- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Information-theoretic astrophysical uncertainties in the effective theory of dark matter direct detection

Gonzalo Herrera*

  • Department of Physics and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA, Harvard University, Department of Physics and Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA, and Center for Neutrino Physics, Department of Physics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA

  • *Contact author: gonzaloh@mit.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 114, 015039 – Published 27 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/4dgc-s9rl

Abstract

The impact of astrophysical uncertainties in direct detection searches can vary significantly across particle dark matter models and detector targets, due to the different velocity and momentum dependencies of the scattering cross section. We address these uncertainties for all operators of the nonrelativistic effective field theory of dark-matter/nucleon interactions, making use of the Kullback-Leibler (KL) information divergence to measure the deviation of the true dark matter velocity distribution from the Maxwell-Boltzmann form. This approach quantifies how astrophysical uncertainties affect each operator in the effective theory, without assuming any specific functional form for the velocity distribution. While for some operators the uncertainties are smaller than 1 order of magnitude for entropically motivated deviations from the Maxwell-Boltzmann form, for other operators, these uncertainties can be as large as three orders of magnitude near threshold. Furthermore, we identify the dependence of the scattering rate for various operators of the effective theory with different velocity-weighted moments of the velocity distribution, functionally analogous to the mean, variance, or skewness. This provides new analytic insight into which features of the velocity distribution are most relevant to detect a given particle dark matter model. Our technique is general and could be applied to a broader class of physics problems where a physical observable depends on the statistical moments of an uncertain theoretical distribution.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (130)

  1. Heinz Pagels and Joel R. Primack, Supersymmetry, cosmology and new TeV physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 223 (1982).
  2. John R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. Olive, and M. Srednicki, Supersymmetric relics from the big bang, Nucl. Phys. B238, 453 (1984).
  3. Gerard Jungman, Marc Kamionkowski, and Kim Griest, Supersymmetric dark matter, Phys. Rep. 267, 195 (1996).
  4. Gianfranco Bertone, Dan Hooper, and Joseph Silk, Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rep. 405, 279 (2005).
  5. Giorgio Arcadi, Maíra Dutra, Pradipta Ghosh, Manfred Lindner, Yann Mambrini, Mathias Pierre, Stefano Profumo, and Farinaldo S. Queiroz, The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 203 (2018).
  6. Marco Cirelli, Alessandro Strumia, and Jure Zupan, Dark matter, arXiv:2406.01705.
  7. Mark W. Goodman and Edward Witten, Detectability of certain dark matter candidates, Phys. Rev. D 31, 3059 (1985).
  8. A. K. Drukier, Katherine Freese, and D. N. Spergel, Detecting cold dark matter candidates, Phys. Rev. D 33, 3495 (1986).
  9. Rouven Essig, Jeremy Mardon, and Tomer Volansky, Direct detection of sub-GeV dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 85, 076007 (2012).
  10. Marc Schumann, Direct detection of WIMP dark matter: Concepts and status, J. Phys. G 46, 103003 (2019).
  11. Julien Billard et al., Direct detection of dark matter—APPEC committee report, Rep. Prog. Phys. 85, 056201 (2022).
  12. Rouven Essig et al., Snowmass2021 cosmic frontier: The landscape of low-threshold dark matter direct detection in the next decade, Snowmass 2021 (2022), arXiv:2203.08297.
  13. Gordan Krnjaic, Testing thermal-relic dark matter with a dark photon mediator, Phys. Rev. D 113, 115057 (2026).
  14. Andrew Cheek et al., Sub-GeV dark matter under pressure from direct detection, arXiv:2507.15956.
  15. D. Alonso-González, D. Cerdeño, P. Foldenauer, and J. M. No, GeV-scale thermal dark matter from dark photons: Tightly constrained, yet allowed, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2026) 083.
  16. Debasish Borah, Satyabrata Mahapatra, Narendra Sahu, and Vicky Singh Thounaojam, Light thermal dark matter models in the light of DAMIC-M 2025 constraints, Phys. Rev. D 113, 015026 (2026).
  17. Liron Barak et al., SENSEI: Direct-detection results on sub-gev dark matter from a new skipper-CCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 171802 (2020).
  18. K. Aggarwal et al., Probing benchmark models of hidden-sector dark matter with DAMICM, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 071002 (2025).
  19. Bernadette K. Cogswell, Apurva Goel, and Patrick Huber, Passive low-energy nuclear-recoil detection with color centers, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 064060 (2021).
  20. Gabriela A. Araujo et al., Nuclear recoil detection with color centers in bulk lithium fluoride, arXiv:2503.20732.
  21. Laura Baudis et al., First sub-MeV dark matter search with the QROCODILE experiment using superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 081002 (2025).
  22. G. Angloher et al., Results from the first cryogenic NaI detector for the COSINUS project, J. Instrum. 12, P11007 (2017).
  23. G. Angloher et al., Defect formation in nai crystals: A novel pathway to dark matter detection, Phys. Rev. D 113, 043039 (2026).
  24. JiJi Fan, Matthew Reece, and Lian-Tao Wang, Non-relativistic effective theory of dark matter direct detection, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2010) 042.
  25. A. Liam Fitzpatrick, Wick Haxton, Emanuel Katz, Nicholas Lubbers, and Yiming Xu, The effective field theory of dark matter direct detection, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2013) 004.
  26. Marco Cirelli, Eugenio Del Nobile, and Paolo Panci, Tools for model-independent bounds in direct dark matter searches, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2013) 019.
  27. Riccardo Catena and Paolo Gondolo, Global limits and interference patterns in dark matter direct detection, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2015) 022.
  28. Paolo Gondolo, Sunghyun Kang, Stefano Scopel, and Gaurav Tomar, Effective theory of nuclear scattering for a WIMP of arbitrary spin, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063017 (2021).
  29. Anja Brenner, Gonzalo Herrera, Alejandro Ibarra, Sunghyun Kang, Stefano Scopel, and Gaurav Tomar, Complementarity of experiments in probing the non-relativistic effective theory of dark matter-nucleon interactions, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2022) 026.
  30. Neal P. Avis Kozar, Pat Scott, and Aaron C. Vincent, A global fit of non-relativistic effective dark matter operators including solar neutrinos, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2025) 007.
  31. Andrew Cheek, Darren D. Price, and Ellen M. Sandford, Isospin-violating dark matter at liquid noble detectors: New constraints, future projections, and an exploration of target complementarity, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 914 (2023).
  32. Daniel J. Heimsoth, Brandon Lem, Anna M. Suliga, Calvin W. Johnson, A. Baha Balantekin, and Susan N. Coppersmith, Uncertainties on the EFT coupling limits for direct dark matter detection experiments stemming from uncertainties of target properties, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103031 (2023).
  33. Manuel Drees and Rahul Mehra, Constraints from the neutron EDM on subleading effective operators for direct dark matter searches, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2024) 218.
  34. David Cerdeno, Martin de los Rios, and Andres D. Perez, Bayesian technique to combine independently-trained machine-learning models applied to direct dark matter detection, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2025) 038.
  35. J. Aalbers et al., First constraints on WIMP-nucleon effective field theory couplings in an extended energy region from LUX-ZEPLIN, Phys. Rev. D 109, 092003 (2024).
  36. P. Adhikari et al., Constraints on dark matter-nucleon effective couplings in the presence of kinematically distinct halo substructures using the DEAP-3600 detector, Phys. Rev. D 102, 082001 (2020); 105, 029901(E) (2022).
  37. P. Agnes et al., Effective field theory interactions for liquid argon target in DarkSide-50 experiment, Phys. Rev. D 101, 062002 (2020).
  38. G. Angloher et al., Limits on dark matter effective field theory parameters with CRESSTII, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 43 (2019).
  39. E. Aprile et al., Effective field theory and inelastic dark matter results from XENON1T, Phys. Rev. D 109, 112017 (2024).
  40. B. Ali et al., Results on photon-mediated dark-matter–nucleus interactions from the PICO-60 C3F8 bubble chamber, Phys. Rev. D 106, 042004 (2022).
  41. K. Schneck et al., Dark matter effective field theory scattering in direct detection experiments, Phys. Rev. D 91, 092004 (2015).
  42. Zuowei Liu, Yushan Su, Yue-Lin Sming Tsai, Bingrong Yu, and Qiang Yuan, A combined analysis of PandaX, LUX, and XENON1T experiments within the framework of dark matter effective theory, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2017) 024.
  43. Matthew Baumgart et al., Snowmass white paper: Effective field theories for dark matter phenomenology, arXiv:2203.08204.
  44. Pierce Giffin, Benjamin Lillard, Pankaj Munbodh, and Tien-Tien Yu, Simplified spin dependence in dark matter direct detection, Phys. Rev. D 113, 115018 (2026).
  45. Riccardo Catena, Timon Emken, Nicola A. Spaldin, and Walter Tarantino, Atomic responses to general dark matter-electron interactions, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033195 (2020); 7, 019001(E) (2025).
  46. Hong-Jian He, Yu-Chen Wang, and Jiaming Zheng, EFT approach of inelastic dark matter for xenon electron recoil detection, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2021) 042.
  47. Riccardo Catena, Timon Emken, Marek Matas, Nicola A. Spaldin, and Einar Urdshals, Crystal responses to general dark matter-electron interactions, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033149 (2021).
  48. Jiwei Li, Liangliang Su, Lei Wu, and Bin Zhu, Spin-dependent sub-GeV inelastic dark matter-electron scattering and migdal effect. Part I. Velocity independent operator, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2023) 020.
  49. Pablo Figueroa, Gonzalo Herrera, and Fredy Ochoa, Direct detection of light dark matter charged under a Lμ−Lτ symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 110, 095018 (2024).
  50. Gordan Krnjaic, Duncan Rocha, and Tanner Trickle, The non-relativistic effective field theory of dark matter-electron interactions, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2025) 165.
  51. N. Wyn Evans, Ciaran A. J. O’Hare, and Christopher McCabe, Refinement of the standard halo model for dark matter searches in light of the gaia sausage, Phys. Rev. D 99, 023012 (2019).
  52. Ciaran A. J. O’Hare, Christopher McCabe, N. Wyn Evans, GyuChul Myeong, and Vasily Belokurov, Dark matter hurricane: Measuring the S1 stream with dark matter detectors, Phys. Rev. D 98, 103006 (2018).
  53. Adam Smith-Orlik et al., The impact of the large magellanic cloud on dark matter direct detection signals, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2023) 070.
  54. Javier Reynoso-Cordova, Nassim Bozorgnia, and Marie-Cécile Piro, The large magellanic cloud: expanding the low-mass parameter space of dark matter direct detection, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2024) 037.
  55. Nassim Bozorgnia, Joseph Bramante, and Andrew Buchanan, High mass dark matter searches with the high speed flux from the large magellanic cloud, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2026) 065.
  56. A. N. Baushev, Extragalactic dark matter and direct detection experiments, Astrophys. J. 771, 117 (2013).
  57. Shokhruz Kakharov and Abraham Loeb, Flux of extragalactic dark matter in direct detection experiments, arXiv:2507.01190.
  58. Gonzalo Herrera and Alejandro Ibarra, Direct detection of non-galactic light dark matter, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136551 (2021).
  59. Gonzalo Herrera, Alejandro Ibarra, and Satoshi Shirai, Enhanced prospects for direct detection of inelastic dark matter from a non-galactic diffuse component, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2023) 026.
  60. Gonzalo Herrera and Alejandro Ibarra, Implications of non-galactic dark matter for sub-GeV direct detection searches, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2156, 012040 (2021).
  61. J. Billard, L. Strigari, and E. Figueroa-Feliciano, Implication of neutrino backgrounds on the reach of next generation dark matter direct detection experiments, Phys. Rev. D 89, 023524 (2014).
  62. David G. Cerdeño, Malcolm Fairbairn, Thomas Jubb, Pedro A. N. Machado, Aaron C. Vincent, and Céline Bœhm, Physics from solar neutrinos in dark matter direct detection experiments, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2016) 118; 09 (2016) 48.
  63. Bhaskar Dutta, Shu Liao, Louis E. Strigari, and Joel W. Walker, Non-standard interactions of solar neutrinos in dark matter experiments, Phys. Lett. B 773, 242 (2017).
  64. D. Aristizabal Sierra, N. Rojas, and M. H. G. Tytgat, Neutrino non-standard interactions and dark matter searches with multi-ton scale detectors, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2018) 197.
  65. C. Boehm, D.G. Cerdeño, P.A.N. Machado, A. Olivares-Del Campo, and E. Reid, How high is the neutrino floor?, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2019) 043.
  66. Nicole F. Bell, James B. Dent, Jayden L. Newstead, Subir Sabharwal, and Thomas J. Weiler, Migdal effect and photon bremsstrahlung in effective field theories of dark matter direct detection and coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering, Phys. Rev. D 101, 015012 (2020).
  67. Gonzalo Herrera, A neutrino floor for the Migdal effect, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2024) 288.
  68. Ben Carew, Ashlee R. Caddell, Tarak Nath Maity, and Ciaran A. J. O’Hare, Neutrino fog for dark matter-electron scattering experiments, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083016 (2024).
  69. Tarak Nath Maity, Neutrinos as background and signal in searches using the Migdal effect, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123020 (2025).
  70. Mehmet Demirci and M. Fauzi Mustamin, Probing active-sterile neutrino transition magnetic moment on coherent elastic solar neutrino-nucleus scattering, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1 (2025).
  71. Pablo Blanco-Mas, Pilar Coloma, Gonzalo Herrera, Patrick Huber, Joachim Kopp, Ian M. Shoemaker, and Zahra Tabrizi, Clarity through the neutrino fog: Constraining new forces in dark matter detectors, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2025) 043.
  72. Nirmal Raj and Biprajit Mondal, Neutrino roof: Single-scatter cross section ceilings in dark matter direct detection experiments, Phys. Rev. D 110, 095023 (2024).
  73. Jian Tang and Bing-Long Zhang, Dark matter, CEνNS and neutrino new physics scrutinized by a statistical method in Xenon-based experiments, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2024) 074.
  74. Valentina De Romeri, Dimitrios K. Papoulias, and Christoph A. Ternes, Bounds on new neutrino interactions from the first CEνNS data at direct detection experiments, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2025) 012.
  75. James B. Dent, Barry A. Friedman, Jayden L. Newstead, and Subir Sabharwal, Nuclear and electron scattering by neutrinos and dark matter in condensed systems, Phys. Rev. D 113, 116016 (2026).
  76. Gonzalo Herrera, Probing new physics from neutrinos at dark matter direct detection experiments, 25th International Workshop on Neutrinos from Accelerators (2025), arXiv:2501.10867.
  77. Patrick J. Fox, Jia Liu, and Neal Weiner, Integrating out astrophysical uncertainties, Phys. Rev. D 83, 103514 (2011).
  78. Patrick J. Fox, Graham D. Kribs, and Tim M. P. Tait, Interpreting dark matter direct detection independently of the local velocity and density distribution, Phys. Rev. D 83, 034007 (2011).
  79. Paolo Gondolo and Graciela B. Gelmini, Halo independent comparison of direct dark matter detection data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2012) 015.
  80. Juan Herrero-Garcia, Thomas Schwetz, and Jure Zupan, Astrophysics independent bounds on the annual modulation of dark matter signals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 141301 (2012).
  81. Eugenio Del Nobile, Graciela B Gelmini, Paolo Gondolo, and Ji-Haeng Huh, Halo-independent analysis of direct detection data for light WIMPs, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2013) 026.
  82. Mads T. Frandsen, Felix Kahlhoefer, Christopher McCabe, Subir Sarkar, and Kai Schmidt-Hoberg, The unbearable lightness of being: CDMS versus XENON, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2013) 023.
  83. Nassim Bozorgnia and Thomas Schwetz, What is the probability that direct detection experiments have observed dark matter?, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2014) 015.
  84. Brian Feldstein and Felix Kahlhoefer, A new halo-independent approach to dark matter direct detection analysis, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2014) 065.
  85. Mattias Blennow, Juan Herrero-Garcia, and Thomas Schwetz, A halo-independent lower bound on the dark matter capture rate in the sun from a direct detection signal, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2015) 036.
  86. Adam J. Anderson, Patrick J. Fox, Yonatan Kahn, and Matthew McCullough, Halo-Independent direct detection analyses without mass assumptions, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2015) 012.
  87. Graciela B. Gelmini, Ji-Haeng Huh, and Samuel J. Witte, Assessing compatibility of direct detection data: Halo-Independent global likelihood analyses, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2016) 029.
  88. Felix Kahlhoefer and Sebastian Wild, Studying generalised dark matter interactions with extended halo-independent methods, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2016) 032.
  89. Riccardo Catena, Alejandro Ibarra, Andreas Rappelt, and Sebastian Wild, Halo-independent comparison of direct detection experiments in the effective theory of dark matter-nucleon interactions, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2018) 028.
  90. Andrew Fowlie, Non-parametric uncertainties in the dark matter velocity distribution, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2019) 006.
  91. Muping Chen, Graciela B. Gelmini, and Volodymyr Takhistov, Halo-independent analysis of direct dark matter detection through electron scattering, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2021) 048.
  92. Muping Chen, Graciela B. Gelmini, and Volodymyr Takhistov, Halo-independent dark matter electron scattering analysis with in-medium effects, Phys. Lett. B 841, 137922 (2023).
  93. Sunghyun Kang, Arpan Kar, and Stefano Scopel, Halo-independent bounds on the non-relativistic effective theory of WIMP-nucleon scattering from direct detection and neutrino observations, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2023) 011.
  94. Sunghyun Kang, Arpan Kar, and Stefano Scopel, Halo-independent bounds on inelastic dark matter, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2023) 077.
  95. Elias Bernreuther, Patrick J. Fox, Benjamin Lillard, Anna-Maria Taki, and Tien-Tien Yu, Extracting halo independent information from dark matter electron scattering data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2024) 047.
  96. Benjamin Lillard, Wavelet-harmonic integration methods, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123006 (2025).
  97. Benjamin Lillard, Vector space integration for dark matter scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 221003 (2025).
  98. Tarak Nath Maity and Ranjan Laha, Dark matter substructures affect dark matter-electron scattering in xenon-based direct detection experiments, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2023) 200.
  99. Dylan Folsom, Carlos Blanco, Mariangela Lisanti, Lina Necib, Mark Vogelsberger, and Lars Hernquist, Dark matter velocity distributions for direct detection: Astrophysical uncertainties are smaller than they appear, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 211004 (2025).
  100. Ethan Lilie et al., The DREAMS Project: Disentangling the impact of halo-to-halo variance and baryonic feedback on milkyway dark matter speed distributions, Astrophys. J. 1002, 168 (2026).
  101. Eugenio Del Nobile, Graciela Gelmini, Paolo Gondolo, and Ji-Haeng Huh, Generalized halo independent comparison of direct dark matter detection data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2013) 048.
  102. Koun Choi, Injun Jeong, Sunghyun Kang, Arpan Kar, and Stefano Scopel, Sensitivity of WIMP bounds on the velocity distribution in the limit of a massless mediator, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2025) 007.
  103. Gonzalo Herrera and Andreas Rappelt, Information divergences to parametrize astrophysical uncertainties in dark matter direct detection, Phys. Rev. D 111, 015013 (2025).
  104. E. Aprile et al., First dark matter search with nuclear recoils from the XENONnT experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041003 (2023).
  105. C. Amole et al., Dark matter search results from the complete exposure of the PICO-60 C3F8 bubble chamber, Phys. Rev. D 100, 022001 (2019).
  106. J. I. Read, The local dark matter density, J. Phys. G 41, 063101 (2014).
  107. F. J. Kerr and Donald Lynden-Bell, Review of galactic constants, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 221, 1023 (1986).
  108. Anne M. Green, Astrophysical uncertainties on direct detection experiments, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 27, 1230004 (2012).
  109. Martin C. Smith et al., The RAVE survey: Constraining the local galactic escape speed, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 379, 755 (2007).
  110. Til Piffl et al., The RAVE survey: The galactic escape speed and the mass of the MilkyWay, Astron. Astrophys. 562, A91 (2014).
  111. Lina Necib and Tongyan Lin, Substructure at high speed. II. The local escape velocity and milky way mass with gaia eDR3, Astrophys. J. 926, 189 (2022).
  112. Lina Necib and Tongyan Lin, Substructure at high speed. I. Inferring the escape velocity in the presence of kinematic substructure, Astrophys. J. 926, 188 (2022).
  113. Ralph Schönrich, James Binney, and Walter Dehnen, Local kinematics and the local standard of rest, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 403, 1829 (2010).
  114. A. Liam Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers, and Y. Xu, The effective field theory of dark matter direct detection, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2013) 004.
  115. Nikhil Anand, A. Liam Fitzpatrick, and W. C. Haxton, Weakly interacting massive particlenucleus elastic scattering response, Phys. Rev. C 89, 065501 (2014).
  116. Sunghyun Kang, Stefano Scopel, Gaurav Tomar, and Jong–Hyun Yoon, Present and projected sensitivities of dark matter direct detection experiments to effective WIMP-nucleus couplings, Astropart. Phys. 109, 50 (2019).
  117. Marat Freytsis and Zoltan Ligeti, On dark matter models with uniquely spin-dependent detection possibilities, Phys. Rev. D 83, 115009 (2011).
  118. Maxim Pospelov and Tonnis ter Veldhuis, Direct and indirect limits on the electromagnetic form-factors of WIMPs, Phys. Lett. B 480, 181 (2000).
  119. A. Liam Fitzpatrick and Kathryn M. Zurek, Dark moments and the DAMA-CoGeNT puzzle, Phys. Rev. D 82, 075004 (2010).
  120. Christian Gross, Oleg Lebedev, and Takashi Toma, Cancellation mechanism for dark-matter–nucleon interaction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 191801 (2017).
  121. Joachim Brod, Aaron Gootjes-Dreesbach, Michele Tammaro, and Jure Zupan, Effective field theory for dark matter direct detection up to dimension seven, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2018) 065; 07 (2023) 12.
  122. S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, On information and sufficiency, Ann. Math. Stat. 22, 79 (1951).
  123. Andrew Fowlie and Gonzalo Herrera, Precise interpretations of traditional fine-tuning measures, Phys. Rev. D 111, 015020 (2025).
  124. Mark Vogelsberger, Amina Helmi, Volker Springel, Simon D. M. White, Jie Wang, Carlos S. Frenk, Adrian Jenkins, Aaron Ludlow, and Julio F. Navarro, Phase-space structure in the local dark matter distribution and its signature in direct detection experiments, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 395, 797 (2009).
  125. Lina Necib, Mariangela Lisanti, and Vasily Belokurov, Inferred evidence for dark matter kinematic substructure with SDSS-gaia, Astrophys. J. 874, 3 (2019).
  126. Joop Schaye et al., The EAGLE project: Simulating the evolution and assembly of galaxies and their environments, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 446, 521 (2015).
  127. Steven Diamond and Stephen Boyd, cvxpy: A python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 17, 1 (2016).
  128. Alexander Domahidi, Eric Chu, and Stephen Boyd, ECOS: An SOCP solver for embedded systems, in European Control Conference (ECC) (2013), pp. 3071–3076, 10.23919/ECC.2013.6669541.
  129. Injun Jeong, Sunghyun Kang, Stefano Scopel, and Gaurav Tomar, wimpydd: An object–oriented python code for the calculation of WIMP direct detection signals, Comput. Phys. Commun. 276, 108342 (2022).
  130. Sunghyun Kang, Stefano Scopel, and Gaurav Tomar, WimPyC: An extension module of wimpydd for the calculation of WIMP capture in celestial bodies, arXiv:2510.21185.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 114, 015039– Published 27 July, 2026
  • Received 25 January 2026
  • Accepted 30 June 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation