Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of dark matter detection is a highly visible and highly competitive one. In this paper, we propose recommendations for presenting dark matter direct detection results particularly suited for weak-scale dark matter searches, although we believe the spirit of the recommendations can apply more broadly to searches for other dark matter candidates, such as very light dark matter or axions. To translate experimental data into a final published result, direct detection collaborations must make a series of choices in their analysis, ranging from how to model astrophysical parameters to how to make statistical inferences based on observed data. While many collaborations follow a standard set of recommendations in some areas, for example the expected flux of dark matter particles (to a large degree based on a paper from Lewin and Smith in 1995), in other areas, particularly in statistical inference, they have taken different approaches, often from result to result by the same collaboration. We set out a number of recommendations on how to apply the now commonly used Profile Likelihood Ratio method to direct detection data. In addition, updated recommendations for the Standard Halo Model astrophysical parameters and relevant neutrino fluxes are provided. The authors of this note include members of the DAMIC, DarkSide, DARWIN, DEAP, LZ, NEWS-G, PandaX, PICO, SBC, SENSEI, SuperCDMS, and XENON collaborations, and these collaborations provided input to the recommendations laid out here. Wide-spread adoption of these recommendations will make it easier to compare and combine future dark matter results.
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 | 0.105 | 0.464 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.132 |
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".