4.7 Article

Fundamental statistical limitations of future dark matter direct detection experiments

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 86, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.023507

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes
  2. National Science Foundation [NSF PHY05-51164]
  3. Center for Cosmology at UC Irvine
  4. NASA [NNX09AD09G]
  5. Lorne Trottier Chair in Astrophysics
  6. Institute for Particle Physics Theory Fellowship
  7. European Research Council [277591]
  8. European Research Council (ERC) [277591] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)
  9. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I505713/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. STFC [ST/I505713/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We discuss irreducible statistical limitations of future ton-scale dark matter direct detection experiments. We focus in particular on the coverage of confidence intervals, which quantifies the reliability of the statistical method used to reconstruct the dark matter parameters and the bias of the reconstructed parameters. We study 36 benchmark dark matter models within the reach of upcoming ton-scale experiments. We find that approximate confidence intervals from a profile-likelihood analysis exactly cover or overcover the true values of the weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) parameters, and hence are conservative. We evaluate the probability that unavoidable statistical fluctuations in the data might lead to a biased reconstruction of the dark matter parameters, or large uncertainties on the reconstructed parameter values. We show that this probability can be surprisingly large, even for benchmark models leading to a large event rate of order a hundred counts. We find that combining data sets from two different targets leads to improved coverage properties, as well as a substantial reduction of statistical bias and uncertainty on the dark matter parameters.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available