pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04091 · v1 · pith:3JOKUEGRnew · submitted 2026-06-02 · ✦ hep-ph

Astrophysical Uncertainties in Sub-GeV Dark Matter Detection via Single Phonon Excitations

Xu-Xiang Li , Navaneetha Valsan , Zhengkang Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 09:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords dark matterdirect detectionsingle phononhalo modelsvelocity distributionsub-GeVastrophysical uncertainties
0
0 comments X

The pith

Astrophysical uncertainties in sub-GeV dark matter phonon detection are captured by Standard Halo Model parameter variations.

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

The paper conducts the first systematic study of how uncertainties in the local dark matter velocity distribution affect rates for dark matter scattering that excites single phonons. Three halo models are benchmarked with parameters varied in observationally allowed ranges. An rms-matching prescription keeps the mean kinetic energy the same to compare models fairly. This shows that model-to-model differences are smaller than the effects of changing parameters inside one model. As a result, varying parameters in the Standard Halo Model alone can represent the astrophysical uncertainties, producing rate changes from a few percent to factors of a few across the mass range of interest.

Core claim

With the rms-matching prescription that holds the mean dark matter kinetic energy fixed across models, differences between halo models prove subdominant to parameter variations within each model, so that astrophysical uncertainties can be effectively captured by varying parameters within the Standard Halo Model alone.

What carries the argument

The rms-matching prescription that holds the mean dark matter kinetic energy fixed across the three benchmark halo models (Standard Halo Model, Tsallis, and empirical) to place them on equal footing for rate comparisons.

If this is right

  • Predicted rates exhibit fractional deviations of order 1% to 100% across the dark matter mass range of interest.
  • Astrophysical parameter variations rescale the amplitude of the daily modulation signal while leaving its phase robust.
  • These findings supply input for interpreting data from upcoming phonon-based direct detection experiments for sub-GeV dark matter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Analyses of phonon-based detectors could restrict their astrophysical uncertainty modeling to scans over Standard Halo Model parameters.
  • The phase stability of daily modulation offers a potential handle for signal identification independent of halo model details.
  • Analogous matching prescriptions might reduce model dependence in other low-threshold detection methods.

Load-bearing premise

The rms-matching prescription that holds the mean dark matter kinetic energy fixed across models is sufficient to place the three halo models on equal footing for rate comparisons.

What would settle it

Finding that the spread in rates between different halo models after rms-matching is larger than the spread from varying parameters inside the Standard Halo Model would falsify the main claim.

read the original abstract

We present the first systematic study of how local dark matter velocity distribution uncertainties propagate into direct detection rates for dark matter--single phonon scattering. We consider three benchmark halo models -- Standard Halo Model, Tsallis and empirical -- and vary the astrophysical parameters within observationally motivated ranges. To compare halo models on equal footing, we introduce an rms-matching prescription that holds the mean dark matter kinetic energy fixed across models. With this prescription, differences between halo models prove subdominant to parameter variations within each model, so that astrophysical uncertainties can be effectively captured by varying parameters within the Standard Halo Model alone. We find $\mathcal{O}(1\%)$ to $\mathcal{O}(100\%)$ fractional deviations in the predicted rates across the dark matter mass range of interest. For the daily modulation signal, astrophysical parameter variations rescale the amplitude but leave the phase robust. These results provide timely input for reliably interpreting upcoming phonon-based direct detection experiments targeting sub-GeV dark matter.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript conducts the first systematic study of astrophysical uncertainties in sub-GeV dark matter direct detection via single-phonon excitations. It examines three halo models (Standard Halo Model, Tsallis, and empirical) with parameters varied over observationally motivated ranges, introduces an rms-matching prescription that fixes the mean dark matter kinetic energy across models, and concludes that inter-model rate differences are subdominant to intra-model parameter variations. Consequently, uncertainties can be captured by varying parameters within the Standard Halo Model alone. The work reports O(1%–100%) fractional deviations in predicted rates over the relevant dark matter mass range and finds that astrophysical variations rescale the amplitude of the daily modulation signal while leaving its phase robust.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result simplifies uncertainty quantification for upcoming phonon-based sub-GeV dark matter searches by showing that Standard Halo Model parameter scans suffice. The quantitative ranges for rate deviations and the demonstration of phase robustness in the modulation signal constitute timely, practical input for experimental interpretation. The rms-matching approach itself is a constructive methodological contribution for placing halo models on comparable footing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section introducing rms-matching prescription (near abstract and halo-model comparison)] The central claim that rms-matching renders inter-model differences subdominant rests on the assertion that fixing the mean kinetic energy (<v²>) places the models on equal footing for the phonon rate. However, the single-phonon rate depends on the velocity integral η(v_min) = ∫_{v>v_min} f(v)/v d³v, which is sensitive to the shape of the high-velocity tail rather than solely to the second moment. The manuscript introduces the prescription “to compare halo models on equal footing” but does not provide a derivation or explicit numerical test demonstrating that residual shape differences (e.g., power-law tails versus truncated Maxwellian) produce negligible differences in η(v_min) once <v²> is matched. This justification is load-bearing for the conclusion that SHM parameter variations alone capture the uncertainties.
  2. [Results section on rate deviations] Table or figure presenting the rate comparisons after rms-matching: the reported O(1%–100%) fractional deviations are stated to be dominated by intra-model parameter variations, yet without an explicit decomposition showing the contribution of each moment of f(v) it is unclear whether the subdominance conclusion survives changes in the functional form of the distributions at fixed <v²>.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the mass range of interest but does not quote the numerical interval; adding the explicit range (e.g., 10 MeV–1 GeV) would improve clarity.
  2. [Methodology section] Notation for the velocity integral η(v_min) should be defined at first use with an equation number for subsequent reference.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our work's significance and for the detailed, constructive comments. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional justification and supporting material.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section introducing rms-matching prescription (near abstract and halo-model comparison)] The central claim that rms-matching renders inter-model differences subdominant rests on the assertion that fixing the mean kinetic energy (<v²>) places the models on equal footing for the phonon rate. However, the single-phonon rate depends on the velocity integral η(v_min) = ∫_{v>v_min} f(v)/v d³v, which is sensitive to the shape of the high-velocity tail rather than solely to the second moment. The manuscript introduces the prescription “to compare halo models on equal footing” but does not provide a derivation or explicit numerical test demonstrating that residual shape differences (e.g., power-law tails versus truncated Maxwellian) produce negligible differences in η(v_min) once <v²> is matched. This justification is load-bearing for the conclusion that SHM parameter variations alone capture th

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration of the impact on η(v_min) would strengthen the justification for rms-matching. Our numerical rate comparisons after applying the prescription already indicate that inter-model differences remain subdominant, but we did not include a dedicated comparison of the velocity integrals themselves. In the revised manuscript we will add an appendix or subsection with direct plots of η(v_min) for the rms-matched models (SHM, Tsallis, and empirical) over the relevant v_min range for sub-GeV DM, together with a brief discussion of the velocity regimes contributing to any residual differences. This will supply the requested numerical test. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section on rate deviations] Table or figure presenting the rate comparisons after rms-matching: the reported O(1%–100%) fractional deviations are stated to be dominated by intra-model parameter variations, yet without an explicit decomposition showing the contribution of each moment of f(v) it is unclear whether the subdominance conclusion survives changes in the functional form of the distributions at fixed <v²>.

    Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit decomposition of rate variations into contributions from different moments or shape features of f(v) at fixed <v²> is not currently provided. Our conclusion rests on the full numerical evaluation of the rates for parameter variations within each model versus across models after rms-matching. To address the referee's concern, the revised version will include an additional sensitivity analysis or supplementary figure that isolates the effect of changing the functional form (e.g., tail behavior) while holding the second moment fixed, thereby confirming that intra-model parameter variations continue to dominate. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; explicit numerical comparison of independent halo models

full rationale

The paper introduces an rms-matching prescription to hold mean DM kinetic energy fixed, then computes single-phonon rates for three distinct halo distributions (SHM, Tsallis, empirical) across observationally motivated parameter ranges. The central claim—that inter-model differences are subdominant to intra-model variations—arises from these explicit rate calculations rather than any self-definition, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. No equations reduce the velocity integral η(v_min) or rate predictions to the input prescription by construction; the distributions remain independent, and the subdominance result is a numerical outcome. The derivation chain is self-contained and externally falsifiable via standard halo model benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the rms-matching prescription and the assumption that observationally motivated parameter ranges are representative; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • astrophysical parameters in halo models
    Varied within observationally motivated ranges for each of the three benchmark models.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption rms-matching prescription holds mean dark matter kinetic energy fixed across models
    Introduced in the abstract to compare halo models on equal footing.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5703 in / 1299 out tokens · 28085 ms · 2026-06-28T09:00:50.494962+00:00 · methodology

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

67 extracted references · 38 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    L.J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S.M. West,Freeze-In Production of FIMP Dark Matter,JHEP03(2010) 080 [0911.1120]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    Bernal, M

    N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuominen and V. Vaskonen,The Dawn of FIMP Dark Matter: A Review of Models and Constraints,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32(2017) 1730023 [1706.07442]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Strassler and K.M

    M.J. Strassler and K.M. Zurek,Echoes of a hidden valley at hadron colliders,Phys. Lett. B 651(2007) 374 [hep-ph/0604261]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    Arkani-Hamed and N

    N. Arkani-Hamed and N. Weiner,LHC Signals for a SuperUnified Theory of Dark Matter, JHEP12(2008) 104 [0810.0714]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Cheung, J.T

    C. Cheung, J.T. Ruderman, L.-T. Wang and I. Yavin,Kinetic Mixing as the Origin of Light Dark Scales,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 035008 [0902.3246]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Morrissey, D

    D.E. Morrissey, D. Poland and K.M. Zurek,Abelian Hidden Sectors at a GeV,JHEP07 (2009) 050 [0904.2567]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Kaplan, M.A

    D.E. Kaplan, M.A. Luty and K.M. Zurek,Asymmetric Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 115016 [0901.4117]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Cohen, D.J

    T. Cohen, D.J. Phalen, A. Pierce and K.M. Zurek,Asymmetric Dark Matter from a GeV Hidden Sector,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 056001 [1005.1655]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    Petraki and R.R

    K. Petraki and R.R. Volkas,Review of asymmetric dark matter,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28 (2013) 1330028 [1305.4939]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    Zurek,Asymmetric Dark Matter: Theories, Signatures, and Constraints,Phys

    K.M. Zurek,Asymmetric Dark Matter: Theories, Signatures, and Constraints,Phys. Rept. 537(2014) 91 [1308.0338]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky and J.G. Wacker,Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 171301 [1402.5143]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [12]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, H. Murayama, T. Volansky and J.G. Wacker,Model for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 021301 [1411.3727]. [18]DAMIC, DAMIC-Mcollaboration,Search for low-mass dark matter with the DAMIC experiment, in16th Rencontres du Vietnam: Theory meeting experiment: Particle Astrophysic...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    M. Ibe, W. Nakano, Y. Shoji and K. Suzuki,Migdal Effect in Dark Matter Direct Detection Experiments,JHEP03(2018) 194 [1707.07258]. [22]EDEL WEISScollaboration,Search for sub-GeV dark matter via the Migdal effect with an EDELWEISS germanium detector with NbSi transition-edge sensors,Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 062004 [2203.03993]. [23]SuperCDMScollaboration,Sea...

    arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    Schutz and K.M

    K. Schutz and K.M. Zurek,Detectability of Light Dark Matter with Superfluid Helium,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 121302 [1604.08206]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin and K.M. Zurek,Light Dark Matter in Superfluid Helium: Detection with Multi-excitation Production,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 056019 [1611.06228]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Hertel, A

    S.A. Hertel, A. Biekert, J. Lin, V. Velan and D.N. McKinsey,Direct detection of sub-GeV dark matter using a superfluid 4He target,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 092007 [1810.06283]

    arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Zhao and K.M. Zurek,Superconducting Detectors for Superlight Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 011301 [1504.07237]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Hochberg, I

    Y. Hochberg, I. Charaev, S.-W. Nam, V. Verma, M. Colangelo and K.K. Berggren,Detecting Sub-GeV Dark Matter with Superconducting Nanowires,Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) 151802 [1903.05101]

    arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    A. Das, N. Kurinsky and R.K. Leane,Dark Matter Induced Power in Quantum Devices, Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 121801 [2210.09313]

    arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, K.M. Zurek, A.G. Grushin, R. Ilan et al.,Detection of sub-MeV Dark Matter with Three-Dimensional Dirac Materials,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 015004 [1708.08929]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Geilhufe, F

    R.M. Geilhufe, F. Kahlhoefer and M.W. Winkler,Dirac Materials for Sub-MeV Dark Matter Detection: New Targets and Improved Formalism,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 055005 [1910.02091]

    arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Trickle, Z

    T. Trickle, Z. Zhang and K.M. Zurek,Detecting Light Dark Matter with Magnons,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 201801 [1905.13744]

    arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    Trickle, Z

    T. Trickle, Z. Zhang and K.M. Zurek,Effective field theory of dark matter direct detection with collective excitations,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 015001 [2009.13534]

    arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, M. Pyle and K.M. Zurek,Detection of Light Dark Matter With Optical Phonons in Polar Materials,Phys. Lett. B785(2018) 386 [1712.06598]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Mitridate, T

    A. Mitridate, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang and K.M. Zurek,Detectability of Axion Dark Matter with Phonon Polaritons and Magnons,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 095005 [2005.10256]

    arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, C.G. Tully and K.M. Zurek,Directional detection of dark matter with two-dimensional targets,Phys. Lett. B772(2017) 239 [1606.08849]. – 30 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    Trickle, Z

    T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, K.M. Zurek, K. Inzani and S.M. Griffin,Multi-Channel Direct Detection of Light Dark Matter: Theoretical Framework,JHEP03(2020) 036 [1910.08092]

    arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Griffin, K

    S.M. Griffin, K. Inzani, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang and K.M. Zurek,Multichannel direct detection of light dark matter: Target comparison,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 055004 [1910.10716]

    arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Griffin, S

    S. Griffin, S. Knapen, T. Lin and K.M. Zurek,Directional Detection of Light Dark Matter with Polar Materials,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 115034 [1807.10291]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Coskuner, T

    A. Coskuner, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang and K.M. Zurek,Directional detectability of dark matter with single phonon excitations: Target comparison,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 015010 [2102.09567]

    arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Fink et al.,Characterizing TES Power Noise for Future Single Optical-Phonon and Infrared-Photon Detectors,AIP Adv.10(2020) 085221 [2004.10257]

    C.W. Fink et al.,Characterizing TES Power Noise for Future Single Optical-Phonon and Infrared-Photon Detectors,AIP Adv.10(2020) 085221 [2004.10257]

    arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Ramanathan et al.,Significant noise improvement in a Kinetic Inductance Phonon-Mediated detector by use of a wideband parametric amplifier,2402.05419

    K. Ramanathan et al.,Significant noise improvement in a Kinetic Inductance Phonon-Mediated detector by use of a wideband parametric amplifier,2402.05419

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    McCabe,The Astrophysical Uncertainties Of Dark Matter Direct Detection Experiments, Phys

    C. McCabe,The Astrophysical Uncertainties Of Dark Matter Direct Detection Experiments, Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 023530 [1005.0579]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  34. [34]

    Pato, L.E

    M. Pato, L.E. Strigari, R. Trotta and G. Bertone,Taming astrophysical bias in direct dark matter searches,JCAP02(2013) 041 [1211.7063]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  35. [35]

    Vogelsberger, A

    M. Vogelsberger, A. Helmi, V. Springel, S.D.M. White, J. Wang, C.S. Frenk et al., Phase-space structure in the local dark matter distribution and its signature in direct detection experiments,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.395(2009) 797 [0812.0362]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  36. [36]

    F.S. Ling, E. Nezri, E. Athanassoula and R. Teyssier,Dark Matter Direct Detection Signals inferred from a Cosmological N-body Simulation with Baryons,JCAP02(2010) 012 [0909.2028]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  37. [37]

    Kuhlen, N

    M. Kuhlen, N. Weiner, J. Diemand, P. Madau, B. Moore, D. Potter et al.,Dark Matter Direct Detection with Non-Maxwellian Velocity Structure,JCAP02(2010) 030 [0912.2358]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [38]

    Bozorgnia, F

    N. Bozorgnia, F. Calore, M. Schaller, M. Lovell, G. Bertone, C.S. Frenk et al.,Simulated Milky Way analogues: implications for dark matter direct searches,JCAP05(2016) 024 [1601.04707]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    Bozorgnia and G

    N. Bozorgnia and G. Bertone,Implications of hydrodynamical simulations for the interpretation of direct dark matter searches,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32(2017) 1730016 [1705.05853]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    Kelso, C

    C. Kelso, C. Savage, M. Valluri, K. Freese, G.S. Stinson and J. Bailin,The impact of baryons on the direct detection of dark matter,JCAP08(2016) 071 [1601.04725]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Sloane, M.R

    J.D. Sloane, M.R. Buckley, A.M. Brooks and F. Governato,Assessing Astrophysical Uncertainties in Direct Detection with Galaxy Simulations,Astrophys. J.831(2016) 93 [1601.05402]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    Vergados, S.H

    J.D. Vergados, S.H. Hansen and O. Host,The impact of going beyond the Maxwell distribution in direct dark matter detection rates,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 023509 [0711.4895]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  43. [43]

    Green,Astrophysical uncertainties on the local dark matter distribution and direct detection experiments,J

    A.M. Green,Astrophysical uncertainties on the local dark matter distribution and direct detection experiments,J. Phys. G44(2017) 084001 [1703.10102]. – 31 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [44]

    Hryczuk, E

    A. Hryczuk, E. Karukes, L. Roszkowski and M. Talia,Impact of uncertainties in the halo velocity profile on direct detection of sub-GeV dark matter,2001.09156

    arXiv 2001

  45. [45]

    Radick, A.-M

    A. Radick, A.-M. Taki and T.-T. Yu,Dependence of Dark Matter - Electron Scattering on the Galactic Dark Matter Velocity Distribution,JCAP02(2021) 004 [2011.02493]

    arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Maity, T.S

    T.N. Maity, T.S. Ray and S. Sarkar,Halo uncertainties in electron recoil events at direct detection experiments,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 1005 [2011.12896]

    arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    J. Li, L. Su, L. Wu and B. Zhu,Spin-dependent sub-GeV inelastic dark matter-electron scattering and Migdal effect. Part I. Velocity independent operator,JCAP04(2023) 020 [2210.15474]

    arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Drukier, K

    A.K. Drukier, K. Freese and D.N. Spergel,Detecting Cold Dark Matter Candidates,Phys. Rev. D33(1986) 3495

    1986

  49. [49]

    Hansen, D

    S.H. Hansen, D. Egli, L. Hollenstein and C. Salzmann,Dark matter distribution function from non-extensive statistical mechanics,New Astron.10(2005) 379 [astro-ph/0407111]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  50. [50]

    Hansen, B

    S.H. Hansen, B. Moore, M. Zemp and J. Stadel,A universal velocity distribution of relaxed collisionless structures,JCAP01(2006) 014 [astro-ph/0505420]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  51. [51]

    Mao, L.E

    Y.-Y. Mao, L.E. Strigari, R.H. Wechsler, H.-Y. Wu and O. Hahn,Halo-to-Halo Similarity and Scatter in the Velocity Distribution of Dark Matter,Astrophys. J.764(2013) 35 [1210.2721]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  52. [52]

    Mao, L.E

    Y.-Y. Mao, L.E. Strigari and R.H. Wechsler,Connecting Direct Dark Matter Detection Experiments to Cosmologically Motivated Halo Models,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 063513 [1304.6401]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [53]

    Freese, J.A

    K. Freese, J.A. Frieman and A. Gould,Signal Modulation in Cold Dark Matter Detection, Phys. Rev. D37(1988) 3388

    1988

  54. [54]

    Herrera and A

    G. Herrera and A. Rappelt,Information divergences to parametrize astrophysical uncertainties in dark matter direct detection,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 015013 [2403.04959]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Herrera,Information-theoretic astrophysical uncertainties in the effective theory of dark matter direct detection,2601.05332

    G. Herrera,Information-theoretic astrophysical uncertainties in the effective theory of dark matter direct detection,2601.05332

    arXiv

  56. [56]

    Tsallis,Possible Generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs Statistics,J

    C. Tsallis,Possible Generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs Statistics,J. Statist. Phys.52(1988) 479

    1988

  57. [57]

    Kuhlen, A

    M. Kuhlen, A. Pillepich, J. Guedes and P. Madau,The Distribution of Dark Matter in the Milky Way’s Disk,Astrophys. J.784(2014) 161 [1308.1703]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  58. [58]

    Kerr and D

    F.J. Kerr and D. Lynden-Bell,Review of galactic constants,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 221(1986) 1023

    1986

  59. [59]

    Reid and A

    M.J. Reid and A. Brunthaler,The proper motion of sagittarius a*. ii. the mass of sagittarius a*,The Astrophysical Journal616(2004) 872

    2004

  60. [60]

    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. C81(2021) 907 [2105.00599]

    arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    Abuter et al.,Improved GRAVITY astrometric accuracy from modeling optical aberrations,Astron

    R. Abuter et al.,Improved GRAVITY astrometric accuracy from modeling optical aberrations,Astron. Astrophys.647(2021) A59 [2101.12098]

    arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Sch¨ onrich, J

    R. Sch¨ onrich, J. Binney and W. Dehnen,Local kinematics and the local standard of rest, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society403(2010) 1829–1833. – 32 –

    2010

  63. [63]

    Smith et al.,The RAVE Survey: Constraining the Local Galactic Escape Speed,Mon

    M.C. Smith et al.,The RAVE Survey: Constraining the Local Galactic Escape Speed,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.379(2007) 755 [astro-ph/0611671]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  64. [64]

    Deason, A

    A.J. Deason, A. Fattahi, V. Belokurov, N.W. Evans, R.J.J. Grand, F. Marinacci et al.,The local high-velocity tail and the galactic escape speed,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society485(2019) 3514–3526

    2019

  65. [65]

    Necib and T

    L. Necib and T. Lin,Substructure at High Speed. I. Inferring the Escape Velocity in the Presence of Kinematic Substructure,Astrophys. J.926(2022) 188 [2102.01704]

    arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

    Necib and T

    L. Necib and T. Lin,Substructure at High Speed. II. The Local Escape Velocity and Milky Way Mass with Gaia eDR3,Astrophys. J.926(2022) 189 [2102.02211]

    arXiv 2022

  67. [67]

    Folsom, C

    D. Folsom, C. Blanco, M. Lisanti, L. Necib, M. Vogelsberger and L. Hernquist,Dark Matter Velocity Distributions for Direct Detection: Astrophysical Uncertainties Are Smaller Than They Appear,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 211004 [2505.07924]. – 33 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025