Nuclear Recoil Calibration at Sub-keV Energies in LUX and Its Impact on Dark Matter Search Sensitivity
Extracted source text · arXiv 2210.05859
\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,superscriptaddress, nofootinbib]{revtex4-1}[11pt] % revtex4-1 prc style
%\documentclass[preprint,superscriptaddress,twocolumn]{revtex4-1}[11pt] % preprint
%\documentclass[preprint,superscriptaddress,onecolumn]{revtex4-1}[11pt] % preprint
\pdfoutput=1
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,graphicx,lineno}
\usepackage{upgreek}
%\usepackage{epsf,verbatim}
\usepackage{hyperref}
%\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{soul}
% \texttt{upgreek}
% \texttt{txfonts}
%\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
%\usepackage{draftwatermark}
%\usepackage{draftwatermark}
%\SetWatermarkText{Author list need to be updated}
%\SetWatermarkScale{2}
% Excellent package for handling all numbers with units
% See https://www.ctan.org/pkg/siunitx
\usepackage{siunitx}
\DeclareSIUnit[number-unit-product = {}] \ev{eV}
\graphicspath{ {./plots/} }
\newcommand{\leff}{$\mathcal{L}_{eff}$}
\newcommand{\qy}{Q$_{y}$}
\newcommand{\kevnra}{keV$_{nra}$}
\newcommand{\kevnr}{keV$_{nr}$}
\newcommand{\kevee}{keV$_{ee}$}
\newcommand{\eVee}{eV$_{ee}$}
\newcommand{\remark}[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}
\newcommand{\remove}[1]{\textcolor{lightgray}{#1}}
% turn it off when the review is done - DQ 20160930
% \linenumbers
%\date{} % Activate to display a given date or no date
% ** Should probably move the MACROS to an include file as well so that they don't get in the way
% RG 151005
% Choose one of the following two lines to show comments that can be rendered, or not
% Use this comments you want to actually appear in full TeX rendering
% usage: \comment{your comment here...}
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SWITCH HERE FOR COMMENTS ON/OFF %%%%%%%%%
% Example of use \comment{RG - Confirm this number}
\newcommand{\comment}[1]{{\color{red} *** #1}} % Easier to see in headings
%\newcommand{\comment}[1]{}
%% 050907 rjg \scix[unit]{mantissa}{exponent}
% MACRO for Scientific notation
% Output in the standard format
% #2 x 10^#3 #1 (#1 the units is in roman type)
% Examples of use
% e.g. \scix[C]{6.7}{-8} to include unit gives 6.7 x 10^8 C typeset correctly
% or \scix{6.7}{-8} then no unit is shown i.e [] argument completely optional
% Also formats correctly if no mantissa or exponent given
% e.g. \scix[N]{}{-8} gives 10^-8 N
%
\newcommand{\scix}[3][]
% Optional argument [] is blank for no units
{
\ifthenelse{\equal{#2}{}}
{} % True i.e. No Mantissa
{ % False i.e. There is a Mantissa
{#2} % Mantissa
% The use of {} round seems to reduce white space
}
%
\ifthenelse{\equal{#2}{}\OR\equal{#3}{}}
{} % True i.e. No Times required
{ % False i.e. Times required
{\hspace{-0em} \times \hspace{-0em}} % Times
% The use of {} round x seems to reduce white space
}
%
\ifthenelse{\equal{#3}{}}
{} % No Exponent
{10^{#3}} % Exponent
%
\ifthenelse{\equal{#1}{}}
{}
{\,\mathrm{#1}} % Units, optional argument
}
\begin{document}
%\setstretch{2.5}
\title{
% 201005 Suggestion from RG
Improved Dark Matter Search Sensitivity Resulting from \protect\\
% Implication for Dark Matter Search from
LUX Low-Energy Nuclear Recoil Calibration}
\preprint{}
\input{20200901-lux-tex-author-list}
%\input{20220101-lux-tex-author-list}
\begin{abstract}
Dual-phase xenon time projection chamber (TPC) detectors have demonstrated superior search sensitivities to dark matter over a wide range of particle masses.
%*** Do we want to use WIMP, or should we broaden the term to dark matter particle ? ***
%The low-mass (\SI{< 10}{\giga \ev}) % ($<$10~GeV)
%dark matter detection sensitivities are primarily limited by the availability of calibrations for low-energy nuclear recoil response.
%It is critical to characterize both the light and charge responses of liquid xenon~(LXe) to sub-keV nuclear recoils to obtain credible low-mass dark matter searches.
To extend their sensitivity to include low-mass dark matter interactions, it is critical to characterize both the light and charge responses of liquid xenon to sub-keV nuclear recoils.
In this work, we report a new nuclear recoil calibration in the LUX detector $\textit{in situ}$ using neutron events from a pulsed Adelphi Deuterium-Deuterium neutron generator.
%The neutron timing information enabled the characterization of ionization signals down to 2 extracted electrons and scintillation signals with 0-5 detected photons.
We demonstrate direct measurements of light and charge yields down to 0.45~keV~(1.4~scintillation photons) and 0.27~keV~(1.3~ionization electrons), respectively, approaching the physical limit of liquid xenon detectors.
%In this work, we report a new calibration of Xe TPC response to sub-keV nuclear recoils performed $\textit{in situ}$ with the LUX dark matter detector. Novel adaptations of a pulsed Deuterium-Deuterium (D-D) neutron generator enable direct measurements of the light and charge response for nuclear recoils down to 0.45~keV$_\textrm{nr}$ and 0.27~keV$_\textrm{nr}$, respectively.
%These measurements represent the lowest-energy nuclear recoil calibrations in LXe to date.
We discuss the implication of these new measurements on the physics reach of dual-phase xenon TPCs for nuclear-recoil-based low-mass dark matter detection.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
\setcounter{equation}{0} \setcounter{footnote}{0} % what this does? RG - This takes of the numbering for footnotes, if you use them
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\section{Introduction}\label{sec:Introduction}
\textit{Introduction}.\textemdash Dual-phase~(liquid/gas) xenon time projection chamber~(TPC) detectors provide world-leading sensitivity for a broad range of particle dark matter masses in the general class of weakly interacting massive particle~(WIMP) searches~\cite{Akerib:2016vxi, Aprile:2018dbl, PandaX-4T:2021bab, LUX-ZEPLIN:2022qhg}. These TPCs detect nuclear recoils, producing both scintillation light~(S1) and ionization charge~(S2), expected from WIMP scattering off xenon nuclei in the liquid xenon~(LXe) target.
%They have placed the most stringent limits on the WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section~\cite{Akerib:2016vxi, Cui:2017nnn, Aprile:2018dbl} in recent years.
% at a WIMP mass range of
% \SI{> 10}{\giga \ev}~\cite{lz_tdr}. % Using siunitx package, % $>$10~GeV
% It thus becomes appealing to explore low-mass region (\SI{< 10}{\giga \ev}) % Using siunitx package, % <$~10~GeV
% in the WIMP parameter space.
% 201005 RG - I don't agree with previous sentence. The low mass region is also likely limited by 8B neutrinos? I would just say that you are improving sensitivity by significantly reducing uncertainty in the low energy response?
%The low-mass WIMP dark matter detection sensitivity is primarily determined by the energy threshold for detection of nuclear recoils.
The low-mass dark matter detection sensitivities are partially limited by the availability of calibrations for the low-energy nuclear recoil response. Much effort has been made to understand the nuclear recoil response of this medium down to the sub-keV energy scale through various calibration techniques~\cite{Akerib:2016mzi, Lenardo:2019vkn}. No previous experiment has achieved sub-keV nuclear recoil yield measurement on scintillation~(S1), the limiting channel for low-mass WIMP detection.
% 201005 RG - Do you also want to mention the reduction in the systematic errors by not including free parameters on rate in the calibrations?
The measurements presented in this work simultaneously determine the light~(L$_y$) and charge~(Q$_y$) yields\textemdash the generated mean quanta~(light or charge) per keV for given energy depositions\textemdash down to the sub-keV scale for nuclear recoils in LXe for the first time.
%We performed an improved nuclear recoil calibration in the LUX detector~\cite{LUXexperiment} $\textit{in situ}$ using neutron events from a pulsed Adelphi\footnote{Adelphi Technology Inc. 2003 E. Bayshore Road Redwood City, CA 94063.} Deuterium-Deuterium~(D-D) neutron generator.\footnote{The first LUX D-D neutron calibration~(LUX DD 2013) and its technique are presented in~\cite{LUXDD, james_thesis, dd_brown}.}
%The calibration incorporates neutron pulses with an instantaneous flux of (2.8$\times$10$^8$~neutrons/s) with a narrow width (20~$\upmu$s) at a frequency of 250~Hz.
%We have measured the absolute rates of individual nuclear recoil (NR) events in the LXe TPC with ionization signals at and above 2~extracted electrons and with scintillation signals of zero,\footnote{Photons are likely emitted in the initial interaction, but given the overall efficiency ($g_1\sim10\%$) for conversion of photons to digitized photoelectrons, the scintillation component may not be detected.} one or more detected photons.
This work improves dark matter search sensitivity by significantly reducing uncertainty in the low energy response in these TPCs.
%\section{Data Collection and Analysis}\label{sec:Data Collection and Analysis}
\textit{Data Collection and Analysis}.\textemdash We performed an improved nuclear recoil calibration in the Large Underground Xenon~(LUX) detector~\cite{LUXexperiment} $\textit{in situ}$ using neutron events from a pulsed Adelphi\footnote{Adelphi Technology Inc. 2003 E. Bayshore Road Redwood City, CA 94063.} Deuterium-Deuterium~(D-D) neutron generator in 2016.\footnote{The first LUX D-D neutron calibration~(LUX DD2013) and its technique are presented in~\cite{LUXDD, james_thesis, dd_brown}.}
%The measurements were performed in the Large Underground Xenon (LUX) detector~\cite{LUXexperiment} in 2016.
LUX was a 250~kg active mass dual-phase xenon TPC instrumented with 122 2-inch photomultiplier tubes~(PMTs) in two arrays at top and bottom. It was immersed in a 7.6~m diameter $\times$ 6.1~m tall cylindrical water tank that provides shielding to the detector.
%that provides shielding to the detector.
%The S1 scintillation photons generated at the interaction site by an incident particle~(e.g.~WIMP or neutron) are rapidly~(tens of ns) detected by both top and bottom PMT arrays.
The S1 scintillation photons are generated promptly~(within a few tens of ns) at the interaction site by an incident particle~(e.g.~WIMP or neutron) and detected by PMTs with a scintillation gain~($g_1$) of $0.096\pm0.003$~photon detected~(phd)/photon~\cite{LUXRun3Reanalysisprl, DoublePhe}.
%and detected by both top and bottom PMT arrays
The charge signal generated from the same site is drifted upwards~(1.5~mm/$\upmu$s) by an applied electric drift field in LXe. The electrons comprising the charge signal are subsequently extracted from the liquid surface to the gas phase and produce the proportional scintillation signal~(i.e.~S2). The ionization gain~($g_2$) is $18.5\pm0.9$~phd/electron. Each extracted electron induces a mean of $25.72\pm0.04$~phd and a 1-$\sigma$ width of $5.47\pm0.03$~phd across PMTs~\cite{huang}. The time delay between S1 and S2 signals~(drift time) indicates the depth~($z$) of the interaction in the LXe TPC. The $xy$ position of the event is reconstructed based on the hit map of the S2 signal on the top PMT array. For more information about the LUX detector, we refer the reader to~\cite{LUXfirstResult, LUXRun3Reanalysisprl, run4fullexpo, spinDep, LUX:2018akb, LUX:2019gwa, LUX:2017glr, lux_xe127, LUXTritium, LUXDD, james_thesis}.
A schematic of the experimental setup is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:schematic_setup}. A collimated 2.45~MeV monoenergetic neutron beam~(4.9~cm diameter) is aimed at the LUX detector about 10~cm below liquid xenon surface~(the LUX active LXe volume depth is about 50~cm) to produce %\st{D-D}
neutron single elastic scatter signal events.
The D-D generator was operated at 250~Hz pulsing frequency and 20~$\upmu$s width with an instantaneous flux of ($2.8\times10^8$~neutrons/s). At this neutron rate the probability for more than one neutron to interact with LXe in one LUX event window~(1~ms) is calculated to be around 2$\%$. In the pulsed mode, the D-D generator trigger time provides an estimate of the neutron interaction time in the TPC and thus enabled us to study low-energy events that only produce detectable ionization signals without
%\st{any}
accompanying scintillation signals~(known as S2-only events).\footnote{LUX event acquisitions are triggered on S2s as in~\cite{run4fullexpo} during this calibration.}
%\st{Requiring a coincidence between the DD trigger and the TPC signals strongly rejects prevalent electron background observed in all xenon TPCs. In addition, it also allows us to model the residual electron background in the coincidence window {\it in situ} by measuring the TPC events with the S2 appearing before the DD trigger\footnote{LUX event acquisitions are triggered on S2s as in~\cite{run4fullexpo} during the D-D neutron calibration.}.}
A total of 413.9 live-hours of short pulsed D-D neutron calibration data were collected.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plot/chap6_DD_setup_prl_v3.pdf}
\caption{A diagram~(not to scale) illustrating the short pulsed D-D neutron calibration in LUX. The square wave on the left shows the D-D trigger~(TTL) pulses with a width of 20~$\upmu$s and pulsing frequency of 250~Hz implemented in this calibration. The monoenergetic 2.45~MeV D-D neutrons concentrated within narrow pulses travel into the LUX TPC through a 4.9~cm ID neutron collimator placed in the water tank and $\sim$10~cm below xenon liquid surface. With the initial beam-on times~(t$_0$) recorded by the LUX DAQ system in sync with TPC signals, the $z$-positions of S2-only neutron events can be localized. The neutron time of flight which is on the order of 100~ns is negligible given the 20~$\upmu$s D-D trigger width.}
\label{fig:schematic_setup}
\end{figure}
%\remove{The dominant calibration backgrounds are so-called electron-train~(e-train) events. An e-train is a collection of single and clustered few-electron emissions from the liquid surface with time constants of order 10~ms~\cite{jingke_electron} that typically follows the large S2 of a high-energy deposition~($\SI{\geq100}{keV_{ee}}$). As a reference, the LUX event window is 1~ms.
%: $\pm$500~$\upmu$s around the event trigger.
%There are two sources of large S2s that give rise to e-trains during the D-D neutron calibration. One is due to the intrinsic LUX detector background, e.g. gamma-rays originating from detector construction materials; and the other is due to D-D neutrons themselves which include gamma-ray emissions from neutron inelastic scattering on Xe atoms and thermal neutron captures. To mitigate this e-train background, a short pulsed D-D neutron~(Adelphi DD108) source is deployed for this calibration to enable tagging of neutron events observed in the LUX detector\footnote{LUX event acquisitions are triggered on S2s as in~\cite{run4fullexpo} during the D-D neutron calibration.}. An $\textit{in situ}$ model, parameterized by neutron pulsing frequency, pulse width, and instantaneous neutron flux, that describes the nuclear recoil signal to e-train background ratio~($S/N$) is developed~\cite{huang}. The optimal neutron pulsing configuration was determined to be 250~Hz pulsing frequency and 20~$\upmu$s width with an achievable instantaneous flux of (2.8$\times$10$^8$~neutrons/s) based on this model. This results in a 2$\%$ neutron pile-up probability in the active volume, a negligible effect for this work. In addition, the recorded time information~(through a synced NIM pulse) allows a measurement of remaining e-train backgrounds by utilizing events that appear before the D-D pulse trigger time~(t$_0$). The neutron event tagging enabled by the t$_0$ information also allows the study of neutron events with finite ionization (S2), but single or even no photoelectrons observed by PMTs from the scintillation S1 light~(known as S2-only events).}
%\st{A total of 413.9 live-hours of short pulsed D-D neutron calibration data were collected. }
Single elastic scatter D-D neutron events with exactly one observed S2 greater than 1.7~extracted electrons were selected for yield measurements, below which threshold spurious background single electrons~(SE)
%\remove{The S2 threshold is determined by optimizing the measurement of the lowest-energy bin~(as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:chap8_best_fit_vs_nest2p0_updated_prl}), where e-trains}
start to have a significant impact on signals.
%A maximum signal size cut of 194.4~extracted electrons on S2 is used.
%\st{to reject neutron inelastic scatter events.} \st{Multiple elastic scatter events with one S2 greater than the S2 threshold and others smaller are inevitable selected with this selection criterion. To address this systematic effect, the S2 threshold is modeled in the signal modeling as presented in later sections.}
This energy cut may accept neutron multiple scatter events with one S2 greater than the S2 threshold and others below the threshold, and this effect is taken into consideration in the signal modeling to be elaborated later. Because this experiment focuses on the low-energy neutron-induced xenon recoil events, a candidate event is allowed to have zero or one observed S1 pulses before the S2. In this work, an S1 is defined as a candidate scintillation signal without a two-fold PMT coincidence as required by other LUX analyses, and the S1 size is quantified with the number of ``spikes'', the discrete photon counts in the per-channel waveforms~\cite{LUXRun3Reanalysisprl}. S2s are required to follow a D-D trigger by 65 to 125~$\upmu$s,
%corresponding to about 6.5 to 13.5~cm in LXe depth,
in line with neutron conduit depth, and be within the neutron beam projection in the $xy$ plane~(7~cm diameter cylinder) to reject random coincidence background. A S1--S2 time cut above $2.5~\upmu$s is applied
%for events with S1s
to remove events with fake S1 pulses misclassified from the leading edge of an S2 pulse.
%Describe here how you apply the drift time cut (7cm?) for events with S1s and without S1s (include the >2.5us cut here).
No radial fiducialization cut is applied to maximize statistics. Charge loss of S2 signals for neutron events near the TPC wall is found to be a negligible systematic effect~($<0.13\%$ of signal events)~\cite{huang}, %\st{thanks}
due to some charge buildup on the TPC wall~\cite{run4fullexpo}, which pushes S2 charge signals radially inward as they drift upwards.
%\remove{Events that are tagged by a D-D trigger pulse and located along the D-D neutron beam are considered. Relatively loose position cuts (neutron beam diameter cut is placed at 7~cm) are used to mitigate systematics associated with position uncertainties. These selections remove a vast majority of e-train background events. The S2 pulse arrival to D-D trigger time is used to describe the $z$ position of an event in place of the S2 to S1 time due to the lack of an S1 in S2-only events. No radial fiducialization cut is applied to maximize statistics. Charge loss of S2 signals for neutron events near TPC wall is found to be a negligible systematic effect~($<0.13\%$ of signal events), even without the fiducialization cut~\cite{huang}. Our GEANT4-based simulations indicate that the background electronic recoil~(ER) event rate in the energy region of interest due to neutron induced gamma-rays~(e.g. due to thermal neutron capture) is less than $0.5\%$ of signal rate before ER and NR discrimination, and this is thus sub-dominant. To further reduce e-train background that primarily contaminates the lowest-energy bins, two additional data quiet time cuts are developed. One cut requires no LUX-triggered events appearing within 4~ms before a selected signal event. The other cut requires no single electron pulses~(SE)\footnote{A S2 pulse with area smaller than the S2 threshold is also classified as SE pulse in this analysis.} preceding the one S2 within a signal event~(no-SE-ahead-S2 cut). Both cuts are optimized to have $80\%$ signal acceptances, while reducing the e-train background rate by another factor of 3 and 2, respectively. All these together reduce uncertainties of the lowest-energy data points to the levels that are comparable to those of higher energy as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:chap8_best_fit_vs_nest2p0_updated_prl}. The SE in the no-SE-ahead-S2 cut, however, can also be due to a neutron low-energy elastic scatter, which biases the event selection and results in a non-flat acceptance in S2. This cut is modeled in the signal modeling to address the systematic.}
%\remark{Now that you have explained how this experiment works and how you define signals you can start explaining backgrounds:}
The dominant background in this work is the so-called electron-train~(e-train) events observed in all xenon TPCs. An e-train is a collection of single and clustered few-electron emissions that follow large S2 pulses with time constants of order 10~ms~\cite{jingke_electron}.
%In this experiment, e-trains can be produced by either intrinsic LUX detector background such as gamma-rays originating from detector materials or by D-D neutron interactions.
An S2-like e-train pulse
%\st{can cause an event trigger and mimic a low-energy signal event}
in the TPC can mimic a low-energy neutron interaction and bias the neutron calibration. Requiring a coincidence between the D-D trigger and the TPC signals strongly rejects prevalent e-train background. Two additional data quiet-time cuts are developed to further reduce e-train background. One cut requires that there be no LUX-triggered events appearing within 4~ms before a selected signal event. The other cut requires that there be no SE pulses
%\footnote{An S2 pulse with area smaller than the S2 threshold is also classified as SE pulse in this analysis.}
%, which may suggest the presence of an e-train persisting from a previous interaction,
%\textemdash an indicator of e-train\textemdash
preceding the one S2 within a signal event~(no-SE-ahead-S2 cut). Both cuts are optimized to have overall signal acceptances of $80\%$, while reducing the e-train background rate by another factor of 3 and 2, respectively. The SE in the no-SE-ahead-S2 cut, however, can also be due to a neutron low-energy elastic scatter, which biases the event selection and results in a
%\st{non-flat acceptance in energy}
loss of signal acceptance. This cut is modeled later to address the systematics. In addition, the D-D trigger allows us to estimate the residual e-train background in the coincidence window $\textit{in situ}$ by measuring the TPC events with the S2 appearing before the D-D trigger pulse.
%Elaborate on why it can be a bakcground, how DD trigger help reduces it, and then what additional cuts are applied. In th end discuss how you can model the residual e-train background.
%\remove{The S1 pulse size is quantified with ``spikes'' in this work, the discrete photon counts in the per-channel waveforms. The S1 here refers to candidate scintillation signals before a threshold is applied. By contrast, a LUX data processing framework~(DPF)-classified S1 requires two-fold coincidence. Events with exactly one or zero S1 pulse with size $\leq$5~spikes preceding the single S2 are selected for ultra-low energy NR calibration. }
%The systematics associated with these S1 spikes from photon overlapping in PMTs contributes $<$1$\%$ to the overall analysis and is thus sub-dominant.
%\remark{Now that you explained how event selections are made, you can present your results. }
PMT dark counts are the major background for signal events with no~(0-spike) and 1-spike S1s. The average observed rate of dark counts is $1.8\pm0.1$ in the 1-ms event windows.
%\st{PMT dark count pulses are indistinguishable from D-D neutron S1=1~spike pulses.}
An accidental coincidence of dark counts with a 0-spike~(S1) signal event can result in its loss and
%\st{an observed fake}
a fake 1-spike signal event. % and losses of 0-spike S1 signal events.
Similarly, dark counts can cause two or more observed 1-spike S1 pulses before the S2 in a 1-spike signal event. Fortunately, in the
%To disentangle S1=0 and 1~spike signal events from each other,
time distribution of 1-spike S1 pulses
%~\st{(including PMT dark counts)}
relative to the S2,
%\st{is developed for underlying S1=0 and 1 spike signal events.}
PMT dark counts are uniformly distributed, while signal 1-spike S1 pulses appear in a narrow time window~(D-D S1 window) before the S2s. The 0 and 1-spike S1 signal events can be disentangled from each other based on where the 1-spike S1 pulses of each event are located in the distribution.
%Fake S1=1 spike signal event rate is extrapolated from events with no S1=1~spike pulses in the D-D S1 window given the uniform distribution of dark counts relative to the S2s.
Details of the analyses are described in~\cite{huang}.
%The one developed from background events is used to characterize the time distribution of dark counts relative to S2s in S2-only single scatter D-D neutron events. S1=0~spike signal events are disentangle from S1=1~spike signal events.
% to disentangle S1=0 and 1~spike signal events from each other.
%Time distribution of D-D neutron S1=1~spike pulses are localized relative to S2s, while dark count S1=1 spike pulses are uniformly distributed.
Two remaining backgrounds are identified and assessed.
%in the analysis.
%The first background are those random single S2 events that are not associated with D-D neutrons but coincide with the D-D neutron trigger pulse. This background is dominated by residual e-train events and characterized by events that have an S2 occurring before the D-D trigger time pulse.
One comes from events that have an accidental S1~($\geq2$ spikes) coinciding with an
%S2-only single scatter D-D neutron interaction
0-spike signal event before the S2. These events are uniformly distributed in S1--S2 time separation. This background rate is measured using events with S1s outside the D-D S1 window and found to be about 1--2$\%$ of signal rate thanks to a low background S1 rate in LUX. %The third background comes from those events with an S1 caused by the S2 of an S2-only single scatter D-D neutron event. These S1s originate from, for examples, the leading edge of an S2 pulse being misclassified as a fake S1. These events typically have an S1 immediately before ($\SI{< 2.5}{\upmu}$s) the S2. An S2 arrival to S1 time cut of $\SI{> 2.5}{\upmu}$s is applied to remove these events and is applied consistently through the signal modeling.
The other consists of events with a D-D neutron S1, but no observed D-D neutron S2, coinciding with a random background S2~(mainly associated with the tail of an e-train). This background contaminates the lowest-energy bins. The D-D trigger tagged e-train rate is directly measured from data. The D-D neutron S1-only event rate is modeled using a LUX-adapted NEST2.0.\footnote{This background rate is constantly updated along with NEST2.0 yield models when fitting the signal model to the data to be discussed later.} This background rate is given by the random coincidence rate of these two populations.
%As discussed later, the goal of this work is to constrain the low-energy L$_y$ and Q$_y$ models embedded in NEST2.0.
Following the event selection and background analysis, absolute rates of D-D neutron single elastic scatter event for S1~$=0,1,2,3,4,5$~spikes are measured. The S2 spectra for each S1 are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:chap8_best_fit_vs_nest2p0_updated_prl}~(black data points). The pulse areas are corrected for position-dependent detection efficiency for S2s with S1~$\geq2$ spike using a $^{83m}$Kr calibration source. The correction is not implemented for S2s with 0 and 1-spike S1s due to a lack of accurate $z$-position information. For consistency, the same treatment for S2 pulse area is made in the signal modeling.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plot/chap8_best_fit_vs_nest2p0_updated_prl_v5.pdf}
\caption{The measured S2 spectra for S1~$=0,1,2,3,4,5$ spikes~(black points) and the comparison between the S2 spectra produced by the best-fit L$_y$ and Q$_y$ models~(red) and those by the original NEST2.0 yield models~(gray). For the purpose of display, both measured and modeled S2 spectra for S1~$=i$ spike has been scaled up by the factor of $10^{5-i}$, where $i=0,1,2,3,4,5$. Histogram bins and error bars for black data points extending into negative are suppressed.}
\label{fig:chap8_best_fit_vs_nest2p0_updated_prl}
\end{figure}
%\section{Signal Modeling}\label{sec:Signal Modeling}
\textit{Signal Modeling}.\textemdash To model the differential NR spectra from single elastic scatter neutron interactions at low energies,
%accurately model the absolute D-D neutron low-energy single elastic scatter NR event rates observed in the LUX detector from the calibration,
we perform a GEANT4~\cite{GEANT4:2002zbu} based simulation with complete LUX geometry~(LUXSim~\cite{luxsim_paper}), including the LUX water tank and the D-D neutron conduit.
%The GEANT4 neutron simulation is validated through qualitatively checking neutron energy losses over time from interactions in LXe, spatial distributions of single elastic scatter neutron events in the active volume, and NR energy spectra~\cite{huang}.
%The largest uncertainty in the GEANT4 simulation is a finite water gap between the inner end of the neutron conduit and the LUX detector outer vessel, measured to be $2\pm0.5$~cm. This geometry uncertainty contribute unnoticeable systematic uncertainty to neutron energy spectra entering the LXe volume~\cite{huang}.
Neutron events with only elastic scatters or a radiative neutron capture\footnote{Radiative neutron capture by xenon isotopes results in a finite~(up to 0.3~keV) NR energy deposition in LXe due to the momentum conservation from effectively instantaneous high energy gamma-ray cascades during the nuclear de-excitation following the neutron capture~\cite{huang, Amarasinghe:2022jgk}.} but no ER energy depositions~(e.g.~from gamma-rays) in the active volume are selected. The four largest vertices~(i.e.~neutron scattering and radiative neutron capture sites) in deposited energy, if they are available, are recorded in each simulated neutron event for their neutron energies, deposited energies, and $(x, y, z)$ positions. This provides sufficient vertices in each event to model the aforementioned event selection systematics associated with the S2 threshold, the
%\st{non-flat}
no-SE-ahead-S2 cut, and pulse merger of adjacent S2s in the vertical direction. The GEANT4 simulation also indicates that the neutron inelastic scatter event rate, where gamma-rays from nuclear de-excitation escape from the LUX active volume, is $<0.5\%$ of the neutron single elastic scatter event rate. Neutron inelastic scatters are typically caused by fast neutrons with relatively large energy depositions. %They are usually accompanied by other relatively high energy elastic scatters and observed as multi-scatter events.
The contribution of neutron inelastic scatter events to the low energy signal population is essentially negligible and not included in the signal modeling.
The electric field strength at each recorded vertex is calculated using a LUX field model~\cite{lux_field} developed for the time period of this calibration as an input for the following S1 and S2 signal production modeling. In addition, due to the particularly non-uniform field~\cite{run4fullexpo} in the active volume during this calibration, the observed position of a vertex is biased relative to the real position. As the above analysis is conducted in the observed space, each simulated vertex in the real space is mapped into the observed space using the same field model.
A LUX-adapted NEST2.0~\cite{szydagis_m_2018_4062516} program is used to simulate both production and detection of S1 and S2 signals for each recorded vertex from its deposited energy, electric field strength, and position. At the core of NEST2.0 are the empirically-determined L$_y$ and Q$_y$ models.
%Due to lack of experimental data, the low energy end~($\SI{<1}{keV}_\textrm{nr}$) is subject to large uncertainties.
The recoil interaction initially produces N$_\textrm{ex}$ excitons~(Xe$^*$) and N$_\textrm{i}$ electron-ion~(e$^-$Xe$^+$) pairs at the interaction site. They de-excite or recombine and produce S1 and S2 signals.
%The excitons collide with neutral neighbours to form Xe∗2
%excited dimers which decay on a timescale of tens of
%nanoseconds and produce the primary scintillation light,
%denoted as S1.
%The fluctuations of light and charge quanta are mainly carried over from the initially produced exciton~(Xe$^*$) and electron-ion pair~(e$^-$Xe$^+$) counts~(N$_\textrm{ex}$ and N$_\textrm{i}$) in recoil interactions before they de-excite, recombine, or are left behind into the observable light and charge quanta.
The fluctuations of N$_\textrm{ex}$ and N$_\textrm{i}$ are modeled independently by Gaussian statistics with widths~($\sigma$) given by $\sqrt{F{\overline{N}_\textrm{ex}}}$ and $\sqrt{F\overline{N}_\textrm{i}}$, respectively, in NEST2.0, where $F$ is a Fano-like factor. The value of $F$ is consistent with 1 based on DD2013~\cite{LUXDD, james_thesis} and the XENON10 AmBe calibration~\cite{Sorensen2009339}, but with %\st{an indefinite}
a large uncertainty due to the lack of mono-energetic lines in NR calibrations. The treatment of $F$ is discussed in the next section.
LUX detector parameters are measured~\cite{huang, LUXprd} $\textit{in situ}$ for the period of this calibration, including single photoelectron~(SPE) mean pulse area and 1-$\sigma$ width, double photoelectron~(DPE)~\cite{DoublePhe} probability, SE mean pulse area and 1-$\sigma$ width, $g_1$ and $g_2$, etc. These parameters are used in NEST2.0 for simulating signal detection processes. Following the signal detection modeling, any two S2s in a simulated neutron event that have a $z$ separation of $<2~\upmu$s~(D-D neutron S2 1--99$\%$ width) in drift time are combined. The S1 to D-D trigger time is sampled from a time distribution directly measured from data and added to the drift time of each vertex to obtain the S2 to D-D trigger time for each vertex. The S2 trigger efficiency of the data acquisition system measured from a separate D-D calibration dataset~\cite{LUXTriggerEfficiency} is applied on S2s of each simulated event for determining an event trigger. The S2 pulse area of surviving events with S1~$\geq2$ spike is corrected as in real data. In addition, S1 pulse finding and classification efficiencies of the LUX software as a function of size are evaluated through a dedicated visual assessment of 6000 events using the calibration data. The measured efficiencies are applied on simulated events to match with real data.
%\st{At}
In the end, all simulated events undergo the same event selection as in the real data and the resulting signal model are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:chap8_best_fit_vs_nest2p0_updated_prl}~(gray histograms).
A sizeable discrepancy is seen between the calibration data and the original signal model. The discrepancy can be explained by
%relative large systematic uncertainties on the overall magnitude of measured L$_y$ and Q$_y$ from previous experiments~(e.g.~\cite{LUXDD, james_thesis}), which the NEST2.0 yield models are mostly based on, and
weak constraints of the yields on the very low energy end from~\cite{LUXDD, james_thesis}, which the NEST2.0 yield models are mainly based on.
%\section{Yield Measurements}\label{sec:Yield Measurements}
\textit{Yield Measurements}.\textemdash Following the detailed signal modeling, we made the yield measurements by systematically adjusting the L$_y$ and Q$_y$ models~(both shapes and amplitudes down to 0~keV) embedded in NEST2.0 until the best fit of the signal model to the calibration data is achieved using the method of least squares.
%The yield models in NEST2.0 are systematically adjusted until the best fit of the signal model to the calibration data is achieved~($\chi^2$ = 211.4 with 243 degrees of freedom), which gives new measurements of L$_y$ and Q$_y$ constrained by these calibration data.
Both L$_y$ and Q$_y$ models are adjusted simultaneously but independently. The shape adjustments are primarily at the low energy end~($<3$~keV). The high energy are well constrained by DD2013~\cite{LUXDD}. Only one overall event rate normalization factor is used when fitting the six S2 spectra simultaneously. The Fano-like factor $F$ is used to adjust the S2 spectrum widths in the signal model. It is treated as a free parameter in the fitting due to its %\st{indefinite} %This provides a stronger constraint on the final L$_y$ and Q$_y$ measurements when compared to the case of independently floating the event rates for each spectrum.
unknown uncertainty. This is a conservative treatment, and also captures other secondary factors that contribute to the signal distribution widths. The best fit is achieved at $\chi^2$ = 211.4 with 243 degrees of freedom and 8 parameters.
The uncertainties on both L$_y$ and Q$_y$ are conservatively determined through marginalizing over all other fitting parameters. This captures systematics due to degeneracy between L$_y$ and Q$_y$ in the fitting.
%\comment{(How many DOFs are from the yield parametrization?)}
%The range of the variation~(1-$\sigma$) of the yield models provides the statistical uncertainties for the yield measurements.
%Both $g_1$ and $g_2$ have non-negligible uncertainties.
Because $g_1$ and $g_2$ are both in direct degeneracy with both L$_y$ and Q$_y$ for the observed S1 and S2 distributions, contributions of their non-negligible uncertainties to the yield measurements are evaluated by repeating the fitting using $g_1$ and $g_2$ values at their 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty levels.
%Both systematic uncertainties are quantified by repeating the fitting using $g_1$ and $g_2$ values at their 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty levels.
%The final L$_y$ and Q$_y$ measurements of this work~(DD2016) are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:yields} along with unmodified NEST2.0 predictions, the LUX D-D 2013 measurements~\cite{LUXDD, james_thesis} and Lenardo 2019~\cite{Lenardo:2019vkn} measurements. The $68\%$ confidence interval for the Fano-like factor $F$ is 1.2$^{+2.8}_{-1.1}$.
Details of the fitting procedures are described in~\cite{huang}.
% 90% 4.8
%This calibration technique is relatively insensitive to the Fano-like factor with the light~(charge) yield changed by about $10\%$~($7\%$) for the previous quoted Fano-like factor.
%The Fano-factor $F$ is measured to be 1.2$^{+2.8}_{-1.1}$. Details of the fitting procedure are described in~\cite{huang}.
%The above fitting gives new constrained L$_y$ and Q$_y$ models down to 0~keV$_\textrm{nr}$, as NEST2.0, which the yield adjustments are based on, assumes finite yields down to 0~keV$_\textrm{nr}$.
%~(also referred to as the energy thresholds)
The lowest energies this calibration data are sensitive to for L$_y$ and Q$_y$ are independently evaluated based on the above best-fit yield models. This is done by
cutting off the corresponding yield~(assume zero yield) below certain energies
%assuming zero light or charge yield below a certain energy
from the best-fit yield model and calculating the $\Delta\chi^2$ values with respect to the case of no energy cutoff of the signal model against the calibration data. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:threshold} with 1-$\sigma$, 2-$\sigma$, and 3-$\sigma$ sensitivity lines indicated. The quoted uncertainties are systematics due to the Fano-like factor. The lowest energies the data are sensitive to for both L$_y$ and Q$_y$ are quoted at the 1-$\sigma$ sensitivity level. This gives L$_y$ and Q$_y$ measurements at $0.45\pm0.03$~keV and $0.27\pm0.04$~keV, respectively, representing the lowest-energy nuclear recoil calibrations in LXe to date. The final L$_y$ and Q$_y$ measurements of this work~(DD2016) are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:yields}.
%The $68\%$ confidence interval for the Fano-like factor $F$ from the fitting is 1.2$^{+2.8}_{-1.1}$.
With both L$_y$ and Q$_y$ measurements, the Lindhard model~\cite{Sorensen2011, Lindhard1963} which describes the quenching of electronic excitation from NR in LXe, can be constrained. The Lindhard-factor $k$ is measured to be $0.146\pm0.013$ by assuming a constant $W$ value~(energy required to produce a scintillation or ionization quanta) of 13.7~eV~\cite{Dahl:2009nta}. The biexcitonic quenching~\cite{biexcitonic_effect}, which only effects total quanta yield at energy of $>10$~keV~\cite{LUXDD}, is not included in this measurement. The value agrees with the standard Lindhard model value of 0.166 within $1.5~\sigma$~(Fig.~\ref{fig:yields}). The DD2013 measurement is $0.174\pm0.006$~\cite{LUXDD}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plot/energy_threshold_v3.pdf}
\caption{The evaluated $\Delta\chi^2$ values as a function of energy. The lowest energies these calibration data are sensitive to for L$_y$ and Q$_y$ are $0.45\pm0.03$~keV and $0.27\pm0.04$~keV at 1-$\sigma$ sensitivity level, respectively. At 2-$\sigma$ level, L$_y$ $0.56\pm0.02$~keV, Q$_y$ $0.31\pm0.03$~keV; and at 3-$\sigma$ level, L$_y$ $0.66\pm0.02$~keV, Q$_y$ $0.35\pm0.03$~keV.}
\label{fig:threshold}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plot/yields_v13.pdf}
\caption{L$_y$ and Q$_y$ measurements of this work DD2016~(red triangles and circles, respectively) at 400 V/cm. A table of values can be found on page~187 in~\cite{huang}. The light red bands represent the 1-$\sigma$ statistical uncertainty ranges for both measurements. The red squares are the total quanta yield~(i.e.~L$_y$ + Q$_y$). The red markers at the top show the systematic uncertainties due to $g_1$, $g_2$, and Fano-like factor for the corresponding measurements~(indicated by marker shapes). The solid red line~(and light red band) indicates the best-fit Lindhard model~(and its uncertainty) of this work, while the solid orange line the standard Lindhard model. For comparison, measurements from XeNu 2019~\cite{Lenardo:2019vkn} at 220 V/cm~(gray circle) and 550 V/cm~(golden circle), DD2013~\cite{LUXDD} at 180 V/cm~(blue), as well as the L$_y$ and Q$_y$ models in NEST2.0~(black dash-dotted lines) and NEST2.3.11~(black dashed lines) at 400 V/cm are shown.}
\label{fig:yields}
\end{figure}
%\section{Implication for low-mass WIMP search}\label{sec:Implication for low-mass WIMP search}
\textit{Impact on low-mass WIMP search}.\textemdash This work enables
us to estimate the potential sensitivity of an optimized
dual-phase xenon TPC to low-mass WIMP interactions
in the standard halo model~\cite{Lewin:1995rx}.
%The improvements in the calibration of the signal yields increase the sensitivity of a benchmark low-mass WIMP dark matter from the blue curve to the red curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:limit_curve}.
The limit curves~(blue and red) are generated using the NEST2.3.11~\cite{nest2_3_11} with light and charge yield models matching this work. The search looks at both S1 and S2 channels with respective two-fold PMT coincidence requirement and 3 extracted-electron threshold.
A background-free 92 kg year exposure~(same as LUX full exposure~\cite{run4fullexpo}) is assumed. Zero WIMP acceptance is enforced for recoil energy below 0.45~keV and 1.1~keV, corresponding to the lowest yield measurements of this work and \cite{LUXDD}, respectively. Greater than a factor of $\times7$ sensitivity improvement is achieved for WIMP mass $<4$~GeV/c$^2$. For tonne scale dark matter detectors, such as XENON1t~\cite{XENON:2020gfr}, PandaX-4T~\cite{PandaX:2022aac} and LZ~\cite{lz_tdr}, a careful study of detector accidental coincidence backgrounds will be required to enable S1 and S2 thresholds at this level. Leveraging the DPE effect~\cite{LUXdpe,LZdpe} will make the approach more feasible.
%A careful study of detector accidental coincidence background allows an S1 and S2 thresholds at this level for tonne scale dark matter detector such as XENON1t~\cite{XENON:2020gfr}, PandaX-4T~\cite{PandaX:2022aac} and LZ~\cite{lz_tdr}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plot/limit_curve_update_v2.pdf}
\caption{The improvements in the calibration of the signal yields detailed in this paper increase the sensitivity of a benchmark low-mass WIMP dark matter from the (blue) curve to the (red) curve. For reference the (yellow) LUX (2017)~\cite{run4fullexpo} and (green) XENON1T (2018)~\cite{Aprile:2018dbl} best low WIMP mass limits are shown. The LUX sensitivity used the same calibration and analysis thresholds as the (blue) benchmark model except for an S2 threshold of 8 extracted-electrons, and a non-zero background. The cyan curve verifies that the LUX result is fairly reproduced.
%The XENON1T sensitivity used 3 fold PMT coincidence requirement and 6 extracted-electron threshold.
The (gray) curve indicates the sensitivity limits due to the appearance of events from coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering of $^8$B neutrinos.
}
\label{fig:limit_curve}
\end{figure}
%The limit curves~(blue and red) are generated using the NEST 2.0.1~\cite{szydagis_m_2019_3357973} with light and charge yield models matching this work.
%The search looks at both S1 and S2 channels with respective 2 fold PMT coincidence requirement and 3 extracted-electron threshold.
%A background-free 92 kg year exposure~(same as LUX full exposure~\cite{run4fullexpo}) is assumed.
%Zero WIMP acceptance is enforced for recoil energy below 0.45~keV$_{nr}$ and 1.1~keV$_{nr}$, corresponding to the lowest yield measurements of this work and \cite{LUXDD}, respectively. Greater than a factor of $\times$7 sensitivity improvement is achieved for WIMP mass \SI{< 4}{\giga \ev}/c$^2$.
%For reference the (yellow) LUX (2017)~\cite{run4fullexpo} and (green) XENON1T (2018)~\cite{Aprile:2018dbl} best low WIMP mass limits are shown.
%The LUX sensitivity used the same calibration and analysis thresholds as the (blue) benchmark model except for a S2 threshold of 8 extracted-electrons, and a non-zero background. The cyan curve verifies that the LUX result is fairly reproduced.
%The XENON1T sensitivity used 3 fold PMT coincidence requirement and 6 extracted-electron threshold.
% The (gray) curve indicates the sensitivity limits due to the appearance of events from coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering of $^8$B neutrinos.
%\section{Acknowledgements}\label{sec:Acknowledgements}
This work was partially supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Award No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, DE-AC05-06OR23100, DE-AC52-07NA27344, DE-FG01-91ER40618, DE-FG02-08ER41549, DE-FG02-11ER41738, DE-FG02-91ER40674, DE-FG02-91ER40688, DE-FG02-95ER40917, DE-NA0000979, DE-SC0006605, DE-SC0010010, DE-SC0015535, and DE-SC0019066; the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grants No. PHY-0750671, PHY-0801536, PHY-1003660, PHY-1004661, PHY-1102470, PHY-1312561, PHY-1347449, PHY-1505868, and PHY-1636738; the Research Corporation Grant No. RA0350; the Center for Ultra-low Background Experiments in the Dakotas (CUBED); and the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (SDSMT).
Laborat\'{o}rio de Instrumenta\c{c}\~{a}o e F\'{i}sica Experimental de Part\'{i}culas (LIP)-Coimbra acknowledges funding from Funda\c{c}\~{a}o para a Ci\^{e}ncia e a Tecnologia (FCT) through the Project-Grant PTDC/FIS-NUC/1525/2014. Imperial College and Brown University thank the UK Royal Society for travel funds under the International Exchange Scheme (IE120804). The UK groups acknowledge institutional support from Imperial College London, University College London, the University of Sheffield, and Edinburgh University, and from the Science \& Technology Facilities Council for PhD studentships R504737 (EL), M126369B (NM), P006795 (AN), T93036D (RT) and N50449X (UU). This work was partially enabled by the University College London (UCL) Cosmoparticle Initiative. The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with Registration No. SC005336.
This research was conducted using computational resources and services at the Center for Computation and Visualization, Brown University, and also the Yale Science Research Software Core.
We gratefully acknowledge the logistical and technical support and the access to laboratory infrastructure provided to us by SURF and its personnel at Lead, South Dakota. SURF was developed by the South Dakota Science and Technology Authority, with an important philanthropic donation from T. Denny Sanford. SURF is a federally sponsored research facility under Award Number DE-SC0020216.
%\section{acknowledgements} \label{sec:acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
\bibliography{biblist}
\end{document}
% 68% confidence limit for the fit shown in Fig.2 is achieved for the Fano factor F 0.1 to 4.
% This calibration technique is relatively insenstive to the Fano facto with the yield changed by 10% for prevous quoted Fano factor.
% L$_y$ and Q$_y$ need updated - done
% < 4 - no space. - done
% 20210304 - DQ
% Fig 4 label need to be updated for Ly and keVnr
\author{D.S.~Akerib} \affiliation{SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94205, USA} \affiliation{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, 452 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94309, USA}
\author{S.~Alsum} \affiliation{University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Physics, 1150 University Ave., Madison, WI 53706, USA}
\author{H.M.~Ara\'{u}jo} \affiliation{Imperial College London, High Energy Physics, Blackett Laboratory, London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom}
\author{X.~Bai} \affiliation{South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 501 East St Joseph St., Rapid City, SD 57701, USA}
%\author{A.J.~Bailey} \affiliation{Imperial College London, High Energy Physics, Blackett Laboratory, London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom}
\author{J.~Balajthy} \affiliation{University of California Davis, Department of Physics, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA}
\author{J.~Bang} \affiliation{Brown University, Department of Physics, 182 Hope St., Providence, RI 02912, USA}
\author{A.~Baxter} \affiliation{University of Liverpool, Department of Physics, Liverpool L69 7ZE, UK}
%\author{P.~Beltrame} \affiliation{SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, United Kingdom}
\author{E.P.~Bernard} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{A.~Bernstein} \affiliation{Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave., Livermore, CA 94551, USA}
\author{T.P.~Biesiadzinski} \affiliation{SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94205, USA} \affiliation{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, 452 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94309, USA}
\author{E.M.~Boulton} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA} \affiliation{Yale University, Department of Physics, 217 Prospect St., New Haven, CT 06511, USA}
\author{B.~Boxer} \affiliation{University of Liverpool, Department of Physics, Liverpool L69 7ZE, UK}
\author{P.~Br\'as} \affiliation{LIP-Coimbra, Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, Rua Larga, 3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal}
\author{S.~Burdin} \affiliation{University of Liverpool, Department of Physics, Liverpool L69 7ZE, UK}
\author{D.~Byram} \affiliation{University of South Dakota, Department of Physics, 414E Clark St., Vermillion, SD 57069, USA} \affiliation{South Dakota Science and Technology Authority, Sanford Underground Research Facility, Lead, SD 57754, USA}
%\author{S.B.~Cahn} \affiliation{Yale University, Department of Physics, 217 Prospect St., New Haven, CT 06511, USA}
\author{M.C.~Carmona-Benitez} \affiliation{Pennsylvania State University, Department of Physics, 104 Davey Lab, University Park, PA 16802-6300, USA}
\author{C.~Chan} \affiliation{Brown University, Department of Physics, 182 Hope St., Providence, RI 02912, USA}
%\author{A.A.~Chiller} \affiliation{University of South Dakota, Department of Physics, 414E Clark St., Vermillion, SD 57069, USA}
%\author{C.~Chiller} \affiliation{University of South Dakota, Department of Physics, 414E Clark St., Vermillion, SD 57069, USA}
%\author{A.~Currie} \affiliation{Imperial College London, High Energy Physics, Blackett Laboratory, London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom}
\author{J.E.~Cutter} \affiliation{University of California Davis, Department of Physics, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA}
%\author{T.J.R.~Davison} \affiliation{SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, United Kingdom}
\author{L.~de\,Viveiros} \affiliation{Pennsylvania State University, Department of Physics, 104 Davey Lab, University Park, PA 16802-6300, USA}
%\author{A.~Dobi} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
%\author{J.E.Y.~Dobson} \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom}
\author{E.~Druszkiewicz} \affiliation{University of Rochester, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rochester, NY 14627, USA}
%\author{B.N.~Edwards} \affiliation{Yale University, Department of Physics, 217 Prospect St., New Haven, CT 06511, USA}
%\author{C.H.~Faham} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
%\author{S.R.~Fallon} \affiliation{University at Albany, State University of New York, Department of Physics, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222, USA}
\author{A.~Fan} \affiliation{SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94205, USA} \affiliation{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, 452 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94309, USA}
\author{S.~Fiorucci} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA} \affiliation{Brown University, Department of Physics, 182 Hope St., Providence, RI 02912, USA}
\author{R.J.~Gaitskell} \affiliation{Brown University, Department of Physics, 182 Hope St., Providence, RI 02912, USA}
%\author{V.M.~Gehman} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
%\author{J.~Genovesi} \affiliation{University at Albany, State University of New York, Department of Physics, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222, USA}
\author{C.~Ghag} \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom}
%\author{K.R.~Gibson} \affiliation{Case Western Reserve University, Department of Physics, 10900 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA}
\author{M.G.D.~Gilchriese} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
%\author{E.~Grace} \affiliation{Pennsylvania State University, Department of Physics, 104 Davey Lab, University Park, PA 16802-6300, USA}
\author{C.~Gwilliam} \affiliation{University of Liverpool, Department of Physics, Liverpool L69 7ZE, UK}
\author{C.R.~Hall} \affiliation{University of Maryland, Department of Physics, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
%\author{M.~Hanhardt} \affiliation{South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 501 East St Joseph St., Rapid City, SD 57701, USA} \affiliation{South Dakota Science and Technology Authority, Sanford Underground Research Facility, Lead, SD 57754, USA}
\author{S.J.~Haselschwardt} \affiliation{University of California Santa Barbara, Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA}
\author{S.A.~Hertel} \affiliation{University of Massachusetts, Amherst Center for Fundamental Interactions and Department of Physics, Amherst, MA 01003-9337 USA} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{D.P.~Hogan} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{M.~Horn} \affiliation{South Dakota Science and Technology Authority, Sanford Underground Research Facility, Lead, SD 57754, USA} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{D.Q.~Huang} \email[Corresponding Author: ]{dqhuang@umich.edu} \thanks{Present Address: University of Michigan, Randall Laboratory of Physics, 450 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1040, USA} \affiliation{Brown University, Department of Physics, 182 Hope St., Providence, RI 02912, USA}%\footnote{Now at: University of Michigan, Randall Laboratory of Physics, 450 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1040, USA}
\author{C.M.~Ignarra} \affiliation{SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94205, USA} \affiliation{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, 452 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94309, USA}
\author{R.G.~Jacobsen} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{O.~Jahangir} \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom}
\author{W.~Ji} \affiliation{SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94205, USA} \affiliation{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, 452 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94309, USA}
\author{K.~Kamdin} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{K.~Kazkaz} \affiliation{Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave., Livermore, CA 94551, USA}
\author{D.~Khaitan} \affiliation{University of Rochester, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rochester, NY 14627, USA}
%\author{R.~Knoche} \affiliation{University of Maryland, Department of Physics, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
\author{E.V.~Korolkova} \affiliation{University of Sheffield, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Sheffield, S3 7RH, United Kingdom}
\author{S.~Kravitz} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{V.A.~Kudryavtsev} \affiliation{University of Sheffield, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Sheffield, S3 7RH, United Kingdom}
%\author{N.A.~Larsen} \affiliation{Yale University, Department of Physics, 217 Prospect St., New Haven, CT 06511, USA}
\author{E.~Leason} \affiliation{SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, United Kingdom}
%\author{C.~Lee} \affiliation{SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94205, USA} \affiliation{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, 452 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94309, USA}
%\author{B.G.~Lenardo} \affiliation{University of California Davis, Department of Physics, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA} \affiliation{Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave., Livermore, CA 94551, USA}
\author{K.T.~Lesko} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
%\author{C.~Levy} \affiliation{University at Albany, State University of New York, Department of Physics, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222, USA} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{J.~Liao} \affiliation{Brown University, Department of Physics, 182 Hope St., Providence, RI 02912, USA}
\author{J.~Lin} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{A.~Lindote} \affiliation{LIP-Coimbra, Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, Rua Larga, 3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal}
\author{M.I.~Lopes} \affiliation{LIP-Coimbra, Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, Rua Larga, 3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal}
\author{A.~Manalaysay} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA} \affiliation{University of California Davis, Department of Physics, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA}
\author{R.L.~Mannino} \affiliation{Texas A \& M University, Department of Physics, College Station, TX 77843, USA} \affiliation{University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Physics, 1150 University Ave., Madison, WI 53706, USA}
\author{N.~Marangou} \affiliation{Imperial College London, High Energy Physics, Blackett Laboratory, London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom}
%\author{M.F.~Marzioni} \affiliation{SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, United Kingdom}
\author{D.N.~McKinsey} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{D.-M.~Mei} \affiliation{University of South Dakota, Department of Physics, 414E Clark St., Vermillion, SD 57069, USA}
%\author{J.~Mock} \affiliation{University at Albany, State University of New York, Department of Physics, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222, USA}
%\author{M.~Moongweluwan} \affiliation{University of Rochester, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rochester, NY 14627, USA}
\author{J.A.~Morad} \affiliation{University of California Davis, Department of Physics, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA}
\author{A.St.J.~Murphy} \affiliation{SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, United Kingdom}
\author{A.~Naylor} \affiliation{University of Sheffield, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Sheffield, S3 7RH, United Kingdom}
\author{C.~Nehrkorn} \affiliation{University of California Santa Barbara, Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA}
\author{H.N.~Nelson} \affiliation{University of California Santa Barbara, Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA}
\author{F.~Neves} \affiliation{LIP-Coimbra, Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, Rua Larga, 3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal}
\author{A.~Nilima} \affiliation{SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, United Kingdom}
%\author{K.~O'Sullivan} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{K.C.~Oliver-Mallory} \affiliation{Imperial College London, High Energy Physics, Blackett Laboratory, London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{K.J.~Palladino} \affiliation{University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Physics, 1150 University Ave., Madison, WI 53706, USA}
%\author{E.K.~Pease} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
%\author{L.~Reichhart} \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom}
\author{C.~Rhyne} \affiliation{Brown University, Department of Physics, 182 Hope St., Providence, RI 02912, USA}
\author{Q.~Riffard} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{G.R.C.~Rischbieter} \affiliation{University at Albany, State University of New York, Department of Physics, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222, USA}
\author{P.~Rossiter} \affiliation{University of Sheffield, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Sheffield, S3 7RH, United Kingdom}
\author{S.~Shaw} \affiliation{University of California Santa Barbara, Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA} \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom}
\author{T.A.~Shutt} \affiliation{SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94205, USA} \affiliation{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, 452 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94309, USA}
\author{C.~Silva} \affiliation{LIP-Coimbra, Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, Rua Larga, 3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal}
\author{M.~Solmaz} \affiliation{University of California Santa Barbara, Department of Physics, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA}
\author{V.N.~Solovov} \affiliation{LIP-Coimbra, Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, Rua Larga, 3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal}
\author{P.~Sorensen} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
%\author{S.~Stephenson} \affiliation{University of California Davis, Department of Physics, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA}
\author{T.J.~Sumner} \affiliation{Imperial College London, High Energy Physics, Blackett Laboratory, London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom}
\author{N.~Swanson} \affiliation{Brown University, Department of Physics, 182 Hope St., Providence, RI 02912, USA}
\author{M.~Szydagis} \affiliation{University at Albany, State University of New York, Department of Physics, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222, USA}
\author{D.J.~Taylor} \affiliation{South Dakota Science and Technology Authority, Sanford Underground Research Facility, Lead, SD 57754, USA}
\author{R.~Taylor} \affiliation{Imperial College London, High Energy Physics, Blackett Laboratory, London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom}
\author{W.C.~Taylor} \affiliation{Brown University, Department of Physics, 182 Hope St., Providence, RI 02912, USA}
\author{B.P.~Tennyson} \affiliation{Yale University, Department of Physics, 217 Prospect St., New Haven, CT 06511, USA}
\author{P.A.~Terman} \affiliation{Texas A \& M University, Department of Physics, College Station, TX 77843, USA}
\author{D.R.~Tiedt} \affiliation{University of Maryland, Department of Physics, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
\author{W.H.~To} \affiliation{California State University Stanislaus, Department of Physics, 1 University Circle, Turlock, CA 95382, USA}
%\author{M.~Tripathi} \affiliation{University of California Davis, Department of Physics, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA}
\author{L.~Tvrznikova} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA} \affiliation{Yale University, Department of Physics, 217 Prospect St., New Haven, CT 06511, USA}
\author{U.~Utku} \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom}
%\author{S.~Uvarov} \affiliation{University of California Davis, Department of Physics, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA}
\author{A.~Vacheret} \affiliation{Imperial College London, High Energy Physics, Blackett Laboratory, London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom}
\author{A.~Vaitkus} \affiliation{Brown University, Department of Physics, 182 Hope St., Providence, RI 02912, USA}
\author{V.~Velan} \affiliation{University of California Berkeley, Department of Physics, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
%\author{J.R.~Verbus} \affiliation{Brown University, Department of Physics, 182 Hope St., Providence, RI 02912, USA}
\author{R.C.~Webb} \affiliation{Texas A \& M University, Department of Physics, College Station, TX 77843, USA}
\author{J.T.~White} \affiliation{Texas A \& M University, Department of Physics, College Station, TX 77843, USA}
\author{T.J.~Whitis} \affiliation{SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94205, USA} \affiliation{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, 452 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94309, USA}
\author{M.S.~Witherell} \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
\author{F.L.H.~Wolfs} \affiliation{University of Rochester, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rochester, NY 14627, USA}
\author{D.~Woodward} \affiliation{Pennsylvania State University, Department of Physics, 104 Davey Lab, University Park, PA 16802-6300, USA}
\author{X.~Xiang} \affiliation{Brown University, Department of Physics, 182 Hope St., Providence, RI 02912, USA}
\author{J.~Xu} \affiliation{Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave., Livermore, CA 94551, USA}
%\author{K.~Yazdani} \affiliation{Imperial College London, High Energy Physics, Blackett Laboratory, London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom}
%\author{S.K.~Young} \affiliation{University at Albany, State University of New York, Department of Physics, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222, USA}
\author{C.~Zhang} \affiliation{University of South Dakota, Department of Physics, 414E Clark St., Vermillion, SD 57069, USA}
%merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked
%Control: key (0)
%Control: author (72) initials jnrlst
%Control: editor formatted (1) identically to author
%Control: production of article title (-1) disabled
%Control: page (0) single
%Control: year (1) truncated
%Control: production of eprint (0) enabled
\begin{thebibliography}{41}%
\makeatletter
\providecommand \@ifxundefined [1]{%
\@ifx{#1\undefined}
}%
\providecommand \@ifnum [1]{%
\ifnum #1\expandafter \@firstoftwo
\else \expandafter \@secondoftwo
\fi
}%
\providecommand \@ifx [1]{%
\ifx #1\expandafter \@firstoftwo
\else \expandafter \@secondoftwo
\fi
}%
\providecommand \natexlab [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \enquote [1]{``#1''}%
\providecommand \bibnamefont [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \bibfnamefont [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \citenamefont [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \href@noop [0]{\@secondoftwo}%
\providecommand \href [0]{\begingroup \@sanitize@url \@href}%
\providecommand \@href[1]{\@@startlink{#1}\@@href}%
\providecommand \@@href[1]{\endgroup#1\@@endlink}%
\providecommand \@sanitize@url [0]{\catcode `\\12\catcode `\$12\catcode
`\&12\catcode `\#12\catcode `\^12\catcode `\_12\catcode `\%12\relax}%
\providecommand \@@startlink[1]{}%
\providecommand \@@endlink[0]{}%
\providecommand \url [0]{\begingroup\@sanitize@url \@url }%
\providecommand \@url [1]{\endgroup\@href {#1}{\urlprefix }}%
\providecommand \urlprefix [0]{URL }%
\providecommand \Eprint [0]{\href }%
\providecommand \doibase [0]{http://dx.doi.org/}%
\providecommand \selectlanguage [0]{\@gobble}%
\providecommand \bibinfo [0]{\@secondoftwo}%
\providecommand \bibfield [0]{\@secondoftwo}%
\providecommand \translation [1]{[#1]}%
\providecommand \BibitemOpen [0]{}%
\providecommand \bibitemStop [0]{}%
\providecommand \bibitemNoStop [0]{.\EOS\space}%
\providecommand \EOS [0]{\spacefactor3000\relax}%
\providecommand \BibitemShut [1]{\csname bibitem#1\endcsname}%
\let\auto@bib@innerbib\@empty
%</preamble>
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2017{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph
{et~al.}}]{Akerib:2016vxi}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.}~\bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.021303} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {118}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{021303} (\bibinfo {year} {2017}{\natexlab{a}})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.07648} {arXiv:1608.07648 [astro-ph.CO]}
\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Aprile}\ \emph {et~al.}(2018)\citenamefont {Aprile}
\emph {et~al.}}]{Aprile:2018dbl}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.}~\bibnamefont
{Aprile}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {XENON}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.111302} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {121}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {111302} (\bibinfo {year} {2018})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12562} {arXiv:1805.12562 [astro-ph.CO]}
\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Meng}\ \emph {et~al.}(2021)\citenamefont {Meng} \emph
{et~al.}}]{PandaX-4T:2021bab}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Y.}~\bibnamefont
{Meng}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {PandaX-4T}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.261802} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {127}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {261802} (\bibinfo {year} {2021})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.13438} {arXiv:2107.13438 [hep-ex]} \BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Aalbers}\ \emph {et~al.}(2022)\citenamefont {Aalbers}
\emph {et~al.}}]{LUX-ZEPLIN:2022qhg}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.}~\bibnamefont
{Aalbers}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX-ZEPLIN}),\
}\href@noop {} {\ (\bibinfo {year} {2022})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.03764} {arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]} \BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2016{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph
{et~al.}}]{Akerib:2016mzi}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.}~\bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX}),\ }\href@noop {} {\
(\bibinfo {year} {2016}{\natexlab{a}})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05381} {arXiv:1608.05381 [physics.ins-det]}
\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Lenardo}\ \emph {et~al.}(2019)\citenamefont {Lenardo}
\emph {et~al.}}]{Lenardo:2019vkn}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {B.}~\bibnamefont
{Lenardo}} \emph {et~al.},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.231106}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf
{\bibinfo {volume} {123}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {231106} (\bibinfo {year}
{2019})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph {et~al.}(2013)\citenamefont {Akerib}
\emph {et~al.}}]{LUXexperiment}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX Collaboration}),\
}\href {\doibase 10.1016/j.nima.2012.11.135} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Nucl. Instrum. Methods}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {A704}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {111} (\bibinfo {year} {2013})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2016{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph {et~al.}}]{LUXDD}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX Collaboration}),\
}\href {https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05381} {\ (\bibinfo {year}
{2016}{\natexlab{b}})},\ \Eprint {http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05381}
{arXiv:1608.05381 [physics.ins-det]} \BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Verbus}(2016)}]{james_thesis}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.~R.}\ \bibnamefont
{Verbus}},\ }\emph {\bibinfo {title} {\textup{An Absolute Calibration of
Sub-1 keV Nuclear Recoils in Liquid Xenon Using D-D Neutron Scattering
Kinematics in the LUX Detector}}},\ \href {\doibase 10.7301/Z01G0JQ7} {Ph.D.
thesis},\ \bibinfo {school} {Brown University} (\bibinfo {year}
{2016})\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Verbus}\ \emph {et~al.}(2017)\citenamefont {Verbus}
\emph {et~al.}}]{dd_brown}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.~R.}\ \bibnamefont
{Verbus}} \emph {et~al.},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1016/j.nima.2017.01.053}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Nucl. Instrum. Meth.}\ }\textbf
{\bibinfo {volume} {A851}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {68} (\bibinfo {year}
{2017})},\ \Eprint {http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05309} {arXiv:1608.05309
[physics.ins-det]} \BibitemShut {NoStop}%
%%CITATION = ARXIV:1608.05309;%%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2016{\natexlab{c}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph
{et~al.}}]{LUXRun3Reanalysisprl}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX Collaboration}),\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.161301} {\bibfield {journal}
{\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {116}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {161301} (\bibinfo {year} {2016}{\natexlab{c}})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Faham}\ \emph {et~al.}(2015)\citenamefont {Faham},
\citenamefont {Gehman}, \citenamefont {Currie}, \citenamefont {Dobi},
\citenamefont {Sorensen},\ and\ \citenamefont {Gaitskell}}]{DoublePhe}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {C.}~\bibnamefont
{Faham}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {V.}~\bibnamefont {Gehman}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {Currie}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {Dobi}}, \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {P.}~\bibnamefont {Sorensen}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {R.}~\bibnamefont {Gaitskell}},\ }\href
{http://stacks.iop.org/1748-0221/10/i=09/a=P09010} {\bibfield {journal}
{\bibinfo {journal} {Journal of Instrumentation}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
{volume} {10}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {P09010} (\bibinfo {year}
{2015})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Huang}(2020)}]{huang}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~Q.}\ \bibnamefont
{Huang}},\ }\emph {\bibinfo {title} {\textup{Ultra-Low Energy Calibration of
the {LUX} and {LZ} Dark Matter Detectors}}},\ \href {\doibase
10.26300/zvs6-fx07} {Ph.D. thesis},\ \bibinfo {school} {Brown University}
(\bibinfo {year} {2020})\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph {et~al.}(2014)\citenamefont {Akerib}
\emph {et~al.}}]{LUXfirstResult}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX Collaboration}),\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.091303} {\bibfield {journal}
{\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {112}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {091303} (\bibinfo {year} {2014})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2017{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph
{et~al.}}]{run4fullexpo}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.021303} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {118}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{021303} (\bibinfo {year} {2017}{\natexlab{b}})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.07648} {arXiv:1608.07648 [astro-ph.CO]}
\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
%%CITATION = ARXIV:1608.07648;%%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2016{\natexlab{d}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph {et~al.}}]{spinDep}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX Collaboration}),\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.161302} {\bibfield {journal}
{\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {116}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {161302} (\bibinfo {year} {2016}{\natexlab{d}})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph {et~al.}(2019)\citenamefont {Akerib}
\emph {et~al.}}]{LUX:2018akb}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.131301} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {122}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{131301} (\bibinfo {year} {2019})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11241} {arXiv:1811.11241 [astro-ph.CO]}
\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2020{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph
{et~al.}}]{LUX:2019gwa}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevD.101.012003} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. D}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {101}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{012003} (\bibinfo {year} {2020}{\natexlab{a}})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03479} {arXiv:1908.03479 [hep-ex]} \BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2017{\natexlab{c}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph
{et~al.}}]{LUX:2017glr}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.261301} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {118}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{261301} (\bibinfo {year} {2017}{\natexlab{c}})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02297} {arXiv:1704.02297 [astro-ph.CO]}
\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2017{\natexlab{d}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph
{et~al.}}]{lux_xe127}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevD.96.112011} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {D96}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {112011}
(\bibinfo {year} {2017}{\natexlab{d}})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00800} {arXiv:1709.00800 [physics.ins-det]}
\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
%%CITATION = ARXIV:1709.00800;%%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2016{\natexlab{e}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph
{et~al.}}]{LUXTritium}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX Collaboration}),\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.072009} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. D}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {93}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {072009} (\bibinfo {year} {2016}{\natexlab{e}})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2020{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph
{et~al.}}]{jingke_electron}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevD.102.092004} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. D}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {102}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{092004} (\bibinfo {year} {2020}{\natexlab{b}})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.07791} {arXiv:2004.07791 [physics.ins-det]}
\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Agostinelli}\ \emph {et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont
{Agostinelli} \emph {et~al.}}]{GEANT4:2002zbu}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
{Agostinelli}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {GEANT4}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {506}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {250} (\bibinfo {year} {2003})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph {et~al.}(2012)\citenamefont {Akerib}
\emph {et~al.}}]{luxsim_paper}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1016/j.nima.2012.02.010}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Nucl. Instrum. Meth.}\ }\textbf
{\bibinfo {volume} {A675}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {63} (\bibinfo {year}
{2012})},\ \Eprint {http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2074} {arXiv:1111.2074
[physics.data-an]} \BibitemShut {NoStop}%
%%CITATION = ARXIV:1111.2074;%%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Amarasinghe}\ \emph {et~al.}(2022)\citenamefont
{Amarasinghe}, \citenamefont {Coronel}, \citenamefont {Huang}, \citenamefont
{Liu}, \citenamefont {Arthurs}, \citenamefont {Steinfeld}, \citenamefont
{Gaitskell},\ and\ \citenamefont {Lorenzon}}]{Amarasinghe:2022jgk}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {C.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Amarasinghe}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {R.}~\bibnamefont
{Coronel}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~Q.}\ \bibnamefont {Huang}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Y.}~\bibnamefont {Liu}}, \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont {Arthurs}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont
{S.}~\bibnamefont {Steinfeld}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont
{R.}~\bibnamefont {Gaitskell}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont
{W.}~\bibnamefont {Lorenzon}},\ }\href@noop {} {\ (\bibinfo {year}
{2022})},\ \Eprint {http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.03109} {arXiv:2204.03109
[physics.ins-det]} \BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2017{\natexlab{e}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph
{et~al.}}]{lux_field}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1088/1748-0221/12/11/P11022} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{JINST}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {12}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {P11022}
(\bibinfo {year} {2017}{\natexlab{e}})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00095} {arXiv:1709.00095 [physics.ins-det]}
\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
%%CITATION = ARXIV:1709.00095;%%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Szydagis}\ \emph {et~al.}(2018)\citenamefont
{Szydagis} \emph {et~al.}}]{szydagis_m_2018_4062516}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont
{Szydagis}} \emph {et~al.},\ }\href {\doibase 10.5281/zenodo.1314669}
{\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Noble element simulation technique},}\ }
(\bibinfo {year} {2018})\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Sorensen}\ \emph {et~al.}(2009)\citenamefont
{Sorensen} \emph {et~al.}}]{Sorensen2009339}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {P.}~\bibnamefont
{Sorensen}} \emph {et~al.},\ }\href {\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2008.12.197} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:
Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment}\ }\textbf
{\bibinfo {volume} {601}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {339 } (\bibinfo {year}
{2009})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2018{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph {et~al.}}]{LUXprd}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevD.97.102008} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {D97}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {102008}
(\bibinfo {year} {2018}{\natexlab{a}})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05696} {arXiv:1712.05696 [physics.ins-det]}
\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
%%CITATION = ARXIV:1712.05696;%%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2018{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph
{et~al.}}]{LUXTriggerEfficiency}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1016/j.nima.2018.07.094}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Nucl. Instrum. Meth.}\ }\textbf
{\bibinfo {volume} {A908}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {401} (\bibinfo {year}
{2018}{\natexlab{b}})},\ \Eprint {http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07784}
{arXiv:1802.07784 [physics.ins-det]} \BibitemShut {NoStop}%
%%CITATION = ARXIV:1802.07784;%%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Sorensen}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Dahl}(2011)}]{Sorensen2011}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {P.}~\bibnamefont
{Sorensen}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {C.~E.}\ \bibnamefont
{Dahl}},\ }\href@noop {} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys.Rev.D}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {83:063501,2011}} (\bibinfo {year}
{2011})},\ \Eprint {http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.6080} {1101.6080} \BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Lindhard}\ \emph {et~al.}(1963)\citenamefont
{Lindhard}, \citenamefont {Scharff},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Schiott}}]{Lindhard1963}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.}~\bibnamefont
{Lindhard}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont {Scharff}}, \
and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {H.~E.}\ \bibnamefont {Schiott}},\
}\href@noop {} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Mat. Fys. Medd .
Dan. Vid. Selsk.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {33}} (\bibinfo {year}
{1963})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Dahl}(2009)}]{Dahl:2009nta}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {C.~E.}\ \bibnamefont
{Dahl}},\ }\emph {\bibinfo {title} {{\textup{The physics of background
discrimination in liquid xenon, and first results from Xenon10 in the hunt
for WIMP dark matter}}}},\ \href@noop {} {Ph.D. thesis},\ \bibinfo {school}
{Princeton U.} (\bibinfo {year} {2009})\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Mei}\ \emph {et~al.}(2008)\citenamefont {Mei},
\citenamefont {Yin}, \citenamefont {Stonehill},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Hime}}]{biexcitonic_effect}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~M.}\ \bibnamefont
{Mei}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Z.~B.}\ \bibnamefont {Yin}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {L.~C.}\ \bibnamefont {Stonehill}}, \ and\
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {Hime}},\ }\href {\doibase
10.1016/j.astropartphys.2008.06.001} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Astropart. Phys.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {30}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {12} (\bibinfo {year} {2008})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2470} {arXiv:0712.2470 [nucl-ex]} \BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
%%CITATION = ARXIV:0712.2470;%%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Lewin}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Smith}(1996)}]{Lewin:1995rx}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.~D.}\ \bibnamefont
{Lewin}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {P.~F.}\ \bibnamefont
{Smith}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1016/S0927-6505(96)00047-3} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Astropart. Phys.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
{volume} {6}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {87} (\bibinfo {year} {1996})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Szydagis}\ \emph {et~al.}(2022)\citenamefont
{Szydagis} \emph {et~al.}}]{nest2_3_11}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont
{Szydagis}} \emph {et~al.},\ }\href {\doibase 10.5281/zenodo.7061832}
{\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {{NESTCollaboration/nest: New, flexible LXe NR
yields and resolution model + G4 improvements + linear Noise + much more}},}\
} (\bibinfo {year} {2022})\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Aprile}\ \emph {et~al.}(2021)\citenamefont {Aprile}
\emph {et~al.}}]{XENON:2020gfr}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.}~\bibnamefont
{Aprile}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {XENON}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.091301} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {126}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {091301} (\bibinfo {year} {2021})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.02846} {arXiv:2012.02846 [hep-ex]} \BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Ma}\ \emph {et~al.}(2022)\citenamefont {Ma} \emph
{et~al.}}]{PandaX:2022aac}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {W.}~\bibnamefont {Ma}}
\emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {PandaX}),\ }\href@noop {} {\
(\bibinfo {year} {2022})},\ \Eprint {http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.04883}
{arXiv:2207.04883 [hep-ex]} \BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Mount}\ \emph {et~al.}(2017)\citenamefont {Mount}
\emph {et~al.}}]{lz_tdr}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {B.~J.}\ \bibnamefont
{Mount}} \emph {et~al.},\ }\href@noop {} {\ (\bibinfo {year} {2017})},\
\Eprint {http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09144} {arXiv:1703.09144
[physics.ins-det]} \BibitemShut {NoStop}%
%%CITATION = ARXIV:1703.09144;%%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2020{\natexlab{c}})\citenamefont {Akerib} \emph {et~al.}}]{LUXdpe}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {LUX}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevD.101.042001} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. D}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {101}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{042001} (\bibinfo {year} {2020}{\natexlab{c}})},\ \Eprint
{http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.06272} {arXiv:1907.06272 [astro-ph.CO]}
\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Akerib}\ \emph {et~al.}(2021)\citenamefont {Akerib}
\emph {et~al.}}]{LZdpe}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Akerib}} \emph {et~al.},\ }\href@noop {} {\ (\bibinfo {year} {2021})},\
\Eprint {http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.08753} {arXiv:2101.08753 [astro-ph.IM]}
\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\end{thebibliography}%