Novel approach to assess the impact of the Fano factor on the sensitivity of low-mass dark matter experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As first suggested by U. Fano in the 1940s, the statistical fluctuation of the number of pairs produced in an ionizing interaction is known to be sub-Poissonian. The dispersion is reduced by the so-called ``Fano factor,'' which empirically encapsulates the correlations in the process of ionization. In modeling the energy response of an ionization measurement device, the effect of the Fano factor is commonly folded into the overall energy resolution. While such an approximate treatment is appropriate when a significant number of ionization pairs are expected to be produced, the Fano factor needs to be accounted for directly at the level of pair creation when only a few are expected. To do so, one needs a discrete probability distribution of the number of pairs created $N$ with independent control of both the expectation $\ensuremath{\mu}$ and Fano factor $F$. Although no distribution $P(N|\ensuremath{\mu},F)$ with this convenient form exists, we propose the use of the COM-Poisson distribution together with strategies for utilizing it to effectively fulfill this need. We then use this distribution to assess the impact that the Fano factor may have on the sensitivity of low-mass WIMP search experiments.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".