- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Letters

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

Probing Benchmark Models of Hidden-Sector Dark Matter with DAMIC-M

K. Aggarwal1, I. Arnquist2, N. Avalos3, X. Bertou4,5, N. Castelló-Mor6, A. E. Chavarria1, J. Cuevas-Zepeda7, A. Dastgheibi-Fard8, C. De Dominicis5 et al. (DAMIC-M Collaboration)

C. De Dominicis5, O. Deligny4, J. Duarte-Campderros6, E. Estrada3, R. Gaïor5, E.-L. Gkougkousis9, T. Hossbach2, L. Iddir5, B. J. Kavanagh6, B. Kilminster9, A. Lantero-Barreda6, I. Lawson10, A. Letessier-Selvon5, H. Lin1, P. Loaiza4, A. Lopez-Virto6, R. Lou7, K. J. McGuire1, S. Munagavalasa7, J. Noonan7, D. Norcini11, S. Paul7, P. Privitera7,5,12, P. Robmann9, B. Roach7, M. Settimo13, R. Smida7, M. Traina6,1, R. Vilar6, R. Yajur7, D. Venegas-Vargas11, C. Zhu11, and Y. Zhu5 (DAMIC-M Collaboration)

PDF

Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 071002 – Published 13 August, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/2tcc-bqck

Abstract

We report on a search for sub-GeV dark matter (DM) particles interacting with electrons using the DAMIC-M prototype detector at the Modane Underground Laboratory. The data feature a significantly lower detector single e− rate (factor 50) compared to our previous search, while also accumulating a 10 times larger exposure of ∼1.3  kg−day. DM interactions in the skipper charge-coupled devices (CCDs) are searched for as groups of two or three adjacent pixels with a total charge between 2 and 4  e−. We find 144 candidates of 2  e− and 1 candidate of 4  e−, where 141.5 and 0.071, respectively, are expected from background. With no evidence of a DM signal, we place stringent constraints on DM particles with masses between 1 and 1000  MeV/c2 interacting with electrons through an ultralight or heavy mediator. For large ranges of DM masses below 1  GeV/c2, we exclude theoretically motivated benchmark scenarios where hidden-sector particles are produced as a major component of DM in the Universe through the freeze-in or freeze-out mechanisms.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Corrections

19 December, 2025

Correction: A grant number was missing from the third sentence of the Acknowledgments and has been inserted.

See Also

Daily modulation constraints on light dark matter with DAMIC-M

K. Aggarwal et al. (DAMIC-M Collaboration)
Phys. Rev. D 114, 032010 (2026)

Article Text

References (89)

  1. G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rep. 405, 279 (2005).
  2. A. Drukier and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2295 (1984).
  3. M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 31, 3059 (1985).
  4. A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, and D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. D 33, 3495 (1986).
  5. J. Billard et al., Rep. Prog. Phys. 85, 056201 (2022).
  6. C. Boehm, P. Fayet, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 69, 101302(R) (2004).
  7. D. Hooper and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 77, 087302 (2008).
  8. M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 662, 53 (2008).
  9. X. Chu, T. Hambye, and M. H. G. Tytgat, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2012) 034.
  10. S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 96, 115021 (2017).
  11. R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D 85, 076007 (2012).
  12. R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2016) 046.
  13. B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. 166B, 196 (1986).
  14. L. B. Okun, Sov. Phys. JETP 56, 502 (1982), https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ZhETF..83..892O/abstract.
  15. C. E. Dreyer, R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, A. Singal, and C. Zhen, Phys. Rev. D 109, 115008 (2024).
  16. S. K. Lee, M. Lisanti, S. Mishra-Sharma, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. D 92, 083517 (2015).
  17. S. M. Griffin, K. Inzani, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095015 (2021).
  18. T. Emken, R. Essig, C. Kouvaris, and M. Sholapurkar, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2019) 070.
  19. L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2010) 080.
  20. E. Izaguirre, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 251301 (2015).
  21. M. Battaglieri et al., arXiv:1707.04591.
  22. C. Dvorkin, T. Lin, and K. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D 99, 115009 (2019).
  23. C. Dvorkin, T. Lin, and K. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D 105, 119901(E) (2022).
  24. P. N. Bhattiprolu, R. McGehee, and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. D 110, L031702 (2024).
  25. I. Arnquist et al. (DAMIC-M Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 171003 (2023).
  26. I. Arnquist et al. (DAMIC-M Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 101006 (2024).
  27. P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 101002 (2023).
  28. S. Li et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 261001 (2023).
  29. P. Adari et al. (SENSEI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 011804 (2025).
  30. M. F. Albakry et al., Phys. Rev. D 111, 012006 (2025).
  31. E. Aprile et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 161004 (2025).
  32. E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 251801 (2019).
  33. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (DAMIC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 181802 (2019).
  34. Q. Arnaud et al. (EDELWEISS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 141301 (2020).
  35. R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 051301 (2018); 122, 069901(E) (2019).
  36. Z. Y. Zhang et al. (CDEX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 221301 (2022).
  37. P. Privitera, Proc. Sci. TAUP2023 (2024) 066.
  38. I. Arnquist et al. (DAMIC-M Collaboration), J. Instrum. 19, T11010 (2024).

  39. Laboratoire Souterrain de Modane.

  40. S. E. Holland, Exp. Astron. 14, 83 (2002).
  41. S. E. Holland, D. E. Groom, N. P. Palaio, R. J. Stover, and M. Wei, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 50, 225 (2003).
  42. S. E. Holland, W. F. Kolbe, and C. J. Bebek, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 56, 2612 (2009).
  43. A. Alessandrello, C. Cattadori, G. Fiorentini, E. Fiorini, G. Gervasio, G. Heusser, G. Mezzorani, E. Pernicka, P. Quarati, D. Salvi, P. Sverzellati, and L. Zanotti, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 61, 106 (1991).
  44. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (DAMIC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 94, 082006 (2016).
  45. J. Janesick, T. Elliott, A. Dingiziam, R. Bredthauer, C. Chandler, J. Westphal, and J. Gunn, Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 1242, 223 (1990).
  46. C. E. Chandler, R. A. Bredthauer, J. R. Janesick, J. A. Westphal, and J. E. Gunn, Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 1242, 238 (1990).
  47. J. Tiffenberg, M. Sofo-Haro, A. Drlica-Wagner, R. Essig, Y. Guardincerri, S. Holland, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 131802 (2017).

  48. The readout noise of skipper CCDs is sensitive to electrical grounding, which was not fully optimized at that time. After an intervention following the completion of the data taking period, we achieved σch<0.16  e− with the shielding fully closed.

  49. We read out more columns than the 6144 physical ones of the CCD. These additional pixels, which have much lower exposure, provide useful information on data quality and dark current in the serial register.

  50. J. R. Janesick, Scientific Charge-Coupled Devices (SPIE Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham, WA, 2001).

  51. We define the charge q of a pixel to be ≥n e− when q ≥(n−1)+3.75σch.

  52. S. Agostinelli et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 506, 250 (2003).
  53. K. Ramanathan and N. Kurinsky, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063026 (2020).
  54. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (DAMIC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, 062003 (2022).

  55. σxy2(z)=−a ln|1−bz|·(α+βEe)2, with parameters a=803  μm2, b=6.5×10−4  μm−1, α=0.83, and β=0.0112  keV−1.

  56. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (DAMIC, DAMIC-M, and SENSEI Collaborations), Phys. Rev. D 109, 062007 (2024).
  57. G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011); 73, 2501(E) (2013).
  58. D. Baxter et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 907 (2021).

  59. For better legibility of the figures we include only the most recent results. Other exclusion limits can be found in Refs. [33–36,60] Other solar-reflected DM limits can be found in Refs. [31,61–63].

  60. R. Essig, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043017 (2017).
  61. H. An, H. Nie, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103026 (2021).
  62. T. Emken, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063020 (2022).
  63. Z. Y. Zhang et al. (CDEX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 171001 (2024).
  64. T. Emken, R. Essig, and H. Xu, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2024) 023.

  65. We calculate the effects of Earth-shielding using the verne code [66], assuming that the mediator is a dark photon and that scattering off nuclei dominate the shielding effect [18].

  66. B. J. Kavanagh, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123013 (2018).

  67. For CCD 1-C, fsel=0.8316 after Step 6 because of columns >5316 being masked; when this is taken into account, the fraction of surviving pixels is still around 95%.

  68. S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 105, 015014 (2022).
  69. T. Trickle, Phys. Rev. D 107, 035035 (2023).
  70. The DAMIC-M 90% C.L. exclusion limits obtained for several DM candidates and different calculations of the DM-e− interaction rate can be found at https://github.com/DAMIC-M/LBC_2025_HSBenchmark_Limits.
  71. M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi, The Physics of the Dark Photon: A Primer (Springer International Publishing, New York, 2021).
  72. J. D. Vergados and H. Ejiri, Phys. Lett. B 606, 313 (2005).
  73. C. C. Moustakidis, J. D. Vergados, and H. Ejiri, Nucl. Phys. B727, 406 (2005).
  74. R. Bernabei et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 22, 3155 (2007).
  75. M. Ibe, W. Nakano, Y. Shoji, and K. Suzuki, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2018) 194.
  76. P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 101001 (2023).
  77. D. Huang et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 191002 (2023).
  78. M. F. Albakry et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 112013 (2023).
  79. E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 241803 (2019).
  80. I. M. Bloch, R. Essig, K. Tobioka, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2017) 087.
  81. A. H. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 100, 102002 (2019).
  82. G. Angloher et al. (CRESST Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 110, 083038 (2024).
  83. I. Alkhatib et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 061801 (2021).
  84. S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 105, 015014 (2022).
  85. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (DAMIC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 141803 (2017).
  86. D. F. Edwards, in Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids, edited by E. D. Palik (Academic Press, Burlington, 1997), pp. 547–569.
  87. K. Rajkanan, R. Singh, and J. Shewchun, Solid-State Electron. 22, 793 (1979).
  88. K. Berghaus, A. Esposito, R. Essig, and M. Sholapurkar, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2023) 023.
  89. J. Enkovaara et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter 22, 253202 (2010).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 071002– Published 13 August, 2025
  • Received 22 March 2025
  • Revised 2 June 2025
  • Accepted 23 June 2025
  • Corrected 19 December 2025
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