Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 23 references

DarkSide-50's multi-scatter search excludes composite dark nuclei from 10^7 to 10^13 GeV/c^2

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 02:50 UTC pith:MD3DTOHZ

load-bearing objection First dual-phase argon UHDM search with a solid pipeline, but Eq. (7) uses the wrong mass in the flux normalization — if the code follows it, the exclusions are off by orders of magnitude. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.09421 v2 pith:MD3DTOHZ submitted 2026-02-10 hep-ex

First Nuclear Ultra-Heavy Dark Matter Search in Argon Time Projection Chambers with the DarkSide-50 Experiment

P. Agnes , I. F. Albuquerque , T. Alexander , A. K. Alton , M. Ave , H. O. Back , G. Batignani , K. Biery
show 120 more authors
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 P. Cavalcante S. Chashin A. Chepurnov D. D'Angelo S. Davini S. De Cecco A. V. Derbin M. D'Incecco C. Dionisi F. Dordei M. Downing M. Fairbairn G. Fiorillo D. Franco F. Gabriele C. Galbiati C. Ghiano C. Giganti G. K. Giovanetti V. Goicoechea Casanueva A. M. Goretti G. Grilli di Cortona A. Grobov M. Gromov M. Guam M. Gulino B. R. Hackett K. Herner T. Hessel F. Hubaut E. V. Hungerford A. Ianni V. Ippolito K. Keeter C. L. Kendziora M. Kimura I. Kochanek D. Korablev G. Korga A. Kubankin J. Kumar M. Kuss M. La Commara M. Lai X. Li M. Lissia 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. L. Renshaw M. Rescigno A. Romani D. Sablone O. Samoylov S. Sanfilippo C. Savarese B. Schlitzer D. A. Semenov A. Shchagin A. Sheshukov M. D. Skorokhvatov O. Smirnov A. Sotnikov S. Stracka 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
classification hep-ex PACS 95.35.+d
keywords ultra-heavy dark mattercomposite dark mattermulti-scatter searchdark nucleosynthesisliquid argon TPCDarkSide-50direct detectionexclusion limits
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 reports the first search for ultra-heavy dark matter (UHDM) in a liquid argon time projection chamber, using 532 days of DarkSide-50 data. Instead of looking for single low-energy recoils as in WIMP searches, it looks for a dark-matter nucleus that scatters many times while crossing the detector, leaving a track of multiple scintillation pulses. The authors present 90% confidence-level excluded regions in the UHDM mass–cross-section plane for dark-nucleon masses of 10, 50, 100, and 500 GeV/c². The exclusion band runs from the saturated-overburden cross section up to the geometric cross section, covering UHDM total masses of roughly 10⁷ to 10¹³ GeV/c². If correct, this demonstrates that multi-scatter searches in argon TPCs can constrain composite dark matter and begin to probe its internal structure.

Core claim

For the first time, a dual-phase liquid argon TPC has been used to search for nuclear ultra-heavy dark matter, composite objects made of many dark nucleons that form when the dark sector has no long-range force. Using the 532-day low-radioactivity argon run of DarkSide-50, the analysis applies quality cuts that select multi-scatter event topologies, accounts for energy loss in the Earth's overburden with a continuous slowing-down model, and derives exclusion limits on the UHDM-nucleon cross section for four dark-nucleon masses. The central result is a 90% C.L. excluded band in total-mass versus cross-section space, bounded below by the saturated-overburden cross section and above by the geom

What carries the argument

The signal is a series of S1 scintillation pulses from successive elastic scatters of a UHDM nucleus as it crosses the TPC. The recoil spectrum is shaped by the dark-nucleus form factor Fχ = 3j₁(qRχ)/(qRχ), a spherical top-hat density, and by the geometric radius Rχ = (9πMχ/4mχ⁴)^{1/3} obtained by assuming dark-nucleon forces equivalent to Standard Model ones. Overburden energy loss is computed with a continuous-slowing-down approximation, valid because the UHDM mass vastly exceeds the target mass, and the search is bounded from below by the saturated-overburden cross section σs. The analysis uses only S1, since S2 drift times are comparable to the UHDM transit time.

Load-bearing premise

The search assumes a dark nucleus has the same force structure as ordinary strong interactions, giving radius Rχ = (9πMχ/4mχ⁴)^{1/3} and a top-hat density; if the dark binding force differs, the entire exclusion band shifts in cross section and mass.

What would settle it

A single observed event in the multi-scatter channel with an S1 train of two or more pulses separated by microseconds and total energy in the 100–8000 PE window would directly contradict the null result. Alternatively, a dedicated calculation showing that the dark-nucleus radius is not set by Standard-Model-like forces would undermine the cross-section axis of the limits.

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

If this is right

  • A liquid argon TPC can detect composite UHDM through the multi-scatter topology, where a single crossing produces many S1 pulses.
  • The excluded band spans UHDM masses from roughly 10⁷ to 10¹³ GeV/c² for all four dark-nucleon masses considered.
  • The limits apply only for the assumed dark-nucleus radius; changing mχ shifts the band, so future searches can map the internal structure of UHDM.
  • The S1-only multi-scatter analysis with overburden energy loss is directly applicable to larger argon TPCs.
  • Cross sections above the geometric limit are already ruled out by self-interaction constraints, so this search closes the remaining window.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the dark binding force differs from the Standard Model strong force, the radius formula and hence the excluded band would shift by orders of magnitude; the paper's limits quantify a specific dark-sector model, not a universal bound.
  • The same multi-scatter analysis could be applied to other noble-liquid detectors, since the signature depends only on a track of energy deposits, not on argon's specific response.
  • A testable extension is to re-analyze the same dataset with alternative dark-nucleus form factors (e.g., Gaussian) to gauge model dependence.
  • The dark-nucleon mass mχ acts as an internal-structure parameter; future experiments could treat it as a continuous variable rather than sampling a few fixed values.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first search for nuclear ultra-heavy dark matter (UHDM) in a dual-phase liquid argon TPC, using the 532-day low-radioactivity argon campaign of DarkSide-50. UHDM candidates are modeled as composite dark nuclei of total mass Mχ and constituent dark-nucleon mass mχ; the analysis includes overburden energy loss with the Verne package, a multi-scatter signal simulation with LAr response from ARIS measurements, and a profile-likelihood fit to radiogenic backgrounds. The central result is a set of 90% CL exclusion curves in the (Mχ, σχ,n) plane for mχ = 10, 50, 100, and 500 GeV/c² (Fig. 9).

Significance. If the numerical results are correct, this is the first direct UHDM constraint from a dual-phase LAr TPC and a useful complement to existing searches by DEAP-3600 and LZ. Strengths of the manuscript are the coherent use of an external theoretical signal model, the published DarkSide-50 background model with small nuisance pulls (all |pull| < 0.03), and the explicit treatment of multi-scatter event topologies. However, the central quantitative claim depends on the event-rate normalization in Eq. (7), which appears to be internally inconsistent with the composite-mass formalism used everywhere else in the paper. Because this issue directly affects the reported exclusion curves and p-values, the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV A, Eq. (7)] The event-rate formula N = T(ρχ/mχ)∫|v|f d³v dA uses the constituent dark-nucleon mass mχ rather than the composite UHDM mass Mχ. The incident flux of composite dark-matter nuclei is nχ⟨v⟩ = ρχ⟨v⟩/Mχ, so the printed expression overestimates the event rate by Mχ/mχ, which is ≈10⁵–10¹² over the parameter range considered. Since the right-hand, exposure-limited edge of Fig. 9 and the p-value calculation for μ=1 depend directly on this normalization, the quoted exclusions are not justified from the formula as written. The authors must either state explicitly that the computation uses Mχ (correcting Eq. (7) as a typographical error) or recompute the limits with the correct density.
  2. [§II, Eqs. (1)–(3); §IV A, Eq. (7)] The manuscript is internally inconsistent about which mass governs UHDM kinematics. Equation (1) and the surrounding text treat σχ,n as a whole-nucleus–nucleon cross section and use reduced masses μχ,N and μχ,n that should be evaluated with the composite mass Mχ, while Eq. (7) uses mχ for the flux normalization. If the reduced masses in Eq. (1) are instead evaluated with mχ, the A² coherence enhancement and the form-factor suppression shown in Fig. 5 would also be affected. Please define explicitly which mass enters each reduced mass, the number density, and the kinetic-energy-loss formalism, and confirm that the signal Monte Carlo uses the same convention.
  3. [§IV A, detector response] The treatment of S1 for multi-scatter events is not fully specified. The text states that S1 is evaluated using the sum of all energy deposits in a TPC pass, but the LAr response parameterized by L_eff(E_R) is nonlinear; summing individual recoil energies before applying the quenching model differs from summing the S1 produced by each individual scatter. Because the ROI boundaries (100–8000 PE) and the acceptance map in Fig. 6 are derived from S1, the magnitude of this approximation should be quantified, or the simulation should be described more precisely.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§I] Typographical error: “time projection champer” should be “time projection chamber.”
  2. [§III] The sentence “masses below ∼Mχ = 10¹⁰ GeV/cm²” mixes a mass with a dimension of inverse length; this should be GeV/c², and the phrasing should be clarified.
  3. [§IV A] The sentence “No events had more than one S1 pulse” appears to contradict the preceding statement that successive energy deposits are not expected to merge into a single S1 pulse. Please clarify whether the toy simulation tested full multi-scatter events or individual energy deposits.
  4. [References] Reference [11] contains a malformed author entry (“Tailby.”); this should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the UHDM exclusion is a data-driven analysis using an external signal model and measured detector response.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. The UHDM signal model is taken from external theory papers (Hardy et al. [14], Coskuner et al. [15], Butcher et al. [16]), with the form factor (Eq. 2) and radius relation (Eq. 3) explicitly adopted from those external works rather than derived from DarkSide-50 data or from the authors' prior results. Overburden transport uses the external Verne toolkit [18,19]; the liquid-argon S1 response uses measured ARIS/DarkSide scintillation calibrations [21,22]; the background model uses measured radioactive activities [8] and is validated by a background-only fit with nuisance pulls consistent with zero; and the limit-setting uses the standard Cowan et al. likelihood [23]. No parameter is fitted to UHDM candidates and then renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to another by construction. The self-citations in refs. [6–9,21,22] provide detector calibration, background, and dataset descriptions; they are external measurements and do not smuggle in the UHDM signal claim. The apparent use of mχ rather than Mχ in Eq. (7) is a potential unit/consistency issue that could affect the exposure-limited boundary, but it is not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs and cannot be scored as circularity without confirmation of the implemented analysis code.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new entities are invented: the UHDM dark nucleus, its radius formula, and its form factor all come from prior literature (Hardy et al., Coskuner et al., Butcher et al.). The analysis inputs consist of literature model parameters and a scan over the unconstrained dark-nucleon mass mχ. The central claim depends on these inputs but does not fit them to data.

free parameters (4)
  • dark nucleon mass mχ = 10, 50, 100, 500 GeV/c² (scan points, not fitted)
    The central result is a set of four exclusion curves, one per assumed dark-nucleon mass; mχ fixes Rχ (Eq. 3), σgeo, and the recoil kinematics.
  • dark-matter mass density ρχ = 0.3 GeV/cm³ (standard halo value, unstated in text)
    Event rate (Eq. 7) scales linearly with ρχ; no halo-model uncertainty is quoted.
  • halo velocity parameters = v0 = 220 km/s, Maxwellian distribution (implicit in Fig. 4)
    Sets the 3.3 µs transit time, recoil kinematics, and overburden energy loss; no halo model variation is performed.
  • nuclear recoil scintillation response (Leff, Fq) = ARIS fits (refs. [21,22])
    S1 prediction (Eq. 6) uses ARIS-measured quenching models; summed multi-deposit energies can reach ~MeV, beyond the calibrated range, and no uncertainty is propagated.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Composite dark-matter nuclei with up to 10²⁰ constituents form via Big-Bang Dark Nucleosynthesis in a dark sector without a long-range force (refs. [14,15]).
    Motivates the searched-for object; cited from Hardy et al. and Coskuner et al.; not tested here.
  • domain assumption Dark nucleus radius Rχ = (9πMχ/4mχ⁴)^{1/3} assuming SM-equivalent dark-nucleon forces (Eq. 3).
    Load-bearing for σgeo and the form-factor scale; this is the weakest assumption.
  • domain assumption Uniform-density spherical top-hat form factor Fχ = 3j₁(qRχ)/(qRχ) (Eq. 2).
    Adopted from Butcher et al. [16]; produces the recoil-spectrum valleys in Fig. 5.
  • domain assumption Standard halo: ρχ = 0.3 GeV/cm³, v0 = 220 km/s, Maxwellian speed distribution with no galactic-parameter variation.
    Event normalization (Eq. 7), transit time, and overburden losses all scale with these.
  • domain assumption Continuous energy-loss formalism (Verne) accurately describes UHDM passage through Earth's overburden for Mχ ≫ mA.
    Sets the left boundary and σs of the excluded region; relies on Mχ ≫ mA, stated in Sec. III.
  • domain assumption LAr scintillation response models (Eqs. 5–6) with ARIS quenching describe the merged S1 of a multi-deposit track.
    The sum of deposit energies is converted to S1 via single-interaction NR response; S2 is unused and recombination corrections are avoided.
  • ad hoc to paper Trigger and data-quality selection have ~100% efficiency for signal events.
    The signal model applies only the three Table-I cuts; S2-based triggering and the 1.21 ms inhibit requirement are not folded into signal acceptance (Sec. IV.B).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11804 in / 27318 out tokens · 268007 ms · 2026-08-03T02:50:17.926054+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We report the first search for nuclear ultra-heavy dark matter (UHDM) in a dual-phase liquid argon time projection chamber using the DarkSide-50 experiment. Unlike conventional weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), nuclear UHDM candidates may be composed of many dark nucleons and scatter numerous times while passing through the detector. Accounting for energy loss through the Earth's overburden, we apply selection criteria optimized for multi-scatter event topologies using the 532-day low-radiation campaign of the DarkSide-50 detector. Excluded limits on the UHDM-nucleon scattering cross section for dark nucleon masses of $m_\chi = 10, 50, 100, 500 \, \mathrm{GeV/c^2}$ are presented.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.09421 by A. Caminata, A. Chepurnov, A. Grobov, A. Ianni, A. K. Alton, A. Kubankin, A. L. Renshaw, A. Messina, A. M. Goretti, A. Oleinik, A. O. Nozdrina, A. Pocar, A. Romani, A. Shchagin, A. Sheshukov, A. Sotnikov, A. Tonazzo, A. V. Derbin, A. Vishneva, B. Bottino, B. R. Hackett, B. Schlitzer, C. Dionisi, C. Galbiati, C. Ghiano, C. Giganti, C. L. Kendziora, C. Savarese, C. Yang, D. A. Semenov, D. D'Angelo, D. Franco, D. Korablev, D. Price, D. Sablone, E. Pantic, E. Paoloni, E. V. Hungerford, E. V. Unzhakov, F. Calaprice, F. Dordei, F. Gabriele, F. Hubaut, F. Ortica, F. Ragusa, G. Batignani, G. Fiorillo, G. Grilli di Cortona, G. K. Giovanetti, G. Korga, G. Testera, G. Zuzel, H. O. Back, H. Wang, I. F. Albuquerque, I. Kochanek, I. N. Machulin, J. Kumar, J. Maricic, J. Monroe, K. Biery, K. Herner, K. Keeter, K. Pelczar, L. Pagani, L. Pandola, L. P. Mapelli, M. Ave, M. Cadeddu, M. Cadoni, M. Caravati, M. Cariello, M. Carlini, M. D. Campos, M. D'Incecco, M. Downing, M. D. Skorokhvatov, M. Fairbairn, M. Gromov, M. Guam, M. Gulino, M. Kimura, M. Kuss, M. La Commara, M. Lai, M. Lissia, M. Morrocchi, M. M. Wojcik, M. Pallavicini, M. Poehlmann, M. Razeti, M. Rescigno, M. Wada, N. Canci, N. Cargioli, N. Pelliccia, O. Lychagina, O. Samoylov, O. Smirnov, P. Agnes, P. Cavalcante, P. Musico, P. Pralavorio, R. B. Vogelaar, R. Milincic, R. Tartaglia, S. Bussino, S. Chashin, S. Davini, S. De Cecco, S. M. Mari, S. Piacentini, S. Pordes, S. Sanfilippo, S. S. Poudel, S. Stracka, S. Westerdale, T. Alexander, T. Hessel, V. Bocci, V. Goicoechea Casanueva, V. Ippolito, V. N. Muratova, W. M. Bonivento, X. Li, X. Xiao, Y. Suvorov, Y. Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Average number of energy deposits for UHDM of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The product [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Energy deposited in the parameter space region of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Differential probability per unit recoil energy for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Energy spectrum of various UHDM candidates in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fraction of UHDM surviving cuts as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. 90% C.L. excluded region for nuclear UHDM for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    S. M. Faber and J. S. Gallagher, Masses and Mass-To- Light Ratios of Galaxies, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics17, 135 (1979)

    1979

  2. [2]

    Okamoto, S

    T. Okamoto, S. Yachi, and A. Habe, Galaxy Distribu- tion in Clusters of Galaxies, Symposium - International Astronomical Union183, 262 (1999)

    1999

  3. [3]

    Planck Collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmo- logical parameters, Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    D. N. Spergel, L. Verde, H. V. Peiris,et al., First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe ( WMAP ) Ob- servations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series148, 175 (2003)

    2003

  5. [5]

    M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Detectability of cer- tain dark-matter candidates, Physical Review D31, 3059 (1985)

    1985

  6. [6]

    Agnes, T

    P. Agnes, T. Alexander, A. Alton,et al., First results from the darkside-50 dark matter experiment at labora- tori nazionali del gran sasso, Physics Letters B743, 456 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Agnes, L

    P. Agnes, L. Agostino, A. I.F.M,et al.(DarkSide Collab- oration), Results from the first use of low radioactivity argon in a dark matter search, Phys. Rev. D93, 081101 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Agnes, I

    P. Agnes, I. F. M. Albuquerque, T. Alexander,et al., DarkSide-50 532-day dark matter search with low- radioactivity argon, Physical Review D98, 102006 (2018), 1802.07198

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide), The veto system of the DarkSide-50 experiment, JINST11(03), P03016, arXiv:1512.07896 [physics.ins-det]

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide), The veto system of the DarkSide-50 experiment, JINST11(03), P03016, arXiv:1512.07896 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Adhikari, R

    P. Adhikari, R. Ajaj, M. Alp ´ ızar-Venegas,et al.(DEAP Collaboration), First Direct Detection Constraints on Planck-Scale Mass Dark Matter with Multiple-Scatter Signatures Using the DEAP-3600 Detector, Physical Re- view Letters128, 011801 (2022), 2108.09405

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Aprile, J

    E. Aprile, J. Aalbers, F. Agostini,et al.(The XENON collaboration), Projected WIMP sensitivity of the XENONnT dark matter experiment, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020(11), 031, 2007.08796

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  12. [12]

    Ebadi, A

    R. Ebadi, A. Mathur, E. H. Tanin, and Tailby., Ultra- heavy dark matter search with electron microscopy of geological quartz, Phys. Rev. D104, 015041 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    Aalbers, D

    J. Aalbers, D. S. Akerib, A. K. Al Musalhi,et al.(LZ Col- laboration), New constraints on ultraheavy dark matter from the lz experiment, Phys. Rev. D109, 112010 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Hardy, R

    E. Hardy, R. Lasenby, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, Big bang synthesis of nuclear dark matter, Journal of High Energy Physics2015, 11 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    Coskuner, D

    A. Coskuner, D. M. Grabowska, S. Knapen, and K. M. Zurek, Direct detection of bound states of asymmetric dark matter, Physical Review D100, 035025 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Butcher, R

    A. Butcher, R. Kirk, J. Monroe, and S. M. West, Can tonne-scale direct detection experiments discover nuclear dark matter?, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017(10), 035

  17. [17]

    R. H. Helm, Inelastic and Elastic Scattering of 187-Mev Electrons from Selected Even-Even Nuclei, Physical Re- view104, 1466 (1956)

    1956

  18. [18]

    B. J. Kavanagh, Earth scattering of superheavy dark matter: Updated constraints from detectors old and new, Physical Review D97, 123013 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    B. J. Kavanagh, Verne, Astrophysics Source Code Li- brary (2016), record ascl:1802.005

    2016

  20. [20]

    Bramante, B

    J. Bramante, B. Broerman, R. F. Lang, and N. Raj, Satu- rated overburden scattering and the multiscatter frontier: Discovering dark matter at the Planck mass and beyond, Physical Review D98, 083516 (2018), 1803.08044

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Agnes, J

    P. Agnes, J. Dawson, S. De Cecco,et al.(The ARIS Collaboration), Measurement of the liquid argon energy response to nuclear and electronic recoils, Phys. Rev. D 97, 112005 (2018)

    2018

  22. [22]

    Agnes, I

    P. Agnes, I. Albuquerque, T. Alexander,et al., Sim- ulation of argon response and light detection in the DarkSide-50 dual phase TPC, Journal of Instrumenta- tion12(10), P10015

  23. [23]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymp- totic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, The European Physical Journal C71, 1554 (2011)

    2011