Direct detection of dark matter—APPEC committee report*
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
This report provides an extensive review of the experimental programme of direct detection searches of particle dark matter. It focuses mostly on European efforts, both current and planned, but does it within a broader context of a worldwide activity in the field. It aims at identifying the virtues, opportunities and challenges associated with the different experimental approaches and search techniques. It presents scientific and technological synergies, both existing and emerging, with some other areas of particle physics, notably collider and neutrino programmes, and beyond. It addresses the issue of infrastructure in light of the growing needs and challenges of the different experimental searches. Finally, the report makes a number of recommendations from the perspective of a long-term future of the field. They are introduced, along with some justification, in the opening overview and recommendations section and are next summarised at the end of the report. Overall, we recommend that the direct search for dark matter particle interactions with a detector target should be given top priority in astroparticle physics, and in all particle physics, and beyond, as a positive measurement will provide the most unambiguous confirmation of the particle nature of dark matter in the Universe.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it