SciPost Submission Page
Latest observations on the low energy excess in CRESST-III
by G. Angloher, S. Banik, G. Benato, A. Bento, A. Bertolini, R. Breier, C. Bucci, L. Canonica, A. D'Addabbo, S. Di Lorenzo, L. Einfalt, A. Erb, F. v. Feilitzsch, N. Ferreiro Iachellini, S. Fichtinger, D. Fuchs, A. Fuss, A. Garai, V. M. Ghete, S. Gerster, P. Gorla, P. V. Guillaumon, S. Gupta, D. Hauff, M. Ješkovský, J. Jochum, M. Kaznacheeva, A. Kinast, H. Kluck, H. Kraus, A. Langenkämper, M. Mancuso, L. Marini, L. Meyer, V. Mokina, A. Nilima, M. Olmi, T. Ortmann, C. Pagliarone, L. Pattavina, F. Petricca, W. Potzel, P. Povinec, F. Pröbst, F. Pucci, F. Reindl, J. Rothe, K. Schäffner, J. Schieck, D. Schmiedmayer, S. Schönert, C. Schwertner, M. Stahlberg, L. Stodolsky, C. Strandhagen, R. Strauss, I. Usherov, F. Wagner, M. Willers, V. Zema
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
|Authors (as registered SciPost users):||Leonie Einfalt · Dominik Fuchs · Valentyna Mokina|
|Preprint Link:||https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09375v1 (pdf)|
|Date submitted:||2022-09-07 14:17|
|Submitted by:||Fuchs, Dominik|
|Submitted to:||SciPost Physics Proceedings|
|Proceedings issue:||14th International Conference on Identification of Dark Matter (IDM2022)|
The CRESST experiment observes an unexplained excess of events at low energies. In the current CRESST-III data-taking campaign we are operating detector modules with different designs to narrow down the possible explanations. In this work, we show first observations of the ongoing measurement, focusing on the comparison of time, energy and temperature dependence of the excess in several detectors. These exclude dark matter, radioactive backgrounds and intrinsic sources related to the crystal bulk as a major contribution.
Submission & Refereeing History
You are currently on this page
Reports on this Submission
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2207.09375v1, delivered 2022-10-06, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.5838
These proceedings describe highly interesting and important measurement campaigns conducted by the CRESST collaboration with the dedicated goal to shed some light on the composition of the "low energy excess" observed by multiple solid state low threshold direct DM experiments . These excesses are a current limitation towards the lightest DM masses these devices could technically probe. The results that are presented are thus not only relevant for CRESST but to the entire low threshold community. The authors studied the rate behavior as a function of energy and as a function of time using a set of mostly different, modified CRESST detector modules. Their findings allow the exclusion of various hypotheses about the main contribution to the excess observed in CRESST, which is a major step forward. In particular it can be excluded that DM interactions or external and intrinsic radioactivity are the main source.
The proceedings are very well-written, supported by convincing plots. The content is highly relevant for the community. I thus recommend publication and I wish the collaboration all the best for their further investigations.
I have only one short question and two minor fixes. None of which requires my re-evaluation.
* Just a question. The authors say "The threshold at which we trigger the filtered data is defined by the choice of accepting one noise trigger event per one kg day of exposure, following". I assume this was evaluated using random noise traces? And if so, how was the accidental appearance of true low energy physics pulses dealt with? An extra sentence for clarification would be nice but I wouldn't insist on it because this threshold really is a mere choice. In the end what matters is the actual turn-on curve as determined and presented by the authors.
* "The dark grey curve shows the survival probability of valid events after all selection criteria were applied to the data." This sentence refers to Fig. 2b but that figure seems to be missing that curve. It only shows the respective histogram to which one could fit a function resulting in the mentioned PDF. So I'd suggest the authors to either add the curve to the figure or remove the sentence from the text.
* Typo close to the end of the section: "In the bottom of figure Fig. 5, " -> "In the bottom of Fig. 5"