Mirror Dark Matter and Electronic Recoil Events in XENON1T

Lei Zu,1, 2 Guan-Wen Yuan,1, 2 Lei Feng∗,3, 4 and Yi-Zhong Fan†2, 3 1Key Laboratory of Dark Matter and Space Astronomy, Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210033, China 2School of Astronomy and Space Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China 3Key Laboratory of Dark Matter and Space Astronomy, Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210023, China 4Joint Center for Particle, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, Nanjing University – Purple Mountain Observatory, Nanjing 210093, China Recently, the XENON1T experiment has reported the possible detection of an excess in the elec- tronic recoil spectrum. Such an excess may indicate the presence of new physics. In this work, we suggest that the scattering of mirror electrons with ordinary electrons through photon−mirror pho- −12 −3 −1/2 0 9 −1 1/2 ton kinetic mixing with parameter  ∼ 10 (ne0 /0.2cm ) (vc /5 × 10 cm s ) may account for the excess electronic recoil events in XENON1T, where ne0 is the density of mirror electron and 0 vc is the cutoff velocity of the mirror electron arriving at the earth. Interestingly, this parameter to interpret the excess of XENON1T electronic recoil spectrum are consistent with the constrains of Darkside50.

PACS numbers: 03.65.Nk,95.35.+d

I. INTRODUCTION where the particle denoted with 0 represents the corre- sponding mirror particle. Such a theory is motivated The existence of dark matter is one of the most mys- from the symmetry of left and right handed chiral fields terious question in modern physics. Many experiments, [32]. The allowed interaction terms, which are consistent either direct or indirect, have been carried out to search with renormalizability and the symmetries of the theory, for the signals of dark matter particles. Recently, the are U(1) kinetic mixing interaction and Higgs−mirror electronic recoil spectrum of the XENON1T experiment Higgs quartic coupling [45, 46] has been reported [1] with an unexpected excess at low energy. Though the significance of this signal is rela-  µν 0 † 0† 0 tively low and the contribution of the tritium background Lmix = F Fµν + λΦ ΦΦ Φ , (2) should be better understood, the possible excess has at- 2 tracted wide attention. This is because such an excess, if

confirmed, would indicate the presence of new physics, as µν 0 where F (Fµν ) is the ordinary (mirror) U(1) gauge widely discussed in the literature [2–28]. Many models, 0 including for example dark matter, neutrino magnetic boson field strength tensor and Φ (Φ ) is the Higgs moment, tritium components et.al[1–31], could provide a (mirror Higgs) field. In this work, we only consider possible explaination for this excess. the kinetic mixing of the photon and mirror photon as the interaction between ordinary and mirror parti- In the mirror dark matter model, each of the known cles because of the low energy scale compared to the particles has a mirror partner and it interacts with or- energy of Higgs field. The astronomical, cosmologi- dinary particles through photon−mirror photon kinetic cal observations and the direct detection experiments mixing [32–41]. Among various candidate particles for based on nuclear recoil support the kinetic mixing on dark matter, the mirror dark matter is interesting and the scale about  − 10−10 ∼ 10−9 (see [32] for a re- can be robustly confirmed or ruled out by the XENON1T arXiv:2006.14577v3 [hep-ph] 16 Aug 2021 view). The direct detection experiment Darkside50 pro- experiment [44]. In this brief work we examine whether vided an upper limit about α ≤ 1.5 × 10−11 where the mirror dark matter can account for the excess of low- −3 1/2 0 9 −1 −1/2 α = (n 0 /0.2cm ) (v /5 × 10 cm s ) [42]. And energy electronic recoil spectrum or not. e c we will show in the following that electron-mirror electron Following [32], we assume that the hidden sector of scattering with the kinetic mixing α ∼ 10−12, which is mirror dark matter is exact the copy of the ordinary mat- below the limits of Darkside50, can yield a low energy ter sector, so that the Lagrangian is excess in the electronic recoil spectrum of XENON1T. With  in the range about 10−10 ∼ 10−9, it suggests that 0 0 0 0 0 −3 L = LSM (e, µ, d, γ, ...) + LSM (e , µ , d , γ , ...) + Lmix, either vc  50000km/s and/or ne0  0.2cm [43]. (1) This work is structured as the following. In Section II we calculate the electron-mirror electron scattering. We then examine the role of mirror dark matter in shaping ∗Corresponding author: [email protected] the electronic recoil spectrum of XENON1T in Section †Corresponding author: [email protected] III. We summarize our results in Section IV. 2

q 2ER II. ELECTRON-MIRROR ELECTRON where the lower velocity limit is vmin = , NT is the SCATTERING me 2 0 3/2 number of target Xe atoms per tonne and k=[πv0(e )] is the Maxwellian distribution normalization factor. To explain the rotation curves in spiral galaxies, some However, some recent studies have revealed that the previous studies have shown that the mirror dark mat- mirror electron distribution around the earth is strongly ter form a self-interacting spherically distributed plasma affected by the earth-bound dark matter [32, 42, 43]. with the temperature of [32, 47, 48] Naive estimates would put the e0 capture rate in the 1 Earth several orders or magnitude higher than mirror T ≈ mv¯ 2 , (3) 2 rot nuclei capture rate, which is not possible as mirror elec- tric charge would build up and modify the e0 distribution, P P 0 0 0 0 wherem ¯ = nimi/ ni (i=e ,H , He ...) is the mean effectively shielding the detector from the halo e parti- mass of the particles in the plasma and vrot is the galac- cles. The actual shielding mechanism is quite complex tic rotational velocity (∼ 220km/s for the Milky Way however, as mirror E0 and B0 fields can be generated not [32, 48, 49]. Thus the gas of mirror electron will have a only in the Earth but also in the halo plasma near the Maxwellian velocity distribution Earth, and collisional shielding can also play a role. It has been suggested in [43] that the effect of this shield- 1 2 − mev /T 0 fe(v) = e 2 . (4) ing is to not only suppress the e number density at the detector, but also to effectively provide a velocity cut-off Assuming that the dark matter density is ρ = where only the high velocity tail of the e0 distribution 3 0.3GeV/cm at the earth’s location and is dominated by reaches the detector. 0 0 the H , He component, then the number density of the In [42], the author proposed a simple model assuming 0 totally ionized e , ne0 , is expected to be: the dark electron velocity distribution with a mean speed, h|v|i  vmin. This condition could only be valid for ρ YHe0 T ne0 = (1 − ), (5) electron recoil energies below some threshold, ER < ER, mp 2 T since vmin ∝ ER. For the energy recoil greater than ER, the scattering rate is strongly suppressed. where mp is the mass of proton and YHe0 is the mass 0 The integration of eq.(8) then becomes fraction of He , YHe0 = nHe0 mHe/(nH0 mH + nHe0 mHe). For the interaction cross section, the ordinary and mir- dR λ T ror electron interacts through the photon-mirror photon 0 = gNT ne 0 2 for ER < ER, (9) kinetic mixing, which leads to the mirror electron hold- dE vc ER ing a charge e [32, 47]. This enables the mirror electron 1 R ∞ fe0 (v) 3 T 1 0 2 where 0 ≡ d v and E ∼ me(vc ) . interacts with free ordinary electron through Rutherford vc |v|>vmin k|v| R 2 T scatter with cross section in the non-relativistic limit Given the assumption that h|v|i  vmin for E < ER, v0 is independent on the E here. dσ λ c R = , (6) dE E2v2 where III. THE RESULTS 2π2α2 λ = (7) To compare with the experimental result, we need to me convolve the expression of eq.(9) with the energy res- and E is the recoil energy of the target electron and v is olution, a Gaussian distribution with energy-dependent the incoming electron velocity. width [1] In principle, it would be desirable to account for the dR 1 Z dR 2 2 cross section of mirror electrons on bound atomic elec- = √ e−(E−Em) /2σ dE (10) dE dE trons which is beyond the scope of this initial study. In m σ 2π this work, we adopt the approximation made in [44, 47] where Em is the measured recoil energy and σ is the that the mirror electron scatter with only the loosely detector averaged resolution [50] that reads bound Xe electrons with the number of g = 44 [44]. And we expect this approximation is valid enough for this 31.71 initial study. With this approximation, the differential σ = Em × ( + 0.15)%, For Em ∼ keV. (11) Em interaction rate is And we also need to take into account the detector Z efficiency, which is reported in [1]. So the final expression dR dσ fe0 (v) 3 = gN n 0 |v|d v to be compared with the data is dE T e dE k ∞ ET λ Z f 0 (v) Z R e 3 dR 1 dR −(E−E )2/2σ2 = gNT ne0 d v. (8) = √ e m ×γ(E)dE, (12) E2 k|v| |v|>vmin dEm σ 2π 1keV dE 3 where γ(E) represents the detector efficiency. model can also fit the peak around 2keV but at the cost q −3 ne0 /0.2cm of the error of first data point (ER ∼ 1keV), which leads With the definition α = v0/50000km/s , we have 2 c to a higher ∆χ . Such fit result is shown in Fig.2 for dR 2 dE ∝ (α) according to eq.(9). Thus there are two example. T free parameters, ER and α, for the scattering rate. The fit results are shown in Fig.1. The best fit result (∆χ2 = 4.8, p value < 0.1) with α = 1.2 × 10−12 and T ER = 7.6keV is shown in Fig.(a). The signal from mirror electron scattering rises below 5keV and peaks at about

2 signal B0 2keV, which has been predicted in [44]. The ∆χ ≡ 100 2 2 total χ (only background B0) − χ (with mirror electron model) ) contour map is shown in Fig.(b). Fitting result is highly V 80 e

T T k correlated to α and weakly to ER for ER > 4keV . Mir- s −12 T r ror electron model with α ∼ 10 and E ≥ 4keV a 60 R e provides a good fit for the low energy recoil spectrum. y t ( /

s 40 t n e v e 20

signal B0 100 total 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 )

V 80 E(keV) e k s r

a 60

e T −12 y FIG. 2: The fit result with ER = 7keV and α = 1.9 × 10 . t ( /

s 40 t n e v e 20 Considering the limited understanding on the 3H back- 0 ground [1], we fit the data with an unconstrained tritium 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 component. The best fit result and the ∆χ2 contour map E(keV) is shown in Fig.3. The tritium component signal is com- −12 T (a)α = 1.2 × 10 ,ER = 7.6keV parable with the mirror electron scattering for the best fit result.

Our result is well consistent with previous direct detec- 4.8 −11 9 tion results like Darkside50 (α ≤ 1.5 × 10 [42]) and 3.2 LUX ( ≤ 10−11 at T ∼ 0.3keV [51]). It has been ar- 8 1.6 gued that mirror dark matter with  ∼ 7 × 10−10 could 7 0.0 account for the CDMS low energy electron recoil spec- ) V 2 e 6 1.6 trum [47]. However, that result is in tension with the k ( T R

E 3.2 null result in LUX [51]. In [47] the author has not con- 5 4.8 sidered the shielding effect, which is actually not neg- 4 6.4 ligible in the direct detection according to the follow-

3 8.0 ing studies[43]. This shielding effect makes our results in the form like [42] but different with [47]. The ki- 9.6 2 −10 10 13 10 12 netic mixing constant  ∼ 10 is suggested by small scale structure and the mirror big bang nucleosynthesis −12 (b)∆χ2 [32]. With the α ∼ 10 supported by the XENON1T low energy electron recoil spectrum,  ∼ 10−10 suggests −2 0 2 α ∼ 10 , which means that either vc  50000km/s FIG. 1: Fig.(a) is the best fit result (∆χ = 4.8, p value < −3 −12 T and/or ne0  0.2cm . Similar results have also been 0.1) with α = 1.2 × 10 and ER = 7.6keV . The or- ange line is the B0 background in [1]. The red line is the shown in other electron recoil direct detection [42, 43]. signal from mirror electron scattering and the blue line is When mirror dark matter is captured and accumulates the total events predicted by the model. Fig.(b) is the within the Earth, it forms an extended distribution and 2 2 2 ∆χ contour map, where ∆χ = χ (only background B0) − leading to the formation of a ‘dark ionosphere’. This 2 χ (with mirror electron model). The x-axis is the α and the shielding effect provide a mechanism for reducing ne0 , T y-axis is the ER . and suppress the flux of halo dark matter particles below some cutoff, vcut [43]. And we will focus on this issue in It is also interesting to note that the mirror electron our future work. 4

IV. CONCLUSION

signal B0 100 total 3H )

V 80 e k s r

a 60 e y t ( /

s 40 t n e v e 20

0 In this work, we suggest that the mirror dark matter 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 model may account for the low energy electronic recoil E(keV) spectrum in XENON1T. The allowing parameter space (a)α = 9.1 × 10−13, ET = 6.6keV −12 T R (α ∼ 10 and ER) is within the limits of Darkside50. In 2020, several experiments such as XENONnT[52], LUX-ZEPLIN[53], PandaX-4T[54], will start their per- 6.83 formance. In a few years, the electronic recoil spectrum, 9 5.13 in particular in the low energy range, will be indepen-

3.43 dently measured by these experiments with much higher 8 1.73 accuracy. The mirror dark matter interpretation for the 7 current potential excess will be stringently tested.

) 0.03 V 2 e 6 k 1.67 ( T R E 5 3.37 5.07 4 6.77 3 8.47 2 10 13 10 12

(b)∆χ2 Acknowledgments: We thank R.Foot for theoretical FIG. 3: Fig.(a) is the best fit result (∆χ2 = 5.7) including discussion. This work is supported by the National Key an unconstrained tritium component with α = 9.1 × 10−13 Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. T 3 and ER = 6.6keV . The yellow line represents the H com- 2016YFA0400200), the National Natural Science Founda- 2 2 ponent. Fig.(b) is the ∆χ = χ (only background B0) − tion of China (Grants No. 11525313, No. 11773075, No. 2 3 χ (with H and mirror electron model) contour map, but with U1738210, No. U1738136, and No. U1738206), the 100 3 an unconstrained H component. Talents Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences.

[1] E. Aprile et al., arXiv:2006.09721 (2020) [13] Luca Di Luzio, Marco Fedele, Maurizio Giannotti, Fed- [2] Haipeng An, Maxim Pospelov, Josef Pradler and Adam erico Mescia, Enrico Nardi, arXiv:2006.12487 Ritz, arXiv:2006.13929 (2020) [14] Gil Paz, Alexey A. Petrov, Michele Tammaro, Jure Zu- [3] Masha Baryakhtar, Asher Berlin, Hongwan Liu, Neal pan ,arXiv:2006.12462 Weiner, arXiv:2006.13918 [15] Nicole F. Bell, James B. Dent, Bhaskar Dutta, [4] Yongsoo Jho, Jong-Chul Park, Seong Chan Park, Po-Yan Sumit Ghosh, Jason Kumar, Jayden L. Newstead , Tseng,arXiv:2006.13910 arXiv:2006.12461 [5] Alan E. Robinson, arXiv:2006.13278 [16] D. Aristizabal Sierra, V. De Romeri, L. J. Flores, D. K. [6] Gordan Krnjaic, arXiv:2006.13224 Papoulias , arXiv:2006.12457 [7] Hyun Min Lee, arXiv:2006.13183 [17] Yifan Chen, Jing Shu, Xiao Xue, Guanwen Yuan, Qiang [8] R. Primulando, J. Julio, P. Uttayarat, arXiv:2006.13161 Yuan, arXiv:2006.12447 [9] Kazunori Nakayama, Yong Tang ,arXiv:2006.13159 [18] Gongjun Choi, Motoo Suzuki, Tsutomu T. Yanagida, [10] Amir N. Khan , arXiv:2006.12887 arXiv:2006.12348 [11] Ujjal Kumar Dey, Tarak Nath Maity, Tirtha Sankar Ray, [19] Mingxuan Du, Jinhan Liang, Zuowei Liu, Van Que Tran, arXiv:2006.12529 Yilun Xue, arXiv:2006.11949 [12] Jatan Buch, Manuel A. Buen-Abad, JiJi Fan, John Shing [20] Keisuke Harigaya, Yuichiro Nakai, Motoo Suzuki, Chau Leung, arXiv:2006.12488 arXiv:2006.11938 5

[21] Andreas Bally, Sudip Jana, Andreas Trautner, [36] R. Foot and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP 1607, 013 (2016) arXiv:2006.11919 [37] Ya.B.Zeldovich and M.Yu.Khlopov, Sov. Phys. Uspekhi [22] Liangliang Su, Wenyu Wang, Lei Wu, Jin Min Yang, Bin (1981) V.24, PP.755-774 Zhu, arXiv:2006.11837 [38] S.I.Blinnikov and M.Yu.Khlopov, Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. [23] Bartosz Fornal, Pearl Sandick, Jing Shu, Meng Su, Yue (1982) V.36, PP.472-474 Zhao , arXiv:2006.11264 [39] S.I.Blinnikov and M.Yu.Khlopov, Sov. Astron. (1983) V. [24] Celine Boehm, David G. Cerdeno, Malcolm Fair- 27, PP. 371-355 bairn, Pedro A. N. Machado, Aaron C. Vincent, [40] M.Yu.Khlopov, G.M.Beskin, N.G.Bochkarev, arXiv:2006.11250 L.A.Pustilnik and S.A.Pustilnik, Sov.Astron. (1991) [25] G. Alonso-Alvarez,´ F. Ertas, J. Jaeckel, F. Kahlhoefer, V.35, PP.21-30 L. J. Thormaehlen, arXiv:2006.11243 [41] Jian-Wei Cui, Hong-Jian He, Lan-Chun Lv and Fu-Rong [26] Dorian Warren Praia do Amaral, David G. Cerdeno, Yin, Phys. Rev. D 85, 096003 (2012) Patrick Foldenauer, Elliott Reid, arXiv:2006.11225 [42] R.Foot, Phys. Lett. B 785, 403 (2018) [27] Kristjan Kannike, Martti Raidal, Hardi Veerm¨ae, [43] R.Foot Phys. Lett. B, 789, 592 (2019). Alessandro Strumia, Daniele Teresi, arXiv:2006.10735 [44] J. D. Clarke, R. Foot. Physics Letters B 766 (2017) [28] Fuminobu Takahashi, Masaki Yamada, Wen Yin, [45] R. Foot and X-G. He, Phys. Lett.B 267, 509 (1991) arXiv:2006.10035 [46] R. Foot, H. Lew and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Lett. B 272, 67 [29] N. F. Bell, M. Gorchtein, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, P. Vo- (1991); gel, and P. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 642, 377383 (2006) [47] R.Foot, Phys.Rev.D 80: 091701 (2009) [30] N. F. Bell, V. Cirigliano, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, P. Vo- [48] R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 70, 123508 (2004) gel, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. L 95, 14 (2005) [49] M. J. Reid et al., arXiv: 0902.3928 (2009) [31] Haipeng An, Maxim Pospelov, Josef Pradler and Adam [50] E. Aprile et al.,arXiv: 2003.03825 (2020) Ritz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 141801 (2018) [51] D.S. Akerib et al. Phys.Rev.D 101, 012003 (2019) [32] R. Foot, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 29, 1430013 (2014) [52] https://xenonnt.org [33] Koren, Seth, and Robert McGehee, Phys. Rev. D 101, [53] https://luxzeplin.org 055024 (2020) [54] https://pandax.sjtu.edu.cn/pandax4 [34] R. Foot and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 91, 023512 (2015) [35] R. Foot and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Lett. B 748, 61 (2015)