SciPost Submission Page
Non-Standard Neutrino Spectra From Annihilating Neutralino Dark Matter
by Melissa van Beekveld, Wim Beenakker, Sascha Caron, Jochem Kip, Roberto Ruiz de Austri, Zhongyi Zhang
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Jochem Kip · Melissa van Beekveld |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.00599v3 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2022-10-11 16:09 |
| Submitted by: | Kip, Jochem |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Core |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Phenomenological |
Abstract
Neutrino telescope experiments are rapidly becoming more competitive in indirect detection searches for dark matter. Neutrino signals arising from dark matter annihilations are typically assumed to originate from the hadronisation and decay of Standard Model particles. Here we showcase a supersymmetric model, the BLSSMIS, that can simultaneously obey current experimental limits while still providing a potentially observable non-standard neutrino spectrum from dark matter annihilation.
List of changes
-Added references and some text to the introduction
-Clarified the scanning procedure
-Clarified that point density is not indicative of statistical significance
-Added the tentative LZ direct detection limits
-Expanded upon the neutrino spectra analysis
-Some additional clarifications as requested by the referees in the various reports
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #3 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2022-11-7 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2207.00599v3, delivered 2022-11-07, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.6069
Report
I thank the authors for their response and for the modifications that they have made to the paper.
Unfortunately, I hold to my assessment that the paper does not qualify for publication on SciPost.
In the following I elaborate on the comments by the authors in response to my remarks.
The authors have written:
-We have expanded somewhat upon the neutrino spectrum analysis, especially regarding the peak of the spectra. However, we deem an in-depth study of any possible exclusion limit of these specific spectra to be outside of the scope of this work, as it would require detector-specific response studies.
Barring mistakes on my side, the modifications to the text in v3, with respect to v2, are really minimal: two sentences in the Introduction (of which the first doesn't read well: missing a verb?); one sentence at the end of Sec. 2; two sentences in Sec. 4.2; one sentence and the end of Sec. 4.4. The discussion of the spectrum does not look deeper than before. The figure just above eq.(8) is actually less clear than before.
The authors have written:
-Regarding the HESS limits, as seen in Figure 1 of arXiv:2108.13646, the limits as provided from HESS are orders of magnitude weaker than those given by Fermi-LAT for XX-> bb, and only at ~10^4 do they become more stringent than Fermi-LAT for XX-> tau tau. However, there are no points in this region, thus we have not implemented these limits.
There has been a misunderstanding here and I apologize for the confusion I induced. I was referring to the constraints by HESS (and other IACTs) coming from observations of the Galactic Center, not from dwarfs. The constraints from the GC area may be relevant and apply to masses within the range considered in the paper. See for instance, for the historical evolution and the current status, and restricting only to HESS: arXiv:1103.3266, 1509.04123, 1607.08142, 2207.10471.
By mistake I pointed out the reference 2108.13646, which reports the constraints from HESS from dwarfs. These indeed are not competitive, in the current context. I apologize for that.
The authors have written:
-We have indeed not implemented the limits from charged cosmic rays as reported by various papers, as recent studies have shown that large uncertainties exist in cosmic ray propagation models, which have not previously been taken into account. These limits are also not particularly stringent, and will not change the main conclusions of the paper.
This response is not particularly satisfying. The authors should substantiate their statements more soundly.
First, to my knowledge uncertainties have been taken into account since a long time, and they have gone down significantly recently.
Second, what is the basis by which the authors claim that the limits are not stringent? They should have cited a reference or an estimate. For instance, the constraints based on AMS antiprotons (see fig 13, upper panel, of 1712.00002, the reference provided in the first report) may have an impact, if one compares with Fig. 5 of the present paper.
Author: Jochem Kip on 2022-11-15 [id 3017]
(in reply to Report 3 on 2022-11-07)Best,
We thank you for your report, we would of course like to comment on some of your points and address some concerns you have:
Regarding the discussion of the neutrino spectra. There appears to have been a compilation problem with the Feynman diagram, this has been fixed. The awkward-reading sentence has also been addressed.
The HESS limits have been implemented. Notably we do use the NFW limits, as opposed to the HESS Einasto limits, in order to provide a fair comparison. Seeing as the other indirect detection limits we implemented use the NFW DM profile. Including these limits does not change our results in any way.
We have provided references regarding the uncertainties in antiproton searches in the introduction of the text. We have additionally added text in section 4.4 detailing why we do not include the antiproton limits. But more importantly, most limits coming from antiproton DM searches are relevant in the 50-100 GeV DM mass range, which is not where our solutions lie. Even when included, no annihilation channels going to neutrinos will be excluded due to the extremely low antiproton yield of these channels.
Kind regards,
The authors