Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 116 references

Reconstructing Dark Matter Mass and Discriminating Standard and Non-Standard WIMP-Nucleus Interactions with Paleo-Detectors

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ancient mineral damage tracks could reconstruct WIMP masses from ~1 GeV to ~1 TeV and identify most non-standard dark-matter–nucleus interactions without directional read-out.

desk verdict A careful, honest projection study whose central caveat—the deterministic track-length mapping—is real but not fatal, and was misread by the stress-test as an internal contradiction. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10105 v1 pith:KUF4X7FB submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IMhep-exhep-phphysics.ins-det

Dionysios P. Theodosopoulos , Katherine Freese , Chris Kelso , Patrick Stengel This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMhep-exhep-phphysics.ins-det
keywords darkmatterdirectdetectionpaleo-detectorsWIMPmassreconstructionnon-relativisticeffectivefieldtheoryinelasticnuclearrecoiltracklengthsprofilelikelihoodratiomineraldamagetracks
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

Paleo-detectors are ancient minerals whose accumulated crystal damage records nuclear recoils from dark-matter scattering over roughly a billion years. This paper asks what could be done with such a record if a WIMP signal were actually present, and answers that the track-length spectrum alone could reconstruct the WIMP mass for a broad set of interaction operators and could often identify which interaction produced the signal. It projects mass reconstruction down to about 10 GeV/c² with roughly 10% relative uncertainty in a high-resolution read-out, and up to about 1 TeV/c² in a high-exposure read-out, covering low-mass and inelastic regimes where conventional direct-detection experiments struggle. It further projects that the standard spin-independent or spin-dependent interaction could be rejected for nearly all non-standard operators at WIMP masses above about 10 GeV/c² without measuring recoil direction, which conventional experiments typically need.

What carries the argument

The working machinery is the binned track-length spectrum $dR/dx_T$, built by mapping each nuclear recoil energy to a track length through the stopping-power integral of Eq. (7), summing over the mineral's constituent nuclei, and convolving with a Gaussian read-out resolution. Signal spectra are computed for single isoscalar NREFT operators $O_i^s$, whose momentum- and velocity-dependent forms imprint different spectral shapes; the standard SI operator $O_1^s$ and SD operator $O_4^s$ serve as null hypotheses. Inference is done with a profile log-likelihood ratio on Poisson binned counts, using synthetic data sets and the asymptotic $\chi^2$ distribution to define 2σ mass intervals and p-values for rejecting the standard-interaction hypothesis, with mineral mass, age, neutrino fluxes, and uranium concentration treated as constrained nuisance parameters. Two benchmark read-out scenarios—high resolution ($\sigma_x = 1$ nm, 10 mg) and high exposure ($\sigma_x = 15$ nm, 100 g)—span the resolution/exposure trade-off that drives which masses and operators can be distinguished.

What would settle it

Irradiate polished gypsum and halite samples with monoenergetic ion beams spanning the recoil energies that WIMPs from 1 GeV/c² to 1 TeV/c² would produce, read out the resulting damage tracks at both 1 nm and 15 nm resolution, and compare the measured track-length distributions against Eq. (7); if the spread in track length at fixed recoil energy is comparable to or larger than the read-out resolution, the sharp spectral features that drive the projected ~10% mass uncertainties and the operator-discrimination significances would be smeared out, and the projections would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the shape of a paleo-detector's track-length spectrum—the histogram of damage lengths left by nuclear recoils—is sensitive enough to both WIMP mass and the operator structure of the WIMP–nucleus interaction to solve two inverse problems that conventional experiments find hard. For elastic scattering, a gypsum paleo-detector with 1 nm read-out resolution and 10 mg of sample is projected to reconstruct WIMP masses in the 1–10 GeV/c² range with relative uncertainty down to $\Delta m_\chi/M_\chi \sim 0.1$, and with 100 g of sample at 15 nm resolution to reconstruct masses up to ~1 TeV/c² with order-unity uncertainty for the standard SI operator and O$_{11}^s$. For inelastic scattering with a 50 keV/c² mass splitting, masses between 30 and 400 GeV/c² are reconstructible with relative uncertainties down to ~10⁻². The paper further claims that, given a signal generated by a non-standard NREFT operator, the standard SI hypothesis ($O_1^s$ in gypsum) or SD hypothesis ($O_4^s$ in halite) can be rejected at high confidence for nearly all such operators at WIMP masses above roughly 10 GeV/c², without any measurement of nuclear recoil direction; the exceptions are operators whose spectra are nearly identical to the standard ones, such as $O_8^s$ relative to $O_1^s$. The mass-reconstruction projections are conditional on the interaction operator being fixed or already identified; a fully simultaneous mass–coupling–operator fit is left to future work.

Load-bearing premise

The projections rest on the assumption that a recoil of a given energy always produces the same track length, as computed from stopping powers; if real damage tracks have a spread of lengths at a fixed energy, the spectral features that carry both the mass measurement and the interaction identification would blur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the high-resolution scenario ($\sigma_x = 1$ nm, 10 mg), WIMP masses in the 1–10 GeV/c² range can be pinned down to $\Delta m_\chi/M_\chi \sim 0.1$, a range current conventional experiments cannot reach.
  • In the high-exposure scenario ($\sigma_x = 15$ nm, 100 g), elastic mass reconstruction extends to 40–1000 GeV/c² with order-unity relative uncertainty for the standard SI operator and $O_{11}^s$, roughly doubling the mass range of analogous conventional-experiment studies.
  • For inelastic scattering with $\delta m = 50$ keV/c², masses between 30 and 400 GeV/c² are reconstructible with relative uncertainties down to ~10⁻², a regime where conventional experiments lose sensitivity.
  • Standard SI ($O_1^s$) and SD ($O_4^s$) hypotheses can be rejected at more than 5σ for signals from $O_{15}^s$/$O_3^s$ in gypsum and $O_6^s$/$O_{13}^s$ in halite at masses above roughly 100 GeV/c² with exposures of order 1–100 kg·Myr, and no directional measurement is required.
  • Some operators remain degenerate: $O_8^s$ is nearly indistinguishable from $O_1^s$, and $O_7^s$ from $O_4^s$, so those specific non-standard interactions cannot be identified by track-length spectra alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper normalizes every operator to the same total event rate, its discrimination claims isolate spectral shape; in a real detection the overall coupling must also be fitted, and that extra freedom will likely enlarge the projected exposure thresholds for rejection.
  • If the low-mass projections hold, the sub-10 GeV WIMP window could be probed with gram-scale mineral samples rather than ton-scale instruments, which would change the cost structure of low-mass direct detection.
  • The single-operator assumption probably makes both the mass intervals and the discrimination significances optimistic; realistic WIMP models mix operators with interference, and a joint fit could reveal degeneracies invisible in this analysis.
  • The one-to-one track-length mapping is directly testable with ion-beam calibrations; because the low-mass reach depends on short tracks near the resolution limit, those measurements would settle whether the reported ~10% precision is real.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a likelihood-based forecasting study for paleo-detectors. Assuming that a WIMP signal has been detected in the track-length spectrum of an ancient mineral (gypsum in the main text, halite in the appendix), the authors use Asimov datasets and profile log-likelihood ratios to project (i) how well the WIMP mass can be reconstructed for a set of NREFT operators in both elastic and inelastic scattering, and (ii) how confidently the standard spin-independent (O1s) or spin-dependent (O4s) hypothesis can be rejected when the true signal is generated by a non-standard operator. The headline results are that masses below about 10 GeV/c2 could be reconstructed with relative uncertainties around 0.1 in the high-resolution scenario, masses up to about 1 TeV/c2 could be reconstructed in the high-exposure scenario, and many non-standard operators could be distinguished from canonical ones without directional information at higher masses. The analysis is explicitly conditional on single-operator dominance, isoscalar couplings, and a fixed total signal rate, and these limitations are stated in the text.

Significance. If the projections hold, this is a useful and timely complementarity study: it extends paleo-detector forecasts from sensitivity limits to parameter reconstruction and operator discrimination, covers a broader operator set than previous work, and treats elastic and inelastic scattering on a common footing. The statistical framework is standard and applied consistently, and the paper is transparent about the main assumptions, including the operator-conditional nature of the mass reconstruction and the fixed-normalization, shape-only information content of the likelihood. The main reservation is that the reach of all forecasts is inherited from the deterministic track-length model of Eq. (7), and the manuscript does not yet quantify how robust the headline projections are to the breakdown of that model at short track lengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (7); Sec. VII] The headline low-mass reconstruction (Fig. 3, Mχ = 1–10 GeV/c2) and the short-track discrimination curves (Fig. 5 left, mχ = 5 GeV/c2) rely on spectral differences at track lengths of only a few to tens of nanometers. Equation (7) assumes a deterministic, one-to-one mapping x_T(E_R) computed from SRIM stopping powers, and the paper cites Ref. [24] for the accuracy of this approximation. However, Sec. VII itself states that at lower masses a recoil with fixed E_R yields a distribution of track lengths and that the deterministic mapping is no longer valid in that regime. The manuscript should quantify the width of this track-length distribution for gypsum and halite and demonstrate that the projected Δmχ/Mχ values and p-values are stable under a conservative smearing of the track-length spectra; without such a test, the low-mass portion of the central claim is not yet fully supported.
  2. [Abstract; Sec. VI, Figs. 5 and 7] The abstract and introduction state that for WIMP masses ≳ 10 GeV/c2 the canonical SI/SD hypotheses can be excluded for nearly all non-standard operators without directionality. The results in Sec. VI and Fig. 7 show a more nuanced picture: in the low-resolution scenario that the authors themselves adopt for mχ > 10 GeV/c2, discrimination power is significantly reduced below mχ ≈ 20–30 GeV/c2 (and below about 40 GeV/c2 for the inelastic case), and the operators O8s (and O7s in halite) are never discriminable; furthermore, Fig. 5 left shows no LR-scenario rejection at 5 GeV/c2. The abstract should be reworded to match the paper's own conclusion, which uses the more accurate phrase "above a few tens of GeV," and should state the exceptions explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (6)] The sentence introducing Eq. (6) contains a typo: "1 ER is the recoil energy" should read "where E_R is the recoil energy."
  2. [Reference [16]] The title of Ref. [16] contains a typo: "Freemen" should be "Freeman."
  3. [Fig. 12 caption] The caption states that results are shown for the "high-exposure (HE: σx = 15 nm, M = 100 g, right) scenario," but both panels of Fig. 12 are HE scenarios; the parenthetical "right" appears to be a leftover and should be removed or corrected.
  4. [Sec. V] The conditional nature of the mass reconstruction (the operator is assumed known) is stated only at the end of Sec. V; a one-sentence reminder in the caption of Fig. 3 would help prevent the contours from being read as unconditional mass measurements.
  5. [General] No code or data are provided, which limits reproducibility of the Asimov likelihood calculations; releasing the spectra and likelihood setup would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the Asimov likelihood projections are self-contained and the TFKS self-citation is independent code-based prior work.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a profile-likelihood Asimov forecast. Signal spectra come from Eq. (6) via external codes (WimPyDD, dmscatter, DMFormFactor) and SRIM stopping powers; backgrounds from external models; the binned observable is Eq. (9). Mass reconstruction (Sec. V) generates Asimov data from a hypothesized signal and compares same-operator spectra with matched total rate, so the output Delta-m/M contours measure spectral-shape sensitivity rather than recovering a fitted parameter. Operator discrimination (Sec. VI) uses a nested likelihood ratio with the standard SI/SD hypothesis as null and a non-standard operator fraction F; the p-values are computed from the chi-square_1 asymptotic distribution. None of the target claims—mass-reconstruction intervals or rejection p-values—appears as an input to the calculation. The reliance on the authors' prior TFKS sensitivity projections (Ref. [25]) to set signal normalizations and parameter-space boundaries is self-citation, but TFKS is a separate, code-based calculation whose stated assumptions do not include the results of this paper; it is not a uniqueness theorem invoked to forbid alternatives. The Sec. VII caveat that Eq. (7)'s deterministic track-length mapping 'is no longer valid' at lighter masses is an acknowledged limitation that could affect robustness, but it is not a circular reduction: the predicted capability is conditional on that mapping, not equivalent to it. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard physics inputs (local DM density, Standard Halo Model, NREFT framework), on modeling assumptions specific to paleo-detectors (track-length mapping, track formation, background models), and on hand-chosen benchmark parameters (signal rates, readout resolutions, mass splittings, nuisance uncertainty widths). No new particles or forces are introduced. The main free inputs are the signal normalizations, which are set from the authors' own sensitivity projections and which directly scale the central projections.

free parameters (4)
  • Signal event rate normalization R = 10^2 to 6x10^3 kg^-1 Myr^-1 for gypsum; 10^3 to 6x10^4 for halite; 30 to 500 for inelastic
    Chosen by hand to sit slightly above the TFKS projected 90% C.L. exclusion limits; the reconstructed mass intervals and discrimination significances scale directly with this assumed rate.
  • Inelastic mass splitting delta_m = 50 keV/c^2 (and 100 keV/c^2 for comparison)
    Chosen as representative benchmarks; the paper states most paleo-detectors lose sensitivity near 100 keV/c^2, so the inelastic projections depend on this choice.
  • Readout scenario parameters (sigma_x, sample mass M) = HR: sigma_x=1 nm, M=10 mg; HE/LR: sigma_x=15 nm, M=100 g
    Chosen as representative experimental scenarios from the paleo-detector literature; the HR scenario enables low-mass reconstruction, the HE scenario enables high-mass reconstruction.
  • Nuisance parameter relative uncertainties = Neutrino fluxes 100%, C238 1%, t_age 5%, M 0.01%
    Assumed widths of the Gaussian penalty terms in Eq. (14); they affect the profile likelihood and the resulting contour shapes.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Standard Halo Model for the local WIMP velocity distribution (v_sun, v_0, v_esc)
    Adopted in Sec. III to compute recoil spectra; the assumed velocity distribution shapes the track-length spectra that drive the projections.
  • domain assumption Local dark matter density rho_chi = 0.3 GeV/cm^3
    Input from Ref. [43,44]; the signal rate is proportional to this density, though the shape-only analysis partly mitigates its impact.
  • domain assumption One-to-one mapping between recoil energy and track length (Eq. 7) valid for 1 GeV/c^2 to 5 TeV/c^2
    Load-bearing assumption; acknowledged in Sec. VII as an approximation that breaks down for lower masses.
  • ad hoc to paper Isoscalar couplings (c_p = c_n) and single-operator dominance, no interference
    Adopted in Sec. II to keep the parameter space manageable; realistic models may combine operators and interfere (Ref. [39]), changing the spectra.
  • standard math Wilks' theorem applies to the profile likelihood ratio
    Used in Secs. V and VI to convert likelihood ratios to p-values; assumes asymptotic chi-square behavior that may be imperfect for low-count bins.
  • standard math Poisson statistics for bin counts and Gaussian external constraints on nuisance parameters
    Standard statistical model for a counting experiment, stated in Sec. V.
  • domain assumption Tracks form only for recoiling nuclei with Z>2; detection window and resolution modeled as Gaussian
    Follows the paleo-detector literature (Ref. [18]); affects which recoils contribute to the observable spectrum.
  • domain assumption Background model inputs: neutrino fluxes, 238U concentration of 10^-11 g/g, and neutron spectra from SOURCES-4A/TENDL
    The background composition and normalization shape the likelihood; uncertainties are included as nuisance parameters with chosen widths.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstructing Dark Matter Mass and Discriminating Standard and Non-Standard WIMP-Nucleus Interactions with Paleo-Detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KUF4X7FB

@misc{pith2026260810105,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstructing Dark Matter Mass and Discriminating Standard and Non-Standard WIMP-Nucleus Interactions with Paleo-Detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KUF4X7FB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10105}
}
abstract

Paleo-detectors record and retain crystal damage in ancient minerals from nuclear recoils induced by dark matter scattering over geological timescales. Previous studies have shown that paleo-detectors can provide sensitivity to a variety of dark matter (DM) scenarios which is complementary to conventional direct-detection experiments. In this paper, we complete the first detailed study of how well paleo-detectors can reconstruct DM parameters or distinguish between different types of DM interactions with nuclei in the presence of a DM signal, considering both elastic and inelastic DM-nucleus scattering. For representative nuclear recoil track read-out scenarios, we demonstrate that weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) DM masses can be reconstructed for a variety of Non-Relativistic Effective Field Theory (NREFT) interactions between WIMPs and nuclei. In particular, paleo-detectors are projected to be capable of reconstructing WIMP masses $\lesssim$ 10 GeV, a regime that is challenging for conventional direct-detection experiments; further, we find that paleo-detectors could reconstruct WIMP masses up to 1 TeV for hypothetical signals within their accessible parameter space, extending the mass range over which reconstruction is possible by up to a factor of $\sim 2$ compared with analogous studies of conventional direct-detection experiments. In addition, we demonstrate that paleo-detectors could discriminate between canonical spin-independent or spin-dependent NREFT interactions and non-canonical interactions which can depend on the relative velocity or momentum transferred between the WIMP and nucleus. Specifically, at WIMP masses $\gtrsim$ 10 GeV, we project that canonical NREFT interactions can be excluded by paleo-detectors in the cases of nearly all non-canonical interactions without measurement of nuclear recoil direction, which conventional experiments typically require.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10105 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Track-length spectra for the NREFT operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Track length spectra for inelastic scattering via the NREFT operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Projected constraints on the DM mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Projected constraints on the DM mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Projected significance for rejecting the elastic standard SI ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Projected significance for rejecting the inelastic standard SI ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Projected confidence levels for rejecting the standard SI-only ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Projected confidence levels for rejecting the standard SI-only ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Track length spectra for the NREFT operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Track length spectra for inelastic scattering via the NREFT operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Projected constraints on the DM mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Projected constraints on the DM mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Projected significance for rejecting the elastic standard SD ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Projected significance for rejecting the inelastic standard SD ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Projected confidence levels for rejecting the standard SD-only ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Projected confidence levels for rejecting the standard SD-only ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide-50), Search for low-mass dark matter WIMPs with 12 ton-day exposure of DarkSide-50, Phys

    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

  2. [1]

    In our analysis, we assume a fixed sample age of ¯tage = 1 Gyr, corresponding to the time over which the sample has been recording damage tracks

    is the probability density function for the one-dimensionalχ 2 1 distribution. In our analysis, we assume a fixed sample age of ¯tage = 1 Gyr, corresponding to the time over which the sample has been recording damage tracks. The sample mass is then related to the exposure via ¯M= exposure/ ¯tage. In practice, 15 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 Exposure [kg Myr] 10 ...

  3. [2]

    M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates, Phys. Rev. D31, 3059 (1985)

    1985

  4. [3]

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

    1986

  5. [4]

    interactions with Gypsum; m = 5 GeV/c2 s 3 s 5 s 8 s 11 s 12 s 15 HR LR 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 Exposure [kg Myr] 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 p-value 1 2 3 4 5 Rejecting standard SI ( s

  6. [5]

    5: Projected significance for rejecting the elastic standard SI (O s

    interactions with Gypsum; m = 500 GeV/c2 s 3 s 5 s 8 s 11 s 12 s 15 HR LR FIG. 5: Projected significance for rejecting the elastic standard SI (O s

  7. [7]

    The left (right) panel corresponds to mχ = 5 GeV/c 2 (500 GeV/c 2)

    in gypsum. The left (right) panel corresponds to mχ = 5 GeV/c 2 (500 GeV/c 2). Solid and dashed curves denote the high-resolution (HR,σ x = 1 nm) and low-resolution (LR,σ x = 15 nm) scenarios, respectively. The track-length spectra used in the calculations are normalized such thatR= R dxT dR/dxT = 6×10 3 kg−1Myr−1 (left) and 10 2 kg−1Myr−1 (right) events ...

  8. [8]

    This behavior is consistent with the qualitative features observed in Figs

    In contrast, for signals generated byO s 8, the standard SI operator cannot be rejected. This behavior is consistent with the qualitative features observed in Figs. 1 and 2: the track-length spectra forO s 3 andO s 15 differ significantly from that ofO s 1, whereas the spectrum generated byO s 8 is nearly indistinguishable from the standard SI case. For e...

Show all 116 references
  1. [9]

    interactions with Gypsum; m = 500 GeV/c2 s 3 s 5 s 8 s 11 s 12 s 15 HR LR 100 101 102 Exposure [kg Myr] 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 p-value 1 2 3 4 5 m = 100 keV/c2 Rejecting standard SI ( s

  2. [10]

    6: Projected significance for rejecting the inelastic standard SI (O s

    interactions with Gypsum; m = 500 GeV/c2 s 3 s 5 s 8 s 11 s 12 s 15 HR LR FIG. 6: Projected significance for rejecting the inelastic standard SI (O s

  3. [11]

    Thep-value and corresponding significance (in units ofσ) are shown assuming a DM signal generated by non-standard NREFT operators (O s 3,O s 5,O s 8,O s 11,O s 12, andO s

    interaction hypothesis as a function of exposure. Thep-value and corresponding significance (in units ofσ) are shown assuming a DM signal generated by non-standard NREFT operators (O s 3,O s 5,O s 8,O s 11,O s 12, andO s

  4. [12]

    For the operatorsO s 4,O s 6,O s 10, andO s 13, we present mass-reconstruction projections for halite paleo-detectors in the Appendix. For large DM masses (m χ ≳1 TeV/c 2), the reconstructed mass intervals become significantly broadened (∆mχ/Mχ >10 2), reflecting the weak depe...

    2023

  5. [13]

    The left (right) panel corresponds to δm = 50 keV/c2 (100 keV/c2)

    in gypsum. The left (right) panel corresponds to δm = 50 keV/c2 (100 keV/c2). Solid and dashed curves denote high-resolution (HR,σ x = 1 nm) and low-resolution (LR,σ x = 15 nm) scenarios, respectively. The DM mass is set tom χ = 500 GeV/c 2. The track-length spectra used in th...

  6. [14]

    7, where the contours shift progressively toward larger exposures for these operators

    This trend is likewise visible in Fig. 7, where the contours shift progressively toward larger exposures for these operators. We omit the results forO s 5 andO s 8 in Fig. 7. The spectra generated byO s 5 are similar to those ofO s 11, and are therefore expected to exhibit com...

  7. [15]

    14 To discriminate between two interactions, we compare two signal-plus-background hypotheses

    The corresponding analysis for rejecting the standard spin-dependent (SD)O s 4 elastic and inelastic interaction hypotheses in halite paleo-detectors, in the presence of hypothetical signals generated by the non-standard operatorsO s 6,O s 7,O s 9,O s 10,O s 13, andO s 14, is ...

  8. [16]

    Contours corresponding to 1σ–5σsignificance are shown as a function of DM mass and exposure for the low-resolution (LR,σ x = 15 nm) scenario

    elastic interaction hypothesis, assuming a DM signal generated entirely byO s 15 andO s 3 (top panels), and byO s 12 andO s 11 (bottom panels), for gypsum as the target mineral. Contours corresponding to 1σ–5σsignificance are shown as a function of DM mass and exposure for the...

  9. [17]

    observed for elastic scattering

    cannot be rejected form χ ≲20 GeV/c 2 for signals generated byO s 15 orO s 3, and form χ ≲30 GeV/c 2 for signals generated byO s 12 orO s 11. observed for elastic scattering. Results for the remaining operators to which gypsum paleo-detectors are projected to be sensitive are ...

  10. [18]

    Contours corresponding to 1σ–5σsignificance are shown as a function of DM mass and exposure for the low-resolution (LR,σ x = 15 nm) scenario

    inelastic interaction hypothesis, assuming a DM signal generated entirely byO s 15 (left) andO s 3 (right), for gypsum as the target mineral and a mass splitting δm = 50 keV/c2. Contours corresponding to 1σ–5σsignificance are shown as a function of DM mass and exposure for the...

    2013

  11. [19]

    The remaining spin-dependent operators accessible to halite paleo-detectors,O s 7,O s 9, andO s 14, yield mass-reconstruction projections similar to those shown in Fig

    The overall behavior closely resembles that observed in the SI analysis for gypsum. The remaining spin-dependent operators accessible to halite paleo-detectors,O s 7,O s 9, andO s 14, yield mass-reconstruction projections similar to those shown in Fig. 11 and are therefore omi...

  12. [20]

    As discussed in the main text, the reconstructed mass intervals broaden substantially at very large DM masses because the recoil spectrum becomes only weakly dependent onm χ through the reduced WIMP–nucleus mass. Fig. 12 shows the corresponding projections for inelastic scatte...

  13. [21]

    As in the gypsum analysis, the discrimination power is significantly reduced for light DM particles in the LR scenario because of the limited sensitivity to short damage tracks

    By contrast,O s 7 cannot be distinguished from the standard SD interaction hypothesis because the corresponding track-length spectra are nearly identical. As in the gypsum analysis, the discrimination power is significantly reduced for light DM particles in the LR scenario bec...

  14. [22]

    Drukier and L

    A. Drukier and L. Stodolsky, Principles and Applications of a Neutral Current Detector for Neutrino Physics and Astron- omy, Phys. Rev. D30, 2295 (1984)

    1984

  15. [23]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041003 (2023), arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Boet al.(PandaX), Dark Matter Search Results from 1.54 Tonne·Year Exposure of PandaX-4T, Phys

    Z. Boet al.(PandaX), Dark Matter Search Results from 1.54 Tonne·Year Exposure of PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 011805 (2025), arXiv:2408.00664 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS), Projected Sensitivity of the SuperCDMS SNOLAB experiment, Phys

    R. Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS), Projected Sensitivity of the SuperCDMS SNOLAB experiment, Phys. Rev. D95, 082002 21 100 101 102 103 xT [nm] 10 1 100 101 102 103 104 # tracks / bin HR Halite; C238 = 10 11 g/g; x = 1 nm; M = 10 mg; tage = 1 Gyr; m = 5 GeV/c2 n 234Th s 4 s 6 s 7 s 9 ...

  19. [28]

    The operatorO s 6 generates distinct spectral features relative toO s

  20. [29]

    Forδ m = 100 keV, which is near the upper limit of δm paleo-detectors can probe, the spectra for all the operators look similar. 22 100 101 102 103 M [GeV/c2] 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 (c4 × m2 V)2 s 4 HR - Halite; x = 1 nm; M = 10 mg; tage = 1 Gyr LZ (2023) < 10 2 10 2 10 ...

    2023

  21. [30]

    interactions with Halite; m = 5 GeV/c2 s 6 s 7 s 9 s 10 s 13 s 14 HR LR 10 1 100 101 102 Exposure [kg Myr] 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 p-value 1 2 3 4 5 Rejecting standard SD ( s

  22. [31]

    13: Projected significance for rejecting the elastic standard SD (O s

    interactions with Halite; m = 500 GeV/c2 s 6 s 7 s 9 s 10 s 13 s 14 HR LR FIG. 13: Projected significance for rejecting the elastic standard SD (O s

  23. [33]

    The left (right) panel corresponds tom χ = 5 GeV/c 2 (500 GeV/c 2)

    in halite. The left (right) panel corresponds tom χ = 5 GeV/c 2 (500 GeV/c 2). Solid and dashed curves denote high-resolution (HR,σ x = 1 nm) and low-resolution (LR,σ x = 15 nm) scenarios, respectively. The track-length spectra used in the calculations are normalized such that...

  24. [34]

    interactions with Halite; m = 500 GeV/c2 s 6 s 7 s 9 s 10 s 13 s 14 HR LR 100 101 102 Exposure [kg Myr] 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 p-value 1 2 3 4 5 m = 100 keV/c2 Rejecting standard SD ( s

  25. [35]

    14: Projected significance for rejecting the inelastic standard SD (O s

    interactions with Halite; m = 500 GeV/c2 s 6 s 7 s 9 s 10 s 13 s 14 HR LR FIG. 14: Projected significance for rejecting the inelastic standard SD (O s

  26. [36]

    Thep-value and corresponding significance (in units ofσ) are shown assuming a DM signal generated by non-standard NREFT operators (O s 6,O s 7,O s 9,O s 10,O s 13, andO s

    interaction hypothesis as a function of exposure, for halite as the target mineral. Thep-value and corresponding significance (in units ofσ) are shown assuming a DM signal generated by non-standard NREFT operators (O s 6,O s 7,O s 9,O s 10,O s 13, andO s

  27. [37]

    The left (right) panel corresponds toδ m = 50 keV (100 keV)

    in halite. The left (right) panel corresponds toδ m = 50 keV (100 keV). Solid and dashed curves denote high-resolution (HR, σx = 1 nm) and low-resolution (LR,σ x = 15 nm) scenarios, respectively. The DM mass is set tom χ = 500 GeV/c 2. The track-length spectra used in the calc...

  28. [38]

    Contours corresponding to 1σ–5σsignificance are shown as a function of DM mass and exposure for the low-resolution (LR,σ x = 15 nm) scenario

    elastic interaction hypothesis, assuming a DM signal generated entirely byO s 6 andO s 13 (top panels), and byO s 10 andO s 9 (bottom panels), for halite as the target mineral. Contours corresponding to 1σ–5σsignificance are shown as a function of DM mass and exposure for the ...

  29. [39]

    cannot be rejected form χ ≲20 GeV/c 2 for signals generated byO s 6 orO s 13, and form χ ≲100 GeV/c 2 for signals generated byO s 9. 25 100 101 102 Exposure [kg Myr] 101 102 103 m [GeV/c2] s 6 m = 50 keV LR Rejecting s 4 with Halite; m > 10 GeV/c2 > 5 4 5 3 4 2 3 1 2 < 1 Signi...

  30. [40]

    Contours corresponding to 1σ–5σsignificance are shown as a function of DM mass and exposure for the low-resolution (LR,σ x = 15 nm) scenario

    inelastic interaction hypothesis, assuming a DM signal generated entirely byO s 6 (left) andO s 13 (right), for halite as the target mineral and a mass splittingδ m = 50 keV/c2. Contours corresponding to 1σ–5σsignificance are shown as a function of DM mass and exposure for the...

    2017 arXiv

  31. [41]

    C. E. Aalsethet al.(DarkSide-20k), DarkSide-20k: A 20 tonne two-phase LAr TPC for direct dark matter detection at LNGS, Eur. Phys. J. Plus133, 131 (2018), arXiv:1707.08145 [physics.ins-det]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [42]

    Aalberset al.(XLZD), The XLZD Design Book: Towards the Next-Generation Liquid Xenon Observatory for Dark Matter and Neutrino Physics (2024), arXiv:2410.17137 [hep-ex]

    J. Aalberset al.(XLZD), The XLZD Design Book: Towards the Next-Generation Liquid Xenon Observatory for Dark Matter and Neutrino Physics (2024), arXiv:2410.17137 [hep-ex]

    2024

  33. [43]

    Baumet al., Mineral detection of neutrinos and dark matter

    S. Baumet al., Mineral detection of neutrinos and dark matter. A whitepaper, Phys. Dark Univ.41, 101245 (2023), arXiv:2301.07118 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [44]

    Baumet al., Mineral Detection of Neutrinos and Dark Matter 2024

    S. Baumet al., Mineral Detection of Neutrinos and Dark Matter 2024. Proceedings (2024), arXiv:2405.01626 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [45]

    Hiroseet al., Mineral Detection of Neutrinos and Dark Matter 2025 Proceedings (2025), arXiv:2508.20482 [physics.ins- det]

    S. Hiroseet al., Mineral Detection of Neutrinos and Dark Matter 2025 Proceedings (2025), arXiv:2508.20482 [physics.ins- det]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [46]

    D. P. Snowden-Ifft, E. S. Freeman, and P. B. Price, Limits on dark matter using ancient mica, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 4133 (1995)

    1995

  37. [47]

    J. I. Collar, Comments on ’limits on dark matter using ancient mica’, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 331 (1996), arXiv:astro- ph/9511055

    1996

  38. [48]

    D. P. Snowden-Ifft, E. S. Freeman, and P. B. Price, Snowden-Ifft, Freemen, and Price Reply (A Reply to the Comment by Juan I Collar), Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 332 (1996)

    1996

  39. [49]

    S. Baum, A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, M. G´ orski, and P. Stengel, Searching for Dark Matter with Paleo-Detectors, Phys. Lett. B803, 135325 (2020), arXiv:1806.05991 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [50]

    A. K. Drukier, S. Baum, K. Freese, M. G´ orski, and P. Stengel, Paleo-detectors: Searching for Dark Matter with Ancient Minerals, Phys. Rev. D99, 043014 (2019), arXiv:1811.06844 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [51]

    T. D. P. Edwards, B. J. Kavanagh, C. Weniger, S. Baum, A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, M. G´ orski, and P. Stengel, Digging for dark matter: Spectral analysis and discovery potential of paleo-detectors, Phys. Rev. D99, 043541 (2019), arXiv:1811.10549 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [52]

    Singh Sidhu, G

    J. Singh Sidhu, G. Starkman, and R. Harvey, Counter-top search for macroscopic dark matter, Phys. Rev. D100, 103015 (2019), arXiv:1905.10025 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Ebadiet al., Ultraheavy dark matter search with electron microscopy of geological quartz, Phys

    R. Ebadiet al., Ultraheavy dark matter search with electron microscopy of geological quartz, Phys. Rev. D104, 015041 (2021), arXiv:2105.03998 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [54]

    J. F. Acevedo, J. Bramante, and A. Goodman, Old rocks, new limits: excavated ancient mica searches for dark matter, JCAP11, 085, arXiv:2105.06473 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  45. [55]

    S. Baum, T. D. P. Edwards, K. Freese, and P. Stengel, New Projections for Dark Matter Searches with Paleo-Detectors, Instruments5, 21 (2021), arXiv:2106.06559 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [56]

    A. Fung, T. Lucas, L. Balogh, M. Leybourne, and A. C. Vincent, Refining the sensitivity of new physics searches with ancient minerals, Phys. Rev. D112, 043040 (2025), arXiv:2504.08885 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  47. [57]

    D. P. Theodosopoulos, K. Freese, C. Kelso, and P. Stengel, Projected Sensitivity of Paleo-Detectors to Dark Matter Effective Interactions with Nuclei (2026), arXiv:2603.13629 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  48. [58]

    J. Fan, M. Reece, and L.-T. Wang, Non-relativistic effective theory of dark matter direct detection, JCAP11, 042, arXiv:1008.1591 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  49. [59]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers, and Y. Xu, The Effective Field Theory of Dark Matter Direct Detection, JCAP02, 004, arXiv:1203.3542 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  50. [60]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Effective field theory search for high-energy nuclear recoils using the XENON100 dark matter 26 detector, Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Effective field theory search for high-energy nuclear recoils using the XENON100 dark matter 26 detector, Phys. Rev. D96, 042004 (2017), arXiv:1705.02614 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [61]

    Xiaet al.(PandaX-II), PandaX-II Constraints on Spin-Dependent WIMP-Nucleon Effective Interactions, Phys

    J. Xiaet al.(PandaX-II), PandaX-II Constraints on Spin-Dependent WIMP-Nucleon Effective Interactions, Phys. Lett. B 792, 193 (2019), arXiv:1807.01936 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [62]

    M. F. Albakryet al.(SuperCDMS), Effective Field Theory Analysis of CDMSlite Run 2 Data (2022), arXiv:2205.11683 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [63]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), First constraints on WIMP-nucleon effective field theory couplings in an extended energy region from LUX-ZEPLIN, Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), First constraints on WIMP-nucleon effective field theory couplings in an extended energy region from LUX-ZEPLIN, Phys. Rev. D109, 092003 (2024), arXiv:2312.02030 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [64]

    A. M. Green, Determining the WIMP mass using direct detection experiments, JCAP08, 022, arXiv:hep-ph/0703217

    arXiv

  55. [65]

    A. M. Green, Determining the WIMP mass from a single direct detection experiment, a more detailed study, JCAP07, 005, arXiv:0805.1704 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  56. [66]

    T. D. P. Edwards, B. J. Kavanagh, and C. Weniger, Assessing Near-Future Direct Dark Matter Searches with Benchmark- Free Forecasting, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 181101 (2018), arXiv:1805.04117 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [67]

    Bozorgnia, D

    N. Bozorgnia, D. G. Cerde˜ no, A. Cheek, and B. Penning, Opening the energy window on direct dark matter detection, JCAP12, 013, arXiv:1810.05576 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  58. [68]

    B. J. Kavanagh, New directional signatures from the nonrelativistic effective field theory of dark matter, Phys. Rev. D92, 023513 (2015), arXiv:1505.07406 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Fieguth, M

    A. Fieguth, M. Hoferichter, P. Klos, J. Men´ endez, A. Schwenk, and C. Weinheimer, Discriminating WIMP-nucleus re- sponse functions in present and future XENON-like direct detection experiments, Phys. Rev. D97, 103532 (2018), arXiv:1802.04294 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  60. [70]

    Anand, A

    N. Anand, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. C. Haxton, Weakly interacting massive particle-nucleus elastic scattering response, Phys. Rev. C89, 065501 (2014), arXiv:1308.6288 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  61. [71]

    Brenner, G

    A. Brenner, G. Herrera, A. Ibarra, S. Kang, S. Scopel, and G. Tomar, Complementarity of experiments in probing the non-relativistic effective theory of dark matter-nucleon interactions, JCAP06(06), 026, arXiv:2203.04210 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  62. [72]

    Tucker-Smith and N

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

    2001 arXiv

  63. [73]

    Barello, S

    G. Barello, S. Chang, and C. A. Newby, A Model Independent Approach to Inelastic Dark Matter Scattering, Phys. Rev. D90, 094027 (2014), arXiv:1409.0536 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  64. [74]

    Hedges and P

    S. Hedges and P. Huber, Calorimetric approach to paleo-detection of dark matter (2026), arXiv:2605.13659 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  65. [75]

    Baxteret al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches, Eur

    D. Baxteret al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 907 (2021), arXiv:2105.00599 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [76]

    J. I. Read, The Local Dark Matter Density, J. Phys. G41, 063101 (2014), arXiv:1404.1938 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  67. [77]

    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, 1829 (2010)

    2010

  68. [78]

    Sch¨ onrich, Galactic rotation and solar motion from stellar kinematics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society427, 274–287 (2012)

    R. Sch¨ onrich, Galactic rotation and solar motion from stellar kinematics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society427, 274–287 (2012)

    2012

  69. [79]

    Bland-Hawthorn and O

    J. Bland-Hawthorn and O. Gerhard, The galaxy in context: Structural, kinematic, and integrated properties, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics54, 529–596 (2016)

    2016

  70. [80]

    Abuteret al., Improved gravity astrometric accuracy from modeling optical aberrations, Astron.; Astrophys.647, A59 (2021)

    R. Abuteret al., Improved gravity astrometric accuracy from modeling optical aberrations, Astron.; Astrophys.647, A59 (2021)

    2021

  71. [81]

    M. C. Smithet al., The rave survey: constraining the local galactic escape speed, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society379, 755 (2007), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/379/2/755/3399611/mnras0379-0755.pdf

    2007

  72. [82]

    Jeong, S

    I. Jeong, S. Kang, S. Scopel, and G. Tomar, WimPyDD: An object–oriented Python code for the calculation of WIMP direct detection signals, Comput. Phys. Commun.276, 108342 (2022), arXiv:2106.06207 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  73. [83]

    O. C. Gorton, C. W. Johnson, C. Jiao, and J. Nikoleyczik, dmscatter: A fast program for WIMP-nucleus scattering, Comput. Phys. Commun.284, 108597 (2023), arXiv:2209.09187 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [84]

    J. F. Ziegler, M. Ziegler, and J. Biersack, Srim – the stopping and range of ions in matter (2010), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms268, 1818 (2010), 19th International Conference on Ion Beam Analysis

    2010

  75. [85]

    Galelli, L

    C. Galelli, L. Caccianiga, L. Apollonio, P. Magnani, and V. Breton, A volcanic chronosequence as a time-resolved paleo- detector array to study the cosmic-ray flux in the late Pleistocene and Holocene, JCAP04, 023, arXiv:2510.23126 [astro- ph.HE]

  76. [86]

    Calabrese-Day, E

    A. Calabrese-Day, E. LaVoie-Ingram, K. Ream, H. Ross, J. Spitz, P. Stengel, K. Sun, and A. Takla, Toward Neutrino and Dark Matter Detection with Ancient Minerals: TEM Study of Heavy-Ion Tracks in Olivine (2026), arXiv:2604.09732 [physics.ins-det]

    2026 arXiv

  77. [87]

    R. Hill, J. A. Notte, and L. Scipioni, Chapter 2 - scanning helium ion microscopy, inAdvances in Imaging and Electron Physics, Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics, Vol. 170, edited by P. W. Hawkes (Elsevier, 2012) pp. 65–148

    2012

  78. [88]

    van Gastel, G

    R. van Gastel, G. Hlawacek, H. J. Zandvliet, and B. Poelsema, Subsurface analysis of semiconductor structures with helium ion microscopy, Microelectronics Reliability52, 2104 (2012), special issue 23rd european symposium on the reliability of electron devices, failure physics ...

    2012

  79. [89]

    M. S. Joenset al., Helium ion microscopy (him) for the imaging of biological samples at sub-nanometer resolution, Scientific Reports3, 3514 (2013)

    2013

  80. [90]

    M. P. Echlin, M. Straw, S. Randolph, J. Filevich, and T. M. Pollock, The tribeam system: Femtosecond laser ablation in situ sem, Materials Characterization100, 1 (2015)

    2015

  81. [91]

    M. J. Pfeifenberger, M. Mangang, S. Wurster, J. Reiser, A. Hohenwarter, W. Pfleging, D. Kiener, and R. Pippan, The use of femtosecond laser ablation as a novel tool for rapid micro-mechanical sample preparation, Materials and Design121, 27 109 (2017)

    2017

  82. [92]

    S. J. Randolph, J. Filevich, A. Botman, R. Gannon, C. Rue, and M. Straw, In situ femtosecond pulse laser ablation for large volume 3d analysis in scanning electron microscope systems, Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology B36, 06JB01 (2018)

    2018

  83. [93]

    Rodriguez, W

    M. Rodriguez, W. Li, F. Chen, C. Trautmann, T. Bierschenk, B. Afra, D. Schauries, R. Ewing, S. Mudie, and P. Kluth, Saxs and tem investigation of ion tracks in neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interac...

    2014

  84. [94]

    Schaff, M

    F. Schaff, M. Bech, P. Zaslansky, C. Jud, M. Liebi, M. Guizar-Sicairos, and F. Pfeiffer, Six-dimensional real and reciprocal space small-angle x-ray scattering tomography, Nature527, 353 (2015)

    2015

  85. [95]

    Holler, A

    M. Holler, A. Diaz, M. Guizar-Sicairos, P. Karvinen, E. F¨ arm, E. H¨ ark¨ onen, M. Ritala, A. Menzel, J. Raabe, and O. Bunk, X-ray ptychographic computed tomography at 16 nm isotropic 3d resolution, Scientific Reports4, 3857 (2014)

    2014

  86. [96]

    S. Baum, T. D. P. Edwards, B. J. Kavanagh, P. Stengel, A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, M. G´ orski, and C. Weniger, Paleodetectors for Galactic supernova neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D101, 103017 (2020), arXiv:1906.05800 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  87. [97]

    Mei and A

    D. Mei and A. Hime, Muon-induced background study for underground laboratories, Phys. Rev. D73, 053004 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 109, 019901 (2024)], arXiv:astro-ph/0512125

    2006 arXiv

  88. [98]

    J. R. Jordan, S. Baum, P. Stengel, A. Ferrari, M. C. Morone, P. Sala, and J. Spitz, Measuring Changes in the Atmospheric Neutrino Rate Over Gigayear Timescales, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 231802 (2020), arXiv:2004.08394 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  89. [99]

    Tapia-Arellano and S

    N. Tapia-Arellano and S. Horiuchi, Measuring solar neutrinos over gigayear timescales with paleo detectors, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123016 (2021), arXiv:2102.01755 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  90. [100]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, Can we overcome the neutrino floor at high masses?, Phys. Rev. D102, 063024 (2020), arXiv:2002.07499 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  91. [101]

    Cappellaro, R

    E. Cappellaro, R. Barbon, and M. Turatto, Supernova statistics, Springer Proc. Phys.99, 347 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0310859

    2005

  92. [102]

    Diehlet al., Radioactive Al-26 and massive stars in the galaxy, Nature439, 45 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601015

    R. Diehlet al., Radioactive Al-26 and massive stars in the galaxy, Nature439, 45 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601015

    2006 arXiv

  93. [103]

    Strumia and F

    A. Strumia and F. Vissani, Neutrino masses and mixings and... (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0606054

    2006 arXiv

  94. [104]

    Leaman, W

    J. Leaman, W. Li, R. Chornock, and A. V. Filippenko, Nearby supernova rates from the lick observatory supernova search - i. the methods and data base: Nearby sn rates from loss - i, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society412, 1419–1440 (2011)

    2011

  95. [105]

    M. T. Botticella, S. J. Smartt, R. C. Kennicutt, E. Cappellaro, M. Sereno, and J. C. Lee, A comparison between star formation rate diagnostics and rate of core collapse supernovae within 11 mpc, Astronomy and amp; Astrophysics537, A132 (2012)

    2012

  96. [106]

    S. M. Adams, C. S. Kochanek, J. F. Beacom, M. R. Vagins, and K. Z. Stanek, Observing the Next Galactic Supernova, Astrophys. J.778, 164 (2013), arXiv:1306.0559 [astro-ph.HE]. [75]SOURCES 4A: A Code for Calculating (Alpha, n), Spontaneous Fission, and Delayed Neutron Sources an...

    2013 arXiv

  97. [107]

    Koning and D

    A. Koning and D. Rochman, Modern nuclear data evaluation with the talys code system, Nuclear Data Sheets113, 2841 (2012), special Issue on Nuclear Reaction Data

    2012

  98. [108]

    Soppera, M

    N. Soppera, M. Bossant, and E. Dupont, Janis 4: An improved version of the nea java-based nuclear data information system, Nuclear Data Sheets120, 294 (2014)

    2014

  99. [109]

    T. D. P. Edwards and C. Weniger, swordfish: Efficient Forecasting of New Physics Searches without Monte Carlo (2017), arXiv:1712.05401 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  100. [110]

    Cowan, K

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

    2011 arXiv

  101. [111]

    Billard, F

    J. Billard, F. Mayet, and D. Santos, Assessing the discovery potential of directional detection of dark matter, Physical Review D85, 10.1103/physrevd.85.035006 (2012)

    2012 doi

  102. [112]

    Conrad, Statistical Issues in Astrophysical Searches for Particle Dark Matter, Astropart

    J. Conrad, Statistical Issues in Astrophysical Searches for Particle Dark Matter, Astropart. Phys.62, 165 (2015), arXiv:1407.6617 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  103. [113]

    F. M. Gradstein, J. G. Ogg, M. D. Schmitz, and G. M. Ogg, eds.,The Geologic Time Scale(Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012)

    2012

  104. [114]

    Gallagher, R

    K. Gallagher, R. Brown, and C. Johnson, Fission track analysis and its application to geological problems, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences26, 519 (1998)

    1998

  105. [115]

    van den Haute and F

    P. van den Haute and F. de Corte, eds.,Advances in Fission-Track Geochronology(Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1998)

    1998

  106. [116]

    S. S. Wilks, The Large-Sample Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio for Testing Composite Hypotheses, Annals Math. Statist.9, 60 (1938)

    1938

  107. [117]

    B. K. Miller, A. Cole, P. Forr´ e, G. Louppe, and C. Weniger, Truncated Marginal Neural Ratio Estimation, in35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems(2021) arXiv:2107.01214 [stat.ML]

    2021 arXiv

  108. [118]

    Cerdeno, M

    D. Cerdeno, M. de los Rios, and A. D. Perez, Bayesian technique to combine independently-trained machine-learning models applied to direct dark matter detection, JCAP01, 038, arXiv:2407.21008 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.