MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795533374 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/007

Constraints on Dark Matter with a moderately large and velocity-dependent DM-nucleon cross-section

2018· article· en· W2795533374 on OpenAlexaff
M. Shafi Mahdawi, Glennys R. Farrar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDark matterRecoilNucleonNuclear physicsAsymmetryParticle physicsElectronBaryon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We derive constraints on a possible velocity-dependent DM-nucleon scattering cross section, for Dark Matter in the 10 MeV -- 100 GeV mass range, using the XQC, DAMIC, and CRESST 2017 Surface Run experiments. We report the limits on cross sections of the form $\sigma=\sigma_0\,v^n$, for a range of velocity dependencies with $n\in\{-4,-2,-1,0,1,2\}$. We point out the need to measure the efficiency with which nuclear recoil energy in the sub-keV range thermalizes, rather than being stored as Frenkel pairs in the semi-conductor lattice. The possibility of a significant inefficiency leaves open a considerable `hole' in the limits for mass in the $\sim$ 0.2 -- 2 GeV range, which XQC and CRESST can potentially fill when the thermalization efficiency is measured. We call attention to the asymmetry between a conventional lower limit cross section and the `upper-reach cross section' imposed by attenuation in an overburden -- an upper boundary being extremely sharp but quite insensitive to the statistics of the experiment. Considering the recent interest to use dark matter-baryon interaction with velocity dependence $n=-4$ to explain the EDGES 21 cm anomaly, we also derive the limits on milli-charged DM that scatters off protons and electrons under a Coulomb-like interaction. We find that much but not all of the region of interest for the EDGES anomaly can be excluded.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207