Silicon Detector Dark Matter Results from the Final Exposure of CDMS II
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report results of a search for weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPS) with the silicon detectors of the CDMS II experiment. This blind analysis of 140.2 kg day of data taken between July 2007 and September 2008 revealed three WIMP-candidate events with a surface-event background estimate of ${0.41}_{\ensuremath{-}0.08}^{+0.20}(\mathrm{stat}{)}_{\ensuremath{-}0.24}^{+0.28}(\mathrm{syst})$. Other known backgrounds from neutrons and $^{206}\mathrm{Pb}$ are limited to $<0.13$ and $<0.08$ events at the 90% confidence level, respectively. The exposure of this analysis is equivalent to 23.4 kg day for a recoil energy range of 7--100 keV for a WIMP of mass $10\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{GeV}/{c}^{2}$. The probability that the known backgrounds would produce three or more events in the signal region is 5.4%. A profile likelihood ratio test of the three events that includes the measured recoil energies gives a 0.19% probability for the known-background-only hypothesis when tested against the alternative $\mathrm{\text{WIMP}}+\mathrm{\text{background}}$ hypothesis. The highest likelihood occurs for a WIMP mass of $8.6\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{GeV}/{c}^{2}$ and WIMP-nucleon cross section of $1.9\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}41}\text{ }\text{ }{\mathrm{cm}}^{2}$.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it