Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 73 references

First-principles upper bounds on dark matter-electron scattering rates from condensed matter sum rules

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For isotropic detectors where dark matter couples to electron density, the scattering rate is bounded by a formula depending only on plasma frequency, target density, and static dielectric response.

desk verdict The Hölder family of sum-rule bounds is a real, useful extension of Lasenby-Prabhu; the conservative limits are rigorous, but the 'any experiment' claim outruns the isotropic derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05282 v1 pith:O2M67UCS submitted 2026-08-05 hep-ph cond-mat.mtrl-scihep-ex

Bradford A. Barker , Jay Epstein , Luke James , Yonatan Kahn , Elizabeth A. Peterson , Anirudh Prabhu , Tanner Trickle , Samuel L. Watkins This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phcond-mat.mtrl-scihep-ex PACS 95.35.+d
keywords darkmatter-electronscatteringsumrulesenergylossfunctiondielectricplasmafrequencydirectdetectionupperboundcondensedmatterdetectors
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 turns detector design upside down: instead of computing a scattering rate for a specific material, it asks what the largest possible rate is for any target. For a dark matter particle that couples to electron density in an isotropic, zero-temperature material, it derives a family of upper bounds on the scattering rate. The bounds rely on two condensed-matter sum rules, one from causality and one from charge conservation, and depend on the plasma frequency, the mass density, and the static longitudinal dielectric function. Because these are macroscopic properties that vary little across materials, the bounds are nearly material-agnostic and give experiments a concrete reference for how close their sensitivity comes to the fundamental maximum.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the electron energy-loss function $\mathrm{Im}[-1/\varepsilon(q,\omega)]$, which encodes the target response to the density coupling. Two first-principles sum rules constrain it: the causality sum rule $\int_0^\infty d\omega\, \omega^{-1} \mathrm{Im}[-1/\varepsilon(q,\omega)] = \frac{\pi}{2}(1 - 1/\varepsilon(q,0))$ and the f-sum rule $\int_0^\infty d\omega\, \omega \, \mathrm{Im}[-1/\varepsilon(q,\omega)] = \frac{\pi}{2}\omega_p^2$. Applying H\"older's inequality to these two integrals produces the family of bounds on $K_n(q)$ for $-1\le n\le 1$, and inserting the result into the rate formula, after stripping the kinematic factor $\eta(q,\omega)$ via a maximum-over-$\omega$ step, yields Eq. (9). A second ingredient is the large-$q$ static dielectric scaling $\varepsilon(q,0)-1 \approx 4 m_e^2 \omega_p^2/q^4$, which the paper verifies with a semi-analytic atomic model and density functional theory for silicon and argues is generic across materials.

What would settle it

Measure the static longitudinal dielectric function $\varepsilon(q,0)$ of a non-cubic anisotropic target such as layered graphene or a wurtzite-structure polar crystal at momentum transfers of roughly 10 to 100 keV and test whether $\varepsilon(q,0)-1$ tracks $4 m_e^2 \omega_p^2/q^4$; a target whose response falls far below this curve in the $q$ range that dominates the rate integrand would escape the improved bound. Alternatively, a detector whose observed electron-scattering rate exceeded Eq. (9) at the quoted exposure would refute the bound's assumptions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (9): for $-1 \le n \le 1$, the dark-matter-electron scattering rate $R$ satisfies $$R \le \frac{\rho_\chi \bar\sigma_e}{\rho_T m_\chi}\frac{\$omega_p^{{n+1}}$}{4 $e^{2}$ \mu_{\chi e}^2}\int dq\, $q^{3}$ $F^{2}$ \$eta^{{\max}}$_n(q)\left[\frac{\varepsilon(q,0)-1}{\varepsilon(q,0)}\right]^{(1-n)/2}.$$ The derivation applies H\"older's inequality to the two sum rules for the electron energy-loss function, bounding $K_n(q)=\int_0^\infty d\omega\, \omega^n \mathrm{Im}[-1/\varepsilon(q,\omega)]$ by $\frac{\pi}{2}\omega_p^{n+1}[(\varepsilon(q,0)-1)/\varepsilon(q,0)]^{(1-n)/2}$. The paper further shows that at large momentum transfer the static dielectric response follows the universal scaling $\varepsilon(q,0)-1 \approx 4 m_e^2 \omega_p^2/q^4$, controlled only by the plasma frequency, so for most materials the bounds reduce to a function of $\omega_p$ and $\rho_T$. As a corollary, the bounds become lower bounds on the cross-section sensitivity of a direct detection experiment, and conventional targets such as silicon and aluminum are already within an order of magnitude of the improved bounds for light mediators across a wide mass range.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the target response is isotropic and captured by a scalar longitudinal dielectric function, while the abstract's claim to bound 'any' direct detection experiment is broader than the derivation supports, and the improved material-agnostic bounds additionally assume a universal large-$q$ dielectric scaling that is verified explicitly only for silicon.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any isotropic, zero-temperature detector in which dark matter couples to electron density has a maximum possible scattering rate set by bulk properties and the static dielectric function; no material can exceed Eq. (9).
  • The tightest conservative bound switches from $n=-1$ at low dark matter mass to $n=0$ at high mass, and the realistic dielectric response sharpens the bounds considerably, especially for light mediators.
  • Silicon and aluminum already sit within an order of magnitude of the improved bounds for light mediators over the 10 MeV to 10 GeV mass range, suggesting that increasing target mass of conventional detectors may outperform searching for bespoke materials.
  • Because the derivation only uses the structure of the rate integral, the same bounds hold for arbitrary dark matter velocity distributions, including tidal streams, cosmic ray-boosted dark matter, and solar-reflected dark matter.
  • The bounds are derived under a zero-background assumption; with a large background rate the reach of even an optimal isotropic material saturates, while anisotropic materials with daily modulation sensitivity keep improving with exposure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same sum-rule technique could plausibly be extended to anisotropic targets by applying the inequalities to each direction of the dielectric tensor separately, yielding directional versions of the bound; the paper does not make this extension.
  • The improved bound inherits its large-$q$ behavior from the universal $q^{-4}$ dielectric scaling, so a target with strongly relativistic core electrons might deviate from the scaling above roughly 200 keV, a regime the paper handles conservatively by flattening the dielectric response.
  • A practical screening rule follows implicitly from the bound: materials with the largest ratio $\omega_p^{n+1}/\rho_T$ come closest to saturating the maximum rate, so proposed detector materials could be surveyed by computing this bulk ratio plus a static dielectric calculation rather than a full scattering-rate computation.
  • If a future experiment reported a rate above Eq. (9) under the stated assumptions, it would signal either a breakdown of the dielectric formalism for that target or a background not accounted for in the zero-background derivation.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives upper bounds on the dark matter-electron scattering rate for targets in which dark matter couples to electron density. Starting from the rate formula written in terms of the electron energy-loss function and using the two standard sum rules for Im[-1/ε(q,ω)], the authors apply Hölder inequalities to obtain a one-parameter family of bounds, Eq. (9), involving ω_p, ρ_T, and the static dielectric function ε(q,0). From this they extract conservative bounds that depend only on ω_p and ρ_T, and improved bounds that use a DFT calculation for silicon at low momentum transfer together with a semi-analytic RHF-plus-Coulomb-wave model for core transitions and a large-q scaling ε(q,0)-1 ∝ q^{-4}. The resulting sensitivity limits are compared with existing experiments and proposals.

Significance. If the stated result is correct, the conservative part of the paper is a genuinely useful theorem: it converts a complicated many-body response into a rigorous, material-agnostic upper bound depending only on two bulk quantities, and it sharpens earlier sum-rule bounds by combining the two sum rules via Hölder interpolation. The identification of the n=-1 and n=0 branches and their different dark-matter-mass scalings is physically informative. The paper also makes a good-faith effort to go beyond conservative bounds by combining DFT with an explicit core-transition model, and the authors are transparent about the semi-analytic approximations. The central derivation appears sound. However, the strongest claims in the abstract and conclusions reach beyond what is derived: the rate formula is expressly restricted to isotropic targets with a diagonal dielectric tensor, and the improved 'material-agnostic' bounds are validated numerically only for silicon and rely on a heuristic continuation at large q.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Derivation of the upper bounds, Eq. (4) and footnote [61]] The abstract claims that the bounds 'place a fundamental limit on the sensitivity of any dark matter-electron direct detection experiment', but the derivation is restricted to isotropic targets. Eq. (4) is introduced explicitly for isotropic targets with a scalar longitudinal dielectric function, and footnote [61] states that the dielectric tensor is assumed diagonal throughout. The rate for anisotropic detector candidates cited in the introduction — graphene, carbon nanotubes, polar crystals, anisotropic organic crystals — depends on the orientation of the crystal relative to the dark matter wind and cannot be reduced to the scalar form of Eq. (4). No argument is given that the same bound in terms of ω_p, ρ_T, and a scalar ε(q,0) applies to such targets. Please restrict the claims to isotropic (or appropriately orientation-averaged) targets, or extend the derivation to tensor dielectric responses.
  2. [Improved cross section bounds; Eq. (12) and Fig. 2] The improved bounds are presented as 'largely material-agnostic', but this relies on the universality of the large-q scaling ε(q,0)-1 ≈ 4 m_e^2 ω_p^2 / q^4. The analytic derivation of Eq. (12) assumes plane-wave final states and q much larger than both the initial-state momenta and the binding energies, and the numerical verification is shown only for silicon core shells in Fig. S.1. No calculation is presented for other materials with different core structures, band structures, or dielectric tensors. As written, Fig. 3 is a silicon-specific result, not a demonstration of material-agnosticism. Please add explicit validation for additional representative materials, or soften the claim to a conjecture for the large-q behavior supported by the silicon example.
  3. [Improved cross section bounds; Fig. 2 and surrounding text] The quantitative improved bounds depend on a patchwork of approximations whose combined uncertainty is not quantified: DFT with a 4-valence-electron pseudopotential at q ≲ 11.8 keV, a semi-analytic core model with RHF initial states and Coulomb-wave final states, neglect of l_i = l_f transitions, and a heuristic continuation in which ε(q,0)-1 is held constant for q ≥ 200 keV. The constant continuation is conservative in the sense described, but the matching between DFT and the core model, and the sensitivity of the final bounds to the matching and continuation choices, are not assessed. Since the improved bounds are the headline quantitative result, please provide an error estimate or a robustness check (e.g., varying the matching scale and the continuation value).
  4. [Density-functional theory subsection and Fig. 2] The silicon application uses a directionally-averaged DFT dielectric function, but Eq. (4) assumes a scalar, direction-independent response. Cubic silicon has a diagonal dielectric tensor, yet its longitudinal response at finite momentum transfer can still depend on the direction of q relative to the crystal axes. The derivation as written does not establish that replacing the true direction-dependent ε(q,0) by its directional average yields a valid upper bound for a fixed crystal orientation; it would describe a polycrystalline or orientation-averaged target. Please clarify which physical target ensemble the improved bounds apply to, and whether a single-crystal silicon detector is covered.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Before Eq. (4)] The condition 'ε(q,ω)≈ε(q,ω)' appears to be a typo; it should express that ε depends only on q=|q| (isotropic response) rather than being trivially equal to itself.
  2. [Eq. (8) and surrounding text] Please state explicitly that the Hölder exponents are related to n by 1/r = (1+n)/2 and 1/s = (1-n)/2, so that the condition -1 ≤ n ≤ 1 follows directly from r,s ≥ 1. As written, the relation between n and r,s is implicit.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The plasma frequency ω_p is used without a definition in the main text. Please define it, e.g., ω_p^2 = n_e e^2/m_e in Heaviside-Lorentz units, and reiterate that n_e counts all electrons, including core electrons.
  4. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (S.17) paragraph] The neglect of l_i = l_f contributions to avoid spurious q→0 matrix elements is an important approximation for the matching region around q ~ 10 keV; it is described only in the Supplemental Material. Please flag this approximation in the main text where the semi-analytic model is introduced.
  5. [Fig. 2 caption] The grey hashed region and the condition q^2/(2m_e) ≳ 0.1 m_e should be stated with units; as written it is easy to misread the energy scale.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bounds follow from standard external sum rules and independent material inputs, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The rate formula (Eq. 3, then Eq. 4 for isotropic targets) is taken from prior dielectric-function literature (Refs. [40-42]); the sum rules (Eqs. 1-2) are standard causality and charge-conservation constraints quoted from condensed-matter texts; and the Hölder step (Eqs. 7-8) is a direct mathematical inequality applied to those independent inputs. The bound (Eq. 9) depends only on omega_p, rho_T, epsilon(q,0), and kinematic quantities; no parameter is fitted to dark-matter data and then renamed a prediction. The improved bounds use a DFT calculation and a semi-analytic RHF/Coulomb-wave dielectric for silicon, with the large-q scaling Eq. 12 following analytically from the Lindhard formula under stated plane-wave assumptions; this is an independent material computation, not an ansatz smuggled in from the present authors' prior work. The only self-citation, Ref. [55] by co-author Prabhu, is explicitly generalized (the n=-1 limit of Eq. 9) rather than used as a load-bearing premise. Footnote [61] restricts epsilon to a diagonal dielectric tensor, so the abstract's 'any experiment' phrasing is broader than the isotropic derivation supports; that is a scope/correctness limitation, not a circular reduction. No circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation is built on standard sum rules plus the isotropic target assumption. The material-agnostic improved bound additionally assumes that the q^{-4} large-q dielectric behavior is universal, which is only verified for silicon.

free parameters (1)
  • large-q dielectric constant ε_cut = ε(q=200 keV) from semi-analytic model
    Set to a constant for q≥200 keV to conservatively bound ignorance in the relativistic regime; chosen by hand, not fitted to DM data, and affects the strength but not the validity of the improved bounds.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The electron energy-loss function satisfies the sum rules (1) and (2) for all q in the target.
    These sum rules follow from causality and charge conservation for condensed matter systems; they are standard external constraints used as the foundation of the derivation.
  • domain assumption The DM-electron scattering rate for electron-density coupling is given by Eq. (3).
    This formula is taken from prior literature (Refs [40,41]) and is valid for the benchmark model of a kinetically-mixed dark photon mediator; it assumes the target response is described by the loss function.
  • domain assumption The target is isotropic, so a scalar dielectric function ε(q,ω) fully characterizes the response.
    Explicitly assumed in Eq. (4) and throughout; anisotropic materials with tensor responses are not covered by the derived bound.
  • domain assumption The static dielectric function is positive, ε(q,0)>0, for ground-state materials at zero temperature.
    Used in the conservative replacement (1-1/ε)→1; true for stable equilibrium systems, though not universal for all hypothetical media.
  • ad hoc to paper The large-q behavior of the static dielectric function is universal, ε(q,0)-1 ≈ 4 m_e^2 ω_p^2 / q^4, across materials.
    Derived under plane-wave final-state approximations and explicitly verified for silicon only; extrapolation to all materials underpins the claim that the improved bounds are largely material-agnostic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First-principles upper bounds on dark matter-electron scattering rates from condensed matter sum rules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O2M67UCS

@misc{pith2026260805282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First-principles upper bounds on dark matter-electron scattering rates from condensed matter sum rules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O2M67UCS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05282}
}
abstract

A wide variety of condensed matter systems are used or proposed as detectors to search for dark matter-electron scattering. In general, the scattering rate depends on detailed knowledge of the electronic properties of these systems. However, when dark matter couples to electron density, the dark matter-electron scattering rate can be related to the electron energy loss function, whose integrals are bounded by first-principles sum rules that rely on only a few macroscopic target properties. In this paper, we use these first-principles sum rules to derive upper bounds on the dark matter-electron scattering rate depending on only a few material properties: the plasma frequency $\omega_\text{p}$, the target mass density $\rho_T$, and the static (longitudinal) dielectric function at finite momentum transfer, $\varepsilon(q, 0)$. The bulk material properties $\omega_\text{p}$ and $\rho_T$ vary only over a limited range across a wide variety of materials, and to a good approximation, the generic large-$q$ dependence of $\varepsilon(q, 0)$ can be understood from a simple scaling law depending only on $\omega_\text{p}$ which we verify with analytic and numerical examples. Thus, our upper bounds are largely material-agnostic, and place a fundamental limit on the sensitivity of any dark matter-electron direct detection experiment probing the coupling to electron density.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05282 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of the conservative lower bounds on the 95% C.L. (3 events, zero background) cross section sensitivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Static dielectric response of silicon, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of the improved lower bounds on the 95% C.L. (3 events, no background) cross section sensitivity of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [55]

    DM-electron scattering in materials: sum rules and heterostructures

    R. Lasenby and A. Prabhu, “Dark matter–electron scattering in materials: Sum rules and heterostructures,”Phys. Rev. D105no. 9, (2022) 095009,arXiv:2110.01587 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier Dark Matter Direct Detection to the Neutrino Fog,

    D. S. Akeribet al., “Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier Dark Matter Direct Detection to the Neutrino Fog,” in Snowmass 2021. 3, 2022.arXiv:2203.08084 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [2]

    Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark matter direct detection in the next decade,

    R. Essiget al., “Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark matter direct detection in the next decade,” inSnowmass 2021. 3, 2022. arXiv:2203.08297 [hep-ph]. [3]DAMIC-MCollaboration, K. Aggarwalet al., “Probing Benchmark Models of Hidden-Sector Dark Matter with DAMIC-M,”Phys. Rev. Lett.135no. 7, (2025) 071002,arXiv:2503.14617 [hep-e...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [10]

    Probing Dark Matter-Electron Interactions with Superconducting Qubits,

    Y. Hochberg, M. Khalaf, N. Kurinsky, A. Lenoci, and R. Ovadia, “Probing Dark Matter-Electron Interactions with Superconducting Qubits,”arXiv:2601.02474 [hep-ph]. [11]DarkSideCollaboration, P. Agneset al., “Search for Dark Matter Particle Interactions with Electron Final States with DarkSide-50,”Phys. Rev. Lett.130no. 10, (2023) 101002,arXiv:2207.11968 [he...

    arXiv 2023

  5. [14]

    Detection of Light Dark Matter With Optical Phonons in Polar Materials,

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, M. Pyle, and K. M. Zurek, “Detection of Light Dark Matter With Optical Phonons in Polar Materials,”Phys. Lett. B785(2018) 386–390, arXiv:1712.06598 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [15]

    Multichannel direct detection of light dark matter: Target comparison,

    S. M. Griffin, K. Inzani, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, “Multichannel direct detection of light dark matter: Target comparison,”Phys. Rev. D101 no. 5, (2020) 055004,arXiv:1910.10716 [hep-ph]. [16]TESSERACTCollaboration, T. K. Buiet al., “First Limits on Light Dark Matter Interactions in a Low Threshold Two-Channel Athermal Phonon Detector from th...

    arXiv 2020

  7. [17]

    Directional detection of dark matter with two-dimensional targets,

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, C. G. Tully, and K. M. Zurek, “Directional detection of dark matter with two-dimensional targets,”Phys. Lett. B772(2017) 239–246,arXiv:1606.08849 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [18]

    Direct searches for general dark matter-electron interactions with graphene detectors: Part I. Electronic structure calculations,

    R. Catena, T. Emken, M. Matas, N. A. Spaldin, and E. Urdshals, “Direct searches for general dark matter-electron interactions with graphene detectors: Part I. Electronic structure calculations,”Phys. Rev. Res.5no. 4, (2023) 043257,arXiv:2303.15497 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 73 references
  1. [19]

    Direct searches for general dark matter-electron interactions with graphene detectors: Part II. Sensitivity studies,

    R. Catena, T. Emken, M. Matas, N. A. Spaldin, and E. Urdshals, “Direct searches for general dark matter-electron interactions with graphene detectors: Part II. Sensitivity studies,”Phys. Rev. Res.5no. 4, (2023) 043258,arXiv:2303.15509 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [20]

    Sub-MeV dark matter detection with bilayer graphene,

    A. Das, J. Jang, and H. Min, “Sub-MeV dark matter detection with bilayer graphene,”Phys. Rev. D110 no. 4, (2024) 043020,arXiv:2312.00866 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [21]

    Dive deeper with SUBMARINE: SUB-Mev dArk matter diRect detectIon using bilayer grapheNE,

    R. Sherpa, A. Sarkar, T. N. Maity, P. Dutta, R. Laha, and A. Das, “Dive deeper with SUBMARINE: SUB-Mev dArk matter diRect detectIon using bilayer grapheNE,”arXiv:2604.21969 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  4. [22]

    Sub-GeV Dark Matter Detection with Electron Recoils in Carbon Nanotubes,

    G. Cavoto, F. Luchetta, and A. D. Polosa, “Sub-GeV Dark Matter Detection with Electron Recoils in Carbon Nanotubes,”Phys. Lett. B776(2018) 338–344, arXiv:1706.02487 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [23]

    Detection of sub-MeV Dark Matter with Three-Dimensional Dirac Materials,

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, K. M. Zurek, A. G. Grushin, R. Ilan, S. M. Griffin, Z.-F. Liu, S. F. Weber, and J. B. Neaton, “Detection of sub-MeV Dark Matter with Three-Dimensional Dirac Materials,”Phys. Rev. D 97no. 1, (2018) 015004,arXiv:1708.08929 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [24]

    Directional Dark Matter Detection in Anisotropic Dirac Materials,

    A. Coskuner, A. Mitridate, A. Olivares, and K. M. Zurek, “Directional Dark Matter Detection in Anisotropic Dirac Materials,”Phys. Rev. D103no. 1, (2021) 016006,arXiv:1909.09170 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [25]

    Dirac Materials for Sub-MeV Dark Matter Detection: New Targets and Improved Formalism,

    R. M. Geilhufe, F. Kahlhoefer, and M. W. Winkler, “Dirac Materials for Sub-MeV Dark Matter Detection: New Targets and Improved Formalism,”Phys. Rev. D 101no. 5, (2020) 055005,arXiv:1910.02091 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [26]

    Prediction of Tunable Spin-Orbit Gapped Materials for Dark Matter Detection,

    K. Inzani, A. Faghaninia, and S. M. Griffin, “Prediction of Tunable Spin-Orbit Gapped Materials for Dark Matter Detection,”Phys. Rev. Res.3no. 1, (2021) 013069,arXiv:2008.05062 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [27]

    Dark matter direct detection in materials with spin-orbit coupling,

    H.-Y. Chen, A. Mitridate, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, M. Bernardi, and K. M. Zurek, “Dark matter direct detection in materials with spin-orbit coupling,”Phys. Rev. D106no. 1, (2022) 015024,arXiv:2202.11716 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [28]

    SPLENDOR: a novel detector platform to search for light dark matter with narrow-gap semiconductors,

    P. Abbamonteet al., “SPLENDOR: a novel detector platform to search for light dark matter with narrow-gap semiconductors,”arXiv:2507.17782 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  11. [29]

    First High-Throughput Evaluation of Dark Matter Detector Materials,

    S. M. Griffin, Y. Hochberg, B. V. Lehmann, R. Ovadia, K. A. Persson, B. A. Suter, R. Yang, XI, and W. Zhao, “First High-Throughput Evaluation of Dark Matter Detector Materials,”Phys. Rev. Lett.136no. 19, (2026) 191801,arXiv:2506.19905 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  12. [30]

    Direct Detection of sub-GeV Dark Matter with Scintillating Targets,

    S. Derenzo, R. Essig, A. Massari, A. Soto, and T.-T. Yu, “Direct Detection of sub-GeV Dark Matter with Scintillating Targets,”Phys. Rev. D96no. 1, (2017) 016026,arXiv:1607.01009 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [31]

    Dark Matter-Electron Scattering from Aromatic Organic Targets,

    C. Blanco, J. I. Collar, Y. Kahn, and B. Lillard, “Dark Matter-Electron Scattering from Aromatic Organic Targets,”Phys. Rev. D101no. 5, (2020) 056001, arXiv:1912.02822 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [32]

    Dark Matter Daily Modulation With Anisotropic Organic Crystals,

    C. Blanco, Y. Kahn, B. Lillard, and S. D. McDermott, “Dark Matter Daily Modulation With Anisotropic Organic Crystals,”Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 036011, arXiv:2103.08601 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [33]

    Dark matter direct detection with quantum dots,

    C. Blanco, R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, H. Ramani, and O. Slone, “Dark matter direct detection with quantum dots,”Phys. Rev. D107no. 9, (2023) 095035, arXiv:2208.05967 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [34]

    Doped semiconductor devices for sub-MeV dark matter detection,

    P. Du, D. Ega˜ na-Ugrinovic, R. Essig, and M. Sholapurkar, “Doped semiconductor devices for sub-MeV dark matter detection,”Phys. Rev. D109 no. 5, (2024) 055009,arXiv:2212.04504 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [35]

    Searches for light dark matter using condensed matter systems,

    Y. Kahn and T. Lin, “Searches for light dark matter using condensed matter systems,”Rept. Prog. Phys.85 no. 6, (2022) 066901,arXiv:2108.03239 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [36]

    Dark Matter Candidates of a Very Low Mass,

    K. M. Zurek, “Dark Matter Candidates of a Very Low Mass,”Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.74no. 1, (2024) 287–319,arXiv:2401.03025 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [37]

    Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter,

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, “Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. D85 8 (2012) 076007,arXiv:1108.5383 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [38]

    Direct Detection of sub-GeV Dark Matter with Semiconductor Targets,

    R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, “Direct Detection of sub-GeV Dark Matter with Semiconductor Targets,” JHEP05(2016) 046,arXiv:1509.01598 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [39]

    Extended calculation of dark matter-electron scattering in crystal targets,

    S. M. Griffin, K. Inzani, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, “Extended calculation of dark matter-electron scattering in crystal targets,”Phys. Rev. D104no. 9, (2021) 095015,arXiv:2105.05253 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [40]

    Determining Dark-Matter–Electron Scattering Rates from the Dielectric Function,

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, N. Kurinsky, B. V. Lehmann, T. C. Yu, and K. K. Berggren, “Determining Dark-Matter–Electron Scattering Rates from the Dielectric Function,”Phys. Rev. Lett.127no. 15, (2021) 151802,arXiv:2101.08263 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [41]

    Dark matter-electron scattering in dielectrics,

    S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, “Dark matter-electron scattering in dielectrics,”Phys. Rev. D 104no. 1, (2021) 015031,arXiv:2101.08275 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [42]

    Directional detection of dark matter with anisotropic response functions,

    C. Boyd, Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, E. D. Kramer, N. Kurinsky, B. V. Lehmann, and T. C. Yu, “Directional detection of dark matter with anisotropic response functions,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 1, (2023) 015015,arXiv:2212.04505 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [43]

    Extended calculation of electronic excitations for direct detection of dark matter,

    T. Trickle, “Extended calculation of electronic excitations for direct detection of dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D107no. 3, (2023) 035035,arXiv:2210.14917 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [44]

    Fully ab-initio all-electron calculation of dark matter-electron scattering in crystals with evaluation of systematic uncertainties,

    C. E. Dreyer, R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, A. Singal, and C. Zhen, “Fully ab-initio all-electron calculation of dark matter-electron scattering in crystals with evaluation of systematic uncertainties,”Phys. Rev. D 109no. 11, (2024) 115008,arXiv:2306.14944 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [45]

    Linear response theory for light dark matter-electron scattering in materials,

    R. Catena and N. A. Spaldin, “Linear response theory for light dark matter-electron scattering in materials,” Phys. Rev. Res.6no. 3, (2024) 033230, arXiv:2402.06817 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [46]

    The non-relativistic effective field theory of dark matter-electron interactions,

    G. Krnjaic, D. Rocha, and T. Trickle, “The non-relativistic effective field theory of dark matter-electron interactions,”JHEP03(2025) 165, arXiv:2407.14598 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [47]

    Determining (All) Dark Matter-Electron Scattering Rates From Material Properties,

    Y. Hochberg, M. Khalaf, A. Lenoci, and R. Ovadia, “Determining (All) Dark Matter-Electron Scattering Rates From Material Properties,”arXiv:2510.25835 [hep-ph]

  30. [48]

    All-electron dark matter-electron scattering with random-phase approximation dielectric screening and local field effects,

    C. Dreyer, R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, M. Hott, and A. Singal, “All-electron dark matter-electron scattering with random-phase approximation dielectric screening and local field effects,”arXiv:2603.12326 [hep-ph]

  31. [49]

    G. D. Mahan,Many-Particle Physics. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 3 ed., 2000

    2000

  32. [50]

    Dressel and G

    M. Dressel and G. Gruner,Electrodynamics of Solids: Optical Properties of Electrons in Matter. Cambridge University Press, 2002

    2002

  33. [51]

    Collective energy losses in solids,

    D. Pines, “Collective energy losses in solids,”Reviews of modern physics28no. 3, (1956) 184

    1956

  34. [52]

    Quantum weight: A fundamental property of quantum many-body systems,

    Y. Onishi and L. Fu, “Quantum weight: A fundamental property of quantum many-body systems,”Phys. Rev. Res.7(May, 2025) 023158.https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.7.023158

    2025 doi

  35. [53]

    Optical bounds on many-electron localization,

    I. Souza, R. Martin, and M. Stengel, “Optical bounds on many-electron localization,”SciPost Physics18 no. 4, (Apr., 2025) . http://dx.doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.18.4.127

    2025 doi

  36. [54]

    Instantaneous response and quantum geometry of insulators,

    N. Verma and R. Queiroz, “Instantaneous response and quantum geometry of insulators,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122no. 49, (Dec., 2025) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2405837122

    2025 doi

  37. [56]

    A general upper bound on the light dark matter scattering rate in materials,

    R. Catena and M. Iglicki, “A general upper bound on the light dark matter scattering rate in materials,” JCAP08(2025) 088,arXiv:2501.18261 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [57]

    Constraints from a many-body method on spin-independent dark matter scattering off electrons using data from germanium and xenon detectors,

    M. K. Pandey, L. Singh, C.-P. Wu, J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, C.-C. Hsieh, C. P. Liu, and H. T. Wong, “Constraints from a many-body method on spin-independent dark matter scattering off electrons using data from germanium and xenon detectors,” Phys. Rev. D102no. 12, (2020) 123025, ...

    2020 arXiv

  39. [58]

    Electronic Direct Detection of Light Dark Matter with Intermediate-Mass Mediators,

    C. Stratman and T. Trickle, “Electronic Direct Detection of Light Dark Matter with Intermediate-Mass Mediators,”arXiv:2605.11063 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  40. [59]

    Multi-Channel Direct Detection of Light Dark Matter: Theoretical Framework,

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

    2020 arXiv

  41. [60]

    Electron interaction in solids. characteristic energy loss spectrum,

    P. Nozi` eres and D. Pines, “Electron interaction in solids. characteristic energy loss spectrum,”Phys. Rev. 113(Mar, 1959) 1254–1267.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.113.1254. [61]ε(q, ω) is the longitudinal dielectric when the target dielectric tensor is diagonal, w...

    1959 doi

  42. [62]

    ¨Uber einen mittelwertsatz,

    O. H¨ older, “¨Uber einen mittelwertsatz,”Nachrichten von der K¨ oniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G¨ ottingen(1889) 38–47

  43. [63]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun,Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. 1965

    1965

  44. [64]

    Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches,

    D. Baxteret al., “Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches,” Eur. Phys. J. C81no. 10, (2021) 907, arXiv:2105.00599 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [65]

    Dark matter absorption via electronic excitations,

    A. Mitridate, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, “Dark matter absorption via electronic excitations,” JHEP09(2021) 123,arXiv:2106.12586 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [66]

    Quantum espresso: a modular and open-source software project for quantum simulations of materials,

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, and I. Dabo, “Quantum espresso: a modular and open-source software project for quantum simulations of materials,”J. Phys. Condens. Matter21 (2009) 395502.https:/...

    2009 doi

  47. [67]

    Advanced capabilities for materials modelling with quantum espresso,

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. Buangiorno Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli,et al., “Advanced capabilities for materials modelling with quantum espresso,”J. Phys. Condens. Matter29(2017) 465901. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10....

    2017

  48. [68]

    Quantum espresso toward the exascale,

    P. Giannozzi, O. Baseggio,et al., “Quantum espresso toward the exascale,”J. Chem. Phys.152no. 15, (2020) 154105

    2020

  49. [69]

    Generalized gradient approximation made simple,

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, “Generalized gradient approximation made simple,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 77(Oct, 1996) 3865–3868.https: 9 //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865

    1996 doi

  50. [70]

    Optimized norm-conserving vanderbilt pseudopotentials,

    D. R. Hamann, “Optimized norm-conserving vanderbilt pseudopotentials,”Phys. Rev. B88(Aug, 2013) 085117.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.88.085117

    2013 doi

  51. [71]

    Electron correlation in semiconductors and insulators: Band gaps and quasiparticle energies,

    M. S. Hybertsen and S. G. Louie, “Electron correlation in semiconductors and insulators: Band gaps and quasiparticle energies,”Phys. Rev. B34(Oct, 1986) 5390–5413.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.34.5390

    1986 doi

  52. [72]

    Berkeleygw: A massively parallel computer package for the calculation of the quasiparticle and optical properties of materials and nanostructures,

    J. Deslippe, G. Samsonidze, D. A. Strubbe, M. Jain, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, “Berkeleygw: A massively parallel computer package for the calculation of the quasiparticle and optical properties of materials and nanostructures,”Comput. Phys. Commun.183 (2012) 1269–1289. http...

    2012 doi

  53. [73]

    Model dielectric function for semiconductors,

    G. Cappellini, R. Del Sole, L. Reining, and F. Bechstedt, “Model dielectric function for semiconductors,”Phys. Rev. B47(Apr, 1993) 9892–9895.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.47.9892

    1993 doi

  54. [74]

    Self-consistent field theory for open shells of electronic systems,

    C. C. J. Roothaan, “Self-consistent field theory for open shells of electronic systems,”Rev. Mod. Phys.32(Apr,

  55. [75]

    valence-to-free

    This approach for modeling the core-to-free transitions is similar to that used in Ref. [39]. We omit the corresponding “valence-to-free” and “core-to-conduction” contributions since we are primarily focused on the largeqasymptotic behavior, for which we expect core-to-free tr...

  56. [76]

    Statistics of Daily Modulation in Dark Matter Direct Detection Experiments,

    C. Blanco, J. W. Foster, Y. Kahn, and B. Lillard, “Statistics of Daily Modulation in Dark Matter Direct Detection Experiments,”arXiv:2602.15947 [hep-ph]

  57. [77]

    The effects of the Sagittarius dwarf tidal stream on dark matter detectors,

    K. Freese, P. Gondolo, H. J. Newberg, and M. Lewis, “The effects of the Sagittarius dwarf tidal stream on dark matter detectors,”Phys. Rev. Lett.92(2004) 111301,arXiv:astro-ph/0310334

    2004 arXiv

  58. [78]

    Detectability of weakly interacting massive particles in the Sagittarius dwarf tidal stream,

    K. Freese, P. Gondolo, and H. J. Newberg, “Detectability of weakly interacting massive particles in the Sagittarius dwarf tidal stream,”Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 043516,arXiv:astro-ph/0309279

    2005 arXiv

  59. [79]

    Directional detection of dark matter streams,

    C. A. J. O’Hare and A. M. Green, “Directional detection of dark matter streams,”Phys. Rev. D90 no. 12, (2014) 123511,arXiv:1410.2749 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  60. [80]

    Novel direct detection constraints on light dark matter,

    T. Bringmann and M. Pospelov, “Novel direct detection constraints on light dark matter,”Phys. Rev. Lett.122 no. 17, (2019) 171801,arXiv:1810.10543 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [81]

    Directly Detecting MeV-scale Dark Matter via Solar Reflection,

    H. An, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, “Directly Detecting MeV-scale Dark Matter via Solar Reflection,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120no. 14, (2018) 141801, arXiv:1708.03642 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 259903 (2018)]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [82]

    Solar reflection of dark matter,

    H. An, H. Nie, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, “Solar reflection of dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D104 no. 10, (2021) 103026,arXiv:2108.10332 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [83]

    Roothaan–Hartree–Fock Ground-State Atomic Wave Functions: Slater-Type Orbital Expansions and Expectation Values forZ= 2–54,

    C. F. Bunge, J. A. Barrientos, and A. V. Bunge, “Roothaan–Hartree–Fock Ground-State Atomic Wave Functions: Slater-Type Orbital Expansions and Expectation Values forZ= 2–54,”Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.53no. 1, (1993) 113–162

    1993

  64. [84]

    Atomic responses to general dark matter-electron interactions,

    R. Catena, T. Emken, N. A. Spaldin, and W. Tarantino, “Atomic responses to general dark matter-electron interactions,”Phys. Rev. Research2 no. 3, (2020) 033195,arXiv:1912.08204 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Research 7, 019001 (2025)]. 10 Supplemental Material: Semi-Analytical...

    2020 arXiv

  65. [1960]

    179–185.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.32.179

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.