Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The RES-NOVA prototype detector already excludes inelastic dark matter at mass splittings up to 510 keV (SHM) and 780 keV (LMC), going beyond the kinematic reach of xenon-based searches.

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

2026-08-01 15:33 UTC pith:I7Y4CYIO

load-bearing objection New PbWO4 iDM limits are real but the high-δ reach depends on an uncalibrated extrapolation of the nuclear-recoil light yield. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18378 v2 pith:I7Y4CYIO submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.CO hep-exhep-phphysics.ins-det

Probing large mass-splitting inelastic Dark Matter with RES-NOVA

D. Alloni , G. Benato , P. Carniti , M. Cataldo , L. Chen , M. Clemenza , M. Consonni , G. Croci
show 41 more authors
I. Dafinei F.A. Danevich C. de Vecchi D. Di Martino R. Elleboro N. Ferreiro Iachellini F. Ferroni F. Filippini S. Ghislandi A. Giachero L. Gironi P. Gorla C. Gotti D.L. Helis D.V. Kasperovych V.V. Kobychev G. Marcucci A. Melchiorre A. Menegolli S. Nisi M. Musa L. Pagnanini L. Pattavina G. Pessina S. Pirro S. Pozzi M.C. Prata A. Puiu S. Quitadamo M.P. Riccardi M. Rossella R. Rossini E. Sala F. Saliu A. Salvini V.I. Tretyak L. Trombetta D. Trotta H. Yuan J. Luengas H. Ramani
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-exhep-phphysics.ins-det
keywords inelastic dark mattercryogenic calorimeterPbWO4nuclear recoilmass splittingdirect detectionlight-yield discriminationoptimum interval method
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.

This paper uses a 13-gram PbWO4 cryogenic crystal, operated as a bolometer with a light detector, to search for inelastic dark matter—a scenario where the dark-matter particle must first up-scatter into a slightly heavier state before colliding with a nucleus. With only a 32.4 g·day exposure, the detector sets new 90% exclusion limits at mass splittings up to 510 keV under the Standard Halo Model and 780 keV under a Large Magellanic Cloud–motivated velocity distribution, extending beyond the roughly 330 keV reach of established xenon experiments. The advantage comes from the heavy lead target (A ≈ 207), which raises the maximum kinematically accessible splitting, combined with a nuclear-recoil acceptance that extends to 1 MeV, capturing the high-energy recoils that large splittings produce. If these limits hold, the technique already probes previously unconstrained inelastic-dark-matter parameter space, and with future tonne-year exposures it would reach cross sections characteristic of thermal-relic electroweak WIMPs such as the Higgsino.

Core claim

The paper establishes that inelastic dark matter with mass splitting δ can be probed at δ up to about 510 keV (SHM) or 780 keV (LMC) with a PbWO4 cryogenic detector using just 32.4 g·d of exposure. For spin-independent scattering normalized per nucleon, the minimum incoming speed is vmin(ER) = (mA·ER/µA + δ)/√(2·mA·ER), and the maximum accessible splitting is δ_max = ½µA·vmax². Lead (A ≈ 207) gives a substantially larger δ_max than xenon (A ≈ 131), and the detector's 2.5 keV–1 MeV nuclear-recoil acceptance includes recoil energies of several hundred keV, where large-δ signals are concentrated. Using Yellin's optimum-interval method on events selected in the nuclear-recoil band, the paper rep

What carries the argument

The central object is the inelastic up-scattering threshold: vmin(ER) = (mA·ER/µA + δ)/√(2·mA·ER), whose minimum over ER gives δ_max = ½µA·vmax². The heavy Pb nucleus (A ≈ 207) enlarges the reduced mass µA, pushing δ_max to about 530 (830) keV for SHM (LMC); the detector's acceptance of nuclear recoils up to 1 MeV keeps events with ER ≃ δ, which fall at hundreds of keV, inside the analysis window. Event selection relies on the light-yield discrimination between electron recoils and nuclear recoils, with the nuclear-recoil band defined from an AmBe neutron calibration at µ_NR = 0.073, and limits are set with Yellin's optimum-interval method.

Load-bearing premise

The nuclear-recoil acceptance region is defined from an AmBe neutron calibration assuming an energy-independent light-yield ratio (µ_NR = 0.073) with a ±3σ band, and this same band is applied to dark-matter-induced recoils across 2.5 keV–1 MeV; if the quenching factor or its resolution varies with recoil energy, the set of accepted events changes and the reported limits shift.

What would settle it

Measure the nuclear-recoil light yield in PbWO4 at cryogenic temperature at recoil energies spanning 2.5 keV–1 MeV, for example with a tagged neutron beam or monochromatic neutron sources. If the measured quenching factor deviates from 0.073 as a function of energy, or if the ±3σ band does not contain the true nuclear-recoil population at the extremes, the accepted-event set and the Yellin limits would change; a large deviation could erase the claimed extension beyond 330 keV.

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

If this is right

  • Existing 32.4 g·d data already exclude previously unconstrained parameter space in δ ≈ 330–510 keV (SHM) and δ ≈ 500–780 keV (LMC) at σ_SI above roughly 10⁻³² cm².
  • At large splittings the signal appears at recoil energies ER ≃ δ, so an analysis window extending to 1 MeV is essential; this is why xenon TPCs, which typically analyze only up to about 100 keV, lose sensitivity in this region.
  • Future exposures of 0.17 and 2.4 tonne·years would push sensitivity to σ_SI ≈ 10⁻³⁹ cm², reaching the thermal-relic cross sections of complex electroweak multiplets with hypercharge Y = 1/2, including the 1.1 TeV Higgsino.
  • The LMC-motivated velocity distribution roughly doubles the accessible δ relative to SHM, demonstrating that the halo velocity model strongly affects the reach.
  • At 2.4 tonne·years, the projected reach exceeds current limits for all thermal Y = 1/2 multiplets from n = 2 to n = 12 under the SHM, and retains discovery potential up to the 100 TeV unitarity bound.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The limits hinge on assuming an energy-independent light-yield ratio for nuclear recoils; if the quenching factor in PbWO4 varies with recoil energy beyond the stated ±3σ band, the accepted event set changes and the reported δ reach would shift, so a dedicated calibration across 2.5 keV–1 MeV would settle this.
  • The same PbWO4 detector design could be applied to other inelastic or excited-state dark-matter models, such as two-step luminous dark matter, where the high-recoil-energy acceptance is equally beneficial.
  • The strong LMC dependence suggests that experiments could augment sensitivity by targeting directions or time windows with enhanced high-velocity halo components, e.g., through annual modulation or directional detection.
  • If a 2.4 tonne·year exposure returns a null result, it would exclude a significant portion of electroweak-multiplet parameter space above common thermal-relic masses, which would constrain supersymmetric extensions.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a direct-detection search for inelastic dark matter using a 13 g PbWO4 cryogenic calorimeter (archaeological Pb) operated at LNGS, analyzing a 32.4 g·d exposure over 2.5 keV–1 MeV. Events are selected in an a priori nuclear-recoil band defined by AmBe neutron calibration in the light-yield–energy plane. The authors apply Yellin’s optimum interval method to the observed selected events and derive 90% C.L. upper limits on the spin-independent cross section σ_SI as a function of mass splitting δ for a benchmark mχ = 1.1 TeV, under both the SHM and an LMC-motivated velocity distribution. They claim that this prototype exposure already extends the excluded region to δ ≃ 510 (780) keV for SHM (LMC) at σ_SI above about 10^-32 cm^2, beyond the reach of current Xe and bubble-chamber searches. Projected sensitivities for 0.17 and 2.4 tonne·years exposures are also presented, using the simulated RES-NOVA background, and interpreted for complex electroweak multiplets.

Significance. If the technical assumptions hold, this is a valuable new probe of the inelastic dark matter parameter space. The paper’s strengths include the use of a real dataset, an a priori definition of the nuclear-recoil acceptance region, a background-model-independent Yellin analysis for the observed limit, and an explicit treatment of both SHM and LMC velocity distributions. The heavy Pb target indeed provides a kinematic advantage for large mass splittings, and the high-energy acceptance up to 1 MeV is a genuine complement to xenon-based searches. The projected sensitivity to the Higgsino and other Y=1/2 electroweak multiplets is also interesting. However, as discussed below, the central observed-limit claim depends on an extrapolation of the nuclear-recoil light-yield calibration to energies far above those populated by the AmBe calibration source, and this is not validated in the manuscript.

major comments (2)
  1. [Event Discrimination and Acceptance Region; Results] The central claim that the 32.4 g·d exposure excludes new parameter space up to δ ≃ 510 (780) keV depends on the nuclear-recoil acceptance region defined by the energy-independent NR-band centroid μ_NR = 0.073. The AmBe neutron calibration populates Pb recoils only up to about 190 keV, while for δ = 510 (780) keV the recoil energy that minimizes vmin is E_R ≈ (μ_A/m_A) δ ≈ 430 (660) keV. The manuscript states that the energy-dependent correction to the NR-band resolution is only O(10^-4), but this does not address the centroid (quenching factor). If the light-yield centroid varies with recoil energy above the calibrated range, the ±3σ NR band at the signal energies changes, the set of selected events changes, and the Yellin limit shifts. The authors need to demonstrate that the constant-quenching assumption is valid up to 1 MeV, or to propagate an energy-dependent quenching uncertainty i
  2. [Data analysis; Statistical treatment; Results] The observed-limit curve in Fig. 2 is not accompanied by the number of selected nuclear-recoil candidate events as a function of energy, the exposure, or the detection efficiency after the 2.5 keV–1 MeV and ±3σ NR-band cuts. Without these data, the reader cannot assess how the high-δ exclusion is obtained, especially since Yellin’s optimum interval method is sensitive to the local spacing of events. The energy scale is anchored to 2615 keV and 46 keV γ lines, but no systematic uncertainty on the energy scale at 400–700 keV is given. This is a reproducibility gap for the key observed result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Results] The notation δ_RN^max (and later δ_max^CDD) is used without definition; please define these symbols at first use.
  2. [Fig. 2] The red curve is an observed limit, while the green and orange curves are projections; the caption says “Current sensitivity and the projected 90% C.L. upper limit.” Please distinguish observed limit from projected sensitivity in the caption.
  3. [Event Discrimination and Acceptance Region] The phrase “nuclear recoils with calibrated efficiency up to 1 MeV” is misleading: the AmBe calibration extends only to about 190 keV. Please rephrase to indicate the nominal acceptance region, not a calibrated efficiency.
  4. [Data analysis] The text states that no quality cuts were applied to the light channel to avoid systematics, yet the light channel is used for event selection. Please clarify how the absence of cuts affects the light-yield resolution and the NR-band definition.
  5. [References] Reference [30] is listed as “in press” with a 2026 date; this should be updated with a published journal reference and volume/page if available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the observed exclusion is derived from event counts in a calibrated NR band, not from fitting DM parameters; self-citations are present but not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim—the 32.4 g·d RES-NOVA exclusion extending to δ ≃ 510 (780) keV—is not circular. It is obtained by applying Yellin's optimum interval method to events selected in the nuclear-recoil band (Fig. 1), with the iDM rate computed from the kinematic formulas in Eqs. (1)–(3) and external velocity distributions (SHM, LMC). No DM parameter is fitted to the observed events; the NR-band centroid μ_NR = 0.073 is a detector calibration from the AmBe neutron run, and the acceptance region is defined before the DM analysis. The extension beyond Xe-based CDD searches is a kinematic consequence of the Pb target (A ≃ 207) and is compared directly with externally measured LZ/PandaX/PICO limits. Self-citations are frequent but contextual: Ref. [19] supplies the simulated background for the explicitly conditional projections (0.17 and 2.4 t·yr), Ref. [30] is the detector paper for the data, and Ref. [15] (sharing an author) provides standard iDM scattering formulas. None of these is a uniqueness claim or an ansatz smuggled in to force the result. The genuine weakness is the energy-independent NR light-yield parametrization (μ_NR = 0.073 with ±3σ band), calibrated with AmBe neutrons that produce recoils only up to ~200 keV while large-δ iDM signals peak at several hundred keV; the paper's own statements that the light detector was 'not optimized' and that no light-channel quality cuts were applied further underline the detector-response risk. This is a calibration/systematic uncertainty, not circularity: the limit would change if the quench factor had energy dependence, but it is not constructed to reproduce its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central limits rest on standard iDM kinematics, two external halo models, an external form factor, and a detector-specific energy-independent NR-band calibration. No free parameter is fit to dark-matter data; the only fitted parameters are detector-calibration quantities. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced by this paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Benchmark dark matter mass mχ = 1.1 TeV
    Chosen as the thermal Higgsino benchmark for presenting the (σ_SI, δ) limits. The displayed δ-reach depends on this assumed mass, though it is not fitted to the data. A separate mχ scan is only shown as projections.
  • Nuclear-recoil light-yield centroid µ_NR = 0.073 (relative to e−/γ band)
    Fitted to the AmBe neutron calibration data; this value defines the central NR acceptance band and therefore determines which observed events enter the Yellin limit. It is a detector-calibration parameter, not a DM fit parameter.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The Standard Halo Model velocity distribution with standard parameters and local dark matter density ρχ is the correct benchmark for the primary limits.
    Used to compute η(v_min) in Eq. (4) for the SHM limits; the paper adopts the 'recommended Standard Halo Model [25]' without propagating halo-parameter uncertainties into the δ-reach.
  • domain assumption The LMC-motivated velocity distribution from Ref. [27] is a valid benchmark with an enhanced high-velocity tail.
    Used for the optimistic LMC limits; the paper acknowledges the velocity-distribution sensitivity [28] but presents the LMC curve as a single benchmark rather than a systematic band.
  • domain assumption The nuclear form factor F_A(E_R) from Ref. [16] is correct for Pb, W, and O at recoil energies up to 1 MeV.
    Entered in Eq. (3); at the high recoil energies relevant for large δ, form-factor suppression controls the expected signal, and no alternative form factor or uncertainty is considered.
  • ad hoc to paper The light-yield quenching factor is energy-independent across 2.5 keV–1 MeV and the AmBe-calibrated nuclear-recoil band applies to dark-matter-induced recoils.
    The acceptance region is defined by an energy-independent µ_NR = 0.073 and ±3σ band from AmBe calibration; the extrapolation to low and high recoil energies is not validated. This is the weakest detector-response assumption.
  • standard math The inelastic scattering formalism of Ref. [15] (v_min formula and off-diagonal coupling) applies, with no significant down-scattering of excited states or additional scattering channels.
    Eqs. (1)–(3) are taken from the literature; the analysis assumes the only signal is χ A → χ′ A upscattering, which is the standard iDM treatment.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9618 in / 13556 out tokens · 136372 ms · 2026-08-01T15:33:34.041973+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Probing inelastic dark matter at large mass splittings requires heavy target nuclei, an extended recoil-energy range, and the high-velocity tail of the dark-matter distribution. We exploit these features with the RES-NOVA prototype detector, featuring a PbWO4 cryogenic calorimeter, produced from archaeological Pb and operated at the deep-underground laboratory of Gran Sasso of INFN (Italy), analyzing a 32.4 g day exposure over 2.5 keV - 1 MeV under both the Standard Halo Model (SHM) and a Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC)-motivated velocity distribution. We extend direct-detection constraints beyond the 330 keV reach of established technologies (e.g. Xe-based TPCs), probing splittings up to 510 (780) keV in the SHM (LMC) benchmark, while future exposures will probe new regions of the parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18378 by A. Giachero, A. Melchiorre, A. Menegolli, A. Puiu, A. Salvini, C. De Vecchi, C. Gotti, D. Alloni, D. Di Martino, D.L. Helis, D. Trotta, D.V. Kasperovych, E. Sala, F.A. Danevich, F. Ferroni, F. Filippini, F. Saliu, G. Benato, G. Croci, G. Marcucci, G. Pessina, H. Ramani, H. Yuan, I. Dafinei, J. Luengas, L. Chen, L. Gironi, L. Pagnanini, L. Pattavina, L. Trombetta, M. Cataldo, M. Clemenza, M. Consonni, M.C. Prata, M. Musa, M.P. Riccardi, M. Rossella, N. Ferreiro Iachellini, P. Carniti, P. Gorla, R. Elleboro, R. Rossini, S. Ghislandi, S. Nisi, S. Pirro, S. Pozzi, S. Quitadamo, V.I. Tretyak, V.V. Kobychev.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Event discrimination and measured spectra in the RES-NOVA prototype detector. (a) Data taken with the detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Current sensitivity and the projected 90% C.L. upper limit from RES–NOVA to inelastic dark matter for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Current and projected reach in the mass splitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Solar axion searches with RES-NOVA: projected sensitivity and first prototype limit

    hep-ex 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    RES-NOVA's projected 1 ton-year sensitivity reaches within a factor of ~2 of XENONnT on the solar-axion electron coupling, and a 32.4 g-day archaeological-lead prototype excludes new parts of the (g_ae, g_aγ) plane.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    Arbey and F

    A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.119, 103865 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D31, 3059 (1985)

    1985

  3. [3]

    L. J. Hall, T. Moroi, and H. Murayama, Phys. Lett. B 424, 305–312 (1998)

    1998

  4. [4]

    Tucker-Smith and N

    D. Tucker-Smith and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D64, 043502 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0101138

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    Bramante, P

    J. Bramante, P. J. Fox, G. D. Kribs, and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D94, 115026 (2016), arXiv:1608.02662 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Feldstein, P

    B. Feldstein, P. W. Graham, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D82, 075019 (2010), arXiv:1008.1988 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Pospelov, N

    M. Pospelov, N. Weiner, and I. Yavin, Phys. Rev. D89, 055008 (2014), arXiv:1312.1363 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Pospelov, S

    M. Pospelov, S. Rajendran, and H. Ramani, Phys. Rev. D101, 055001 (2020), arXiv:1907.00011 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Lehnert, H

    B. Lehnert, H. Ramani, M. Hult, G. Lutter, M. Pospelov, S. Rajendran, and K. Zuber, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 181802 (2020), arXiv:1911.07865 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    I. J. Arnquistet al. (Majorana), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 152501 (2023), arXiv:2306.01965 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    D. S. M. Alves, S. R. Elliott, R. Massarczyk, S. J. Meijer, and H. Ramani, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 141801 (2023), arXiv:2306.04442 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Belliet al., Phys

    P. Belliet al., Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102113 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Bottaro, D

    S. Bottaro, D. Buttazzo, M. Costa, R. Franceschini, P. Panci, D. Redigolo, and L. Vittorio, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 992 (2022), arXiv:2205.04486 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Krall and M

    R. Krall and M. Reece, Chin. Phys. C42, 043105 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    P. W. Graham, H. Ramani, and S. S. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. D111, 055030 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    J. Eby, P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, and G. D. Kribs, J. High Energy Phys.2019(2019), 10.1007/jhep09(2019)115

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2019)115 2019

  17. [17]

    P. W. Graham, H. Ramani, and S. S. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. D111, 055030 (2025), arXiv:2409.07768 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    P. W. Graham, H. Ramani, and S. S. Y. Wong, (2026), arXiv:2606.05299 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Alloni et al

    D. Alloni et al. (RES-NOV A Coll.), Phys. Rev. D111, 103050 (2025), arXiv:2501.12409 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Pattavina, N

    L. Pattavina, N. Ferreiro Iachellini, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D102, 063001 (2020), arXiv:2004.06936 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Pattavina et al

    L. Pattavina et al. (RES-NOV A Coll.), J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys.10, 064 (2021), arXiv:2103.08672 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Alloniet al

    D. Alloniet al. (RES-NOV A Coll.), J. High Energy Phys. 2026, 243 (2026)

    2026

  23. [23]

    N. Song, S. Nagorny, and A. C. Vincent, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103032 (2021), arXiv:2104.09517 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    J. W. Beeman et al., Eur. Phys. J.A 49, 50 (2013), arXiv:1212.2422 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  25. [25]

    Baxter et al., Eur

    D. Baxter et al., Eur. Phys. J. C81, 907 (2021), arXiv:2105.00599 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, and D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. D33, 3495 (1986)

    1986

  27. [27]

    Smith-Orliket al., J

    A. Smith-Orliket al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2023, 070 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    Herrera, A

    G. Herrera, A. Ibarra, and S. Shirai, JCAP04, 026 (2023), arXiv:2301.00870 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Reynoso-Cordova, N

    J. Reynoso-Cordova, N. Bozorgnia, and M.-C. Piro, JCAP12, 037 (2024), arXiv:2409.09119 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Alloniet al

    D. Alloniet al. (RES-NOV A Coll.), (2026), in press on Eur. Phys. J. C, arXiv:2601.16251 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    J. W. Beemanet al. (RES-NOV A Coll.), Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 692 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    Barucci, V

    M. Barucci, V. Martelli, and G. Ventura, J. Low Temp. Phys.157, 541 (2009)

    2009

  33. [33]

    Belliniet al., J

    G. Belliniet al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2012, 015 (2012)

    2012

  34. [34]

    J. W. Beemanet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 062501 (2012), arXiv:1110.3138 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    Azzolini et al

    O. Azzolini et al. (CUPID-0 Coll.), Eur. Phys. J.C78, 7 428 (2018), arXiv:1802.06562 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    Azzoliniet al

    O. Azzoliniet al. (CUPID-0 Coll.), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 032501 (2019), arXiv:1906.05001 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Aalberset al

    J. Aalberset al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. D109, 092003 (2024), arXiv:2312.02030 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Menget al

    Y. Menget al. (PandaX-4T Coll.), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 261802 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    Adamset al

    E. Adamset al. (PICO Coll.), Phys. Rev. D108, 062003 (2023), arXiv:2301.08993 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Gatti and P

    E. Gatti and P. F. Manfredi, Riv. Nuovo Cim.9, 1 (1986)

    1986

  41. [41]

    Yellin, Phys

    S. Yellin, Phys. Rev. D66, 032005 (2002), arXiv:physics/0203002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  42. [42]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011