SciPost Submission Page
Muon-induced background in a next-generation dark matter experiment based on liquid xenon
by Viktor Pěč, Vitaly A. Kudryavtsev
This is not the latest submitted version.
|As Contributors:||Viktor Pěč|
|Date submitted:||2022-10-04 17:55|
|Submitted by:||Pěč, Viktor|
|Submitted to:||SciPost Physics Proceedings|
|Proceedings issue:||14th International Conference on Identification of Dark Matter|
We have investigated the implication of laboratory depth on the muon induced background in a future dark matter experiment capable of reaching the so-called neutrino floor. Our simulation study focuses on a xenon-based detector with 71 tonnes of active mass, surrounded by additional veto systems including an instrumented water shield. Two locations at the Boulby Underground Laboratory (UK) at depths of 2850 m.w.e. and 3575 m.w.e. served as a case study. Our results show that less than one event of cosmogenic background is likely to survive standard analysis cuts for 10 years of operation at either location. The largest background component that we identified comes from delayed neutron emission from N-17 which is produced from F-19 in the fluoropolymer components of the experiment. Our results confirm that a dark matter search with sensitivity to the neutrino floor is viable (from the point of view of cosmogenic backgrounds) in underground laboratories at these levels of rock overburden.
Submission & Refereeing History
You are currently on this page
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 1 on 2022-11-8 (Invited Report)
Very valuable work on the simulation of muon-induced background at two depths (existing and planned) for next generation Liquid Xenon TPC experiments. Even with rather high uncertainties the result is reliable and shows comparable outcome at both depth.
some additional formatting needed. Can be done in the stage of post production.
The manuscript is clearly written and well organized. It is also suitably formatted for publication.
I recommend the manuscript for publication after some changes.
- in the abstract I suggest to make clear about which experiment you are talking.
- neutrino floor -> fog?
- you simulate two types rock composition, but say that results are comparable for other labs. I would add explanation why.
- double introduction of NR
- delete comment before abstract (in red)
- I would suggest authors explain why given threshold was chosen for more clarity of the paper.