Compatibility of DAMA/LIBRA dark matter detection with other searches

By C. Savage, G. Gelmini, P. Gondolo, K. Freese. 2008

419 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA annual modulation data, which may be interpreted as a signal for the existence of weakly interacting dark matter (WIMPs) in our galactic halo, are examined in light of null results from other experiments: CDMS, XENON10, CRESST I, CoGeNT, TEXONO, and Super-Kamiokande (SuperK). We use the energy spectrum of the combined DAMA modulation data given in 36 bins, and include the effect of channeling. Several statistical tools are implemented in our study: likelihood ratio with a global fit and with raster scans in the WIMP mass and goodness-of-fit (g.o.f.). These approaches allow us to differentiate between the preferred (global best fit) and allowed (g.o.f.) parameter regions. It is hard to find WIMP masses and couplings consistent with all existing data sets; the surviving regions of parameter space are found here. For spin-independent (SI) interactions, the best fit DAMA regions are ruled out to the 3σ C.L., even with channeling taken into account. However, for WIMP masses of ~ 8 GeV some parameters outside these regions still yield a moderately reasonable fit to the DAMA data and are compatible with all 90% C.L. upper limits from negative searches, when channeling is included. For spin-dependent (SD) interactions with proton-only couplings, a range of masses below 10 GeV is compatible with DAMA and other experiments, with and without channeling, when SuperK indirect detection constraints are included; without the SuperK constraints, masses as high as ~ 20 GeV are compatible. For SD neutron-only couplings we find no parameters compatible with all the experiments. Mixed SD couplings are examined: e.g. ~ 8 GeV mass WIMPs with an = ±ap are found to be consistent with all experiments. In short, there are surviving regions at low mass for both SI and SD interactions; if indirect detection limits are relaxed, some SD proton-only couplings at high masses also survive.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/75bece23fb82df7059f9ae01577896dbbbcc9874

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

Global interpretation of direct Dark Matter searches after CDMS-II results (2009, methodology): “The energy resolution is computed according to [12]”
Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC (2019, methodology): “In addition we show present limits (solid lines), favoured regions (filled areas) and future sensitivity (dashed lines) of the DM direct detection experiments XENON10 [582], XENON100 [583], XENON1T [584], XENONNT [585], SUPERCDMS at SNOLAB [586], DAMA/LIBRA [587], CRESST [588], CDMS II [589] and COG”
Physics reach of the XENON1T dark matter experiment. (2015, neutral): “The discovery contour of DAMA-LIBRA [85] and CDMS-Si [86] are shown, together with the exclusion limits of other experiments: XENON10 [87], SuperCDMS [88], PandaX [89], DarkSide-50 [90], XENON100 [14] and LUX with the 2015 re-analysis [94].”
Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection (2010, background): “6 Upper bounds on spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross sections σSI from (top to bottom at 1 TeV WIMP mass) XENON10 (60; 61) (red), ZEPLIN III (62) (green), EDELWEISS II (63) (light blue), and CDMS II (64) (blue), along with the combined 3σ favored regions (green shaded) from DAMA/LIBRA (65) with and”
Colloquium: Annual modulation of dark matter (2013, methodology): “On the other hand, the compatibility of lightOð10 GeVÞ dark matter remains the subject of some debate.”
Dark matter direct-detection experiments (2015, background): “If the DAMA signals is interpreted as being caused by elastic WIMP-nucleus interactions, two favoured regions appear at (10− 15) GeV/c(2) for scattering off sodium and (60 − 100) GeV/c(2) for scattering off iodine [275].”