Paper detail

Chasing a consistent picture for dark matter direct searches

In this paper we assess the present status of dark matter direct searches by means of Bayesian statistics. We consider three particle physics models for spin-independent dark matter interaction with nuclei: elastic, inelastic and isospin violating scattering. We shortly present the state of the art for the three models, marginalising over experimental systematics and astrophysical uncertainties. Whatever the scenario is, XENON100 appears to challenge the detection region of DAMA, CoGeNT and CRESST. The first aim of this study is to rigorously quantify the significance of the inconsistency between XENON100 data and the combined set of detection (DAMA, CoGeNT and CRESST together), performing two statistical tests based on the Bayesian evidence. We show that XENON100 and the combined set are inconsistent at least at 2 sigma level in all scenarios but inelastic scattering, for which the disagreement drops to 1 sigma level. Secondly we consider only the combined set and hunt the best particle physics model that accounts for the events, using Bayesian model comparison. The outcome between elastic and isospin violating scattering is inconclusive, with the odds 2:1, while inelastic scattering is disfavoured with the odds of 1:32 because of CoGeNT data. Our results are robust under reasonable prior assumptions. We conclude that the simple elastic scattering remains the best model to explain the detection regions, since the data do not support extra free parameters. Present direct searches therefore are not able to constrain the particle physics interaction of the dark matter. The outcome of consistency tests implies that either a better understanding of astrophysical and experimental uncertainties is needed, either the dark matter theoretical model is at odds with the data.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.