Low-energy radiative backgrounds in CCD-based dark-matter detectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract The reach of sub-GeV dark-matter detectors is at present severely affected by low-energy events from various origins. We present the theoretical methods to compute the single- and few-electron events that arise from secondary radiation emitted by high-energy particles as they pass through detector materials and perform a detailed simulation to quantify them at (Skipper) CCD-based experiments, focusing on the SENSEI data collected at Fermilab near the MINOS cavern. The simulations account for the generation of secondaries from Cherenkov and luminescent recombination radiation; photo-absorption in the bulk, backside layer, pitch adapter, and epoxy; the photon reflection and refraction at interfaces; thin-film interference; the roughness of the interfaces; the dynamics of charges produced in the highly doped CCD-backside-layers; and the partial charge collection on the CCD backside. We consider several systematic uncertainties, notably those stemming from the backside modeling, which we estimate with a “fiducial” and an “extreme” charge-diffusion model, with the former model being preferred due to better agreement with partial-charge collection data. We find that Cherenkov photons constitute about 30% of the observed single-electron events for both diffusion models; radiative recombination contributes negligibly to the event rate for the fiducial model, although it can dominate over Cherenkov for the extreme model. We also estimate the fraction of 2-electron events that arise from 1-electron event coincidences in the same pixel, finding that the entire 2-electron rate can be explained by coincidences of radiative events and spurious charge. Accounting for both radiative and non-radiative backgrounds, we project the sensitivity of future Skipper-CCD-based experiments to different dark-matter models. For light-mediator models with dark-matter masses of 1, 5, and 10 MeV, we find that future experiments with 10-kg-year exposures and successful background mitigation could have a sensitivity that is larger by 9, 3, and 2 orders of magnitude, respectively, when compared to an experiment without background improvements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".