Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Characterization of spurious-electron signals in the double-phase argon TPC of the DarkSide-50 experiment

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The DarkSide-50 liquid-argon detector's spurious-electron background is largely caused by impurity molecules capturing drifting electrons and releasing them a few to tens of milliseconds later, with multi-electron events traced to grid…

desk verdict First systematic argon TPC spurious-electron study with solid phenomenology; the 30-70% impurity claim in the abstract goes beyond what the data can directly show, and the paper itself says so. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23003 v1 pith:4TY7IBFA submitted 2025-07-30 hep-ex physics.ins-det

DarkSide-50 Collaboration: P. Agnes , I. F. Albuquerque , T. Alexander , A. K. Alton , M. Ave , H. O. Back , G. Batignani , E. Berzin
show 138 more authors
K. Biery V. Bocci W. M. Bonivento B. Bottino S. Bussino M. Cadeddu M. Cadoni F. Calaprice A. Caminata M. D. Campos N. Canci M. Caravati N. Cargioli M. Cariello M. Carlini V. Cataudella P. Cavalcante S. Cavuoti S. Chashin A. Chepurnov C. Cicalò G. Covone D. D'Angelo S. Davini A. De Candia S. De Cecco G. De Filippis G. De Rosa A. V. Derbin A. Devoto M. D'Incecco C. Dionisi F. Dordei M. Downing D. D'Urso M. Fairbairn G. Fiorillo D. Franco F. Gabriele C. Galbiati C. Ghiano C. Giganti G. K. Giovanetti A. M. Goretti G. Grilli di Cortona A. Grobov M. Gromov M. Guam M. Gulino B. R. Hackett K. Herner T. Hessel B. Hosseini F. Hubaut T. Hugues E. V. Hungerford A. Ianni V. Ippolito K. Keeter C. L. Kendziora M. Kimura I. Kochanek D. Korablev G. Korga A. Kubankin M. Kuss M. Kuźniak M. La Commara M. Lai X. Li M. Lissia G. Longo O. Lychagina I. N. Machulin L. P. Mapelli S. M. Mari J. Maricic A. Messina R. Milincic J. Monroe M. Morrocchi V. N. Muratova P. Musico A. O. Nozdrina A. Oleinik F. Ortica L. Pagani M. Pallavicini L. Pandola E. Pantic E. Paoloni K. Pelczar N. Pelliccia S. Piacentini A. Pocar M. Poehlmann S. Pordes S. S. Poudel P. Pralavorio D. Price F. Ragusa M. Razeti A. Razeto A. L. Renshaw M. Rescigno J. Rode A. Romani D. Sablone O. Samoylov E. Sandford W. Sands S. Sanfilippo C. Savarese B. Schlitzer D. A. Semenov A. Shchagin A. Sheshukov M. D. Skorokhvatov O. Smirnov A. Sotnikov R. Stefanizzi S. Stracka C. Sunny Y. Suvorov R. Tartaglia G. Testera A. Tonazzo E. V. Unzhakov A. Vishneva R. B. Vogelaar M. Wada H. Wang Y. Wang S. Westerdale M. M. Wojcik X. Xiao C. Yang G. Zuzel
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exphysics.ins-det
keywords spuriouselectronsdual-phaseargonTPCS2-onlyanalysislow-massdarkmatterimpuritycapturedelayedelectronreleasegridphoto-ionizationSide-50
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to identify the origin of the small ionization-only signals that limit low-mass dark-matter searches in dual-phase argon time projection chambers. Using about 1000 days of data from the DarkSide-50 detector, it argues that 30–70% of these spurious-electron (SE) events are electrons that impurity molecules capture and release after a delay, with characteristic exponential time constants near $\tau_1 \approx 5$ ms and $\tau_2 \approx 40$–$80$ ms. It also argues that multi-electron SE events are consistent with electroluminescence photons photo-ionizing the stainless steel extraction grid. If both claims are right, the dominant background can be attacked directly by improving argon purity and by choosing a grid material that does not emit electrons under 128 nm light, which would let future experiments search for dark matter at lower energies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the time-difference distribution $dT$ between each SE and all preceding parent events, binned logarithmically and fit as a sum of exponential decay components $R_i/\tau_i \, e^{-dT/\tau_i}$ plus a constant for random coincidences. The decay constants are the paper's handle on the delayed-release mechanism: a stable $\tau_1 \approx 5$ ms, a drifting $\tau_2 \approx 40$–$80$ ms, and a getter-off $\tau \approx 16$ ms component. This machinery separates temporally correlated SEs from accidental pairs, tracks the correlated rate against purification-system conditions and parent energy, and yields the per-mm trapping probability. A second mechanism is identified through a Poisson fit to the SE multiplicity, interpreted with the measured photoelectric yield of stainless steel to attribute multi-electron SEs to grid photo-ionization.

What would settle it

A small argon TPC could spike the argon with one candidate impurity at a time—for example molecular nitrogen, water, or dissolved TPB—and check whether a specific exponential component (around 5 ms, 40–80 ms, or 16 ms) appears or grows; if the components do not respond to the added species, the impurity-capture explanation is wrong. Independently, replacing the steel grid with a material of much lower UV photoelectric yield should make the Poisson multi-electron peak with $\mu_{\mathrm{SE}} \approx 0.06$ disappear if the grid photo-ionization mechanism is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Spurious-electron events—single S2-like pulses with fewer than four extracted electrons and no S1 pulse—are not a uniform detector artifact. The paper shows that the time separating an SE from the preceding high-energy 'parent' event follows a sum of exponentials: a fast component with $\tau_1 \approx 5$ ms, a slower component with $\tau_2 \approx 40$–$80$ ms that changes over the experiment's lifetime, and an additional $\approx 16$ ms component that appears only while the hot getter is bypassed. The correlated component reconstructs within about 5 cm of its parent, grows linearly with the parent's S2 charge and drift distance (a trapping probability of $1.74 \times 10^{-8}$ electrons per electron per mm of drift), and increases sixfold during getter-off operation. From these correlations the paper concludes that electrons are captured by impurity species and released milliseconds later, with evidence for at least three impurity-related components. The remaining 'uncorrelated' SE rate is proportional to the total ionization rate, which the paper reads as evidence that most of those, too, have parents on timescales beyond the 1 s coincidence window. The electron multiplicity is Poisson with mean $\mu_{\mathrm{SE}} = 0.062$, and the paper argues this matches the 2–4% per-electron probability that 128 nm electroluminescence photons ionize the steel grid, making grid photo-ionization the likely source of multi-electron SEs.

Load-bearing premise

The paper infers that impurity molecules capture and later release the electrons from timing, energy, position, and purification-system correlations, but it never directly detects the impurity species, so the mechanism stands on the assumption that no other correlated process can reproduce the same exponential delay pattern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If 30–70% of SEs come from impurity capture, then keeping the purification system running and avoiding getter bypasses directly suppresses a large fraction of the background that currently forces S2-only analyses to discard events below about four electrons.
  • The exponential time constants provide a template: future argon TPCs can model the correlated SE population as a sum of exponentials and subtract it statistically, improving sensitivity to genuine low-energy ionization events.
  • If multi-electron SEs are grid photo-ionization, then engineering the extraction grid—material, coating, or field configuration—should reduce the multi-electron SE rate and allow the S2-only analysis threshold to drop.
  • Because even the 'uncorrelated' SE rate is proportional to total ionization, most SEs have parents on timescales longer than 1 s; a longer coincidence window or a lower event rate would expose more of that hidden parent population.
  • The getter-off spike with no measured electron-lifetime degradation shows that the impurity responsible for the $\sim 16$ ms component is not the same as the electron-lifetime-limiting impurity, so purity metrics alone do not monitor this background.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit: spiking a small argon TPC with one candidate impurity at a time should reproduce a specific exponential time constant, and identifying which molecule gives the 5 ms and which gives the 40–80 ms components would turn the correlation into a direct measurement.
  • If delayed release from impurities is generic, the same mechanism should appear in xenon TPCs, but the paper's comparison suggests argon shows exponential delays while xenon shows power-law delays; a cross-detector study using identical analysis could separate universal trapping physics from species-specific chemistry.
  • The grid photo-ionization estimate implies a simple engineering rule for next-generation detectors: measure the UV photoelectric yield of the actual grid surface at 128 nm and keep it well below 1% to keep the multi-electron SE rate negligible.
  • Because the apparently uncorrelated SEs still scale with ionization, a low-background detector with a lower trigger rate might reveal parents at delays of seconds, making the entire SE population modelable as delayed ionization rather than intrinsic noise.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a systematic study of spurious-electron (SE) signals in the DarkSide-50 liquid argon TPC. Events with a single S2-like pulse and reconstructed charge below 4 e− are classified as SEs, and their rates, time correlations with preceding high-energy 'parent' events, purity metrics, and electron multiplicities are analyzed over roughly 1000 days of operation. The main results are: (i) a significant fraction of SEs, quoted as 30–70% across the run, is temporally correlated with parent events and is described by two exponential delay components with time constants of about 5 ms and 40–80 ms, plus an additional ~16 ms component during a getter-off period; (ii) the correlated SE probability scales with parent S2 size and drift time, giving a trapping probability of 1.74e-8 per electron per mm; (iii) the slow component's rate correlates with radon-trap temperature; and (iv) the SE multiplicity is Poisson-like with mean µSE = 0.062±0.001, consistent, within a factor, with photo-ionization of the steel grid by electroluminescence photons. The paper interprets the correlated population as delayed electron release from impurity molecules and discusses implications for S2-only dark matter searches.

Significance. If correct, this is the first comprehensive characterization of spurious electrons in argon and provides a quantitative basis for modeling the dominant S2-only background in low-mass dark matter searches. The main strength is the combination of several independent correlational handles: the getter-off response, the exponential dT distributions with time-ordered/random pair subtraction, parent-energy and drift-time scaling, spatial proximity, radon-trap temperature, and stability checks across the run and across Ne− bins. The paper is careful to define event classes and to verify that µSE does not depend on dT, tdrift, or S2. The 30–70% correlated fraction and the 1.74e-8 per mm trapping probability are concrete, falsifiable inputs for future argon TPCs and for spiked-impurity experiments. The grid photo-ionization hypothesis, while provisional, is useful because it yields a numerical prediction from external photoelectric data. The main limitations are that no impurity species is directly identified and that no systematic uncertainty budget is provided; these limitations are acknowledged in part by the authors in Sec.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §7.1] The abstract states that 'a significant fraction of spurious-electron events ... are caused by electrons captured from impurities and later released', and the Summary (§8) repeats the mechanism as 'likely electrons released from impurities'. The evidence in §§3.3.1, 5.1, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6 is correlational: it demonstrates a delayed, spatially correlated, ionization-fed population, but no impurity species is identified and no direct observation of capture followed by delayed release is made. The manuscript itself concedes in §7.1 that 'to confirm the hypothesis, identify impurities, and develop means to reduce SE events in future experiments, the SE rate needs to be studied with spiked impurity concentrations in a dedicated system.' Because the 30–70% fraction quoted in the abstract is a statement about a population attributed to this mechanism, the wording should be revised to present impurity capture/release as a well-motivated hypothesis consistent with the data, or supplemented with decisive spiking evidence.
  2. [§3; §5.1; Fig. 8] All quoted uncertainties are stated in §3 to be purely statistical, and no systematic uncertainty analysis appears anywhere in the paper. The central quantitative claims—the correlated fraction (R1+R2)/R_SE, the time constants τ1 and τ2, and the 30–70% range in the abstract—depend on several modeling choices: the parent selection threshold S1>1000 PE, the 10 s pairing window, the two-exponential form of Eq. (2), the logarithmic binning, and the treatment of random coincidences. The uncertainty on g2=(23±1) PE/e− is also not propagated into Ne− boundaries or into the fitted rates. A systematic-error section that varies these choices (e.g., parent threshold, number of exponentials, window length, fitting range) and reports the resulting ranges is needed before the 30–70% fraction can be taken as a robust quantitative result.
  3. [§5.6; Fig. 16] Section 5.6 states that deviations of R2 and the radon-trap temperature 'correlate with each other, offset by approximately 30 days', but no correlation coefficient, significance, or statistical test is reported. This correlation is one of the main supports for the impurity mechanism, and the 30-day offset is unexplained; a quantitative analysis (e.g., a time-shift scan with a reported p-value and a trials factor) is needed. In addition, the uncertainty on R2 shown as the residual comes from fits in §5.1 that carry no systematic component, so the visual agreement in Fig. 16 may overstate the significance of the correlation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] The phrase 'gas pocket produciung S2 via electroluminescence' contains a typo: 'producung' should be 'producing'.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption for Fig. 3 contains garbled fit text ('Const 0.05 ± 27.93 EL ... 0Rs µ 550 ± 8322 eτ'); please clean up the automated fit-parameter string.
  3. [§5.1] The description of random pairs ('dT for parents that follow SEs in the same time span') is clear, but the relationship between the constant C in Eq. (2) and the explicit random-pair subtraction used in Fig. 9 should be stated explicitly so the reader can compare the two fitting procedures.
  4. [§6] The predicted grid photo-ionization probability of 2–4% is compared with µSE = 0.062 ± 0.001 with no error on the 'half of the UV photons directed towards the grid' assumption; please give this at least as a bracketing estimate (e.g., 0.25–0.5) and quote the resulting range.
  5. [§4.2] The statement that varying the fit range from 5 µs to 15 µs increases τℓ by up to 3% is useful; please also state whether this variation is included in the quoted τℓ values or only as a cross-check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper's fits and correlations are descriptive, and the causal impurity interpretation is explicitly deferred to future spiked-impurity confirmation.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claims are obtained by fitting exponential time constants and rates to observed delay distributions (Eq. 2; Figs. 6-9), by linear correlations of SE probability with parent S2 and drift time (Figs. 12-14), and by a Poisson multiplicity model (Eq. 3). None of these fitted quantities is renamed as a first-principles prediction: the 30-70% fraction is the fraction of the fitted temporally-correlated component relative to the total SE rate, not a quantity derived from the assumed impurity mechanism. The main causal interpretation (electrons captured by impurities and released with 5-50 ms delays) is an inference from getter-off behavior, radon-trap temperature correlation, and parent-energy/drift-time scaling, and the paper explicitly states that confirmation requires dedicated spiked-impurity studies. The photo-ionization grid hypothesis is tested as a consistency check using external photoelectric yield data (Ref. [43]) and electroluminescence yield measurements, and the paper notes that further pulse-finder studies are left to future work. Self-citations to earlier DarkSide-50 publications are used for detector parameters, reconstruction, and pulse-shape inputs, not to justify the causal mechanism. Thus no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on fitted phenomenological parameters (tau1, tau2, mu_SE, etc.) and on interpretative assumptions about the impurity origin and the photo-ionization mechanism. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unverified assumption is the impurity-capture mechanism itself, which is supported by correlations but not directly confirmed.

free parameters (10)
  • tau1 (fast release time constant) = ~5 ms
    Fit to the dT distribution in Eq. 2; used to claim 5 ms delayed release component.
  • tau2 (slow release time constant) = 40-80 ms, decreasing over time
    Fit to the dT distribution; central to the 5-50 ms claim and to the impurity interpretation.
  • R1 (rate of fast correlated SE component) = ~1.5 mHz
    Fit parameter in Eq. 2; part of the correlated SE rate used for the 30-70% fraction.
  • R2 (rate of slow correlated SE component) = 43 mHz early, 10 mHz late
    Fit parameter in Eq. 2; its correlation with radon trap temperature supports the impurity hypothesis.
  • mu_SE (mean electron multiplicity of SE events) = 0.062 +/- 0.001
    Fit to Ne- distribution in Eq. 3; compared to grid photo-ionization prediction.
  • sigma_S2 (single-electron resolution) = 0.335 +/- 0.001
    Fit parameter in Eq. 3; needed to model the Ne- spectrum.
  • c1 (SE probability offset) = ~9e-3, varies with tdrift
    Fit to pSE(S2parent) in Fig. 12; represents the apparently uncorrelated SE component.
  • c2 (slope of SE probability vs parent S2) = 1.85e-6 to 5.34e-6 per Ne-
    Fit parameter; used to claim SE probability scales with parent ionization.
  • Trapping probability per unit drift length = 1.74e-8 e-/e-/mm
    Slope of SE charge probability vs parent tdrift in Fig. 14; quantifies the correlated SE production.
  • Fraction of EL photons directed toward grid = 0.5 (assumed)
    Chosen by hand in Section 6 without a geometric solid-angle calculation; directly affects the 2-4% photo-ionization prediction.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The dT distribution is described by a sum of exponential components plus a constant (Eq. 2).
    The correlated SE fraction and timescales are derived from this model; reduced chi2 supports the fit, but other functional forms are not excluded. Section 5.1.
  • domain assumption Random pairs (SE-parent pairs with reversed time order) accurately estimate accidental coincidences.
    Used to subtract background in dT histograms; incorrect subtraction would bias the correlated fraction. Section 5.1.
  • domain assumption The impurity causing correlated SEs is distinct from the impurity limiting electron lifetime.
    Based on the observation that tau_e did not decrease during the getter-off period; the sensitivity of tau_e may be limited, so this is not a proof. Sections 4.1 and 7.1.
  • domain assumption Photoelectric yield of the stainless steel grid at 128 nm is similar to measured values at 124 and 130 nm.
    The 2-4% photo-ionization prediction uses Ref. [43] yields; interpolation/extrapolation is an assumption. Section 6.
  • ad hoc to paper Half of the electroluminescence photons travel toward the grid.
    No solid-angle calculation is provided; this factor is chosen to make a rough estimate. Section 6.
  • standard math Electron counting peaks follow a Gaussian with variance scaling as n sigma_S2^2.
    Standard resolution model used in Eq. 3.
  • standard math The SE multiplicity follows a Poisson distribution.
    Standard counting statistics for the number of extracted electrons, supported by the fit in Section 6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterization of spurious-electron signals in the double-phase argon TPC of the DarkSide-50 experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4TY7IBFA

@misc{pith2026250723003,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterization of spurious-electron signals in the double-phase argon TPC of the DarkSide-50 experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4TY7IBFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23003}
}
read the original abstract

Spurious-electron signals in dual-phase noble-liquid time projection chambers have been observed in both xenon and argon Time Projection Chambers (TPCs). This paper presents the first comprehensive study of spurious electrons in argon, using data collected by the DarkSide-50 experiment at the INFN Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso (LNGS). Understanding these events is a key factor in improving the sensitivity of low-mass dark matter searches exploiting ionization signals in dual-phase noble liquid TPCs. We find that a significant fraction of spurious-electron events, ranging from 30 to 70% across the experiment's lifetime, are caused by electrons captured from impurities and later released with delays of order 5-50 ms. The rate of spurious-electron events is found to correlate with the operational condition of the purification system and the total event rate in the detector. Finally, we present evidence that multi-electron spurious electron events may originate from photo-ionization of the steel grid used to define the electric fields. These observations indicate the possibility of reduction of the background in future experiments and hint at possible spurious electron production mechanisms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Dark Matter Weather: Probing Sub-GeV Interactions with Earth-Shielding Modulation

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Daily Earth-shielding modulation of sub-GeV dark matter can separate dark-matter–electron from dark-matter–nucleon scattering, and the isoangle shape statistic provides a new validation handle for liquid-noble detectors.

  2. Search for two-neutrino double electron capture in $^{36}$Ar with the DarkSide-50 detector

    nucl-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    No excess is seen for 2EC2ν in 36Ar; DarkSide-50 sets T1/2 > 9.2×10^19 yr (90% CL) with ~12 ton-day UAr exposure and 0.007% 36Ar abundance.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (The DarkSide Collaboration), JINST 12, P12011 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (The DarkSide Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 904, 23 (2018)

    2018

  3. [4]

    Adhikari et al

    P. Adhikari et al. (The DEAP Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 823 (2021)

    2021

  4. [5]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (The DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 081307 (2018)

    2018

  5. [6]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (The DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111303 (2018)

    2018

  6. [7]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (The XENON100 Collaboration), J. Phys. G 41, 035201 (2014)

    2014

  7. [8]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (The XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 251801 (2019)

    2019

  8. [9]

    Angle et al

    J. Angle et al. (The XENON10 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 051301 (2011)

    2011

Show all 109 references
  1. [10]

    Essig et al., Phys

    R. Essig et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 021301 (2012)

    2012

  2. [11]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (The Global Argon Dark Matter Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 112006 (2023)

    2023

  3. [12]

    Acerbi et al

    F. Acerbi et al. (The DarkSide-20k Collaboration), Commun. Phys. 7, 422 (2024)

    2024

  4. [13]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (The DarkSide-20k collaboration), JCAP 2021, 043 (2021)

    2021

  5. [14]

    RED-100 Collaboration et al., Physical Review D 111, 072012 (2025), publisher: American Physical Society

    2025

  6. [15]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (The DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 101002 (2023)

    2023

  7. [16]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (The DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 063001 (2023)

    2023

  8. [17]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (The DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 101001 (2023)

    2023

  9. [18]

    Akimov et al., JINST 11, C03007 (2016)

    D. Akimov et al., JINST 11, C03007 (2016)

    2016

  10. [19]

    Edwards et al., Astropart

    B. Edwards et al., Astropart. Phys. 30, 54 (2008)

    2008

  11. [20]

    Santos et al

    E. Santos et al. (The ZEPLIN-III Collaboration), J. High En- erg. Phys. 2011, 115 (2011)

    2011

  12. [21]

    Sorensen, arXiv:arXiv:1702.04805 (2017)

    P. Sorensen, arXiv:arXiv:1702.04805 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Sorensen and K

    P. Sorensen and K. Kamdin, JINST 13, P02032 (2018)

    2018

  14. [23]

    Acosta-Kane et al., Nucl

    D. Acosta-Kane et al., Nucl. Inst. Meth. A 587, 46 (2008)

    2008

  15. [24]

    Xu et al., Astropart

    J. Xu et al., Astropart. Phys. 66, 53 (2015)

    2015

  16. [25]

    Bondar et al., JINST 4, P09013 (2009)

    A. Bondar et al., JINST 4, P09013 (2009)

    2009

  17. [26]

    Zhu, Ph.D

    C. Zhu, Ph.D. thesis, Princeton U. (2018), URL https://da taspace.princeton.edu/handle/88435/dsp01qj72p990h

    2018

  18. [27]

    Saes getters, www.saesgetters.com

  19. [28]

    Agnes et al., Journal of Instrumentation 19, P05057 (2024)

    P. Agnes et al., Journal of Instrumentation 19, P05057 (2024)

    2024

  20. [29]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (The DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 743, 456 (2015)

    2015

  21. [30]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (The DarkSide Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 140, 102704 (2022). 16 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

    2022

  22. [31]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (The DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D98, 102006 (2018)

    2018

  23. [32]

    Bakale, U

    G. Bakale, U. Sowada, and W. F. Schmidt, J. Phys. Chem. 80, 2556 (1976)

    1976

  24. [33]

    L. M. Chanin, A. V . Phelps, and M. A. Biondi, Phys. Rev.128, 219 (1962)

    1962

  25. [34]

    Li et al., JINST 17, T11007 (2022)

    Y . Li et al., JINST 17, T11007 (2022)

    2022

  26. [35]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (The W ArP Collaboration), JINST5, P05003 (2010)

    2010

  27. [36]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (The W ArP Collaboration), JINST5, P06003 (2010)

    2010

  28. [37]

    Adhikari et al

    P. Adhikari et al. (The DEAP Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 303 (2020)

    2020

  29. [38]

    Abed Abud et al

    A. Abed Abud et al. (The DUNE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 618 (2022)

    2022

  30. [39]

    Agnes et al., JINST 16, P11026 (2021)

    P. Agnes et al., JINST 16, P11026 (2021)

    2021

  31. [40]

    D. S. Akerib et al., Phys. Rev. D 102, 092004 (2020)

    2020

  32. [41]

    V oltz and G

    R. V oltz and G. Laustriat, J. Phys. 29, 159 (1968)

    1968

  33. [42]

    Stanford, S

    C. Stanford, S. Westerdale, J. Xu, and F. Calaprice, Phys. Rev. D 98, 062002 (2018)

    2018

  34. [43]

    Laulainen et al., AIP Conf

    J. Laulainen et al., AIP Conf. Proc. 1655, 020007 (2015)

    2015

  35. [44]

    Li et al., Nucl

    Y . Li et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 816, 160 (2016)

    2016

  36. [45]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (The DarkSide Collaboration), Nucl. Inst. Meth. A 904, 23 (2018)

    2018

  37. [46]

    D. W. Swan, Proc. Phys. Soc. 85, 1297 (1965)

    1965

  38. [47]

    R. C. Millikan and D. R. White, J. Chem. Phys. 39, 3209 (2004)

    2004

  39. [48]

    P. K. Acharya, R. A. Kendall, and J. Simons, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 106, 3402 (1984)

    1984

  40. [49]

    Asaadi et al., JINST 14, P02021 (2019)

    J. Asaadi et al., JINST 14, P02021 (2019)

    2019

  41. [50]

    Stanford, S

    C. Stanford, S. S. Westerdale, J. Xu, and F. P. Calaprice, Phys. Rev. D 98, 062002 (2018)

    2018

  42. [51]

    Simons, J

    J. Simons, J. Phys. Chem. A 112, 6401 (2008)

    2008

  43. [52]

    Field et al., J

    D. Field et al., J. Phys. B 34, 4371 (2001)

    2001

  44. [53]

    Tomás et al., Astropart

    A. Tomás et al., Astropart. Phys. 103, 49 (2018)

    2018

  45. [54]

    Bailey, Ph.D

    A. Bailey, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2016), URL http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/41878

    2016

  46. [55]

    Gushchin et al., J

    E. Gushchin et al., J. Exp. Theor. Phys. (1979)

    1979

  47. [56]

    M. H. Cohen and J. Lekner, Phys. Rev. 158, 305 (1967)

    1967

  48. [57]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (The XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 106, 022001 (2022). 17 The DarkSide-50 Collaboration P. Agnes1,2 , I. F. Albuquerque 3, T. Alexander 4, A. K. Alton 5, M. Ave 3, H. O. Back 4, G. Batignani 6,7 , E. Berzin 16,52 , K. Biery 8, V . Bocci9, W. M. Bonivento1...

    2022

  49. [58]

    Gran Sasso Science Institute, L’Aquila 67100, Italy

  50. [59]

    INFN Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, Assergi (AQ) 67100, Italy

  51. [60]

    Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05508-090, Brazil

  52. [61]

    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, W A 99352, USA

  53. [62]

    Physics Department, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, SD 57197, USA

  54. [63]

    Physics Department, Università degli Studi di Pisa, Pisa 56127, Italy

  55. [64]

    INFN Pisa, Pisa 56127, Italy

  56. [65]

    Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510, USA

  57. [66]

    INFN Sezione di Roma, Roma 00185, Italy

  58. [67]

    INFN Cagliari, Cagliari 09042, Italy

  59. [68]

    Physics Department, Università degli Studi di Genova, Genova 16146, Italy

  60. [69]

    INFN Genova, Genova 16146, Italy

  61. [70]

    Mathematics and Physics Department, Università degli Studi Roma Tre, Roma 00146, Italy

  62. [71]

    INFN Roma Tre, Roma 00146, Italy

  63. [72]

    Physics Department, Università degli Studi di Cagliari, Cagliari 09042, Italy

  64. [73]

    Physics Department, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA

  65. [74]

    Physics, Kings College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom

  66. [75]

    Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, V A 24061, USA

  67. [76]

    Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119234, Russia

  68. [77]

    Physics Department, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano 20133, Italy

  69. [78]

    INFN Milano, Milano 20133, Italy

  70. [79]

    Physics Department, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma 00185, Italy

  71. [80]

    Saint Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina 188350, Russia

  72. [81]

    Amherst Center for Fundamental Interactions and Physics Department, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA

  73. [82]

    Federico II

    Physics Department, Università degli Studi “Federico II” di Napoli, Napoli 80126, Italy

  74. [83]

    INFN Napoli, Napoli 80126, Italy

  75. [84]

    APC, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, CEA/Irfu, Obs de Paris, USPC, Paris 75205, France

  76. [85]

    LPNHE, CNRS/IN2P3, Sorbonne Université, Université Paris Diderot, Paris 75252, France

  77. [86]

    INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati 00044, Italy

  78. [87]

    National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow 123182, Russia

  79. [88]

    Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing 100049, China

  80. [89]

    Engineering and Architecture Faculty, Università di Enna Kore, Enna 94100, Italy

  81. [90]

    INFN Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, Catania 95123, Italy

  82. [91]

    Centre de Physique des Particules de Marseille, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS/IN2P3, CPPM, Marseille, France

  83. [92]

    Department of Physics, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204, USA

  84. [93]

    School of Natural Sciences, Black Hills State University, Spearfish, South Dakota 57799, USA

  85. [94]

    AstroCeNT, Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 00-614 Warsaw, Poland

  86. [95]

    Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141980, Russia

  87. [96]

    Radiation Physics Laboratory, Belgorod National Research University, Belgorod 308007, Russia

  88. [97]

    Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Riverside, CA 92507, USA

  89. [98]

    National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia

  90. [99]

    Physics and Astronomy Department, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA

  91. [100]

    Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA

  92. [101]

    University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, United Kingdom

  93. [102]

    Chemistry, Biology and Biotechnology Department, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia 06123, Italy

  94. [103]

    INFN Perugia, Perugia 06123, Italy

  95. [104]

    Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA 18 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

  96. [105]

    Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, 30-348 Krakow, Poland

    M. Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, 30-348 Krakow, Poland

  97. [106]

    The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom

  98. [107]

    Center for Experimental Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics, and Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, W A 98195, USA

  99. [108]

    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

  100. [109]

    Physics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

  101. [110]

    Williams College, Physics Department, Williamstown, Massachusetts 01267, USA

Pith tools

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