4.7 Article

Bounds on boosted dark matter from direct detection: The role of energy-dependent cross sections

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 107, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.015010

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recoil threshold of direct detection experiments limits the mass range of detectable dark matter particles. Light dark matter particles can be boosted to high energies via collisions with cosmic ray electrons, allowing for detectable recoil. Using XENONnT and Super-Kamiokande data, we derive constraints on the scattering cross section of dark matter and electrons, considering vector and scalar mediators in different mass regimes. Our analysis highlights the importance of including energy-dependent cross sections, as the bounds can significantly differ from assuming a constant energy-independent cross section commonly used in the literature. We compare our bounds with other astrophysical and cosmological constraints.
The recoil threshold of direct detection (DD) experiments limits the mass range of dark matter (DM) particles that can be detected, with most DD experiments being blind to sub-MeV DM particles. However, these light DM particles can be boosted to very high energies via collisions with energetic cosmic ray electrons. This allows dark matter particles to induce detectable recoil in the target of direct detection experiments. We derive constraints on a scattering cross section of DM and an electron, using XENONnT and Super-Kamiokande data. Vector and scalar mediators are considered in the heavy and light regimes. We discuss the importance of including energy-dependent cross sections (due to the specific Lorentz structure of the vertex) in our analysis and show that the bounds can be significantly different than the results obtained assuming a constant energy-independent cross section, often assumed in the literature for simplicity. Our bounds are also compared with other astrophysical and cosmological constraints.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据