nanotubes: a review on growth mecha- nism and mass production,” Journal of nanoscience and nanotechnology10, 3739–3758 (2010)

    2010

  51. [52]

    Chemical vapor deposition growth of single-walled carbon nanotubes with controlled structures for nanodevice applications,

    Yabin Chen and Jin Zhang, “Chemical vapor deposition growth of single-walled carbon nanotubes with controlled structures for nanodevice applications,” Accounts of chem- ical research47, 2273–2281 (2014)

    2014

  52. [53]

    The RA VE survey: the Galactic escape speed and the mass of the Milky Way,

    Til Pifflet al., “The RA VE survey: the Galactic escape speed and the mass of the Milky Way,” Astron. Astrophys. 562, A91 (2014), arXiv:1309.4293 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [54]

    The escape speed curve of the Galaxy obtained from Gaia DR2 implies a heavy Milky Way,

    G. Monari, B. Famaey, I. Carrillo, T. Piffl, M. Steinmetz, R. F. G. Wyse, F. Anders, C. Chiappini, and K. Janßen, “The escape speed curve of the Galaxy obtained from Gaia DR2 implies a heavy Milky Way,” Astron. Astrophys. 616, L9 (2018), arXiv:1807.04565 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [55]

    The dark matter profile of the milky way inferred from its circular velocity curve,

    Xiaowei Ou, Anna-Christina Eilers, Lina Necib, and Anna Frebel, “The dark matter profile of the milky way inferred from its circular velocity curve,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society528, 693–710 (2024)

    2024

  55. [56]

    Directional Dark Matter Searches with Carbon Nanotubes,

    L. M. Capparelli, G. Cavoto, D. Mazzilli, and A. D. Polosa, “Directional Dark Matter Searches with Carbon Nanotubes,” Phys. Dark Univ.9-10, 24–30 (2015), [Erra- tum: Phys.Dark Univ. 11, 79–80 (2016)], arXiv:1412.8213 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [57]

    WIMP detection and slow ion dynamics in carbon nanotube arrays,

    G. Cavoto, E. N. M. Cirillo, F. Cocina, J. Ferretti, and A. D. Polosa, “WIMP detection and slow ion dynamics in carbon nanotube arrays,” Eur. Phys. J. C76, 349 (2016), arXiv:1602.03216 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [58]

    Proton transport through one-atom-thick crystals,

    S. Hu, M. Lozada-Hidalgo, F. C. Wang, Artem Mishchenko, F. Schedin, E. W. Nair, Rahul Raveen- dran andgHill, D. W. Boukhvalov, M. I. Katsnelson, Robert A. W. Dryfe,et al., “Proton transport through one-atom-thick crystals,” Nature516, 227–230 (2014)

    2014

  58. [59]

    Giant photo- effect in proton transport through graphene membranes,

    Marcelo Lozada-Hidalgo, Sheng Zhang, Sheng Hu, Va- syl G. Kravets, Francisco J. Rodriguez, Alexey Berdyugin, Alexander Grigorenko, and Andre K. Geim, “Giant photo- effect in proton transport through graphene membranes,” Nature nanotechnology13, 300–303 (2018)

    2018

  59. [60]

    Proton and li-ion permeation through graphene with eight-atom-ring defects,

    Eoin Griffin, Lucas Mogg, Guang-Ping Hao, Gopinadhan Kalon, Cihan Bacaksiz, Guillermo Lopez-Polin, T. Y. Zhou, Victor Guarochico, Junhao Cai, Christof Neumann, et al., “Proton and li-ion permeation through graphene with eight-atom-ring defects,” Acs Nano14, 7280–7286 (2020)

    2020

  60. [61]

    Biomimetic n-doped graphene membrane for proton exchange mem- branes,

    Zhiyang Zeng, Ruiyang Song, Shengping Zhang, Xiao Han, Zhen Zhu, Xiaobo Chen, and Luda Wang, “Biomimetic n-doped graphene membrane for proton exchange mem- branes,” Nano Letters21, 4314–4319 (2021)

    2021

  61. [62]

    Proton transport through nanoscale corrugations in two-dimensional crys- tals,

    Oluwasegun J Wahab, E. Daviddi, B. Xin, P. Z. Sun, E. Griffin, A. W. Colburn, D. Barry, M. Yagmurcukardes, F. M. Peeters, A. K. Geim,et al., “Proton transport through nanoscale corrugations in two-dimensional crys- tals,” Nature620, 782–786 (2023)

    2023

  62. [63]

    Control of proton transport and hydrogenation in double- gated graphene,

    Jincheng Tong, Yangming Fu, Daniil Domaretskiy, F. Della Pia, Parveen Dagar, Lewis Powell, D. Baha- mon, Shiqi Huang, Benhao Xin, R. N. Costa Filho,et al., “Control of proton transport and hydrogenation in double- gated graphene,” Nature630, 619–624 (2024)

    2024

  63. [64]

    Auger neutralization of slow protons at solid surfaces,

    S. Horiguchi, K. Koyama, and Y. H. Ohtsuki, “Auger neutralization of slow protons at solid surfaces,” physica status solidi (b)87, 757–763 (1978)

    1978

  64. [65]

    Neutralization of fast protons in grazing collisions with a clean al(111) surface,

    H. Winter, R. Kirsch, J. C. Poizat, and J. Remillieux, “Neutralization of fast protons in grazing collisions with a clean al(111) surface,” Phys. Rev. A43, 1660–1662 (1991)

    1991

  65. [66]

    Velocity dependence of outgoing neutral fractions for h(1 s) and h + beams im- pinging on al(111) at grazing incidence,

    H. Jouin and F. A. Gutierrez, “Velocity dependence of outgoing neutral fractions for h(1 s) and h + beams im- pinging on al(111) at grazing incidence,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 014901 (2011)

    2011

  66. [67]

    Interplay of resonant and auger processes in proton neutralization after grazing surface scattering,

    R. Zimny, Z. L. Miˇ skovi´ c, N. N. Nedeljkovi´ c, and Lj. D. Nedeljkovi´ c, “Interplay of resonant and auger processes in proton neutralization after grazing surface scattering,” Surface Science255, 135–156 (1991)

    1991

  67. [68]

    Quantitative correla- tion between carbon nanotube tip morphology and field emission properties at cryogenic temperature,

    Luca Cecchini, Carlo Pepe, Benedetta Corcione, Orlando Castellano, Daniele Paoloni, Federico Malnati, Gianluca Cavoto, Marco Carminati, Carlo Fiorini, Giorgio Petti- nari, Ravi Prakash Yadav, Ilaria Rago, Alice Apponi, Andrei Puiu, Carlo Mariani, Mauro Rajteri, Alessandro Ruocco, and Francesco Pandolfi, “Quantitative correla- tion between carbon nanotube ...

    2025

  68. [69]

    Phonons and related crystal properties from density-functional perturbation theory,

    S. Baroni, S. de Gironcoli, A. Dal Corso, and P. Gi- annozzi, “Phonons and related crystal properties from density-functional perturbation theory,” Rev Mod Phys 73, 515–562 (2001)

    2001

  69. [70]

    Migdal,Qualitative Methods in Quantum The- ory, Frontiers in Physics, Vol

    Arkadii B. Migdal,Qualitative Methods in Quantum The- ory, Frontiers in Physics, Vol. 48 (W. A. Benjamin, Inc. (Advanced Book Program), Reading, MA, 1977)

    1977

  70. [71]

    Jdftx: Software for joint density- functional theory,

    Ravishankar Sundararaman, Kendra Letchworth-Weaver, Kathleen A. Schwarz, Deniz Gunceler, Yalcin Ozhabes, and Tom´ as A. Arias, “Jdftx: Software for joint density- functional theory,” SoftwareX6, 278–284 (2017)

    2017

  71. [72]

    Generalized gradient approximation made simple,

    John P. Perdew, Kieron Burke, and Matthias Ernzerhof, “Generalized gradient approximation made simple,” Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865–3868 (1996)

    1996

  72. [73]

    Optimization algo- rithm for the generation of oncv pseudopotentials,

    Martin Schlipf and Fran¸ cois Gygi, “Optimization algo- rithm for the generation of oncv pseudopotentials,” Com- puter Physics Communications196, 36–44 (2015)

    2015

  73. [74]

    Regular- 10 ization of the coulomb singularity in exact exchange by wigner-seitz truncated interactions: Towards chemical accuracy in nontrivial systems,

    Ravishankar Sundararaman and T. A. Arias, “Regular- 10 ization of the coulomb singularity in exact exchange by wigner-seitz truncated interactions: Towards chemical accuracy in nontrivial systems,” Phys. Rev. B87, 165122 (2013)

    2013

  74. [75]

    Martin,Electronic Structure: Basic The- ory and Practical Methods(Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    Richard M. Martin,Electronic Structure: Basic The- ory and Practical Methods(Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    2004