SciPost Submission Page
Annual modulation of dark matter signals: Experimental results and new ideas
by Felix Kahlhoefer
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Felix Kahlhoefer |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202209_00060v2 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | 2023-04-28 |
| Date submitted: | 2022-12-07 13:41 |
| Submitted by: | Kahlhoefer, Felix |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
| Proceedings issue: | 14th International Conference on Identification of Dark Matter (IDM2022) |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Phenomenological |
Abstract
Direct detection experiments searching for the scattering of dark matter particles off nuclei expect an annual modulation in their event rate. In this presentation, I will review the theoretical predictions and the experimental status of the search for annual modulations, with a focus on ongoing and planned experiments using NaI detectors. In particular, I will discuss the interpretation of the DAMA signal and related model-building efforts.
Author comments upon resubmission
List of changes
page 1 it is written: “… is predicted to switch sign at very low recoil energies (so-called anti-modulation)…”. Actually, once considering the energy resolution of the detectors such a “anti-mod” can be smeared out.
Page 1 discusses the physical recoil spectrum, not the observed one, so the statement about anti-modulation is correct. However, I have added a comment on the possible effect of energy resolution in the context of DAMA on page 2.
page 1, the footnote: The author cites the paper [7]; however, the arguments of [7] have already been confuted by DAMA in ref: 1) Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 114 (2020) 103810 and 2) arXiv:2209.00882 (your ref. [10]) For an unbiased view, these should be cited as well.
The footnote on page 1 makes a very general statement without any reference to the DAMA experiment (which at this point in the text has not even been introduced yet). I believe the statement in the footnote to be factually correct, and no implication regarding DAMA is being made. I therefore find it unnecessary to add further references.
page 2: “… the DAMA collaboration has been observing an annual modulation in their nuclear recoil data…”. Actually, ... in the experimental single-hit data. No selection between electromagnetic and recoil data can be done at low energy.
I agree and have changed the text accordingly.
page 2: it is cited ref [8] for DAMA, however more updated ref is Nucl. Phys. At. Energy 22 (2021) 329 and your ref. [10]. The significance is slightly larger.
I agree and have changed the text accordingly.
Published as SciPost Phys. Proc. 12, 004 (2023)