1: %\documentclass[prd,nofootinbib,preprint]{revtex4}

2: \documentclass[prd,nofootinbib,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

3: %\documentclass[twocolumn,preprintnumbers,nofootinbib,prl]{revtex4}

4: %showpacs

5: 

6: \usepackage{graphicx}

7: \usepackage{amsmath}

8: \usepackage{amssymb}

9: 

10: % \usepackage{srcltx}

11: \usepackage[hypertex]{hyperref}

12: % \usepackage{hyperref}

13: % \usepackage{times}

14: \newcommand{\vev}[1]{\langle {#1} \rangle}

15: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lesssim}

16: \newcommand{\ord}[1]{\mathcal{O}{(#1)}}

17: \newcommand{\co}{\mathcal{O}}

18: \newcommand{\gsim}{\gtrsim}

19: %\newcommand{\z3}{Z^{\ell}_3}

20: %\newcommand{\z9}{Z^q_9}

21: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

22: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

23: \newcommand{\be}{B_\oplus}

24: \newcommand{\re}{R_\oplus}

25: \newcommand{\unit}[1]{\,\mathrm{#1}}

26: \newcommand{\vect}[1]{\boldsymbol{\rm #1}}

27: 

28: %-- command (re)definitions -----------------------------------------

29: 

30: \newcommand{\capdef}{}

31: \newcommand{\mycaption}[2][\capdef]{\renewcommand{\capdef}{#2}%

32:        \caption[#1]{{\footnotesize #2}}}

33: \makeatletter

34: \renewcommand{\fnum@table}{\textbf{\tablename~\thetable}}

35: \renewcommand{\fnum@figure}{\textbf{\figurename~\thefigure}}

36: \makeatother

37: 

38: \hyphenation{pa-ra-meter pa-ra-meters}

39: 

40: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.05}

41: 

42: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

43: \begin{document}

44: % page numbers bottom-center

45: \pagestyle{plain}

46: 

47: \vspace*{1cm}

48: \preprint{CERN-PH-TH/2008-171}

49: 

50: \title{Spin-independent elastic WIMP scattering and\\ 

51: the DAMA annual modulation signal\vspace*{1cm}}

52: 

53: \author{\textbf{Malcolm Fairbairn}}

54: \email{malc_at_cern.ch}

55: \affiliation{Physics Department, Theory Division, CERN,

56: 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}

57: 

58: \affiliation{King's College London, Strand, WC2R 2LS, UK\vspace*{5mm}}

59: 

60: \author{\textbf{Thomas Schwetz}\vspace*{3mm}}

61: \email{schwetz_at_cern.ch}

62: \affiliation{Physics Department, Theory Division, CERN,

63: 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}

64: 

65: 

66: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

67: 

68: \begin{abstract}

69:   \vspace*{5mm} We discuss the interpretation of the annual modulation

70:   signal seen in the DAMA experiment in terms of spin-independent

71:   elastic WIMP scattering. Taking into account channeling in the

72:   crystal as well as the spectral signature of the modulation signal

73:   we find that the low-mass WIMP region consistent with DAMA data is

74:   confined to WIMP masses close to $m_\chi \simeq 12$~GeV, in

75:   disagreement with the constraints from CDMS and XENON. We conclude

76:   that even if channeling is taken into account this interpretation of

77:   the DAMA modulation signal is disfavoured. There are no overlap

78:   regions in the parameter space at 90\%~CL and a consistency test

79:   gives the probability of $1.2\times 10^{-5}$. We study the

80:   robustness of this result with respect to variations of the WIMP

81:   velocity distribution in our galaxy, by changing various parameters

82:   of the distribution function, and by using the results of a

83:   realistic $N$-body dark matter simulation. We find that only by

84:   making rather extreme assumptions regarding halo properties can we

85:   obtain agreement between DAMA and CDMS/XENON.

86: \end{abstract}

87: \maketitle

88: 

89: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

90: 

91: \section{Introduction}

92: 

93: The DAMA collaboration has collected an impressive amount of data in

94: their search for the scattering of weakly interacting dark matter

95: particles (WIMPs) off Sodium Iodine. The combined data from DAMA/NaI

96: (7 annual cycles) and DAMA/LIBRA (4 annual cycles) amounts to a total

97: exposure of 0.82~ton~yr~\cite{Bernabei:2008yi}, in a field where

98: exposure is measured in units of kg~days. DAMA/LIBRA has now provided

99: further evidence for an annual modulation of the event rate in the

100: energy range between 2 and 6~keVee, the claimed statistical confidence

101: of the positive signal being $8.2\sigma$~\cite{Bernabei:2008yi}. The

102: phase of the observed modulation (with maximum on day $144\pm8$) is in

103: striking agreement with the expectation for a modulation in a WIMP

104: scattering signal due to the rotation of the Earth around the Sun,

105: (expected maximum day 152, June 2nd), see e.g.,~\cite{Jungman:1995df}

106: for a review.

107: %

108: An interpretation of this effect in terms of spin-independent

109: interactions of conventional WIMPs with masses $m_\chi \gtrsim 50$~GeV

110: is in direct conflict with the constraints from several experiments

111: looking for direct WIMP detection, most notably with the data from

112: CDMS~\cite{Ahmed:2008eu} and XENON10~\cite{Angle:2007uj}, which

113: exclude the WIMP cross section consistent with the DAMA modulation for

114: $m_\chi\sim 50$~GeV by many orders of magnitude.  In light of this,

115: several alternative explanations of the DAMA annual modulation have

116: been proposed, for example spin-dependent

117: interactions~\cite{Ullio:2000bv, Savage:2004fn}, light WIMPs with

118: $\lesssim 10$~GeV masses~\cite{Bottino:2003iu, Bottino:2003cz,

119:   Gondolo:2005hh}, keV scale axion-like dark

120: matter~\cite{Bernabei:2005ca} (see however, \cite{Pospelov:2008jk,

121:   Gondolo:2008dd}), dark matter interacting only with

122: electrons~\cite{Bernabei:2007gr}, inelastic WIMP

123: scattering~\cite{TuckerSmith:2001hy, Chang:2008gd} and mirror dark

124: matter~\cite{Foot:2008nw}.

125: 

126: In this work we reconsider the possibility of spin-independent elastic

127: scattering of light WIMPs with $\lesssim 10$~GeV

128: masses~\cite{Bottino:2003iu, Bottino:2003cz, Gondolo:2005hh},

129: see~\cite{Bottino:2007qg, Bottino:2008mf, Petriello:2008jj,

130: Feng:2008dz} for recent studies. The original idea is that light dark

131: matter scattering on the relatively light Sodium nuclei in DAMA could

132: deposit enough energy in the detector to give a signal, whereas the

133: scattering of light halo particles off heavier nuclei, such as for

134: example Ge in CDMS or Xe in XENON would lead to energy depositions

135: below the threshold of those detectors. Recently the importance of the

136: so-called channeling effect~\cite{Drobyshevski:2007zj} in the crystal

137: structure of the experiment has also been

138: emphasized~\cite{Petriello:2008jj, Bottino:2008mf}.

139: %

140: Specific models for WIMPs with $m_\chi \sim 10$~GeV have been studied

141: for example in~\cite{Bottino:2002ry, Bottino:2007qg, Barger:2005hb,

142: Gunion:2005rw}. Here we do not discuss theoretical implications but

143: focus on the phenomenology of direct detection experiments in a

144: model-independent way by assuming that such light WIMPs can provide the

145: correct relic abundance while any direct collider constraints can be

146: evaded.

147: 

148: In this region of WIMP masses several

149: experiments~\cite{Altmann:2001ax, Akerib:2003px, Lin:2007ka,

150: Aalseth:2008rx} exclude WIMP--nucleon scattering cross sections in the

151: range $\sigma_p \gtrsim 10^{-40}$~cm$^2$. As we will see in the next

152: pages, once we have included channeling as well as the spectral shape

153: of the DAMA modulation signal, the allowed region of our interest is

154: obtained at much small cross sections, around $\sigma_p \sim

155: 10^{-41}$~cm$^2$ and $m_\chi \sim 10$~GeV. In this region the most

156: relevant constraints come from XENON~\cite{Angle:2007uj}, the 2008

157: Germanium data from CDMS~\cite{Ahmed:2008eu}, and the 2005 CDMS data

158: on Silicon~\cite{Akerib:2005kh}. Indeed, as we will discuss, the

159: spectral shape of the DAMA annual modulation restricts $m_\chi$ and

160: $\sigma_p$ to a region excluded by these experiments.

161: 

162: In our study we elaborate on this result and discuss how robust it is

163: with respect to different assumptions about the dark matter halo of

164: our galaxy. The impact of non-standard halo properties on dark matter

165: direct detection experiments has been discussed by many authors, see

166: for example~\cite{Belli:2002yt, Fornengo:2003fm, Green:2002ht,

167:   Vergados:2007nc}.  At a qualitative level, one would expect that

168: smaller velocity dispersions or truncated velocity distributions would

169: seem to favour the dark matter interpretation of the DAMA signal, as

170: they could lead to more events above the low energy threshold of DAMA

171: but below that of other experiments.  Furthermore, anisotropies in the

172: velocity dispersion could amplify annual modulation signals.

173: 

174: The outline of our work is as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:analysis} we

175: briefly summarise the phenomenology of elastic WIMP scattering in

176: direct detection experiments and give some technical details on our

177: analysis of DAMA, CDMS and XENON data. The results for a standard dark

178: matter halo are presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:std-halo}.  In

179: Sec.~\ref{sec:nonstd-halo} we consider deviations from the standard

180: assumptions made about the WIMP velocity distribution: we use results

181: from the Via Lactea $N$-body dark matter

182: simulation~\cite{Diemand:2006ik}, we vary several parameters of the

183: Maxwellian distribution and consider asymmetric velocity profiles.

184: Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions} contains our conclusions.  In

185: Appendix~\ref{sec:dama-mod} we comment on the DAMA fit using the

186: annual modulation energy spectrum, and in

187: Appendix~\ref{app:comparison} we briefly compare our results to the

188: ones from other authors.

189: 

190: 

191: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

192: \section{The WIMP signal in direct detection experiments}

193: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

194: \label{sec:analysis}

195: 

196: In this section we briefly summarise the phenomenology of WIMP

197: scattering and describe our analysis of DAMA, CDMS and XENON data.

198: 

199: \subsection{The event spectrum from elastic WIMP scattering}

200: 

201: The differential event spectrum for WIMP scattering in counts per unit

202: mass of a given nucleus per unit exposure time and per unit energy as

203: a function of the recoil energy $E_R$ is given by the expression (see e.g.,

204: \cite{Jungman:1995df})

205: %

206: \begin{equation}\label{eq:spectrum}

207: R(E_R) = \frac{\rho \, \sigma_p A^2 F^2(q)}{2 m_\chi \mu^2_p} \, \eta(E_R, t) \,.

208: \end{equation}

209: %

210: Here $\rho$ is the local WIMP energy density for which we adopt the

211: canonical value $\rho = 0.3$~GeV/cm$^3$, $\sigma_p$ is the WIMP

212: scattering cross section on a proton\footnote{Note that only the

213: product of $\rho \times \sigma_p$ is relevant for the scattering

214: rate. Therefore, whenever we use the symbol $\sigma_p$ the cross

215: section is implicitly normalised to the value of $\rho =

216: 0.3$~GeV/cm$^3$.}, $A$ is the mass number of the target nucleus,

217: $\mu_p = m_\chi m_p/(m_\chi + m_p)$ is the reduced WIMP--proton mass

218: and we use the common Helm form factor $F(q) = 3 e^{-q^2 s^2/2}

219: [\sin(qr)-qr\cos(qr)] / (qr)^3$, with $s = 1$~fm, $r = \sqrt{R^2 - 5

220: s^2}$, $R = 1.2 A^{1/3}$~fm, $q = \sqrt{2 M E_R}$, with $M$ being the

221: nucleus mass. The function $\eta$ contains the integral over the WIMP

222: velocity distribution:

223: %

224: \begin{equation}\label{eq:eta}

225: \eta(E_R, t) = \int d\Omega_{\vect{v}} \int_{v_\mathrm{min}(E_R)}^\infty 

226: dv\, v \, f_\oplus(\vect{v},t) \,,

227: \end{equation}

228: %

229: where $v_\mathrm{min} = \sqrt{M E_R/2 \mu_M^2}$ is the minimum

230: velocity of a WIMP to produce a recoil energy $E_R$, and $v =

231: |\vect{v}|$. The WIMP velocity distribution in the Earth rest frame

232: $f_\oplus(\vect{v},t)$ is obtained from the distribution in the

233: galactic rest frame $f_\mathrm{gal}(\vect{v})$ by

234: %

235: \begin{equation}

236: f_\oplus(\vect{v},t) = f_\mathrm{gal}

237: (\vect{v} + \vect{v}_\odot +  \vect{v}_\oplus(t)) \,.

238: \end{equation}

239: %

240: In the coordinate system in which $x$ points towards the galactic

241: center, $y$ towards the direction of galactic rotation, and $z$

242: towards the galactic north pole, we use for the velocity of the Sun

243: $\vect{v}_\odot = (0,220,0) + (10, 13, 7)$~km/s~\cite{Gelmini:2000dm}

244: (including the local Keplerian velocity of 220~km/s~\cite{pdg} as well

245: as the Sun's peculiar velocity, see also~\cite{Green:2003yh} and

246: references therein). To describe the motion of the Earth around the

247: Sun we use the parametrisation of~\cite{Gelmini:2000dm}:

248: $\vect{v}_\oplus(t) = v_\oplus(\vect{e}_1 \sin\lambda - \vect{e}_2

249: \cos\lambda)$, with $v_\oplus = 2\pi \mathrm{A.U./yr} = 29.8$~km/s,

250: $\vect{e}_1 = (-0.0670, 0.4927, -0.8676)$, $\vect{e}_2 = (-0.9931,

251: -0.1170, 0.01032)$, and $\lambda(t) = 2\pi(t - 0.218)$.

252: 

253: The ``standard halo model'' assumes for the DM distribution an

254: isotropic isothermal sphere, which leads to a Maxwellian velocity

255: distribution in the galactic frame, truncated at the escape velocity

256: $v_\mathrm{esc}$:

257: %

258: \begin{equation}\label{eq:std-halo}

259: f_\mathrm{gal}(\vect{v}) = \left\{

260: \begin{array}{l@{\qquad}l}

261: N \, \left[\exp\left(-v^2 / \bar v^2 \right) - 

262: \exp\left(-v_\mathrm{esc}^2 / \bar v^2 \right)\right]

263: & v < v_\mathrm{esc} \\

264: 0 & v > v_\mathrm{esc}

265: \end{array}\right. \,,

266: \end{equation}

267: %

268: where we adopt as default values $\bar v = 220$~km/s and

269: $v_\mathrm{esc} = 650$~km/s. Here and throughout the paper we use the notation $\bar v^2 = 2 (<v^2>-<v>^2)=2\sigma^2$.  In order to properly take into account

270: the impact of the finite escape velocity as well as allowing for

271: non-standard halos deviating from Eq.~\ref{eq:std-halo} we perform the

272: integral in Eq.~\ref{eq:eta} numerically. In Sec.~\ref{sec:std-halo}

273: we first consider the standard halo model, whereas in

274: Sec.~\ref{sec:nonstd-halo} we go beyond these default assumptions by

275: varying the parameters of the velocity distribution as well as

276: changing its shape.

277: 

278: \subsection{On quenching and channeling}

279: 

280: In the analysis of DAMA data the effects of quenching and channeling

281: are important~\cite{Drobyshevski:2007zj, Bernabei:2007hw}. For

282: quenched events the recoiling nucleus loses its energy both

283: electromagnetically as well as via nuclear force interactions, where

284: the light yield in the scintillator comes mainly from the

285: electromagnetic part. To take this effect into account the event

286: energy is measured in equivalent electron energy (in keVee), defined

287: by $q \times E_R$ for the total nuclear recoil energy $E_R$ in

288: keV. For the elements in DAMA one has $q_\mathrm{Na} = 0.3$ and

289: $q_\mathrm{I} = 0.09$.

290: %

291: However, due to the crystalline structure of the target, for certain angles and

292: energies of the particles no nuclear force interactions happen and the

293: entire energy is lost electromagnetically. Hence, for these so-called

294: channeled events one has $q\approx 1$, see~\cite{Drobyshevski:2007zj,

295: Bernabei:2007hw}. For the fraction $f$ of channeled events relevant

296: for DAMA we use the parameterisation

297: %

298: \begin{equation}

299: f_\mathrm{Na}(E_R)

300: \approx \frac{e^{-E_R/18}}{1+0.75\,E_R} 

301: \,,\qquad

302: f_\mathrm{I}(E_R) \approx

303: \frac{e^{-E_R/40}}{1+0.65\,E_R}

304: \end{equation}

305: %

306: for $E_R$ in keV. These expressions reproduce to good accuracy the

307: curves shown in figure~4 of~\cite{Bernabei:2007hw}.  Departing from

308: Eq.~\ref{eq:spectrum}, the predicted spectrum in DAMA (in units of

309: counts/kg/day/keVee) is obtained by

310: %

311: \begin{equation}\label{eq:spect-DAMA}

312: R_\mathrm{DAMA}(E) = \sum_{X =\rm Na, I} 

313: \frac{M_X}{M_\mathrm{Na} + M_\mathrm{I}}

314: \left\{[1-f_X(E/q_X)] R_X(E/q_X) + f_X(E) R_X(E) \right\} \,,

315: \end{equation}

316: %

317: where the first term in the curled bracket corresponds to quenched

318: events and the second to channeled (and therefore unquenched) events.

319: 

320: Channeling does not occur in liquid Nobel gases like in the XENON

321: experiment. Since no information on channeling in Germanium and

322: Silicon is available for us, we do not take into account channeling in

323: CDMS. Note, however, that CDMS requires the coincidence of signals in

324: phonons and ionisation and hence, since channeled events would not

325: give a phonon signal they would not look like a WIMP signal defined by

326: the coincidence. Therefore, the fraction of channeled events

327: corresponds effectively to an efficiency factor reducing the effective

328: exposure. Hence, if channeling was indeed relevant for CDMS the final

329: exclusion limits would be somewhat weaker. 

330: 

331: In conclusion, channeling is an important effect for the

332: interpretation of data from direct detection experiments and we stress

333: the need of reliable information (probably requiring dedicated

334: measurements) on this effect for any solid DM detector.

335: 

336: \subsection{Fitting DAMA/LIBRA data}

337: 

338: For the model-independent analysis of DAMA data the signal as a

339: function of energy and time is parametrised as

340: %

341: \begin{equation}\label{eq:DAMAsignal}

342: S(E,t) = S_0(E) + A(E)\cos\omega(t-t_0) \,,

343: \end{equation}

344: %

345: with $\omega = 2\pi/1$~yr, $t_0 = 152$~day. For our analysis we use

346: the data on the modulation amplitude $A(E)$ for the full 0.82~ton~yr

347: DAMA exposure\footnote{Here and in the following we use the acronym

348: ``DAMA'' to denote the combined DAMA/NaI + DAMA/LIBRA data, except

349: where explicitly noted otherwise.} given in figure~9

350: of~\cite{Bernabei:2008yi} in 36 bins from 2 to 20~keVee. As we will

351: see the spectral shape of the signal is quite important for

352: constraining the WIMP parameters. The prediction for the modulation

353: amplitude in an energy bin $i$ from $E_i^-$ to $E_i^+$ is obtained

354: from Eq.~\ref{eq:spect-DAMA} by

355: %

356: \begin{equation}

357: A^\mathrm{pred}_i = \int dE \frac{1}{2}

358: [R_\mathrm{DAMA}(E, t = 152) - R_\mathrm{DAMA}(E, t = 335)]

359: \, \int_{E_i^-}^{E_i^+} dE' G(E, E') \,

360: \end{equation}

361: %

362: where $G(E, E')$ is a Gaussian energy resolution function

363: with width~\cite{Bernabei:2008yh}

364: %

365: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Eres}

366: \sigma_E^\mathrm{DAMA} / E = 0.45/\sqrt{E \,[{\rm keVee}]} + 0.0091 \,.

367: \end{equation}

368: %  

369: Then we construct a $\chi^2$ function

370: %

371: \begin{equation}\label{eq:chisq}

372: \chi^2_\mathrm{DAMA}(m_\chi, \sigma_p) = \sum_{i=1}^{36} \left(

373: \frac{A^\mathrm{pred}_i(m_\chi, \sigma_p) - A^\mathrm{obs}_i}{\sigma_i}

374: \right)^2 \,,

375: \end{equation}

376: %

377: using the experimental data points $A^\mathrm{obs}_i$ and their errors

378: $\sigma_i$ from figure~9 of~\cite{Bernabei:2008yi}.\footnote{Fig.~10

379:   of \cite{Bernabei:2008yi} shows that the $A^\mathrm{obs}_i$ are

380:   consistent with being Gaussian distributed, justifying the $\chi^2$

381:   adopted in Eq.~\ref{eq:chisq}.}  We find the best fit point for

382: the WIMP mass and the scattering cross section by minimising

383: Eq.~\ref{eq:chisq} with respect to $m_\chi$ and $\sigma_p$. Allowed

384: regions in the $(m_\chi, \sigma_p)$ plane at a given CL are obtained

385: by looking for the contours $\chi^2(m_\chi, \sigma_p) =

386: \chi^2_\mathrm{min} + \Delta\chi^2({\rm CL})$, where

387: $\Delta\chi^2({\rm CL})$ is evaluated for 2 degrees of freedom (dof),

388: e.g., $\Delta\chi^2(90\%) = 4.6$ or $\Delta\chi^2(99.73\%) = 11.8$.

389: 

390: In general the constant part of the spectrum, $S_0(E)$,

391: will consist of a time-averaged dark matter contribution $\langle R\rangle$

392: plus an un-identified background $B$:

393: %

394: \begin{equation}

395: S_0(E) = \langle R(E)\rangle + B(E) \,.

396: \end{equation}

397: %

398: In a given model such as for example WIMP scattering, the annual

399: modulation amplitude $A(E)$ and the averaged signal $\langle

400: R(E)\rangle$ are not independent. Hence, for a given fit to the data

401: on $A(E)$, the expected constant signal $\langle R(E)\rangle$ can be

402: predicted by using Eq.~\ref{eq:spect-DAMA}. In order to take this

403: additional information into account we use the data from figure~1

404: of~\cite{Bernabei:2008yi}, which shows the constant signal $S_0$ in 32

405: energy bins from 2 to 10~keVee for the DAMA/LIBRA detectors. For each

406: pair of $(m_\chi, \sigma_p)$ we calculate the expected signal from

407: WIMP scattering $\langle R\rangle$ in each of these energy

408: bins. Whenever $\langle R\rangle$ exceeds the observed rate in one of

409: the bins that particular values of $(m_\chi, \sigma_p)$ are not

410: consistent with the data and have to be excluded. Note that for event

411: rates of order 1~count/kg/day/keVee and the DAMA/LIBRA exposure of

412: 0.53~t~yr statistical errors are negligible for this purpose.

413: 

414: 

415: \subsection{Analysis of CDMS and XENON}

416: 

417: In our analysis we include the constraints from CDMS 2005 data using

418: Silicon (CDMS-Si)~\cite{Akerib:2005kh}, which, despite the relatively

419: low exposure of 12~kg~day, provides good sensitivity to the low-mass

420: WIMP region because of the light mass of the target nucleus

421: ($M_\mathrm{Si} \simeq 26$~GeV) and the low analysis threshold of

422: 7~keV. Furthermore, we include CDMS 2008 data on Germanium

423: (CDMS-Ge)~\cite{Ahmed:2008eu} with a threshold of 10~keV. We use the

424: energy dependent efficiency from Fig.~2 of \cite{Ahmed:2008eu} which

425: reduces the total exposure of 398.7~kg~day to an effective exposure of

426: about 121.3~kg~day. For both, CDMS-Si and CDMS-Ge, no event has been

427: observed. We calculate the expected number of events $N^\mathrm{pred}

428: $ as a function of $m_\chi$ and $\sigma_p$ by integrating

429: Eq.~\ref{eq:spectrum} over the relevant energy range and scaling with

430: the exposure. A $\chi^2$ is constructed using the common expression

431: for Poisson distributed data~\cite{pdg}, which for zero observed

432: events simply becomes

433: %

434: \begin{equation}\label{eq:chisq-cdms}

435: \chi^2_\mathrm{CDMS} = 2 N^\mathrm{pred} \,. 

436: \end{equation}

437: %

438: Exclusion contours are defined by the standard $\Delta\chi^2$ cuts for

439: 2~dof with respect to the minimum, which of course occurs for

440: $N^\mathrm{pred} = 0$. Conceptually this prescription differs from the

441: usual way to set a limit on $\sigma_p$ for fixed $m_\chi$ by requiring

442: $N^\mathrm{pred} < 2.3$ for a 90\%~CL limit. However, by accident,

443: since $\Delta\chi^2(90\%) = 4.6$ for 2~dof, in practice our $\chi^2$

444: definition in Eq.~\ref{eq:chisq-cdms} leads to the same exclusion

445: contour as the more conventional method of setting a limit on

446: $\sigma_p$.

447: 

448: For the analysis of data from the XENON10

449: experiment~\cite{Angle:2007uj} (XENON for brevity) we proceed in the

450: following way. Using the 7 bins in nuclear recoil energy from 4.5 to

451: 26.9~keV of table~1 of~\cite{Angle:2007uj} the predicted number of

452: events in bin $i$, $N^\mathrm{pred}_i(m_\chi, \sigma_p)$ can be

453: calculated by integrating Eq.~\ref{eq:spectrum} and scaling with the

454: exposure 316~kg~day as well as the bin dependent efficiencies

455: $\epsilon_{c}$ and $A_{nr}$ given in table~1 of~\cite{Angle:2007uj}.

456: %

457: After the publication of Ref.~\cite{Angle:2007uj} the so called

458: parameter $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{eff}$ relevant for the nuclear recoil

459: energy scale in XENON was remeasured~\cite{Sorensen:2008ec}. Whereas

460: in~\cite{Angle:2007uj} a constant value $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{eff} =

461: 0.19$ was used, Fig.~3 of~\cite{Sorensen:2008ec} shows an energy

462: dependent deviation of $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{eff}$ from that value. We

463: use the information from this figure to correct nuclear recoil

464: energies in XENON. This leads to a somewhat higher energy threshold of

465: about 5.5~keV (instead of 4.5), which shifts the bound on DM

466: parameters to slightly higher values of $m_\chi$.

467: 

468: XENON observes 10 candidate events whose

469: recoil energies can be inferred from figure~3

470: of~\cite{Angle:2007uj}. They are distributed over the 7 bins as $(D_i)

471: = (1, 0, 0, 0, 3, 2, 4)$, with an expected background $(B_i) =

472: (0.2, 0.3, 0.2, 0.8, 1.4, 1.4, 2.7)$. We use the $\chi^2$ for

473: Poisson distributed data~\cite{pdg}:

474: %

475: \begin{equation}\label{eq:chisq_xenon}

476: \chi^2_\mathrm{XENON} = 2 \sum_{i=1}^7 \left[ 

477: N^\mathrm{pred}_i + B_i - D_i + 

478: D_i \log\left(\frac{D_i}{N^\mathrm{pred}_i + B_i}\right) \right] \,, 

479: \end{equation}

480: %

481: where the second term in the square bracket is zero if $D_i = 0$.

482: Again we define the exclusion curve in the $(m_\chi, \sigma_p)$ plane

483: by $\Delta\chi^2({\rm CL})$ contours for 2~dof with respect to the

484: minimum.

485: 

486: In both cases, CDMS and XENON we include an energy resolution of 

487: $20\% / \sqrt{E_R \, [{\rm keV}]}$, and an uncertainty in the energy

488: scale of 10\%, which is added to the $\chi^2$ definitions

489: Eqs.~\ref{eq:chisq-cdms} and \ref{eq:chisq_xenon} with the help of

490: nuisance parameters. Note that CDMS and XENON report their results

491: directly in terms of the recoil energy already corrected by the

492: quenching factor. In contrast to DAMA, here this is possible

493: because only a single element is used as target.

494: 

495: 

496: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

497: \section{Standard halo results}

498: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

499: \label{sec:std-halo}

500: 

501: 

502: Figure~\ref{fig:regions} summarises our results assuming standard halo

503: properties, showing the allowed region from DAMA together with the

504: constraints from CDMS-Si, CDMS-Ge and XENON. First we discuss the fit

505: to DAMA data alone (without constraints from CDMS and XENON).  We find

506: two islands in the $(m_\chi, \sigma_p)$ plane where DAMA can be

507: accommodated. The best fit point is obtained at

508: %

509: \begin{equation}\label{eq:dama-bfp}

510: m_\chi = 12\,{\rm GeV}\,,\quad

511: \sigma_p = 1.3\times 10^{-41}\,{\rm cm}^2 \,,\qquad

512: \chi^2_\mathrm{DAMA,min} = 36.8/34\,{\rm dof} \,,

513: \end{equation}

514: %

515: with an excellent goodness of fit of 34\%. There is also a local

516: minimum at $m_\chi = 51$~GeV with $\chi^2_\mathrm{local} = 47.9$. This

517: solution is disfavoured with respect to the best fit point at about

518: $3\sigma$ for 2~dof ($\Delta\chi^2 = 11.1$). The allowed regions

519: around $m_\chi \simeq 50$~GeV shown in figure~\ref{fig:regions} are

520: defined with respect to the local minimum. The low and high WIMP-mass

521: solutions correspond to channeled and quenched scatterings on Iodine,

522: respectively. In contrast to the situation when all events are assumed

523: to be quenched~\cite{Gondolo:2005hh}, it turns out that scattering on

524: Sodium is not relevant once channeling of Iodine events takes

525: place. The reason is that quenched events on Sodium require a similar

526: WIMP mass as channeled events on Iodine (i.e., $m_\chi \simeq 10$~GeV)

527: but a much larger cross section $\sigma_p$ (due to the $A^2$

528: dependence of the total cross section on the nucleus), and therefore,

529: are highly suppressed once channeled scattering on Iodine takes

530: place. In principle there would be also a solution from channeled

531: events on Na, around $m_\chi \simeq 5$~GeV. However, it turns out that

532: in this case the un-channeled events on Na still contribute to the signal,

533: and indeed prevent fitting the data with the channeled Na events. Note

534: that the solution around $m_\chi \simeq 50$~GeV is excluded by some

535: orders of magnitude by XENON and CDMS-Ge, and therefore we focus in

536: the following on the low-mass region $m_\chi \simeq 10$~GeV.

537: 

538: \begin{figure}

539: \centering \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{regions}

540:   \mycaption{\label{fig:regions} Allowed regions at 90\% and

541:   99.73\%~CL for WIMP mass and scattering cross section on nucleon for

542:   DAMA, and exclusion contours for CDMS-Si, CDMS-Ge and XENON at

543:   90\%~CL. We also display the limit from CoGeNT extracted from figure~2

544:   of~\cite{Aalseth:2008rx}.  The global best fit for DAMA is marked

545:   with a star, the allowed region around $m_\chi \simeq 50$~GeV is

546:   defined with respect to the local minimum, which is marked with a

547:   dot. For DAMA we show the regions obtained from using only the

548:   modulation amplitude for 2--6~keVee (gray curves) and from using the

549:   spectral shape of the modulation signal (shaded regions). For

550:   parameters above the dashed curve the predicted number of events in

551:   DAMA/LIBRA is larger than the observed number of events.}

552: \end{figure}

553: 

554: 

555: The gray contours in figure~\ref{fig:regions} correspond to an

556: alternative method of fitting DAMA. Instead of using the detailed

557: spectral information of the annual modulation, we fit the time

558: dependence of their signal integrated over energy. In figure~6

559: of~\cite{Bernabei:2008yi} data on the residual rate $(S(t) - S_0)$

560: (c.f., Eq.~\ref{eq:DAMAsignal}) is given in 7~time bins of one single

561: annual cycle. For the gray contours in figure~\ref{fig:regions} we use

562: these data for the energy intervals 2 to 6~keVee and 6 to 14~keVee,

563: where in the latter interval data are consistent with no annual

564: variation. These results are very similar to the ones

565: of~\cite{Gondolo:2005hh} (if channeling is neglected, not shown in the

566: figure) and~\cite{Petriello:2008jj} (including channeling), where only

567: two data points for the modulation amplitude below and above 6~keVee

568: have been used.

569: 

570: \begin{figure}

571: \centering 

572: \includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth]{spectrum-mod} \quad

573: \includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth]{spectrum-rate}

574: %

575:   \mycaption{\label{fig:spectrum} Left: Energy distribution of the

576:   annual modulation amplitude from DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA data

577:   extracted from figure~9 of~\cite{Bernabei:2008yi} (points with error

578:   bars), together with the prediction for three examples of WIMP

579:   masses and scattering cross sections (curves). Right: Energy

580:   distribution of the time averaged rate observed in DAMA/LIBRA

581:   extracted from figure~1 of~\cite{Bernabei:2008yi} (points), together

582:   with the prediction for two examples of WIMP masses and scattering

583:   cross sections (thick curves) as well as the corresponding

584:   un-identified background (thin curves). The data are corrected for

585:   the energy dependent efficiency.}

586: \end{figure}

587: 

588: We observe from figure~\ref{fig:regions} that the two methods of

589: analysing DAMA data are consistent with each other (as it should

590: be), but also that using the spectral information gives significantly

591: stronger constraints on the allowed region. This is illustrated in

592: figure~\ref{fig:spectrum} (left), showing the 36 data points on the

593: modulation amplitude $A_i$ used in our default analysis. 

594: %

595: While the prediction from the best fit point of Eq.~\ref{eq:dama-bfp}

596: nicely follows the data (solid curve), moving to smaller WIMP masses

597: leads to a modulation signal more peaked at the lowest

598: energies. Therefore, although it is still possible to obtain the

599: integrated signal in the interval from 2 to 6~keVee, the spectral

600: shape is clearly inconsistent with data, as illustrated for $m_\chi =

601: 6$~GeV by the dashed curve.\footnote{The value for the cross section

602: $\sigma_p = 2.8\times 10^{-41}$~cm$^2$ formally gives the best fit to

603: the data shown in figure~\ref{fig:spectrum} (left) for $m_\chi =

604: 6$~GeV. However, the value required to obtain the integrated

605: modulation amplitude for this $m_\chi$ is about a factor 2 larger,

606: $\sigma_p = 6\times 10^{-41}$~cm$^2$, as can be seen from the gray

607: contours shown in figure~\ref{fig:regions}.}

608: 

609: Finally we mention the implication of the data on the time averaged

610: rate observed in DAMA. Parameter values above the dashed curve in

611: figure~\ref{fig:regions} are excluded because they would lead to a

612: higher event rate than observed. This leads to additional constraints

613: for the high-mass solution. In figure~\ref{fig:spectrum} (right) we show

614: the observed rate together with the predictions for the two local

615: minima. Note that for the DAMA/LIBRA exposure of 0.53~t~yr statistical

616: errors are not visible at the scale of the plot. Clearly, solutions

617: predicting a relatively large rate require that the un-identified

618: background drops rapidly in order to give space for the WIMP

619: signal. In particular, the solution at $m_\chi = 51$~GeV requires that

620: the background drops to zero in the first energy bin.  Although this

621: cannot be excluded a priori, at least such a background shape seems

622: somewhat unlikely. The issue is less severe for the best fit point at

623: $m_\chi = 12$~GeV, since the ratio of modulation amplitude to average

624: rate increases for decreasing WIMP mass. However, any point close to

625: the dashed line in figure~\ref{fig:regions} is affected by this problem.

626: 

627: \bigskip %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

628: 

629: From figure~\ref{fig:regions} we find that the parameters allowed by

630: DAMA data at 90\%~CL are excluded by the 90\%~CL limits of CDMS-Si,

631: CDMS-Ge, and XENON. If all data are combined by adding the individual

632: $\chi^2$ functions,

633: %

634: \begin{equation}

635: \chi^2_\mathrm{global} = \chi^2_\mathrm{DAMA} + \chi^2_\mathrm{CDMS-Ge}

636: + \chi^2_\mathrm{CDMS-Si} + \chi^2_\mathrm{XENON} \,,

637: \end{equation}

638: %

639: we find the minimum at $m_\chi = 9.5$~GeV and $\sigma_p = 1.2\times

640: 10^{-41}$~cm$^2$ with $\chi^2_\mathrm{global,min} = 59.3/(45-2)\,\rm

641: dof$, which corresponds to a 5\% goodness of fit.  

642: 

643: 

644: Let us note that the goodness of fit test based on

645: $\chi^2_\mathrm{min}/$dof often is not very sensitive to tensions in

646: the fit, especially in case of a large number of data points. This can

647: happen if there are many data points which actually are not sensitive

648: to the relevant parameters, and hence, allow to ``hide'' the problem

649: in the fit, see for example the discussion in~\cite{Maltoni:2003cu}.

650: Because of this the goodness of fit depends also on the way of binning

651: the data. To circumvent this weakness of the standard goodness of fit

652: test the so-called Parameter Goodness of fit (PG) can be

653: used~\cite{Maltoni:2003cu}. Whereas the standard test measures the

654: probability that all individual data points are fitted by an

655: hypothesis, the PG tests the consistency of different data sets under

656: an hypotesis. It is based on the $\chi^2$ function

657: %

658: \begin{equation} \label{eq:PG}

659:     \chi^2_\text{PG} =

660:     \chi^2_\text{global,min} - \sum_i \chi^2_{i,\text{min}} \,,

661: \end{equation}

662: %

663: where $\chi^2_\text{global,min}$ is the $\chi^2$ minimum of all data

664: sets combined and $\chi^2_{i,\text{min}}$ is the minimum of the data

665: set $i$. This $\chi^2$ function measures the ``price'' one has to pay

666: by the combination of the data sets compared to fitting them

667: independently. It follows a standard $\chi^2$ distribution and should

668: be evaluated for the number of dof corresponding to the number of

669: parameters in common to the data sets, see~\cite{Maltoni:2003cu} for a

670: precise definition.

671: 

672: To apply this method we consider the two data sets DAMA versus all the

673: other data showing no evidence. Hence, we combine CDMS-Ge, CDMS-Si,

674: and XENON into one data set which we denote by NEV. Then we find

675: $\chi^2_\text{PG} = 22.6$. Evaluating this for 2~dof (corresponding to

676: the two parameters $m_\chi$ and $\sigma_p$ in common to both data

677: sets) one finds that DAMA and NEV data are consistent only at a

678: probability of $1.2\times 10^{-5}$. This corresponds roughly to the

679: probability of a $2.9\sigma$ fluctuation in both data sets at the same

680: time.\footnote{\label{ft:gof} Note that the standard

681:   $\chi^2_\mathrm{min}$/dof probability of 5\% tests the fit of all

682:   individual data points at the best fit solution, whereas the PG of

683:   $1.2\times 10^{-5}$ reflects the compatibility of the DAMA and NEV

684:   data sets. These are different questions and therefore the two

685:   probabilities are consistent with each other. Our DAMA analysis is

686:   based on 36 data points on the modulation amplitude, where most of

687:   them (above 6~keVee) are always fitted perfectly, irrespectively of

688:   the disagreement with CDMS/XENON. This is an example of the above

689:   mentioned ``dilution'' of the standard goodness of fit test.} We

690: conclude that the explanation of DAMA results in terms of

691: spin-independent elastic scattering of WIMPs with standard halo

692: properties is strongly disfavoured by XENON and CDMS data. Next we

693: investigate the stability of this result with respect to modifications

694: of the velocity distribution of the WIMPs in the halo of our galaxy.

695: 

696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

697: \section{Non-standard halos}

698: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

699: \label{sec:nonstd-halo}

700: 

701: The precise limits on the cross section and mass of a dark matter

702: candidate which are obtained from a particular

703: observation/non-observation of a signal in a direct detection experiment

704: depend upon the velocity dispersion of dark matter around the detector, and consequently ultimately upon astrophysical assumptions.  The same set of astrophysical assumptions are

705: normally made by different experiments so that their results can be

706: compared with each other, the first of which being that the dark matter halo of the

707: galaxy is an isothermal sphere which means a spherically symmetric density distribution of the form $\rho\propto r^{-2}$.  For such a density distribution the Keplerian velocity is independent of radius and the value of this velocity normally assumed for dark matter studies is

708: a radius independent Keplerian velocity of 220 kms$^{-1}$.  It is also

709: assumed that the velocity dispersion of the dark matter profile is everywhere

710: isotropic and Gaussian, the width of the Gaussian distribution

711: corresponding to the Keplerian velocity of the profile.  It turns out

712: that we do not actually expect any of these assumptions to hold true

713: for a realistic dark matter halo.

714: 

715: Over the past decade, $N$-body simulations of increasingly large

716: numbers of dark matter particles have allowed us to obtain more

717: information about the kind of dark matter halos that one would expect

718: to form in an expanding universe (see e.g.~\cite{Springel:2005nw}).

719: These simulations show that one might expect a dark matter density

720: that decreases more steeply with radius at large radii rather than

721: have the same power law at all radii as in an isothermal profile

722: \cite{Navarro:1995iw}.  Furthermore, the orbits taken by dark matter

723: particles in a realistic simulation are usually rather radial, resulting in an anisotropic

724: velocity dispersion \cite{Gustafsson:2006gr}.  

725: 

726: Note that one can also obtain an anisotropic velocity dispersion in a halo where the density distribution is not spherically symmetric, but rather triaxial as in \cite{Green:2002ht}.  In this work however, we only consider dark matter halos where the density distribution is spherically symmetric although the velocity dispersion does not have to be.

727: %

728: Also, in a non-extensive ideal gas where there is a long

729: range attractive force between the particles such as we have here in

730: the form of gravity, one generically expects deviations from Gaussian

731: velocity distribution \cite{Vergados:2007nc}.  Furthermore, if the dark matter is still not completely virialised but is still coming into equilibrium,  there will be a superposition of multiple dark matter populations at any given place in the halo.  This effect would also lead to deviations from a Gaussian distribution of velocities.

732: 

733: \begin{figure}

734: \centering 

735: \includegraphics[height=0.345\textwidth]{aplot} \quad

736: \includegraphics[height=0.345\textwidth]{cplot}

737: %

738:   \mycaption{\label{fig:vl} The parameters $\alpha_i$ and $f_i$

739:   explained in the text fitted to the radial and tangential velocity

740:   dispersions of dark matter at different radii from the centre of the

741:   Via Lactea simulation.  The vertical lines indicate the position of

742:   the Sun at $r=8.5$~kpc. The velocity dispersions are clearly

743:   non-Gaussian as one approaches the centre of the galaxy.}

744: \end{figure}

745: 

746: In 2006, the results from a Milky Way size dark matter halo simulation

747: called Via Lactea containing 234 million particles were published

748: \cite{Diemand:2006ik}.  We have looked at this data

749: to see how much the dark matter distribution experienced by an

750: observer at the Solar radius within this simulation would vary from

751: the normal assumptions stated above for observers on Earth.

752: %

753: For each particle in the simulation there is a position vector $x_i$

754: and velocity vector $v_i$, plus the local gravitational potential per

755: unit mass in units of velocity squared $U(x_i)$.  We express the

756: velocities in terms of the square root of their local potential

757: $\tilde{v}_i=v_i/\sqrt{-U(x_i)}$.

758: %

759: Next we work out the angle between

760: the radial direction and the overall velocity vector.  We then use

761: this to decompose the velocity into a radial part and a part

762: perpendicular to that which we call tangential.  For each radius we

763: bin the tangential and the radial velocities obtaining two

764: distributions.  We fit the one dimensional radial distribution using

765: the following expression which we find to be a better fit than the

766: Tsallis distributions (designed to fit non-extensive or multiple temperature distributions) used in \cite{Vergados:2007nc}

767: %

768: \begin{equation}

769: \frac{1}{N_R}\exp\left[-\left(\frac{\tilde{v}_R^2}{f_R^2}\right)^{\alpha_R}\right] \,.

770: \end{equation}

771: %

772: Because we have rescaled the velocities with respect to $\sqrt{-U(x_i)}$, $f_R$ and $\alpha_R$ are dimensionless constants of order one.  The naive assumption is that the width of the velocity distribution at a given radius is simply the Keplerian velocity at that radius.  While information about the mass distribution of dark matter is required to go from the potential to the Keplerian velocity, The parameter $f_R$ is an indication of how badly this assumption is broken.  $\alpha$ encodes the deviation from

773: Gaussianity ($\alpha=1$ corresponding to a Gaussian).  For the one

774: dimensional case, the normalisation is analytic, $N_R = 2f_R

775: \Gamma(1+1/2\alpha_R)$.  We perform the same fitting procedure for the

776: tangential velocity, fitting

777: %

778: \begin{equation}

779: \frac{2\pi v_T}{N_T}

780: \exp\left[{-\left(\frac{\tilde{v}_T^2}{f_T^2}\right)^{\alpha_T}}\right]

781: \end{equation}

782: %

783: and while we are not aware of an analytic expression for $N_T$ it is

784: trivial to obtain it numerically. Note, in terms of the two dimensions

785: perpendicular to the radial direction $R$,

786: $\tilde{v}_T^2=\tilde{v}_\theta^2+\tilde{v}_\phi^2$.

787: 

788: Using the data from the Via Lactea simulation, we have fitted for

789: values of $f_i$ and $\alpha_i$ as a function of radius from the centre

790: of the galaxy.  The results, which can be seen in figure \ref{fig:vl},

791: show that there is a considerable deviation from Gaussianity in the

792: velocity dispersion of the galaxy.  Both the deviation from

793: Gaussianity, the anisotropy of the velocity dispersion and the change

794: in the relationship between the width of the dispersion and the local

795: Keplerian velocity will change the ratio between the expected

796: modulation in the DAMA experiment and the total expected events at

797: XENON and CDMS.  We have calculated these changes and

798: attempted to see if they can increase the likelihood of the results

799: from both experiments being compatible, the results of the new fits

800: can be seen in figure~\ref{fig:regions-nonstd}(a).

801: 

802: \begin{figure}

803: \centering 

804: \includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth]{regions-vl} \qquad

805: \includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth]{regions-110} \\

806: \includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth]{regions-asym} \qquad

807: \includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth]{regions-v_esc} 

808: %

809:   \mycaption{\label{fig:regions-nonstd} Allowed regions at 90\% and

810:   99.73\%~CL for DAMA, and exclusion contours for CDMS-Si, CDMS-Ge and

811:   XENON at 90\%~CL for the DM halo obtained in the Via Lactea

812:   simulation (a), an isotropic Maxwellian halo with dispersion $\bar v

813:   = 110$~km/s (b), an asymmetric Maxwellian halo with dispersion $\bar

814:   v_R = 142$~km/s in the radial direction and $\bar v_T = 63$~km/s in

815:   the tangential direction (c), and an isotropic Maxwellian halo with

816:   dispersion $\bar v = 220$~km/s and escape velocity $v_\mathrm{esc} =

817:   450$~km/s (d). The best fit for DAMA is marked with a star. In the

818:   panels (b) and (c) we show also the 90\% and 99.73\%~CL regions

819:   for the global data combining all experiments, as well as the global

820:   best fit point (marked with a dot). }

821: \end{figure}

822: 

823: It turns out that the deviation from the assumptions of the isothermal

824: sphere which are predicted by the Via Lactea simulation are not

825: sufficient to bring the region in parameter space favoured by DAMA

826: away from the region disfavoured by XENON and CDMS.  The numbers

827: associated with these regions are provided in table~\ref{tab:fits} and

828: show that using the velocity dispersion predicted by Via Lactea leads

829: to only a very small reduction in $\chi^2$ and the goodness of fit is

830: still unacceptably small.

831: 

832: \begin{table}

833: \begin{tabular}{l|cc|cc@{\quad}c@{\quad}cc}

834: \hline\hline

835: halo model & $\chi^2_\mathrm{DAMA,min}$ & $m_{\chi,\rm best}^{\rm DAMA}$ &

836:              $\chi^2_\mathrm{glob,min}$ & GOF &

837:              $\chi^2_\mathrm{PG}$ & PG & $m_{\chi,\rm best}^{\rm glob}$ \\

838: \hline

839: default analysis    & 36.8 & 12 & 59.3 & 0.05 & 22.6 & $1\times 10^{-5}$ & 9.5 \\

840: Via Lactea simulation

841:                     & 35.1 & 16 & 56.7 & 0.08 & 21.6 & $2\times 10^{-5}$ & 13.9  \\

842: Maxwellian 

843: $\bar v = 110$~km/s & 32.9 & 108& 46.8 & 0.32 & 13.5 & $1\times 10^{-3}$ & 16  \\

844: $\bar v_R = 142$~km/s, 

845: $\bar v_T = 63$~km/s& 32.7 & 18 & 39.6 & 0.62 & 6.5  & 0.04 & 18  \\

846: $v_\mathrm{esc} = 450$~km/s

847:                     & 36.5 & 12 & 51.6 & 0.17 & 15.1  & $5\times 10^{-4}$ & 11 \\

848: \hline\hline

849: \end{tabular}

850: %

851:   \mycaption{\label{tab:fits} Summary of the fits to DAMA data and

852:   global data (DAMA, CDMS-Ge, CDMS-Si, XENON) for different WIMP

853:   halos.  We give the best fit $\chi^2$ values, the goodness of fit

854:   (assuming 43~dof), the PG testing the consistency of DAMA with all

855:   other data, as well as the best fit WIMP masses (in GeV).}

856: \end{table}

857: 

858: It is therefore interesting to ask what kind of halo parameters could

859: lead to a better fit to the data, and how realistic would such

860: parameters be?  There are examples in the literature of the use of a

861: stream of dark matter to boost the annual modulation signal

862: \cite{Gondolo:2005hh}.  In this work, we choose to retain the

863: spherical symmetry of the halo density and instead of adding a stream, vary both the

864: width of the velocity dispersion and the anisotropy parameter $\beta_{vel}$

865: defined as

866: %

867: \begin{equation}

868: \beta_{vel}=1-\frac{\bar{v}_T^2}{\bar{v}_R^2} \,.

869: \end{equation}

870: 

871: A reduction in the width of the velocity

872: dispersion of dark matter alone helps reconcile the two data sets without the need to introduce anisotropy.  If

873: we assume an isotropic distribution of dark matter ($\beta_{vel}=0$)

874: and reduce $\bar{v}$ to 110 km/s which is half of the Keplerian

875: velocity at the solar radius, the goodness of fit increases

876: dramatically (see table~\ref{tab:fits}).  A further improvement in the

877: fit is made if one assumes a velocity dispersion lower than Keplerian,

878: but also highly anisotropic such that $\bar{v}_R=142$ km/s and

879: $\bar{v}_T=63$ km/s. As visible in figure~\ref{fig:regions-nonstd}~(c)

880: in this cases the entire 90\%~CL region of DAMA is consistent with the

881: 90\%~CL bounds from CDMS and XENON. For the asymmetric velocity

882: distribution the global $\chi^2$ drops by about 20 units compared to

883: the default analysis and provides an excellent goodness of fit of

884: 62\%.  The PG test gives compatibility of DAMA with NEV data with a

885: probability of 4\%, due to the remaining constraint from XENON.

886: 

887: A valid question is then whether such low and anisotropic values of

888: the velocity dispersions are at all realistic. In order to check on

889: the feasibility of such values, one needs to think about particular

890: dark matter halos and see if the solutions of the (Maxwell-) Jeans equations

891: allow simultaneously both a high velocity anisotropy ($\beta_{vel}

892: \sim 0.8$ ) and low velocity distribution at the location of the Sun.

893: 

894: In order to solve the Jeans equations, we will need to understand the distribution of mass in the galaxy.  Integration of a spherically symmetric dark matter profile with a well defined functional form is trivial.  However, at the radius of the Sun, it is important to consider not only dark

895: matter but also the presence of baryons, which make up most of the

896: mass in the central regions of the galaxy.  To model the Milky Way

897: baryon density we assume cylindrical symmetry and ignore any spiral

898: arms or bars. For the central bulge of stars we assume a density of

899: the form $\rho\propto r^{-\gamma}e^{-r/\lambda}$ while for the disk we

900: assume a (Kuzmin) delta function of matter in the $z$ direction ($z$

901: is the coordinate perpendicular to the disk) with a surface density

902: $\sigma_{\mathrm{disk}}(r) =

903: \frac{cM_{\mathrm{disk}\infty}}{2\pi\left(r^2+c^2\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}$. We

904: choose the parameters of the model to match observations of the Milky

905: Way: $\gamma=1.85$, $\lambda=1 \,\mathrm{kpc}$, $c=5 \,\mathrm{kpc}$

906: and with the total disk and bulge mass $M_{\mathrm{disk}\infty} = 5

907: M_{\mathrm{bulge}}=6.5\times10^{10}M_{\odot}$ \cite{Zhao:1995qh,

908: Dehnen:1996fa, Klypin:2001xu, Kent:1991me}.  We assume that the disk

909: comes to an end at a radius of 15~kpc.

910: 

911: In order to parametrise our dark matter density profile we will

912: consider a profile which assumes two asymptotic radial power law

913: behaviors at both small ($\gamma$) and large ($\beta$) radii\footnote{This $\beta$ in the density profile should not be confused with the velocity dispersion anisotropy parameter $\beta_{vel}$.}. In this

914: profile, known as the '$\alpha\beta\gamma$' profile (or the Zhao

915: profile), the density as a function of radius is given by the

916: expression

917: %

918: \begin{equation}

919: \rho(r)=\frac{\rho_0}{(r/a)^\gamma\left[1+(r/a)^\alpha\right]^{\frac{\beta-\gamma}{\alpha}}}

920: \label{eq:abg}

921: \end{equation}

922: %

923: where $\alpha$ governs the radial rate at which the profile

924: interpolates between the asymptotic powers $-\gamma$ and $-\beta$.

925: The parameter $a$ is a characteristic scale radius determining the

926: location dividing the two regions described by a single power law.

927: 

928: Having assumed a value for $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ and $a$ we then solve

929: for $\rho_0$ in order to get the correct value of the Keplerian

930: velocity at the solar radius.  This also determines the location of

931: the virial radius $r_{vir}$ which in this work is defined to be the

932: radius of the sphere within which the average density is 250 times the

933: critical density of the universe (we assume $h=0.7$).  The ratio

934: between $r_{vir}$ and $a$ is referred to as the concentration of the dark matter

935: halo.

936: 

937: Once we are in possession of these parameters, we can proceed to solve

938: the Jeans equation for the radial velocity dispersion

939: \cite{1987gady.book.....B}

940: %

941: \begin{equation}

942: \frac{1}{\rho}\frac{d\left(\rho\bar{v}_R^2\right)}{dr}+\frac{2\beta_{vel}\bar{v}_R^2}{r}=-\frac{d\phi}{dr}=-\frac{V_c^2}{r} \,,

943: \end{equation}

944: %

945: where $\phi(r)$ and $V_c(r)$ are the potential and Keplerian velocity

946: at a given radius.  We integrate this equation inwards from a large

947: radius several times the magnitude of $r_{vir}$ where we assume that

948: $\rho\bar{v}_R^2=0$.  We have checked that the result at $r=8.5$ kpc

949: is independent of the exact radius at which this boundary condition is

950: applied.  We have also assumed that, in the absence of a better

951: approximation, the anisotropy parameter $\beta_{vel}$ is a constant

952: throughout the halo.

953: 

954: \begin{figure}

955: \centering \includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth]{conc}

956:   \mycaption{\label{fig:jeans} Here we plot the radial velocity

957:   dispersion $\bar v_R$ at the solar radius $r=8.5$~kpc as a function

958:   of the concentration of the dark matter halo $r_{vir}/a$ for two

959:   different dark matter profiles.  We have assumed that the velocity

960:   dispersion anisotropy parameter $\beta_{vel}=0.8$ and is a constant

961:   with respect to radius.  The horizontal line corresponds to the

962:   value of $\bar{v}_R$ which helps explain the discrepancy.  It

963:   appears that only for sets of halo parameters such as

964:   $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=(1,4,1.5)$ can one reconcile such a high

965:   value of $\beta$ with a low enough radial velocity dispersion to

966:   help explain the discrepancy between DAMA and XENON/CDMS.}

967: \end{figure}

968: 

969: The results are plotted in figure \ref{fig:jeans} and show that for a

970: NFW profile where the parameters are chosen such that

971: $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=(1,3,1)$ it seems to be rather difficult to

972: imagine that such a large value of the velocity anisotropy $\beta_{vel}$

973: could be consistent with low enough values of the velocity dispersion

974: to match the data.

975: %

976: We also look at a non-standard halo with

977: $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=(1,4,1.5)$.  The inner slope of such a halo is

978: quite steep, but even larger values of $\gamma$ than this may be

979: expected in dark matter halos where adiabatic contraction due to the

980: presence of baryons has occurred \cite{Gustafsson:2006gr}.  The rate

981: at which density decreases at larger radii is also larger than what is normally assumed.

982: 

983: If we are willing to accept such parameters for the dark matter

984: profile, it seems that the highly anisotropic value of $\beta_{vel}\sim 0.8$

985: that we require as one ingredient to make the DAMA data more

986: consistent with XENON and CDMS is not completely inconsistent with the

987: very low velocity dispersions that form the other ingredient.  The

988: analysis presented here is meant only as a suggestion of the magnitude

989: of possible effects.  If such explanations of the DAMA data were to be

990: taken seriously, a much deeper analysis of the Jeans equations should

991: be undertaken.  

992: 

993: Finally we mention that if one assumes a very low dark

994: matter escape velocity at the solar radius then one would remove many

995: of the fastest moving dark matter particles which would leave the

996: halo.  This would also result in more accord between DAMA and other

997: experiments but obtaining a large enough effect is difficult -- as

998: expressed in table~\ref{tab:fits}, lowering the escape velocity to 450~km/s

999: would only marginally make the fit more acceptable.  This, however,

1000: must be considered an unrealistic solution, since the escape velocity

1001: at the Solar radius is already 440~km/s even if there were no more

1002: matter in the Galaxy at larger radii.

1003: 

1004: To summarise this section, it seems that without the use of streams

1005: but rather by considering highly anisotropic velocity dispersions with

1006: magnitudes far below the local Keplerian velocity at the radius of the

1007: Sun would it be possible to reduce the conflict between DAMA and

1008: XENON/CDMS.

1009: 

1010: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1011: \section{Conclusions}

1012: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1013: \label{sec:conclusions}

1014: 

1015: Prompted by recent results from DAMA/LIBRA which establish the annual

1016: modulation of their event rate at the 8.2$\sigma$ level, we have

1017: studied the interpretation of this signal in terms of spin-independent

1018: elastic WIMP scattering. We have shown that the energy spectrum of the

1019: modulation signal strongly restricts the region of WIMP masses below

1020: 10~GeV, confining WIMP masses consistent with the DAMA data close to

1021: $m_\chi \simeq 12$~GeV. This region is excluded by the limits from

1022: CDMS and XENON, and therefore we conclude that even if channeling is

1023: taken into account this interpretation of the DAMA modulation signal

1024: is disfavoured. Applying a stringent test to evaluate the

1025: consistency of DAMA with null-result experiments we find consistency

1026: only with a formal probability of $10^{-5}$.

1027: 

1028: We have studied how robust this result is with respect to variations

1029: of the WIMP velocity distribution in our galaxy by changing various

1030: parameters of the distribution function. We find that decreasing the

1031: dispersion of the distribution can somewhat reduce the tension in

1032: the fit. Adopting in addition an asymmetric WIMP velocity profile with

1033: a larger dispersion in the radial direction than tangential improves

1034: the fit considerably.  We conclude that in principle it is possible to

1035: reconsile DAMA in the considered framework, at the price of rather

1036: exotic properties of the DM halo. The question remains whether such

1037: halo properties can be realistic at all. We have checked that a WIMP

1038: velocity distribution based on the Via Lactea $N$-body dark matter

1039: simulation does not improve the fit considerably with respect to the

1040: standard Maxwellian halo model.

1041: 

1042: Finally we mention that the negative conclusion on the compatibility

1043: of DAMA with CDMS and XENON relies crucially on the energy threshold

1044: of the latter two. In particular, a shift in the nuclear recoil energy

1045: scale in these experiments may change the conclusion. Indeed, the new

1046: measurements of the $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{eff}$ parameter in

1047: XENON~\cite{Sorensen:2008ec} (which has not been implemented in the

1048: first arXiv version of this work) made the disagreement between DAMA

1049: and XENON somewhat less sever.

1050: 

1051: 

1052: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1053: \acknowledgments

1054: 

1055: We thank Graciela Gelmini for discussions in the initial stage of this

1056: work and are very grateful to J\"urg Diemand for providing us with the

1057: Via Lactea data. We thank the anonymous referee for pointing out the

1058: new $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{eff}$ measurement relevant for the XENON10

1059: data analysis to us, and we acknowledge Laura Baudis for useful

1060: correspondence on this issue.

1061: 

1062: \appendix

1063: 

1064: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1065: \section{Comments on the DAMA spectral information}

1066: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1067: \label{sec:dama-mod}

1068: 

1069: Our results are largely based on the fact that DAMA spectral

1070: information excludes the low-mass WIMP region below

1071: 10~GeV. Obviously any effect which affects the spectral shape of the

1072: signal will have an impact on this conclusion. First, the smearing due

1073: to the energy resolution of the detector is important. We have checked

1074: this by artificially increasing the width of the energy resolution

1075: function given in Eq.~\ref{eq:Eres}~\cite{Bernabei:2008yh} by a factor

1076: of two. The global fit improves by roughly 7 units in $\chi^2$, but

1077: the tension between DAMA and NEV data persists at the level of

1078: $8\times 10^{-4}$, compare table~\ref{tab:fits-mod} and

1079: figure~\ref{fig:regions-mod-DAMA} (left).

1080: 

1081: 

1082: \begin{table}

1083: \begin{tabular}{l|cc|cc@{\quad}c@{\quad}cc}

1084: \hline\hline

1085:            & $\chi^2_\mathrm{DAMA,min}$ & $m_{\chi,\rm best}^{\rm DAMA}$ &

1086:              $\chi^2_\mathrm{glob,min}$ & GOF &

1087:              $\chi^2_\mathrm{PG}$ & PG & $m_{\chi,\rm best}^{\rm glob}$ \\

1088: \hline

1089: default analysis    & 36.8 & 12 & 59.3 & 0.05 & 22.6 & $1\times 10^{-5}$ & 9.5 \\

1090: \hline

1091: double $\sigma_E^\mathrm{DAMA}$ 

1092:                     & 37.9 & 11 & 52.1 & 0.16 & 14.3 & $8\times 10^{-4}$ & 9.0 \\

1093: w/o $1^\mathrm{st}$ DAMA data point

1094:                     & 30.3 & 10 & 44.4 & 0.37 & 14.1 &  $9\times 10^{-4}$ & 8.6 \\

1095: \hline\hline

1096: \end{tabular}

1097: %

1098:   \mycaption{\label{tab:fits-mod} Summary of fits to DAMA data and

1099:   global data (DAMA, CDMS-Ge, CDMS-Si, XENON) for the two ad-hoc

1100:   modifications of the DAMA analysis of

1101:   figure~\ref{fig:regions-mod-DAMA}.  We give the best fit $\chi^2$

1102:   values, the goodness of fit (assuming 42~dof for the last row and

1103:   43~dof otherwise), the PG testing the consistency of DAMA with all

1104:   other data, as well as the best fit WIMP masses (in GeV).}

1105: \end{table}

1106: 

1107: \begin{figure}

1108: \centering 

1109: \includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth]{regions-e_res} \qquad

1110: \includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth]{regions-1st-bin}

1111: %

1112:   \mycaption{\label{fig:regions-mod-DAMA} Allowed regions at 90\% and

1113:   99.73\%~CL for DAMA, and exclusion contours for CDMS-Si, CDMS-Ge and

1114:   XENON at 90\%~CL for two ad-hoc modifications of the DAMA

1115:   analysis. Left: we artificially assume an energy resolution in DAMA

1116:   a factor two worse than the value given

1117:   in~\cite{Bernabei:2008yh}. Right: omitting the lowest energy bin of

1118:   the annual modulation spectrum between 2 and 2.5~keVee.  The best

1119:   fit for DAMA is marked with a star. In the right panel we show also

1120:   the 90\% and 99.73\%~CL regions for the global data combining all

1121:   experiments, as well as the global best fit point (marked with a

1122:   dot). }

1123: \end{figure}

1124: 

1125: From figure~\ref{fig:spectrum} (left) it follows that the somewhat low

1126: data point in the first energy bin is very important in constraining

1127: the WIMP mass. We have repeated the analysis by excluding this bin

1128: from the fit, using only the data on the modulation signal above

1129: 2.5~keVee. In this case the DAMA allowed region extends to lower

1130: values of the WIMP mass, and once the NEV data are added the globally

1131: allowed region includes values of $m_\chi \sim 4$~GeV and $\sigma_p

1132: \sim 10^{-39}$~cm$^2$ at 90\%~CL. This region originates from

1133: channeled events on Sodium which now can accommodate the spectrum

1134: without the first bin, despite the contribution of un-channeled Na

1135: events. Let us note, however, that in this region constraints from

1136: other experiments, like CRESST-I~\cite{Altmann:2001ax},

1137: TEXONO~\cite{Lin:2007ka}, or CoGeNT~\cite{Aalseth:2008rx} are

1138: relevant. The global best fit point has an excellent

1139: $\chi^2_\mathrm{glob,min} = 44.4/42$~dof.\footnote{The improvement of

1140:   the consistency of NEV and DAMA data is only partially visible in

1141:   the PG value of about 0.1\%, which is still rather low.  The reason

1142:   is that also the fit of DAMA alone improves from

1143:   $\chi^2_\mathrm{DAMA,min} = 36.8$ to 30.3 by dropping the first bin,

1144:   which compensates partially the improvement in the global fit.}

1145: 

1146: Furthermore, we remark that any systematical uncertainty affecting the

1147: low energy spectrum may be relevant. For example, figure~26

1148: of~\cite{Bernabei:2008yh} shows that the efficiency for DAMA

1149: single-hit events starts to deviate from 1 below about 8~keVee, just

1150: in the signal region. Therefore, a possible uncertainty on this low

1151: energy efficiency may affect the exclusion of the light WIMP

1152: region. In the absence of detailed information on possible

1153: energy-dependent systematic uncertainties we neglect such effects in

1154: our analysis.

1155: %

1156: Let us note that the {\it ratio} of the signals in June and December

1157: would be less affected by systematics, since any multiplicative

1158: uncertainty (even energy dependent) would cancel, whereas the rate

1159: {\it difference} published by the DAMA collaboration is affected by

1160: such uncertainties.

1161: 

1162: Finally, we mention that the so-called Migdal effect could lead to

1163: modifications of the predicted energy spectrum in DAMA,

1164: see~\cite{Bernabei:2007jz} for a discussion and references. An

1165: investigation of this effect is beyond the scope of this work.

1166: 

1167: 

1168: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1169: \section{Comparison with other studies}

1170: \label{app:comparison}

1171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1172: 

1173: In this appendix we compare the results of our work to some studies

1174: from other authors. The authors of~\cite{Petriello:2008jj} come to

1175: a positive conclusion on the consistency between DAMA and constraints

1176: from other experiments, since they do not include the information on

1177: the spectral shape of the DAMA signal. In a work which appeared after

1178: ours on the preprint server \cite{Hooper:2008cf}, the same authors

1179: performed also an analysis including the spectrum which is in

1180: agreement with our results.

1181: 

1182: Our work appeared on the preprint server basically at the same time as

1183: \cite{Chang:2008xa}, with similar results. As in our study

1184: these authors emphasize the importance of the spectral information of

1185: the DAMA annual modulation and the constraint from the total

1186: unmodulated rate. Whereas~\cite{Chang:2008xa} discusses DM streams,

1187: our work considers non-standard halo models.

1188: 

1189: A similar study has been performed in \cite{Savage:2008er}, stressing

1190: also the relevance of spectral information and extending the analysis

1191: to spin-dependent cross sections. The general results for the

1192: spin-independent case are in quantitative agreement with us,

1193: though in some cases the authors draw different conclusions. In

1194: particular, they use a variety of statistical tests complementary to

1195: ours. Whereas our methods are largely based on parameter estimation

1196: ($\Delta\chi^2$ values with respect to the best fit point), these

1197: authors show also contours of probabilities from a goodness-of-fit test

1198: based on absolute $\chi^2$ values. As mentioned at the end of

1199: section~\ref{sec:std-halo} this method is often not very sensitive to

1200: a tension between different data sets, see also

1201: footnote~\ref{ft:gof}. Furthermore, by showing contours up to the

1202: 5 and even 7$\sigma$~CL they do find overlap regions. 

1203: %

1204: Let us also comment on the best fit point for DAMA, obtained at

1205: $m_\chi = 80$~GeV in Tab.~IV of~\cite{Savage:2008er}, compared to our

1206: result $m_\chi = 12$~GeV from Eq.~\ref{eq:dama-bfp}. The reason why

1207: we disfavour the fit in the large DM mass region is the inclusion of

1208: the constraint from the unmodulated rate in DAMA, which cuts away

1209: large part of this region, including also the best fit point of

1210: \cite{Savage:2008er}, compare figure~\ref{fig:regions}, and shifts the

1211: global best fit point to the low mass region.

1212: 

1213: 

1214: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

1215: \bibliography{./dm}

1216: 

1217: \end{document}

1218: