\section{Introduction}

	In his highly influential work \cite{tarski}, Tarski proved that the complete theory $\Trcf$ of the real closed field $\R$ in the language of ordered rings $\Lor=\{+,-,\cdot,0,1,<\}$ is decidable, by presenting an explicit quantifier-elimination algorithm for $\Trcf$. As a result, he noted that the $\Lor$-structure $(\R,+,-,\cdot,0,\allowbreak1,\allowbreak<)$ is -- in modern terminology -- o-minimal, i.e.\ any unary definable subset of this structure is a finite union of points and open intervals. In the same work, Tarski asked whether decidability can also be obtained for the complete theory $\Texp$ of the real exponential field $\Rexp = (\R,+,-,\cdot,0,1,\allowbreak <,\exp)$, where $\exp$ denotes the standard exponential function $x\mapsto \mathrm{e}^x$ on $\R$. While this question is open to the date, considerable progress has been made since the 1990s: In \cite{wilkie}, Wilkie proved that $\Rexp$ is model complete, and thus this structure is o-minimal (cf.\ also van den Dries, Macintyre and Marker~\cite{dries2}). Bulding on this result, Macintyre and Wilkie \cite{macintyre} showed that under the assumption of the real version of Schanuel's Conjecture below, $\Texp$ is decidable.
	\begin{schanuel}\thlabel{schnauel}
		Let $n\in\N$ and let $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\in \R$ be $\Q$-linearly independent. Then the transcendence degree of 		$\Q(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n,\mathrm{e}^{\alpha_1},\ldots,\mathrm{e}^{\alpha_n})$ over $\Q$ is at least $n$.
	\end{schanuel}
	In general, an ordered exponential field $\KK=(K,+,-,\cdot,0,1,<,E)$ is an expansion of an ordered field $(K,+,-,\cdot,0,1,<)$ by an exponential $E$, i.e.\ an order-preserving isomorphism from the ordered additive group $(K,+,0,<)$ to the ordered multiplicative group $(K^{>0},\cdot,1,<)$. We denote the corresponding first-order language $\Lor\cup \{E\}$, where $E$ is a unary function symbol, by $\Lexp$. Following the terminology of Krapp~\cite{krappla}, we call an ordered exponential field $\KK$ an $\EXP$-field if its exponential satisfies the first-order $\Lexp$-sentence expressing the differential equation $E'=E$. While $\Rexp$ and, more generally, any model of $\Texp$ is an o-minimal $\EXP$-field, it is not known whether \emph{every} o-minimal $\EXP$-field is already a model of $\Texp$. In \cite[page~153~f.]{dries4}, van den Dries stated a transfer conjecture for o-minimal structures, which specialises to $\EXP$-fields as follows (cf.\ Krapp~\cite[Observation~4.54]{krappdiss} for details):
	\begin{transfer}\thlabel{transfer}
		Any o-minimal $\EXP$-field is elementarily equivalent to $\Rexp$.
	\end{transfer}
	Berarducci and Servi~\cite{berarducci} showed that the Transfer Conjecture would imply that $\Texp$ is decidable. This result motivated the study of o-minimal $\EXP$-fields in connection to the Transfer Conjecture.

	One approach towards proving the Transfer Conjecture is to show that the (unique) prime model of real exponentiation, i.e.\ the prime model of $\Texp$, elementarily embeds into any o-minimal $\EXP$-field, which is also the motivating question for this line of research.

	\begin{question}[Main question]\thlabel{qu:main}
		Does the prime model of $\Texp$ elementarily embed into any o-minimal $\EXP$-field?
	\end{question}

	Note that \Autoref{qu:main} can be answered positively if and only if the Transfer Conjecture holds: given an o-minimal $\EXP$-field $\mathcal{K}$, if $\KK$ is a model of $\Texp$, then the prime model $\mathcal{P}$ of $\Texp$ elementarily embeds into $\KK$, and if $\mathcal{P}$ elementarily embeds into $\KK$, then $\KK$ is already a model of $\Texp$.
	It is thus natural to attempt answering \Autoref{qu:main} affirmatively only under the assumption of Schanuel's Conjecture, as a positive answer would imply the decidability of $\Texp$ via the Transfer Conjecture.

	While this note does not provide a complete answer to \Autoref{qu:main}, we show in \Autoref{cor:scprimeemb} that under the assumption of Schanuel's Conjecture, the prime model of $\Texp$ embeds into any o-minimal $\EXP$-field (however, this embedding might not necessarily be elementary). This result is deduced from the technical heart of this paper, \Autoref{thm:eclembeddable}, which is a more general \emph{unconditional} embeddability result for exponential algebraic closures of $\Z$ within one o-minimal $\EXP$-field into another. Finally, we complete this note by discussing in \Autoref{sec:residue} how \Autoref{qu:main} relates to
	another approach towards the Transfer Conjecture via elementary embeddability of the residue exponential field (cf.\ Krapp~\cite[Proposition~3.6]{krappla}).

	\subsection{Notation and terminology}

		More background on the model theoretic notation and terminology we use can be found in Marker~\cite{marker}. If it is clear from the context, then the $\Lor$-structure of an ordered field $(K,+,-,\cdot,0,1,<)$ is simply denoted by $K$ and the $\Lexp$-structure of an ordered exponential field $(K,+,-,\cdot,0,1,<,E)$ simply by $(K,E)$.
		Given an ordered exponential field $(K,E)$, we say that a subfield $F\subseteq K$ is \textbf{exponentially closed} in $(K,E)$ if the restriction $E|_{F}$ is an exponential on $F$. In this case, if no confusion is likely to arise, then we also denote $E|_F$ simply by $E$ and write $(F,E)\subseteq (K,E)$ for the corresponding embedding of ordered exponential fields.
		For any structure $\mathcal{M}=(M,\ldots)$, its complete theory is denoted by $\Th(\MM)$ and its existential theory by $\Th_\exists(\MM)$. For instance, $\Texp = \Th(\Rexp)$ denotes the theory of real exponentiation and $\Th_\exists(\Rexp)$ denotes the existential theory of real exponentiation.
		The definable closure of a set $C$ in $\MM$ is denoted by $\dcl(C;\MM)$. We say that a set is definable if it is definable \emph{with} parameters, and we say that it is $A$-definable if we wish to specify the set of possible parameters $A$.
		Variable tuples are denoted by $\ul{x}$, and we only specify their length if it is of importance.
		If $\ul{x}=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$, we write $E(\ul{x})$ for the tuple $(E(x_1),\ldots,E(x_n))$.
		We denote by $\N$ the set of natural numbers \emph{without} $0$.
		\textbf{Throughout the rest of this note, let $(K,E)$ denote an o-minimal $\EXP$-field.}

	\begin{remark}
		The Transfer Conjecture motivates us to entirely focus on o-minimal ordered exponential fields $(K,E)$ whose exponential satisfies the differential equation $E'=E$.
		For a general o-minimal ordered exponential field $(F,e)$, it is ensured by o-minimality that $e$ is differentiable in all but finitely many points in $F$ (cf.\ van den Dries~\cite[Chapter~7, Proposition~2.5]{dries}). Due to a general property of exponentials, this implies that $e$ satisfies the differential equation $e'=ae$ for some positive $a\in F$ (cf.~Krapp~\cite[Corollary~2.14]{krappdiss}). We can thus change the base of exponentiation, i.e.\ set $E\colon F\to F^{>0}, x\mapsto e(a^{-1}x)$, to obtain an exponential $E$ on $F$ with $E'=E$, that is, $(F,E)$ becomes an o-minimal $\EXP$-field. By this base change argument, most results in this note, in particular \Autoref{thm:eclembeddable}, can also be generalised to \emph{any} o-minimal ordered exponential field, e.g.\ o-minimal exponential fields $(F,e)$ with the property $e(1)=2$ (base-$2$ exponentiation as done in Carl and Krapp~\cite[Section~4.2]{carlkrapp}).
	\end{remark}

	\section{Exponential algebraic closures}

	In the following, we mostly follow the terminology of Macintyre~\cite{macintyre2} and Kirby~\cite{kirby} adjusted to our context.
	For a subring $A\subseteq K$, we
	say that $A$ is an \textbf{$E$-ring} if it is closed under $E$, i.e.\ for any $a\in A$ also $E(a)\in A$.
	The smallest $E$-ring in $K$ is denoted by $\Z^{E}$.
	If $A$ is an $E$-ring, then we
	denote by $A[x_1,\ldots,x_n]^{E}$ the ring of \textbf{exponential polynomials} in $n$ variables, that is, the smallest ring containing the polynomial ring $A[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ such that for any $y\in A[x_1,\ldots,x_n]^{E}$ also $E(y)\in A[x_1,\ldots,x_n]^{E}$. (We refer the reader to \cite[Section~1.7]{macintyre2} for an explicit construction of $A[x_1,\ldots,x_n]^{E}$.)

	\begin{definition}
		\begin{enumerate}[label = (\roman*)]
			\item Let $n \in \N$ and let $A \subseteq K$ be an $E$-ring.
			Moreover, let $f_1,\ldots,f_n \in A[x_1,\ldots,x_n]^{E}$ and let  $|J_{f_1,\ldots,f_n}(\ul{x})|$ denote the determinant of the Jacobian matrix $$J_{f_1,\ldots,f_n}(\ul{x}) = \brackets{\begin{array}{ccc}
					\frac{\partial f_1}{\partial x_1}(\ul{x})& \ldots & \frac{\partial f_1}{\partial x_n}(\ul{x})\\
					\vdots & & \vdots\\
					\frac{\partial f_n}{\partial x_1}(\ul{x})& \ldots & \frac{\partial f_n}{\partial x_n}(\ul{x})
			\end{array}}\!\!.$$
			Then the \textbf{Khovanskii system $S(\ul{x})$} of $f_1,\ldots,f_n$ over $A$ is the system of equations and inequations
			$$f_1(\ul{x}) = \ldots = f_n(\ul{x}) = 0 \text{ and }|J_{f_1,\ldots,f_n}(\ul{x})| \neq 0.$$

			\item Let $B$ be a subset of $K$ and let $A\subseteq K$ be the smallest $E$-ring containing $B$.
			An element $a_1 \in K$ is said to be \textbf{exponentially algebraic} over $B$ if for some $n \in \N$ there exist a Khovanskii system $S(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ over $A$ and $a_2,\ldots,a_n \in K$ such that $(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ solves this system. The set of all elements of $K$ that are exponentially algebraic over $B$ is called the \textbf{exponential algebraic closure} of $B$ in $(K,E)$ and is denoted by $\ecl^{E}_K(B)$.
		\end{enumerate}
	\end{definition}

	Note that the condition on the determinant of the Jacobian to be non-zero implies that Khovanskii systems only have isolated solutions. This is a consequence of the Implicit Function Theorem in o-minimal structures (cf.~van den Dries~\cite[page~113]{dries}).

	\begin{lemma}\thlabel{lem:expclosed}
		Let $B$ be a subset of $K$. Then $\ecl^{E}_K(B)$ is a subfield of $K$ that is exponentially closed in $(K,E)$.
	\end{lemma}

	\begin{proof}
		Let $F=\ecl^{E}_K(B)$ and let $A\subseteq K$ be the smallest $E$-ring containing $B$.
		By Kirby~\cite[Lemma~3.3]{kirby} and Macintyre~\cite[Lemma~21]{macintyre2}, $F$ is an $E$-ring and a field. Thus, $E|_F$ defines an order-preserving homomorphism from $(F,+,0,<)$ to $(F^{>0},\cdot,1,<)$. Since $E$ is injective, so is its restriction to $F$. To verify that $E|_F$ is also surjective, let $a_1\in F^{>0}$ and fix $n \in \N$, $f_1(\ul{x}),\ldots, f_n(\ul{x})\in A[x_1,\ldots,x_n]^{E}$ and $a_2,\ldots,a_n\in K$ such that $\ul{a}=(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ solves the Khovanskii system $S(\ul{x})$ of $f_1,\ldots,f_n$. Set $f_0(y,x_1)=E(y)-x_1$. Then there is some $d\in K$ with $E(d)=a_1$, i.e.\ $f_0(d,a_1)=0$. Note that
		$|J_{f_0,\ldots,f_n}(y,\ul{x})|=E(y)|J_{f_1,\ldots,f_n}(\ul{x})|$. Hence, $(d,a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ solves the Khovanskii system $\widetilde{S}(y,\allowbreak \ul{x})$ of $f_0,\ldots,f_n$. This yields $y\in F$, as required.
	\end{proof}

	We now investigate the connection between the definable closure and the exponential algebraic closure in o-minimal $\EXP$-fields. In particular, we show that for any model of real exponentiation $(K,E)$ we have that $(\ecl^{E}_K(\emptyset),E)$ is the prime model of $\Texp$ (see \Autoref{prop:primekhovanskii}).

	\begin{lemma}\thlabel{lem:khovanskiifinite}
		Let $A\subseteq K$ be an $E$-ring and let $S(\ul{x})$ be a Khovanskii system over $A$. Then $S$ only has finitely many solutions in $K$.
	\end{lemma}

	\begin{proof}
		Since $(K,E)$ is o-minimal, $S(\ul{x})= S(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ defines finitely many connected components in $K^n$ (cf.~van den Dries~\cite[\S~3.2]{dries}). By the condition that the Jacobian matrix of the system of exponential polynomial equations in $S$ has to be non-singular, all solutions of $S(\ul{x})$ in $K$ are isolated. Thus, $S(\ul{x})$ defines a set consisting of finitely many isolated points in $K^n$. In particular, $S(\ul{x})$ only has finitely many solutions.
	\end{proof}

	\begin{lemma}\thlabel{prop:dclexpecl2}
		Let $B$ be a subset of $K$. Then $\ecl^{E}_K(B) \subseteq \dcl(B;\allowbreak\Kexp)$.
	\end{lemma}

	\begin{proof}
		Let $A\subseteq K$ be the smallest $E$-ring containing $B$,
		let $a_1 \in \ecl^{E}_K(A)$ and let $S(\ul{x})$ be a Khovanskii system over $A$ such that for some $a_2,\ldots,a_n \in K$ the tuple $(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ solves $S$. Let $C\subseteq K^n$ be the $A$-definable set of all $\ul{c}\in K^n$ with $\Kexp \models S(\ul{c})$. \Autoref{lem:khovanskiifinite} shows that $C$ is finite.

		Let $C' \subseteq K$ be the projection of $C$ onto the first coordinate. Then $C'$ is $A$-definable as well as finite and $a_1 \in C'$. Suppose that $a_1$ is the $k$-th element of $C'$ in the ordering on $C'$ induced by the ordering on $K$. Then there exists an $\Lexp$-formula $\varphi(x)$ with parameters in $A$ expressing that $x$ is the $k$-th element of $C'$, and $\Kexp \models \varphi(a_1) \wedge \exists! x \ \varphi(x)$. Hence, $a_1 \in \dcl(A;\allowbreak\Kexp)$. It remains to note that any element of $A$ is $B$-definable in $(K,E)$ and thus $\dcl(A;\allowbreak\Kexp)=\dcl(B;\allowbreak\Kexp)$.
	\end{proof}

	Recall that due to definable Skolem functions in o-minimal expansions of ordered groups, for any subset $B$ of $K$ we have that  $(\dcl(B;\Kexp),E)\preceq (K,E)$, i.e.\ $\dcl(B;\Kexp)$ is the domain of an elementary substructure of $(K,E)$. Hence, $(\dcl(\emptyset;\Kexp),E)$ is the unique prime model of $\Th(K,E)$ (cf.\ Krapp~\cite[Proposition~4.75]{krappdiss} for further details).

	If $(K,E)$ is not only assumed to be an o-minimal $\EXP$-field but already a model of real exponentiation, then we can strengthen the conclusion of \Autoref{prop:dclexpecl2} to $\ecl^{E}_K(B) = \dcl(B;\allowbreak\Kexp)$.
	The following result is mentioned by Macintyre in \cite[Theorem~22]{macintyre2}, who attributes it to Wilkie~\cite{wilkie}. For the convenience of the reader, we give a proof based on Macintyre and Wilkie~\cite[Theorem~2.1]{macintyre}.

	\begin{proposition}\thlabel{prop:dclexpecl}\thlabel{prop:dclexpecl3}\thlabel{prop:primekhovanskii}
		Let $(K,E) \models \Texp$ and let $B$ be a subset of $K$. Then $$\dcl(B;(K, E)) = \ecl_K^{E}(B).$$
		In particular, $(\ecl_K^{E}(B),E)\preceq (K,E)$ and  $(\ecl_K^{E}(\emptyset),E)$ is the prime model of $\Texp$.
	\end{proposition}

	\begin{proof}
		By \Autoref{prop:dclexpecl2}, we only have to show $\dcl(B;(K, E)) \subseteq \ecl^{E}_K(B)$.
		Let $A\subseteq K$ be the smallest $E$-ring containing $B$, and let $b \in \dcl(A;\allowbreak (K, E)) =\dcl(B;(K, E))$. Then there exists a function $g$ that is $\emptyset$-definable in $(K,E)$ such that $g(\ul{a}) = b$ for some $\ul{a} \in A$. Since $(K,E)$ is model complete, there is some atomic $\Lexp$-formula $\varphi(\ul{v},\ul{w})$ such that $\exists \ul{w}\ \varphi(\ul{v},\ul{w})$ defines $g$.
		After replacing the variables, this defining formula is equivalent to one of the form
		$$\exists \ul{z} \ p(\ul{x},{y},\ul{z}) = 0,$$
		where $p(\ul{x},{y},\ul{z})=q(\ul{x},{y},\ul{z},E(\ul{x}),E({y}),E(\ul{z}))$ for some $q\in \Z[\ul{x},{y},\ul{z},\ul{x}',\allowbreak {y}',\ul{z}']$
		(cf.\ e.g.\ Servi~\cite[Proposition~4.5.4]{servi} for details).
		Thus,  $$(K,E) \models \forall \ul{x} \forall y \ (g(\ul{x}) = y \leftrightarrow \exists \ul{z} \ p(\ul{x},{y},\ul{z}) = 0 ).$$
		In particular, we have
		\begin{align}\Kexp \models \exists\ul{z} \ p(\ul{a},{b},\ul{z}) = 0 \wedge \exists!y \exists \ul{z} \ p(\ul{a},{y},\ul{z}) = 0.\label{eq:khovanskiifct}\end{align}

		Let $f({y},\ul{z}) = p(\ul{a},{y},\ul{z}) \in A[{y},\ul{z}]^{E} = A[y,z_1,\ldots,z_\ell]^{E}$.
		We now apply \cite[Theorem~2.1]{macintyre} to the setting $n=r=\ell+1$, $k=\ecl^{E}_K(A)$ and $S=V=\{\underline{\alpha}\in K^n\mid f(\ul{\alpha})=0\}$:
		There exist $f_0,\ldots,f_\ell \in k[{y},\ul{z}]^{E}$

		and $c,\ul{d} \in K$ such that $$f(c,\ul{d}) = f_0(c,\ul{d}) = \ldots = f_\ell(c,\ul{d}) = 0 \text{ and }\abs{J_{f_0,\ldots,f_\ell} (c,\ul{d})} \neq 0.$$
		This means that $(c,\ul{d})$ solves the Khovanskii system of $f_0,\ldots,f_\ell$, whence $c \in \ecl^{E}_K(k)$. By (\autoref{eq:khovanskiifct}) we already have $c = b$.
		In conclusion, $b\in \ecl^{E}_K(k)=\ecl^{E}_K(\ecl^{E}_K(A))=\ecl^{E}_K(A)=\ecl^{E}_K(B)$ (by Kirby~\cite[Lemma~3.3\ (3)]{kirby}).
	\end{proof}

	The aim of this note is to show that, under the assumption of Schanuel's Conjecture, the prime model of $\Texp$ is embeddable into any o-minimal $\EXP$-field (see \Autoref{cor:scprimeemb}). This result will be deduced from the more general \Autoref{thm:eclembeddable}. The proof of \Autoref{thm:eclembeddable} relies on K\H{o}nig's Infinity Lemma, which we introduce in the following.

		Let $V$ be a set and let $\mathcal{E} \subseteq \mathcal{P}(V)$ such that $|e| \in \{1,2\}$ for any $e \in E$.
		We call the pair $C = (V,\mathcal{E})$ a \textbf{graph} on $V$. The elements of $V$ are called the \textbf{vertices} of $C$ and the elements of $\mathcal{E}$ are called the \textbf{edges} of $C$. For any $x,y \in V$ we say that $x$ and $y$ are \textbf{neighbours} if $\{x,y\} \in \mathcal{E}$.
		Suppose that $V$ is infinite and let $C$ be a graph on $V$. Let $(v_n)_{n \in \N\cup\{0\}}$ be a sequence of pairwise distinct elements in $V$. We say that $v_0v_1\ldots$ is a \textbf{ray} in $C$ if for any $n \in \N_0$ we have $\{v_n,v_{n+1}\} \in \mathcal{E}$.
		The proof of the following can be found in Diestel~\cite[Lemma~8.1.2]{diestel}.

	\begin{konig}
		Let $(V_n)_{n\in \N\cup\{0\}}$ be an infinite family of disjoint non-empty finite sets and let $C$ be a graph on their union. Suppose that for any $n \in \N$, any vertex $x \in V_n$ has a neighbour $y \in V_{n-1}$. Then $C$ contains a ray $v_0v_1\ldots$ with $v_n \in V_n$ for any $n \in \N\cup\{0\}$.
	\end{konig}

	\begin{theorem}\thlabel{thm:eclembeddable}
		Let $(K_1,E_1)$ and $(K_2,E_2)$ be o-minimal $\EXP$-fields. Suppose that $(K_2,E_2) \models \Th_\exists(K_1,E_1)$. Then there exists an $\Lexp$-em\-bed\-ding of the ordered exponential field $(\ecl^{E_1}_{K_1}(\emptyset),E_1)$ into $(K_2,E_2)$.
	\end{theorem}

	\begin{proof}
		Let $A = \ecl^{E_1}_{K_1}\!(\emptyset)$. \Autoref{lem:expclosed} shows that $(F,E_1)$ is an ordered exponential field.
		Since there are only countably many Khovanskii systems with coefficients in $\Z^{E}$ and by \Autoref{lem:khovanskiifinite} each Khovanskii system only has finitely many solutions in $K_1$, the set $A$ is countable. Let $A = \{a_1,a_2,\ldots\}$ be an enumeration of $A$. Let $(c_k)_{k\in \N}$ be new constant symbols and expand $\Lexp$ to $\LL= \Lexp \cup \{c_k \mid k\in \N\}$. Now $(K_1,E_1)$ expands to an $\LL$-structure $\KK_1$ by interpreting $c_k^{\KK_1} = a_k$ for any $k \in \N$. Consider the atomic diagram $\Diag(A,E_1)$ of $(A,E_1)$ given by the set of all atomic $\LL$-formulas and negations of such satisfied in $\KK_1$.
		By the Diagram Lemma (cf.\ Marker~\cite[Lemma~2.3.3~i)]{marker}), we need to interpret each $c_k$ in $(K_2,E_2)$ such that the $\LL$-expansion $$\KK_2 = \big(K_2,E_2,\big(c_k^{\KK_2}\big)_{k \in \N}\big)$$ satisfies
		$ \KK_2 \models \Diag(A,E_1)$, in order to obtain an $\Lexp$-embedding of $(A,E_1)$ into $(K_2,E_2)$.

		For convenience, we introduce the convention that any quantifier-free $\Lexp$-formula $\alpha$ is written as $\alpha(\ul{x})$, where $\ul{x} = (x_1,x_2,\ldots)$ and substituting for a variable that does not appear in $\alpha(\ul{x})$ does not change the formula. Moreover, an expression of the form $\alpha(\ul{c})$ stands for the $\LL$-sentence $\alpha(c_1,c_2,\ldots)$ and $\exists \ul{x} \ \alpha(\ul{x})$ stands for existential quantification over all free variables in $\alpha(\ul{x})$.

		Since $\Diag(A,E_1)$ is countable, we can enumerate it by $$\Diag(A,E_1) = \{\varphi_1(\ul{c}),\varphi_2(\ul{c}),\ldots\},$$ where each $\varphi_i(\ul{x})$ is a quantifier-free $\Lexp$-formula. For each $i \in \N$, set $$\psi_i'(\ul{x}) =  \bigwedge_{\ell=1}^i \varphi_\ell(\ul{x})\text{ and }\psi_i = \psi_i'(\ul{c}) =\bigwedge_{\ell=1}^i \varphi_\ell(\ul{c}).$$
		Note that any model of $\psi_i$ satisfies the first $i$ sentences in the enumeration of $\Diag(A,E_1)$. Thus, for the $\LL$-theory $\Sigma = \{\psi_i \mid i \in \N\}$, we have $$\Sigma \vdash \{\varphi_1(\ul{c}),\varphi_2(\ul{c}),\ldots\}.$$ Hence, it suffices to interpret each $c_k$ in $K_2$ such that $\KK_2 \models \Sigma$.

		Let $k \in \N$ be arbitrary. Since $a_k \in \ecl^{E_1}_{K_1}\!(\emptyset)$, there is a Khovanskii system $S_k(y_1,\ldots,y_n)$ over $\Z^{E}$ such that $$(K_1,E_1) \models \exists \ul{y}\ S_k(a_k,y_2,\ldots,y_n).$$
		Since $(K_2,E_2) \models \Th_\exists(K_1,E_1)$, the set $$B_k = \setbr{b \in K_2 \mid (K_2,E_2) \models \exists \ul{y} \ S_k(b,y_2,\ldots,y_n)}$$ is non-empty. Moreover, $B_k$ is finite by \Autoref{lem:khovanskiifinite}.

		For any $n \in \N$, let
		\begin{align*}X_n = &\Big\{\!(b_1,\ldots,b_n) \in K_2^n\ \Big| \\
				&\qquad (K_2,E_2) \models \exists \ul{x} \exists \ul{y}  \Big(\psi_n'(b_1,\ldots,b_n,x_{n+1},\ldots) \wedge \bigwedge_{\ell=1}^n S_\ell(b_\ell,\ul{y})\Big)\Big\}.\end{align*}
		Since $$(K_1,E_1) \models \exists \ul{x} \exists \ul{y}  \Big(\psi_n'(a_1,\ldots,a_n,x_{n+1},\ldots) \wedge \bigwedge_{\ell=1}^n S_\ell\brackets{a_\ell,\ul{y}}\Big)\!,$$
		we can argue as above to obtain that $X_n \neq \emptyset$. Moreover, since $X_n \subseteq B_1\times \ldots \times B_n$, we have that $X_n$ is finite.

		Let $i \in \N$, let $\pi_i$ denote the projection of a tuple onto the $i$-th coordinate and let $\widetilde{\pi}_i$ denote the projection of a tuple of length at least $i$ onto the first $i$ coordinates. Since for any $j \in \N$ we have that $\{\psi_{j+1}'\} \vdash \psi_j'$, we obtain
		\begin{align} X_i =  \widetilde{\pi}_i(X_i) \supseteq \widetilde{\pi}_i(X_{i+1}) \supseteq \ldots.\label{eq:descendingchain}\end{align}

		Let $$X = \setbr{\left.\!\brackets{b_k}_{k\in \N} \in K_2^{\N} \ \right| \ (b_1,\ldots,b_n) \in X_n \text{ for any }n \in \N}.$$
		We construct an infinite graph $C$ and then apply K\H{o}nig's Infinity Lemma to show that $X \neq \emptyset$. The set of vertices of $C$ is given by the disjoint union of all $X_i$ for $i \in \N$ plus some element $v_0$ not contained in any $X_i$. We construct the set of edges $\mathcal{E}$ of $C$ as follows. All vertices in $X_1$ are neighbours of $v_0$. Moreover, for any $i \in \N$, a vertex $w \in X_{i+1}$ is a neighbour of a vertex  $v \in X_i$ if $\widetilde{\pi}_i(w) = v$ or, in other words, if the tuples $v$ and $w$ coincide in the first $i$ components. By (\autoref{eq:descendingchain}), for any $n \in \N$ with $n\geq 2$, any vertex $w \in X_n$ has a neighbour $v \in X_{n-1}$. Moreover, any vertex in $X_1$ has $v_0$ as a neighbour. Thus, all conditions for K\H{o}nig's Infinity Lemma are satisfied, yielding that $C$ contains an infinite ray $v_0v_1\ldots$ with $v_i \in X_i$ for any $i \in \N$.
		In particular, for any $i \in \N$ we have $$\widetilde{\pi}_i\brackets{v_{i+1}} = v_i.$$

		Finally, we can interpret $$c_i^{\KK_2} = \pi_i(v_i)$$ for any $i \in \N$. We can now show that $\KK_2 \models \Sigma$. Let $i \in \N$ and consider $\psi_i \in \Sigma$. Let $N \in \N$ with $N\geq i$ such that for any $j > N$ the constant $c_j$ does not appear in $\psi_i$. By construction of $v_0v_1\ldots$, we have that
		$$\KK_2 \models \exists \ul{x} \ \psi_N'(c_1,\ldots,c_N,x_{N+1},\ldots).$$
		But $\psi'_N(\ul{x})$ is of the form $\psi_i'(\ul{x}) \wedge \varphi_{i+1}(\ul{x}) \wedge \ldots \wedge \varphi_{N} (\ul{x})$.
		Thus, we have
		$$\KK_2 \models \psi_i'(c_1,\ldots,c_N) \wedge \exists \ul{x} \ \brackets{\varphi_{i+1}(\ul{x}) \wedge \ldots \wedge \varphi_{N} (\ul{x})}.$$
		Hence, $\KK_2 \models \psi_i$, as required.
	\end{proof}

	\section{Prime model of real exponentiation}

	\textbf{For the rest of this note, we denote by $(P,\exp)$ the prime model of $\Texp$.}
	Since $(P,\exp)\models \Texp$, any structure containing $(P,\exp)$ as a substructure already satisfies the existential theory $\Th_\exists(\Rexp)$.
	Thus, by \Autoref{prop:primekhovanskii} and \Autoref{thm:eclembeddable} we obtain the following.

	\begin{corollary}\thlabel{cor:primemodelemb}
		There is an emebedding of $(P,\exp)$ into $(K,E)$ if and only if $(K,E) \models \Th_\exists(\Rexp)$.
	\end{corollary}

	\Autoref{cor:primemodelemb} shows that o-minimal $\EXP$-fields satisfying the existential theory of real exponentiation contain the prime model of real exponentiation as a substructure. Under the assumption of Schanuel's Conjecture, any o-minimal $\EXP$-field satisfies $\Th_{\exists}(\Rexp)$. This fact is basically due to Servi~\cite[page~104]{servi} (cf.\ also Krapp~\cite[Proposition~4.57]{krappdiss}).

	\begin{fact}\thlabel{fact:servi}
		Assume Schanuel's Conjecture. Then any o-minimal $\EXP$-field satisfies $\Th_\exists(\Rexp)$.
	\end{fact}

	\begin{remark}
		In light of the Transfer Conjecture, one would hope that Schanuel's Conjecture implies that any o-minimal $\EXP$-fields already satisfies the \emph{complete} theory $\Texp$ of real exponentiation. However, already for the weaker conclusion of \Autoref{fact:servi} it is sensible to assume Schanuel's Conjecture: As discussed in \cite[Section~4.5]{servi}, if the existential theory $\Th_\exists(\Rexp)$ is decidable, then so is the complete theory $\Texp$. Due to Fornasiero and Servi~\cite{fornasiero} as well as Hieronymi~\cite{hieronymi}, there exists a recursive axiomatisation of the class of all o-minimal $\EXP$-fields (cf.\ also \cite[Theorem~4.30]{krappdiss}). Hence, already the conclusion of \Autoref{fact:servi} would imply the decidability of $\Texp$.
	\end{remark}

	 As a result of \Autoref{cor:primemodelemb} and \Autoref{fact:servi}, we obtain the desired main result of this note.

	\begin{theorem}\thlabel{cor:scprimeemb}
		Assume Schanuel's Conjecture. Then $(P,\exp)$ embeds into any o-minimal $\EXP$-field.
	\end{theorem}

	\section{Residue exponential field}\label{sec:residue}

	In this final section, we discuss how our results above relate to another approach towards the Transfer Conjecture via exponential residue fields. Following the notation of Krapp~\cite{krappla}, we denote by $R_v$ the valuation ring of the natural valuation on $K$, by $I_v$ its valuation ideal and by $\ol{K}=R_v/I_v$ the residue field. In terms of the ordering on $K$, we have $R_v=\{a\in K\mid |a|<n\text{ for some }n\in \N\}$ (the convex hull of $\Z$ in $K$) and $I_v=\{a\in K\mid |a|<\tfrac 1n\text{ for all }n\in \N\}$. The ordering on $\ol{K}$ is given by $\ol{a}>0$ if and only if $a>0$ and $\ol{a}\neq 0$, where $a\in R_v$ and $\ol{a}=a+I_v$. Due to \cite[Proposition~3.2]{krappla}, the residue exponential $\ol{E}\colon \ol{K}\to \ol{K}^{>0}, \ol{a}\mapsto \ol{E(a)}$ is a well-defined exponential on $K$. Moreover, \cite[Theorem~3.3]{krappla} shows that the residue exponential field $(\ol{K},\ol{E})$ elementarily embeds into $\Rexp$. (Note that this $\Lexp$-embedding is unique, as any $\Lor$-embedding of an archimedean field into $\R$ is already unique.) In particular, $(\ol{K},\ol{E})$ is a model of $\Texp$. Hence, an affirmative answer to the following question is equivalent to the Transfer Conjecture (cf.\ \cite[Proposition~3.6]{krappla}).

	\begin{question}\thlabel{qu:2}
		Let $(K,E)$ be an o-minimal $\EXP$-field. Is $(\Kres,\ol{E})$ elementarily embeddable into $(K,E)$?
	\end{question}

	Just as for
	\Autoref{qu:main}, the first approach towards \Autoref{qu:2} would be to show that the residue exponential field of $(K,E)$ is embeddable into $(K,E)$. Under the assumption of Schanuel's Conjecture, this is indeed the case for sufficiently saturated o-minimal $\EXP$-fields.

	\begin{proposition}\thlabel{prop:sat}
		Suppose that $(K,E)$ is $2^{\aleph_0}$-saturated.
		Then $(\Kres,\ol{E})=\Rexp$. Moreover, under the assumtion of Schanuel's Conjecture, $(\Kres,\ol{E})$ embeds into $(K,E)$.
	\end{proposition}

	\begin{proof}
		Since $K$ is $\omega$-saturated as an $\Lor$-structure, the residue field $\ol{K}$ is isomorphic to $\R$ via a unique isomorphism (see e.g.\ S.~Kuhlmann, F.-V.~Kuhlmann, Marshall and Zekavat~\cite[Theorem~6.2]{kuhlmann4}). By \cite[Theorem~3.3]{krappla}, we already obtain $(\Kres,\ol{E})=\Rexp$.

		Assuming Schanuel's Conjecture, \Autoref{fact:servi} implies that $(K,E)\models  \Th_\exists(\allowbreak \Rexp)$. Equivalently, $\Rexp$ satisfies the universal theory of $(K,E)$.
		Thus, $\Rexp$ can be embedded into some $(K_1,E_1) \models \Th(K,E)$ (see e.g.\ Sarbadhikari and Srivastava~\cite[Proposition~2.4.2]{sarbadhikari}), where $K_1$ can be chosen of cardinality $|K_1| = \max\{|\R|,|\Lexp|\} = 2^{\aleph_0}$ by the Löwenheim--Skolem Theorem. Now $(K, E)$ is $\brackets{2^{\aleph_0}}^+\!$-universal, and thus $(K_1,E_1)$ elementarily embeds into $(K,E)$. Hence, $\Rexp$ embeds into $(K,E)$.
	\end{proof}

	Let $(F,E)$ be a $2^{\aleph_0}$-saturated elementary extension of $(K,E)$. We obtain the following chain of substructures (where each elementary embedding is unique):
	$$(P,\exp)\preceq  (\Kres,\ol{E})\preceq \Rexp =(\ol{F},\ol{E})$$
	Assuming Schanuel's Conjecture, \Autoref{cor:scprimeemb} and \Autoref{prop:sat} respectively give us $\Lexp$-embeddings
	$$\varphi\colon (P,\exp)\hookrightarrow (K,E)\text{ and }\psi\colon \Rexp\hookrightarrow (F,E).$$
	In conclusion, we obtain the following picture:
	\begin{center}
	\tikzcdset{
		arrow style=tikz,
		diagrams={>={Straight Barb[scale=0.8]}}
	}

	\begin{tikzcd}
		  & (K,E) \arrow[r, hook, "\preceq"] & (F,E)\\
		(P,\exp) \arrow[ru, hook, "\varphi"] \arrow[r, hook, "\preceq"]& (\Kres,\ol{E}) \arrow[r, hook, "\preceq"]& (\ol{F},\ol{E})\arrow[u, hook, "\psi"]
	\end{tikzcd}
	\end{center}

\begin{acknowledgements}
	Several results of this work were part of my doctoral thesis \cite{krappdiss}. In this regard, I wish to thank my supervisor Salma Kuhlmann for her continuous help and support. I also thank Alessandro Berarducci for an insightful discussion about \cite[Corollaries~4.59 and 4.90]{krappdiss}, which encouraged me to compose this note.
\end{acknowledgements}

	\begin{footnotesize}


\section{Introduction}
Neutrinos are the only known fermions carrying exclusively weak charge and therefore are clean probes of the weak interaction and unique messengers of dense matter environments, unaffected by the strong and electromagnetic interactions. This appeals, however, result in a notably suppressed interaction cross-sections, hampering the study of neutrino physics and rendering most applications impractical.\\
In 1974, the existence of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CE$\nu$NS) was pointed out to be a consequence of the Standard Model~\cite{Freedman:1973yd}. In CE$\nu$NS, a neutrino transfers momentum to a whole nucleus via the exchange of a virtual Z boson, forcing it to recoil. The interaction cross-section for this process is
\begin{align}
    \label{eq:cevns}
    \frac{d\sigma^{_{\text{CE}\nu \text{NS}}}}{d E_R} = &\frac{G^2_F}{8\pi\cdot(\hbar c)^4} (N+(1-4\sin^2\theta_W)Z)^2 \nonumber\\
    &\cdot m_N \cdot (2-E_R m_N/E_{\nu}^2)|f(q)|^2\,,
\end{align}
where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant, N (Z) is the number of neutrons (protons),  $\theta_W$ is the Weinberg angle and $m_N$ and $E_R$ are the nucleon mass and its recoil energy respectively.  The nuclear form factor $f(q)$ characterizes the loss of coherence as a function of the transferred momentum $q$=$\sqrt{2m_NE_R}/\hbar$ and it is close to unity for small $q$, associated to typical neutrino energies $E_\nu \lesssim 50$~MeV. Notably, given that $4\sin^2\theta_W\sim 1$ , $\sigma^{_{\text{CE}\nu \text{NS}}}  \appropto N^2$ ~\cite{Scholberg:2020pjn}. This remarkable interaction cross-section enhancement, however, offers a very challenging detection signal, as the nucleon recoil needs to be identified. The maximum recoil energy scales as $E^{\text{max}}_R\approx 2E^2_\nu / m_N$, so that detectors need to be able to measure recoil energies of, at most, several tens of keV. Due to this, it has not been until recently, thanks to progress in detector technology, that CE$\nu$NS have been experimentally demonstrated by the COHERENT collaboration, using
a CsI target~\cite{COHERENT:2017ipa} and an Ar target~\cite{COHERENT:2020iec}. \\
\section{Motivations}
The discovery of  CE$\nu$NS and its enhanced cross-section has the potential to mitigate the elusiveness of neutrinos and therefore to revolutionize its study at energies on the order of a few tens of MeV, which includes geonetrinos~\cite{Sramek:2012nk}, reactor neutrinos~\cite{Qian:2018wid}, accelerator neutrinos from meson decays at rest~\cite{Ajimura:2017fld,Garoby:2017vew, Wang:2013aka, Alonso:2010fs}, solar neutrinos~\cite{Bahcall:2000nu} and supernova neutrino bursts~\cite{Burrows:2020qrp}. Characterizing the cross-section of CE$\nu$NS is also essential for dark matter searches, as CE$\nu$NS constitute an irreducible background, the so-called neutrino floor~\cite{Billard:2013qya}. Being mediated by flavor insensitive neutral currents, the detection of  CE$\nu$NS provides extended sensitivity to sterile neutrinos~\cite{Anderson:2012pn,Dutta:2015nlo,Kosmas:2017zbh} and other new physics signatures~\cite{Krauss:1991ba,Barranco:2007tz,deNiverville:2015mwa,Dutta:2015vwa} and  allows the study of the neutrino magnetic moment~\cite{Dodd:1991ni,Kosmas:2015sqa},  its effective charge radius~\cite{Papavassiliou:2005cs} and the nuclear neutron form factor~\cite{Patton:2012jr,Amanik:2009zz}. Applications, such as deploying neutrino detectors to increase nuclear security~\cite{Stewart:2019rtd,Bernstein:2019hix} might also be possible. Moreover, CE$\nu$NS is relevant to theoretical astrophysics, as a key actor during stellar collapse~\cite{Wilson:1974zz,Schramm:1975nj,Freedman:1977xn}.\\

\section{CE$\nu$NS experiments}
\label{sec:CEVNSexperiments}
Because of all of the above, an increasing number of CE$\nu$NS detector technologies have been proposed~\cite{Drukier:1984vhf,Cabrera:1984rr,Formaggio:2011jt,Braggio:2006dr,Barbeau:2007qi,FernandezMoroni:2014qlq,Horowitz:2003cz,Bondar:2006ma, Joshi:2014fna,RED:2012hpm,Brice:2013fwa,Collar:2014lya} and several experiments are ongoing or have been proposed: COHERENT~\cite{COHERENT:2015mry}, using CsI, NaI, high-purity Ge (HPGe) and liquid-Ar targets; CONUS~\cite{CONNIE:2016ggr}, NCC-1701\cite{Colaresi:2021kus,Colaresi:2022obx} and $\nu$GEN~\cite{Belov:2015ufh} using cryogenic HPGe; MINER~\cite{MINER:2016igy}, using cryogenic HPGe/Si; NUCLEUS~\cite{Strauss:2017cuu} using cryogenic CaWO$_4$ and Al$_2$O$_3$; CONNIE~\cite{CONNIE:2016ggr}, using Si charge coupled devices (CCDs); TEXONO~\cite{Singh:2017jow} using p-type point-contact Ge; RES-NOVA using cryogenic PbWO$_4$~\cite{Pattavina:2020cqc,FerreiroIachellini:2021qgu}; RICOCHET~\cite{Ricochet:2021rjo} using cryogenic HPGe bolometers; and RED100~\cite{RED-100:2019rpf} using liquid-Xe.\\
To get the most from CE$\nu$NS, an ideal detector should be inexpensive to produce and operate, have excellent energy resolutions to measure nuclear recoils with an energy of a few keV and be made of heavy nuclear target to exploit the quadratic scaling of the cross-section. In this Letter, we point out for the first time the excellent prospects of lead perovskites to build up future CE$\nu$NS detectors.

\section{Lead perovskites}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{perovskite_structure.pdf}
    \caption{Schematic of the perovskite ABX$_3$ crystal structure.}
    \label{fig:pero_struc}
\end{figure}
Lead halide perovskites (LHP) are novel semiconductors with exceptional optoelectronic properties, versatile chemical composition and low cost synthesis. They typically consist of crystals with structure APbX$_3$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:pero_struc}, where A is CH$_3$NH$_{3+}$ (MA$^+$), CHNH$_{3}^+$ (FA$^+$), or Cs$^+$; B is Pb$^{2+}$; and X is Cl$^-$, Br$^-$, and I$^-$~\cite{wei2019halide}.\\
The study of halide perovskites as photosensors was sparked about a decade ago in the context of solar cell development~\cite{ kojima2009organometal} and quickly emerged as an active field of research due to record energy conversion efficiencies~\cite{green2014emergence,jung2015perovskite,park2015perovskite, correa2017promises, huang2017understanding, yang2018high, kim2020high, yoo2021efficient}. Along the process, much has been learned about the basic properties of this material, which combines a low exciton binding energy on the order of few meV~\cite{miyata2015direct} with exceptionally long electron-hole diffusion lengths exceeding 1 micrometer~\cite{stranks2013electron}, a tunable band gap in the range of 1.2-2.4~eV~\cite{ju2018tunable,unger2017roadmap}, and a high bulk resistivity of 10$^{7-10}\Omega\cdot$cm at room temperature~\cite{pisoni2014ultra}. The combination above is unique, as it pairs efficient charge carrier production and mobility at low voltage bias with a high bulk resistivity, orders of magnitude higher than those of Si and Ge, suppressing dark current and noise. Moreover, LHP naturally allow to manufacture crystals with very high atomic numbers, such as CsPbI$_3$, and to design application-specific perovskite sensors by means of stoichiometry engineering~\cite{emara2016impact,xiao2021grain}. Furthermore, the synthesis of LHP is easy and flexible through techniques such as solution processing. The production cost is also low, with an estimated price of $<0.3$\$/cm$^3$~\cite{wei2019halide}, namely, at the density of 4~g/cm$^3$ an inexpensive cost of $75$\$/kg. Finally, LHP can be operated inexpensively at room temperature.

\section{Existing metrics as $x$/$\gamma$-ray detectors}
Their striking performance as solar cells and their high atomic number\footnote{Photon attenuation increases $\propto Z^4$, where Z is the atomic number.} quickly attracted the interest of the medical imaging community towards lead perovskites~\cite{shrestha2017high, wei2017monolithic, kim2017printable, garcia2017solution, gill2018flexible, zhuang2019highly, zhou2020halide, li2020all, su2020perovskite}. In 2015, MAPbI$_3$ was proven to detect $\gamma$-rays from $^{137}$Cs~\cite{dong2015electron} and first x-ray images were obtained~\cite{yakunin2015detection}. That same year the first detection of single photons in LHP was achieved~\cite{yakunin2015detection}, resolving at room temperature the $E_{\gamma}=59.6$~keV emission from $^{241}$Am with about 35\% resolution at full-width-half-maximum (FWHM). In 2016, the reported X-ray sensitivities at a small bias of 0.1~V were already four-fold those of commercial $\alpha$-Se detectors~\cite{wei2016sensitive}, the dominating material for x-ray imaging. In 2017 perovskites where successfully integrated with CMOS read-out circuitry leading to an almost 30-fold improvement on the x-ray sensitivity~\cite{wei2017monolithic}. In 2017, the spectrum of $^{137}$Cs $\gamma$-ray energy spectrum was obtained, reaching a 6.5\% energy resolution (ER) for the 662~keV peak~\cite{wei2017dopant}. This same metric increased to 3.9\% in 2018~\cite{he2018high} using small 10~mm$^2$ crystals. In 2021, the ER at room temperature for 662~keV photons to 1.4\% while using large CsPbBr$_3$ crystals of 1.5 inches (3.75~cm) in diameter and achieving a stable operation of the sensors for over 18~months~\cite{he2021cspbbr3}. In that study, the spectrum of multiple radioactive sources was resolved, such as 22~keV $^{109}$Cd x-rays at a FWHM ER of 19.7\%. In 2021, promising results were also achieved with CsPbI$_3$, i.e. 20\% ER for 122~keV photons from $^{59}$Co. In 2022, LHP crystals of unprecedented quality have been reported, leading to the best x-ray sensitivities yet achieved in any material~\cite{jiang2022synergistic, he2022sensitivity}.

\section{Prospects as CE$\nu$NS detectors}
Existing measurement with $x$-rays and $\gamma$-rays are the most abundant tests of lead perovskites as prospective materials to build up radiation detectors. In addition, perovskites-based devices have been already demonstrated to be able to detect $\alpha$~\cite{xie2020lithium} and $\beta$~\cite{yu2020two} particles, as well as neutrons using a hybrid configuration~\cite{andrivcevic2021hybrid}. For the detection of CE$\nu$NS it is important to note that nuclear and electronic recoils have different ionization efficiencies. For Ge it has been measured that nuclear recoils generate about a third of the ionization signal of their electronic counterparts~\cite{EDELWEISS:2003omv}. For lead perovskites this fraction, the so-called quenching, is still unknown. Nonetheless the demonstrated ability of perovskites to resolve energy deposits of few tens of keV is encouraging. The observation of low energy spectral lines, such as $^{59}$Co 22~keV $x$-rays with 19.7\% FWHM ER, suggests that detecting nuclear recoils with energies below 100~keV might be already possible if quenching values are not drastically larger than those in Ge. If lead perovskites are proven to be succesful as nuclear recoil detectors, they have enormous potential as future CE$\nu$NS detectors.\\
Firstly, as earlier reviewed a large fraction of existing or planned CE$\nu$NS detectors use semiconductor materials, typically HPGe, a choice driven by its gold-standard energy resolution. Lead perovskites are rapidly approaching their ultimate energy resolution expected to be similar to that of HPGe~\cite{he2021cspbbr3}. Consequently, in the medium-term LHP might be directly competing with HPGe detectors.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{sigma_times_eff_CsPbI3_vs_Ge.pdf}
    \caption{CE$\nu$NS interaction cross-section per nucleus, $\sigma$, multiplied by the detector efficiency, $\epsilon$, as a function of the recoil energy threshold, $E^{\textup{recoil}}_{\textup{threshold}}$. Solid (dashed) lines correspond to CsPbI$_3$ (Ge).}
    \label{fig:sigma_vs_thresh}
\end{figure}
\\Secondly, producing low activity lead perovskites should be possible, e.g. CsPbI$_3$ consists of Cs and I both used in the first historical detection of CE$\nu$NS~\cite{COHERENT:2017ipa} and archaeological Pb has been recently demonstrated to be adequate for CE$\nu$NS detection~\cite{Beeman:2022wun}. Moreover, CsPbI$_3$ and other lead perovskites are made up of strikingly heavy elements, significantly advantaging the CE$\nu$NS interaction cross-section of mainstream alternative materials and in particular that of Ge. However, the maximum recoil energy decreases linearly with $m_N$ and therefore the ability of the detector to identify the recoiling nucleus needs to be considered. To account for it, we define the effective cross-section, $\sigma_{\textup{eff}}$, as a figure-of-merit, defined as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sig_eff}
\sigma_{\textup{eff}} \equiv \int_{E^{\textup{recoil}}_{\textup{threshold}}}^{E^{\textup{max}}_{R}} \frac{d\sigma}{dE_R}\,\epsilon\, dE_R \,,
\end{align}
which can be calculated from Eq.~\ref{eq:cevns} if the detector efficiency, $\epsilon$, is specified. Using it, in Fig.\ref{fig:sigma_vs_thresh} CsPbI$_3$ and Ge targets\footnote{For CsPbI$_3$, the weighted average (Cs+Pb+3I)/5 is used on the result of Eq.~\ref{eq:sig_eff}.} are directly compared for some neutrino energies assuming a detector with perfect (null) efficiency above (below) a certain energy recoil threshold, $E^{\textup{recoil}}_{\textup{threshold}}$. As expected, observing interactions in CsPbI$_3$ would require a smaller $E^{\textup{recoil}}_{\textup{threshold}}$ than in Ge, but if the detection threshold is achieved and mildly lowered it results in a large enhancement of the interaction cross-section. This trade-off is characterized by the ratio $\sigma_{\textup{eff}}^{CsPbI_3}/\sigma_{\textup{eff}}^{Ge}$ presented in Fig.\ref{fig:sigma_ratio} as a function of the neutrino energy and the recoil energy threshold.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{sigma_ratio_CsPbI3_vs_Ge.pdf}
    \caption{The color map depicts the ratio of $\sigma_{\textup{eff}}^{CsPbI_3}/\sigma_{\textup{eff}}^{Ge}$ as a function of the neutrino energy, $E_\nu$, and the recoil energy threshold, $E^{\textup{recoil}}_{\textup{threshold}}$. A ratio value of zero indicates that $E^{\textup{recoil}}_{\textup{threshold}}$ is above the necessary level to observe any recoil in CsPbI$_3$. To help the visualization, values of some particular integer ratios are highlighted by color lines.}
    \label{fig:sigma_ratio}
\end{figure}
\\Achieving $E^{\textup{recoil}}_{\textup{threshold}}$ below 20~keV would in general result in an event rate advantage for CsPbI$_3$ detectors compared to Ge when dealing with neutrino energies similar to a few tens of MeV, e.g. neutrinos from pion decays at rest, useful to study sterile neutrinos and NSI, or neutrinos from the high-energy tail of supernova neutrino bursts. Reaching even lower thresholds might result in additional applications involving neutrinos from other sources but it will also likely require a longer term R\&D.\\
Lastly, perovskites are orders of magnitude cheaper to manufacture and potentially to operate\footnote{Perovskites might be able to operate without the need of cryogenic systems, as supported by existing $x$-ray data.} than existing alternatives, including HPGe. Due to their inexpensive production cost, the budget to build a large perovskite detectors would be driven by the number of electronic channels. If volumes similar to a fraction of 1~cm$^3$ could be adequately readout by a single channel, i.e. sizes slightly above of those in use for x-ray detection, a ton of perovskite might be read by $O(10^6)$ electronic channels, making it potentially scalable.

\section{Discussion and outlook}
In just one decade lead perovskites have been established as novel materials with transformative potential as radiation detectors due to their unique optoelectronic properties.  In this Letter, we have pointed out their potential as neutrino detectors for the first time and discussed its suitability for the study of CE$\nu$NS. To bring perovskites to their ultimate detection potential and enable their full range of applications active R\&D is required. Demonstrating and characterizing their ability to detect nuclear recoils in the energy range of interest is an essential milestone.\\
Lastly, we note that CE$\nu$NS and some dark-matter models share the same signal mechanism, i.e. the detection of nuclear recoils. Therefore, any progress on that direction might benefit both the neutrino and the dark-matter research communities.

\section*{Acknoledgments}
We acknowledge fruitful discussions with E.~Palomares, and valuable feedback from J.I.~Collar and L.~Pattavina. This project was partially inspired by the ZPro project funded by the Barcelona Institute of Technology (BIST).

\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}