FERMILAB-PUB-18-668-A-PPD-T Proton Fixed-Target Scintillation Experiment to Search for Minicharged Particles

Kevin J. Kelly1, ∗ and Yu-Dai Tsai2, 3, † 1Theoretical Physics Department, Fermilab, P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA 2Fermilab, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510, USA 3University of Chicago, Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, Chicago, IL 60637 (Dated: December 17, 2018) We propose a low-cost and movable setup to probe minicharged particles (or milli-charged par- ticles) using high-intensity proton fixed-target facilities. This proposal, FerMINI, consists of a milliQan-type detector, requiring multi-coincident (nominally, triple-coincident) scintillation signa- tures within a small time window, located downstream of the proton target of a neutrino experiment. During the collisions of a large number of protons on the target, intense minicharged particle beams may be produced via meson photo-decays and Drell-Yan production. We take advantage of the high statistics, shielding, and potential neutrino-detector-related background reduction to search for minicharged particles in two potential sites: the MINOS near detector hall and the proposed DUNE near detector hall, both at Fermilab. We also explore several alternative designs, including the modifications of the nominal detector to increase signal yield, and combining this detector tech- nology with existing and planned neutrino detectors to better search for minicharged particles. The CERN SPS beam and associated experimental structure also provide a similar alternative. FerMINI can achieve unprecedented sensitivity for minicharged particles in the MeV to few GeV regime with −4 −1 fractional charge ε = Qχ/e between 10 (potentially saturating the detector limitation) and 10 .

I. INTRODUCTION Most recently, MCP as has been proposed to explain the anomalous 21 cm hydrogen absorption signal The quantization of electric charge, as currently ob- reported by the Experiment to Detect the Global Epoch served in nature, has been one of the longest-standing of Reionization Signature (EDGES) collaboration [34– mysteries in particle physics. The (SM) 36]. However, orthogonal constraints have been explored, U(1) hypercharge group in principle allows arbitrarily and it has been demonstrated that the favored MCP can- small charges, yet experiments so far suggest that elec- didates to explain the EDGES result do not comprise tric charge has a fundamental unit. This has inspired the entirety of the observed relic dark matter abundance the concept of Dirac quantization [1] and motivated sev- (see, e.g., Refs. [37–39]). The favored range of masses eral considerations of Grand Unification Theorie (GUT) of these MCP is below roughly a hundred MeV, which (see, e.g. Refs. [2, 3]), among other theoretical studies. is a region that could be explored in proton fixed-target The discovery of particles with electric charge magnitude experiments. less than the smallest quark charges, namely minicharged Probes of MCP and other weakly-interacting MeV- particles (MCP) would be a major paradigm shift in this GeV particles has been under intense study, due in large endeavor. MCP have been studied and searched for on part to the fact that many dark matter and dark sector various fronts (see, e.g., Refs. [4–16])1. hypotheses fall into these categories. Additionally, ex- Given that MCP interact feebly with the SM parti- perimental techniques to probe this region have matured cles through their small electric charge, they are also a significantly [18]. The most sensitive laboratory-based potential solution to another well-established mystery of probes of MCP are threefold: particle physics: dark matter. MCP may be low-energy Collider Probes arXiv:1812.03998v2 [hep-ph] 14 Dec 2018 consequences of fermions in the dark sector [18] that cou- • Electron Fixed-Target Experiments ple to the Standard Model via a massless • Proton Fixed-Target and Neutrino Experiments through kinetic mixing [19], and the dark sector parti- • cles may constitute the relic abundance of dark matter. Both the Tevatron and Large Hadron Collider (LHC) The theories and signatures of dark sector and dark pho- have provided constraints on MCP for the first cat- ton have been heavily explored (see, e.g., Refs. [20–33]). egory [6, 11]. Additionally, a dedicated experiment (milliQan) was specifically proposed to occupy the CMS P5 site to search for MCP [13, 14]. The Beijing Elec- tron–Positron Collider could also provide sensitivity to ∗ [email protected] the MCP particles [40]. Electron fixed-target experi- † [email protected]; ments have been historically the most sensitive searches 1 Although charge quantization could never truly be ruled out, for MCP below 100 MeV. The dedicated SLAC MCP ex- even with the detection of such particles, their discovery would periment [5, 7] still provides leading sensitivity for MCP weaken the concept. It would also test the predictions of theories in this range. Several proposed electron-fixed target ex- related to charge quantization (e.g. [2, 3, 17]). periments (e.g. LDMX [41] and NA64 [42]) can further

This manuscript has been authored by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics. 2 improve the sensitivity of MCP, but the mass reach would that couple to the SM through a massive vector field, as be limited by the beam energy. Finally, using neutrino demonstrated in Refs. [46, 47]. Outside of probing MCPs experiments and protons-on-fixed-targets to study MCP and scenarios, one can also utilize this has been long proposed [8–10], but a dedicated analysis proposal to probe the electric dipole moment of a heavy considering all the current and proposed near-future ex- neutrino, as was proposed utilizing the milliQan facility periments has only been done recently [16], followed by [48]. We leave the detailed analysis on these fronts to a the study based on reactor neutrino experiment for the future study [45]. lower mass MCP [43]. Here, we propose a Fermilab-based experiment to probe minicharged particles, FerMINI, that combines the II. PRODUCTION techniques of dedicated searches at SLAC [5, 7] and the LHC [13] with the advantages of neutrino facility We consider minicharged particles χ with electric sites [16]. We utilize the intense proton beams, for exam- charge Qχ and define ε Qχ/e. For mχ < 10 GeV, ≡ −1 ple, the existing Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) existing constraints bound ε . 10 , and even stronger beamline and the future Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility constraints exist for mχ . 100 MeV. In proton fixed- (LBNF) beamlines, and place more than one (the nomi- target experiments, minicharged particles are produced nal design is 3) groups of scintillator arrays downstream via neutral meson decays and Drell-Yan processes, dis- of the intense beam, shielded from strong electromagnetic cussed below: radiation. The signature for MCP is the detection of one Meson Decays: We consider the following meson de- or a few photoelectrons (PE) produced when the par- cays to the millicharged particle χ: ticle traverses the scintillator, causing small ionizations 0 π γχχ¯ (m 0 = 135 MeV) and producing photons collected by the photomultiplier π • η →γχχ¯ (m = 548 MeV) tubes (PMT). We require such a detection in contiguous η • J/ψ→ χχ¯ (m = 3.1 GeV) scintillator-PMT sets in each of the three detector groups • → J/ψ Υ χχ¯ (mΥ = 9.4 GeV) in order to greatly reduce background. The two sites we • → explore are the existing Main Injector Neutrino Oscilla- When produced in proton-proton collisions, each of these tion Search (MINOS) near detector hall and the proposed mesons m may decay into millicharged particles with Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) near masses up to mm/2. detector hall. We show the potential reach of such setups For m = π0, η, the decay proceeds similar to that of in Figs. 2a and 2b, respectively, and see that these can m γe+e−. We may write the total number of χ pro- provide leading sensitivity to MCP searches for masses duced→ via these decays as in the range of 10 MeV to 5 GeV. M 2 The nominal FerMINI setup substantially benefits 2 (3) χ Nχ 2cmBr(m γγ)ε αEM NPOT I 2 . (1) from the large fluxes of MCP from the intense proton ' → × mm ! collisions. We will also discuss new ideas to combine the MCP detector with the neutrino detectors in Section V. Here, cm is the number of meson m produced per proton- FerMINI serves as an example to demonstrate that the on-target (POT, total number NPOT) in the target hall, 2 (3) proton-fixed target facilities could be natural habitats ε αEM is proportional to the γχχ¯ coupling, and I (x) characterizes the three-body decay2 m γχχ¯, for the dedicated low-cost detectors, including milliQan → (mostly proposed for LHC recently), searching for weakly 1 (3) 2 4x 1 z interacting and long-lived particles. I (x) = dz 1 −2 3π 4x − z z × Note that, in the analysis, we limit our attention to Z r 12x3 + 6x2(3z 2) + x(5z 2)(z 1) + z(z 1)2 . the minimal theoretical assumption that the MCP we − − − − (2) are searching for are simply fermions with small U(1)Y  hypercharges with masses between MeV-GeV (if the We find, using PYTHIA8 [49], cπ0 4.5 and cη 0.5 for minicharged particle is a scalar instead, the sensitivity 120 GeV protons on target. ' ' is largely similar). The model and constraints do not The J/ψ and Υ mesons may decay directly via m rely on the existence of dark photons nor assumptions χχ¯, and → of MCP abundance and velocity distributions in the lo- cal galaxy, but the bounds we derive certainly serve as 2 2 + − 2 (2) Mχ me Nχ 2cmBr(m e e )ε NPOT I , , conservative constraints to the MCP-related dark matter ' → × m2 m2 and dark sector scenarios. Interestingly, finding MCP m m ! (3) without an accompanying massless dark photon would have implications on not only GUT theories (again see, e.g., Refs. [2, 3]) but also string compactifications and 2 Note that with ε = 1, the product Br(π0 → γγ)I(3)(m2/m2 ) quantum gravity [17]. The subtleties between different e π0 MCP scenarios are further explored in Ref. [44, 45]. One roughly reproduces the observed branching fraction of π0 → can also use this setup to search for dark sector particles γe+e−. 3 where a milliQan-type detector downstream of a proton beam (1 + 2x) √1 4x to detect the MCP flux from the collisions of protons I(2)(x, y) = − . (4) on a fixed target. In order to accumulate a large flux (1 + 2y)√1 4y − of MCP, we propose placing the MCP detector down- The amount of J/ψ or Υ produced per POT is far smaller stream of a beam of a neutrino facility, specifically the than that of π0 and η, though their production is impor- existing NuMI or the upcoming LBNF beamline at Fer- −5 3 tant for larger mχ. We find that cJ/ψ 4.4 10 and milab. We provide some detail of the two options here. −9 ' × cΥ 2.5 10 . First, we propose placing the detector in the MINOS near ' × detector hall (1040 m downstream of the NuMI target 18 10 21 hall and roughly 100 m underground), which is shielded 1 year at DUNE (10 POT) by the absorber (840 m downstream) and 200 meters of 1016 574 m, 1 m 1 m detector × rocks between the absorber and the MINOS near detec- 1014  tor hall [51]. One interesting feature of the NuMI beam 1012 setup is that about 87 % of the protons interact at the POT 10 main target and 13 % of the protons interact in the ab- 21 10

10 sorbor. This means that there is a secondary beam pro- 108 /

2 duction of MCP at the absorber, and the MCP produced 6 /ε 10

χ there would suffer less geometric suppression than those

N 104 π0 γχχ¯ Υ χχ¯ produced at the main target. → → 4 η γχχ¯ qq¯ γ∗ χχ¯ The implementation at the LBNF/DUNE site [52] is 102 → → → J/ψ χχ¯ Total → largely similar. We propose to place the detector in the 1 3 2 1 near detector hall 570 meters downstream of the LBNF 10− 10− 10− 1 10 ∼ mχ [GeV] target hall complex (roughly 60 meters underground). The shielding from radiation for the LBNF/DUNE setup FIG. 1: Expected number of χ particles to reach a is also naturally provided by the absorber ( 220 meters perpendicular 1 m 1 m detection area a distance of from the target) followed by muon alcove∼ and roughly × 574 m from a 120 GeV proton beam hitting a target, in 300 meters of rocks. Most protons would interact in the agreement with the DUNE near detector hall. We main target hall so the secondary production is negligible assume 1 year of live-trigger time for the accumulated in the LBNF/DUNE configuration. events, corresponding to 1021 POT. Different colors The nominal detector design of FerMINI directly fol- show the production of χ via meson decays and lows [13, 14], which consists of three stacks of scintil- Drell-Yan production, as described in the text. lator arrays coupled to PMTs for readout. The physi- cal observation for an MCP interacting with the detec- Drell-Yan Production: We also take into account tor is a very small amount of ionization and scintillation the Drell-Yan production, qq¯ χχ¯ using MSTW par- light. Based on Ref. [53], a one-electric-charge minimum- ton distribution functions [50].→ For the 120 GeV protons ionizing-particle would generate roughly 106 photoelec- on target for the NuMI and DUNE beams, this process trons (PE) in a 1 m plastic scintillator with a density of 3 is subdominant to meson-production, except for when ρscint. = 1 g/cm . As a rough estimate, the number of 2 mχ > mΥ/2 (see the gray curve in Fig. 1). PE produced in the scintillator scales with ε , so we can While most of the χ particles produced via meson de- expect sensitivity to reach ε 10−3 if single-PE readout cay and Drell-Yan production are forward-going, not all is achievable. Each scintillator∼ stack will consist of 400 pass through the 1 m2 cross-section of the detector at 5 cm 5 cm 80 cm scintillator bars coupled to PMTs. a distance of 500 1000 m away. We take this into Each× bar will× be oriented in the direction of the neutrino account during∼ our simulation− and find that (10−4) of beam. A triple coincidence in all three adjacent scintilla- χ produced reach the detector. O tor bar-PMT sets in a small time window (nominally 15 nanoseconds) is required as an experimental signature to reduce the background. III. NOMINAL SETUP & SIGNATURE We consider a runtime corresponding to one year (3 107 s) of live-trigger time, correspond to either × 20 Now we focus on the FerMINI experimental design and 6 10 protons on target for the NuMI beam [51] or ×21 signature. As mentioned above, the basic idea is to place 10 POT for the DUNE beam [52]. This live-trigger time

3 Since cΥ is too small to generate Υ particles via a Monte Carlo generator, we assume the flux of χ from this decay is similar to 4 In our simulations using PYTHIA8 [49] we assume that the LBNF that from J/ψ decay, simply extending the maximum allowed beamline will consist of 120 GeV protons on target, however we mχ up to mΥ/2 (instead of mJ/ψ/2), and scaled by the fraction do not expect that an 80 GeV or 100 GeV beam would gener- cΥ/cJ/ψ. This scaling fraction is determined in Ref. [16] and the ate significantly different distributions of Nχ or their resulting reference therein. energies, for the sake of our analysis. 4 is not the same as the actual runtime, which would be interest in Ref. [14]. This agrees with the explorations longer, and remains to be determined in a more detailed in the literature and more detailed GEANT simulations study. However, a one-year live trigger time of FerMINI therein. In producing Figs. 2a and 2b, we allow N PE to should be easily obtained, given the small dead/live ratio vary depending on the mass and energy of the χ being estimated by milliQan [14] and the fact that NuMI will produced. The standard designs of FerMINI at MINOS run for roughly five more years and LBNF is expected to and FerMINI at DUNE yield almost the same sensitiv- run for more than ten years. This time also corresponds ity, however it is by accident; this is because the DUNE to the proposal using the High-Luminosity LHC (HL- setup allows for a larger number of protons on target LHC) upgrade for milliQan and will allow us to directly and a closer detector, where at MINOS, there is the sec- compare with that sensitivity reach. ondary production of MCP at the absorber closer to the The advantage of having three separate scintillator ar- detector. ray stacks is that, by requiring the observation of PEs in Given the much larger flux of MCP produced in a pro- each stack in a narrow time window, we can drastically ton fixed-target facility compared to that by the LHC reduce the number of most background events [13, 14]. for MCP below 10 GeV [16], one can potentially probe Of course, this raises the requirement for signal detection MCP with fractional∼ charges one-order below ε 10−3. ∼ too. We quantify this effect below. If we define N PE as This advantage, in turn, brings up two complications: the average number of photoelectrons collected due to a first, one should consider the most probable energy loss single minicharged particle χ passing through one stack instead of the average energy loss in this case [54]. Sec- of scintillators, then the probability of observing a single ondly, one would be sensitive to small enough values of ε particle producing at least one PE in each stack, using a that the expected number of photons produced per MCP Poisson distribution, is passing through the detector is less than one, pushing the limit of the scintillator itself. 3 P = 1 e−N PE . (5) Let’s consider the first complication. Similar to consid- − ering a small-thickness detector, one should indeed con-   sider “the most probable energy loss” [54] in stead of We can roughly estimate N PE as follows: N PE ρ L dE y E , where ρ and L ∼ averaged energy loss described by Bethe-Bloch equation scint. scint. dx det. scint. scint. 6 are the scintillator− density× × and the single-scintillator-bar in the situation of very sparse collisions . This is be- dE cause the hard collisions (with large energy transfer) of a length, respectively, dx is the mean rate of energy deposition (or energy− loss) by a charged particle in the single MCP become very rare in finite length scintillator material5, y is the photon yield (number of photons per due to the very small charge, the energy loss probability distribution is highly-skewed towards the lower energy keV of energy deposited) of the scintillator, and Edet. is the detection efficiency (the fraction of produced photons end (normally, the energy loss probability distribution is much less skewed for a 1 meter plastic scintillator since that are measured by the PMTs) [54]. The mean energy ∼ deposition rate dE is proportional to ε2. Strictly one usually does not consider such minicharged carriers). − dx This leads to smaller values of dE when ε . 10−2. speaking, N PE is not exactly linearly proportional to − dx dE We find that N is lower by a factor of roughly 2 when Lscint. and . First, one needs to take into account PE − dx ε 10−4 (compared to the na¨ıve expectation), and in- the scintillator’s attenuation length (roughly 2 meters for ' the plastic scintillator considered here) and we also ex- corporate this effect into our calculation when producing Figs. 2a and 2b. pect the detection efficiency Edet. to be lower as the scin- Secondly, for ε much smaller than 10−3, we potentially tillator length extends. Second, the dependence of N PE dE reach the detection limitation of the nominal scintillator. on dx should also be modified according to Birks’ law [55].− This rough estimation however captures the essence As discussed in Refs. [13, 14], a single MCP with very of the scintillation signature concisely. small charge would produce less than one photon in the We assume the scintillator is a Saint-Gobain BC-408 scintillator on average. In principle, this just means the plastic scintillator and the PMTs are Hamamatsu R329- chance of triple coincidence of the MCP in the scintillator 02 PMTs, as in Ref. [14] in performing calculations is very small according to the Poisson distribution. How- of these quantities, but specific scintillator and PMT ever, the scintillator performance for such small numbers choices can be later optimized for actual installation of produced photons has not been fully explored. We thus in this context. We can define a new quantity ξ by consider the expected number of photons generated by 2 one MCP in a scintillator bar, N sγ (ε) N PE/Edet.. We N PE = (ε/ξ) (ξ denotes the value of ε for which one ex- ≡ pects an average of one photoelectron per detector stack denote the region for ε below which N sγ . 1 in Figs. 2a −3 per MCP) and find ξ 2 10 for the mχ range of and 2b by dashed curves. One can take the regime above ∼ × these curves to be a conservative estimate of FerMINI

5 This quantity is called the “mass stopping power” and the unit is in MeVg−1cm2 in Ref. [54]. The “linear stopping power” is 6 The scattering probability scales as ε2, so small ε implies sparse D dE E 3 − dx ρ in the unit of MeV/cm where ρ is the density in g/cm . collisions. 5 sensitivity – even if we restrict ourselves to N sγ & 1, this IV. BACKGROUND & SENSITIVITY sensitivity is still very competitive in the range 10 MeV . . mχ 5 GeV. A more thorough investigation should In this section, we discuss the background of the Fer- allow for analysis including the N sγ < 1 region [45]. MINI setup and the sensitivity projection. We will sepa- Finally, let us consider the possibilities to increase the rate the discussions of the background roughly into two number of photoelectrons produced in the detector, and categories: detector background and beam-related back- thus probe even smaller values of ε given the advantage ground. The detector background includes the sources of high flux of MCPs produced in the proton beam. One that are present for the detector without the existence can either elongate the scintillator bars, use an alterna- of the beam. The beam related background is the addi- tive material that has higher light yield, or dope the scin- tional background that may be generated once the proton tillator bar to enhance the light yield (see the develop- beam is turned on. ment of “Wunderbar” technology [56, 57].) – in fact, the First, we look at the detector background. Since milliQan collaboration has considered constructing the our nominal detector design is the same as that of the detector with other materials to increase N PE, including milliQan [13, 14], we share the same detector background sodium iodide (NaI), lanthanum bromide (LaBr3), or liq- and can use the strategy they developed to suppress such uid (Xe). These materials all have higher photon backgrounds. Three major backgrounds were pointed out yield per energy y but also higher costs [47]. We look into in the milliQan literature: dark currents in the PMT the sensitivity gain by enhancing the overall scintillating (most dominant), natural radiation background (e.g. cos- capability and thus increase the N PE by five-fold in the mic muons), and PMT after-pulses. Four major strate- FerMINI setup. For FerMINI at MINOS hall, we consider gies were developed [13, 14] to suppress the background such possibility of enhancing the N PE by five times but as summarized below: reduce the number of scintillator bar-PMT sets by one- fifth to na¨ıvely balance the cost. This roughly reduces Require triple coincidence as a detection signature: • the number of MCP traversing the detector by a factor Requiring at least one PE in each PMT connected of five, but the increase in N PE more than compensates to the three contiguous scintillators in each of the for the lower flux. This modified detector’s sensitivity is three stacks of scintillators within a 15 ns window. shown in comparison with the nominal design in Fig. 2a. This would help reduce all background sources ex- Additionally, we explore the idea of simply increasing the cept those caused by SM charged particles. N PE by five times and keeping the cross-sectional area Offline-vetoes of large-PE (> 10 PE) events: constant for FerMINI at the DUNE near detector hall. • Radiation background (e.g., cosmic muons) travers- This is shown in comparison to the nominal design in ing the detector produces a large number of PE Fig. 2b. We find that the modified detector at MINOS (typically more than 103). An offline veto of events increases sensitivity to ε by roughly a factor of two for with more than 10 PEs would veto these events. 10 MeV . mχ . 1 GeV, where the enhanced detector at Offset the middle detector array: DUNE improves sensitivity, unsurprisingly, for all MCP • Charged SM particles (again, such as muons) could masses. Note that the choice of five times greater scintil- skim through the edge of the detector, producing lating capacity could be very optimistic and it is mainly low numbers of PEs, and thus be confused as sig- a judicial choice of demonstrating the improvement of natures. Shifting the middle detector, or making it sensitivity in Fig. 2. slightly larger (with (10) more scintillator-PMT Note that, even though we attempt to take into ac- sets), would help to avoidO such particle trajectories. count the subtleties in producing the sensitivity curves, Deadtime veto of the after-pulses: a detailed simulation is needed to have a realistic estima- • When a large pulse ( corresponding to more than 10 tion of the FerMINI projection. Finally, while one could PEs) enters the PMT, a smaller after-pulse can be also worry about the attenuation and angular deflection created that may survive the aforementioned large- of MCP produced in the target that traverse dirt, ab- PE veto. However, since these after-pulses are gen- sorber, and rock en route to the detector, we find such erated within roughly 10 microseconds, it will stay effects to be negligible here. For 10 MeV . mχ . 5 GeV, within the deadtime of the readout board (consid- the average χ energy is several GeV, meaning that the ered in Ref. [14]) triggered by the large pulse and total energy loss due to such attenuation is insignificant. thus not being recorded. The attenuation of MCP flux has been explored in detail in Ref. [7] and has been shown to be small for mχ & 1 After these background reductions, the detector back- MeV as long as ε < 10−1. The angular deflection of χ ground would be greatly reduced. The remaining domi- is estimated in Refs. [58, 59] and is insignificant for Fer- nating background would be the triple coincidence dark MINI (where we require that the total deflection is less current counts in the PMT. Assuming a dark current . 5 cm −1 than ∆θ 80 cm ) as long as ε < 10 . We will conduct rate to be roughly ν = 500 Hz in the choice of PMTs [14] a detailed study including detector simulations and pas- (which can be further reduced to 80 Hz by cooling the sys- sage through the materials for specific experimental sites tem to 20◦ C [47]), the corresponding background rate − 3 2 −8 in Ref. [45]. for each triple PMT set is νB = ν (∆t) = 2.8 10 × 6

Hz, for the time window ∆t = 15 ns. With 400 PMT way to monitor beam-related backgrounds would be to sets, this gives a background rate of roughly 300 events utilize the movable DUNE PRISM detector proposal [60]. per year7. Additional strategies can be applied to further Because the MCP come (predominantly) from neutral reduce the background as discussed in Ref. [14], but we meson decay, where the beam-related backgrounds come directly take 300 events for the detector background of from charged meson decay, the focusing magnets will gen- the nominal design of FerMINI as a rather conservative erate a narrow neutrino/charged particle beam, where estimation of the background for the sensitivity projec- the MCP flux would be broader. Making measurements tion. at different off-axis angles would allow one to disentangle Let us move on to the beam-related background. Here the MCP signal from beam-related backgrounds. Lastly, we briefly discuss backgrounds that are related to the a beam-dump type experiment using the NuMI or DUNE intense proton beams: SM charged particles that reach, beam (similar to that performed with the Booster beam or are being produced in the detector, and neutral par- for MiniBooNE [61]) would aide in such a determination. ticles like neutrons and neutrinos. SM charged parti- We leave these possibilities to a more detailed study [45]. cles can be produced directly from the beam on target, through secondary production in the dirt and rock, or through neutral particles (e.g., neutron and neutrino) As one additional note regarding backgrounds, and charged particles scattering in the detector, and po- FerMINI at the NuMI/MINOS site (roughly 100 m un- tentially generate the triple-coincidence events. The SM derground), FerMINI at the DUNE site (roughly 60 m charged-particle flux produced at target or through sec- underground), and milliQan at the CERN site (roughly ondary productions would be shielded by the layers of 70 m underground) all have reduced cosmic background rocks and monitored by the muon monitors before reach- rates, but the shieldings are not ideal comparing to that ing the detector. The charged particles that arrive at or of the deep underground labs (e.g., Laboratori Nazion- are produced in the detector would then be vetoed the ali del Gran Sasso [62]). We plan to conduct in-situ same techniques as discussed above, by vetoing large-PE background measurement at Fermilab sites with a scaled- events and offset the middle detector. Electrons and pro- down prototype detector to better estimate rates of each tons (or other charged particles, e.g. pions) from hard background events, and rely on the aforementioned tech- neutrino and neutron scattering would also be vetoed as niques (especially the large-PE veto and offsetting middle large-PE events, but the soft collisions (e.g. neutrino detector) to suppress these background. neutral-current scattering) could mimic the low-PE ion- ization signature. As for these neutrino-related events, in a plastic detector of total volume 1 m 1 m 3 m, In Figs. 2a and 2b we show 95% CL sensitivity fol- we expect (104) neutral-current quasi-elastic× scattering× lowing sensitivity analysis in [54] assuming aforemen- events perO year [52]. A rough estimate shows that requir- tioned background events and 1 year of live-trigger time ing soft events in each detector array in a 15 ns window at NuMI and DUNE, respectively. We also show, as dis- gives an expected number of (10−18) background events cussed above, the alternative FerMINI designs that lead for one year of live-trigger time,O meaning this background to improved sensitivity. We plan to apply for support is negligible in either the NuMI or DUNE beamlines. For from the Fermilab Laboratory Directed Research and the sensitivity curves in this plot, we take the beam- Development (LDRD) Program, allowing for construc- related background to be of the same order as the de- tion and development of a prototype detector for in situ tector background, i.e., 300 events for the nominal 1 m measurements on-site at Fermilab. A prototype detec- 1 m 3 m configuration. For the modified designs tor, even if constructed in the next few years, also has ×at MINOS× and at DUNE, we scale up the beam-related the possibility of constraining parameter space thanks to background according to the modified overall scintillating the high flux at NuMI and its consistent running in the capacities of the detectors as rough estimates. coming years for the variety of neutrino experiments it A realistic determination of the beam-related back- provides for. ground at Fermilab beams would require a detailed sim- ulation including the beam production, the configuration between the target and the detector, and the detector it- Finally, given the large flux of MCP at neutrino beams, self. All in all, the flux of the SM charged particles should one can consider adding an additional stack of 400 be able to be determined with the help of the NuMI- scintillator-PMTs and require quadruple coincidence as MINOS and LBNF-DUNE collaborations. An additional an experimental signature to further cut down the back- ground. This would inevitably sacrifice event rates but theoretically/naively reduce the dark current background by a factor of ν∆t 10−5, in turn reducing the dark 7 In Section III we discussed the possibility of increasing the num- current background∼ to zero events per year. We have ber of photoelectrons N PE by improving the scintillator and de- creasing the number of scintillator bar-PMT sets. In this alter- explored the potential of such a setup and find roughly nate design, the number of background events per year from dark the same sensitivity reach as with three detector stacks; current would also drop roughly by a factor of five, given that however, this would be an experimental demonstration there are five times fewer PMT sets. or test of a zero dark-current background search. 7

1 1

Colliders Colliders 1 1 10− 10−

MiniBooNE MiniBooNE 2 2 /e 10− /e 10− χ milliQan (HL LHC) χ milliQan (HL LHC) Q − Q − ≡ 3 SLAC ≡ 3 SLAC ε 10− ε 10−

LSND FerMINI at NuMI LSND FerMINI at DUNE 4 4 10− 10− 1 yr, standard design 1 yr, standard design 1 1 yr, 5 N PE, 5 detector area 1 yr, 5 N × × PE 10 5 10 5 − 2 1 − 2 1 10− 10− 1 10 10− 10− 1 10 mχ [GeV] mχ [GeV] (a) The sensitivity of FerMINI in the NuMI Beamline at the (b) The sensitivity of FerMINI in the DUNE Near Detector MINOS Near Detector site. hall.

FIG. 2: Expected 95% CL sensitivity to minicharged particles in the two potential sites we consider. The solid curves are the sensitivity reaches of FerMINI at each site operating for one year. The black, solid curves are based on the nominal design in both sites. The light blue curve in (a) is the sensitivity of a detector with alternative design (see Section III for detail) with one year of operation in the MINOS near detector hall. The light red curve in (b) is the projection of a detector with 5 times better scintillation capability and unchanged detection area placed in the DUNE near detector hall, again operating for one year. The milliQan HL-LHC sensitivity reach [13, 14] is plotted as dot-dashed curve for comparison. The shaded regimes are the existing constraints from SLAC [5], collider [6], MiniBooNE and LSND [16]. For each FerMINI sensitivity curve, we include a dashed curve indicating values of ε corresponding to N sγ 1 (see Section III for detail). The sensitivity reaches below these dashed lines require more detailed analyses. The reason≈ why standard designs of FerMINI at NuMI and at DUNE yield very similar sensitivity is explained in text (see also discussions of NuMI secondary beam productions at the absorbers in Section III).

V. NEW DETECTOR DESIGN WITH a combination, using the existing ArgoNeuT detector [63] NEUTRINO DETECTORS and the upcoming DUNE near detector. In addition, the DUNE near detector complex plans to have a 3D Scintil- We would like to discuss a few alternative options be- lator Tracker (3DST) that could also be leveraged along yond the nominal FerMINI proposal that could poten- with FerMINI to look for more distinctive signatures of tially provide comparable or even better sensitivity and MCP and other new physics scenarios. These experimen- mass reach for MCP. tal designs are left for further exploration [45]. Since the detector will be located inside existing/future An alternative site to host a dedicated MCP detector neutrino near detector halls, we discuss the possibility is the CERN Super Proton Synchroton (SPS) facility. of utilizing the neutrino detectors to better enhance our Specifically, the SPS has 400 GeV of beam energy (com- pared to 120 GeV at NuMI/DUNE), allowing us to search sensitivity to MCP. One idea would be to place FerMINI 8 directly in front of or behind the neutrino detector and for heavier MCP [16]. The number of χ produced via using the liquid argon technology to provide extra in- Drell-Yan production (See the gray curve in Fig. 1) would formation on particles traversing the MCP detector and be enhanced in this scenario. There is potentially room provide a veto on SM particles that could fake an MCP to host an MCP detector in the structures hosting vari- signal. In addition, one can look for mixed signature com- ous experiments, including NA62 [64] and the proposed bining the scintillation signature discussed in this work Search for Hidden Particles (SHiP) [65] experiments. The and the hard electron scattering signature utilizing liquid details including shielding and space would have to be argon or Cherenkov neutrino detectors discussed in [16]. studied in each potential sites. One can again combine the MCP detector with the existing and proposed ex- In particular, the excellent resolution of liquid argon periments, especially the SHiP experiment to get better could also be leveraged, by splitting the FerMINI de- signature recognition or background suppression. tector arrays, placing some in front of and some behind the neutrino detector. Minicharged particles traveling through liquid argon can scatter off electrons, leading to single-electron events [16, 58]. The combination of 8 this signature with the scintillation signal of FerMINI The maximum mχ probed in a proton fixed-target experiment (max.) √ p could potentially further improve the MCP sensitivity. is set by mχ = s/2 = 2mpEbeam/2. For Ebeam = 120 (max.) Both the NuMI and DUNE locations could provide such (400) GeV, this gives mχ ' 7.5 (13.7) GeV. 8

VI. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION detector technology is low-cost, it may be favorable to directly construct a new prototype at Fermilab. As men- In this section, we briefly discuss the advantages of tioned above, we plan to apply for support from the Fer- FerMINI and future prospects. milab Laboratory Directed Research and Development Compared to milliQan, our setup consists of a much (LDRD) Program, allowing for construction and devel- larger flux of MCP reaching the detector, due to the opment of a prototype detector for in situ measurements higher proton beam intensity. We find that FerMINI on-site at Fermilab. Such a prototype development could is sensitive to ε below 10−3 and has better sensitivity also allow for exploring the alternatives discussed in Sec- than the milliQan search with the HL-LHC up to about tion IV. We regard the implementations of this proposal as a great opportunity for synergy between the collider, mχ 5 GeV. The MCP flux is so large that it potentially saturates∼ the scintillation limit and force us to consider neutrino, and dark matter communities at Fermilab and modified detectors to fully explore the potential of Fer- at CERN. MINI. Another great advantage of FerMINI is that the NuMI beam is currently under operation. The LHC is under VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a long shutdown and milliQan has to wait for the LHC upgrades to complete in roughly two years to resume op- eration. The NuMI beam will be shut down in roughly We thank Joachim Kopp, Gabriel Magill, Zarko five years, so it is important to initiate the FerMINI con- Pavlovic, Ryan Plestid, and Maxim Pospelov for useful struction as soon as possible to take full advantage of the discussions and input on various stages of completing this NuMI beam operation. work. We especially thank Maxim Pospelov for the dis- In addition, with a small detector and simple technol- cussions of FerMINI alternative designs. We also thank ogy originally developed by milliQan, the FerMINI pro- members in the milliQan collaboration, specifically Al- posal makes for a great movable addition to current and bert De Roeck, Andy Haas, Christopher Hill, and Max upcoming Fermilab experiments, specifically the DUNE Swiatlowski, for direct and indirect correspondence re- experiment. One can imagine developing the detector in garding the details of the milliQan proposal. We also one site and moving it for a longer-term operation. This thank Roni Harnik for pointing out the subtlety in deter- is specifically advantageous at Fermilab, where it can be mining the energy loss of a charged particle with very rare used in the NuMI beam until its shutdown in roughly five collisions in the detector, and Patrick Fox for correspon- years, then moved to the DUNE near detector hall. dence regarding the NuMI beamline. We also thank Car- The milliQan Collaboration has invested in and los Arg¨uelles,Jeffrey Berryman, Kareem Farrag, Noah achieved a great understanding of the detector perfor- Kurinsky, Shirley Li, Mark Ross-Lonergan, Ibrahim Safa, mance and have constructed a 1% demonstrator to con- and Gary Shiu for useful references and feedback on our duct a test run at CERN [66]. As mentioned above, since draft. YT thanks CERN, where this work was conceived, the LHC is entering a long shutdown in 2018, it is natu- and its theory group for the hospitality. ral to explore the possibility of moving this prototype to This manuscript has been authored by Fermi Research Fermilab or the CERN SPS to conduct in-situ measure- Alliance, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359 ments, especially to aide in background estimation, but with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, also to potentially search for MCP. However, since this Office of High Energy Physics.

[1] P. A. M. Dirac, “Quantized Singularities in the Electro- [7] A. A. Prinz, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford U., Phys. Dept. magnetic Field,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A133, 60 (1931), (2001), URL http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/ [,278(1931)]. fullcit?p3002033. [2] J. C. Pati and A. Salam, “Unified Lepton-Hadron Sym- [8] E. Golowich and R. W. Robinett, “Limits on Millicharged metry and a Gauge Theory of the Basic Interactions,” Matter From Beam Dump Experiments,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Rev. D8, 1240 (1973). D35, 391 (1987). [3] H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, “Unity of All Elementary [9] K. S. Babu, T. M. Gould, and I. Z. Rothstein, “Closing Particle Forces,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438 (1974). the windows on MeV Tau neutrinos,” Phys. Lett. B321, [4] M. I. Dobroliubov and A. Yu. Ignatiev, “MIL- 140 (1994), hep-ph/9310349. LICHARGED PARTICLES,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 679 [10] S. N. Gninenko, N. V. Krasnikov, and A. Rubbia, “Search (1990). for millicharged particles in reactor neutrino experi- [5] A. A. Prinz et al., “Search for millicharged particles ments: A Probe of the PVLAS anomaly,” Phys. Rev. at SLAC,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1175 (1998), hep- D75, 075014 (2007), hep-ph/0612203. ex/9804008. [11] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), “Search√ for fractionally [6] S. Davidson, S. Hannestad, and G. Raffelt, “Updated charged particles in pp collisions at s = 7 TeV,” Phys. bounds on millicharged particles,” JHEP 05, 003 (2000), Rev. D87, 092008 (2013), 1210.2311. hep-ph/0001179. [12] R. Agnese et al. (CDMS), “First Direct Limits on Lightly 9

Ionizing Particles with Electric Charge Less Than e/6,” [34] J. D. Bowman, A. E. E. Rogers, R. A. Monsalve, T. J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 111302 (2015), 1409.3270. Mozdzen, and N. Mahesh, “An absorption profile centred [13] A. Haas, C. S. Hill, E. Izaguirre, and I. Yavin, “Looking at 78 megahertz in the sky-averaged spectrum,” Nature for milli-charged particles with a new experiment at the 555, 67 (2018). LHC,” Phys. Lett. B746, 117 (2015), 1410.6816. [35] R. Barkana, “Possible interaction between baryons and [14] A. Ball et al., “A Letter of Intent to Install a milli-charged dark-matter particles revealed by the first stars,” Nature Particle Detector at LHC P5,” (2016), 1607.04669. 555, 71 (2018), 1803.06698. [15] S. I. Alvis et al. (Majorana), “First Limit on the Di- [36] J. B. Mu˜nozand A. Loeb, “Insights on Dark Matter from rect Detection of Lightly Ionizing Particles for Electric Hydrogen during Cosmic Dawn,” (2018), 1802.10094. Charge as Low as e/1000 with the Majorana Demonstra- [37] A. Berlin, D. Hooper, G. Krnjaic, and S. D. McDermott, tor,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 211804 (2018), 1801.10145. “Severely Constraining Dark Matter Interpretations of [16] G. Magill, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov, and Y.-D. Tsai, the 21-cm Anomaly,” (2018), 1803.02804. “Millicharged particles in neutrino experiments,” (2018), [38] R. Barkana, N. J. Outmezguine, D. Redigolo, and 1806.03310. T. Volansky, “Signs of Dark Matter at 21-cm?,” (2018), [17] G. Shiu, P. Soler, and F. Ye, “Milli-Charged Dark Mat- 1803.03091. ter in Quantum Gravity and String Theory,” Phys. Rev. [39] T. R. Slatyer and C.-L. Wu, “Early-Universe constraints Lett. 110, 241304 (2013), 1302.5471. on dark matter-baryon scattering and their implications [18] J. Alexander et al. (2016), 1608.08632, URL https: for a global 21 cm signal,” Phys. Rev. D98, 023013 //inspirehep.net/record/1484628/files/arXiv: (2018), 1803.09734. 1608.08632.pdf. [40] Z. Liu and Y. Zhang, “Probing millicharge at BESIII,” [19] B. Holdom, “Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,” (2018), 1808.00983. Phys. Lett. 166B, 196 (1986). [41] A. Berlin, N. Blinov, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and [20] D. E. Brahm and L. J. Hall, “U(1)-prime DARK MAT- N. Toro, “Dark Matter, Millicharges, and Scalar TER,” Phys. Rev. D41, 1067 (1990). Particles, Gauge Bosons, and Other New Physics with [21] C. Boehm and P. Fayet, “Scalar dark matter candidates,” LDMX,” (2018), 1807.01730. Nucl. Phys. B683, 219 (2004), hep-ph/0305261. [42] S. N. Gninenko, D. V. Kirpichnikov, and N. V. Kras- [22] M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, “Secluded nikov, “Probing millicharged particles with NA64 exper- WIMP Dark Matter,” Phys. Lett. B662, 53 (2008), iment at CERN,” (2018), 1810.06856. 0711.4866. [43] L. Singh et al., “Constraints on millicharged particles [23] J. D. Bjorken, R. Essig, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, “New with low threshold germanium detectors at Kuo-Sheng Fixed-Target Experiments to Search for Dark Gauge Reactor Neutrino Laboratory,” (2018), 1808.02719. Forces,” Phys. Rev. D80, 075018 (2009), 0906.0580. [44] Y.-D. Tsai, Ph.D. thesis, Cornell U., Phys. Dept. (2018). [24] B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, “Exploring Portals [45] Kevin Kelly, Ryan Plestid, Maxim Pospelov, Yu-Dai to a Hidden Sector Through Fixed Targets,” Phys. Rev. Tsai, in progress. D80, 095024 (2009), 0906.5614. [46] E. Izaguirre and I. Yavin, “New window to millicharged [25] P. deNiverville, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, “Observing particles at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D92, 035014 (2015), a light dark matter beam with neutrino experiments,” 1506.04760. Phys. Rev. D84, 075020 (2011), 1107.4580. [47] A. Haas, “https://web.fnal.gov/organization/ [26] E. Izaguirre, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, “New theory/JETP/2016/Haas_milliQan_FermilabWC_ Electron Beam-Dump Experiments to Search for MeV to 9-8-2017.pdf,”. few-GeV Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D88, 114015 (2013), [48] M. Sher and J. Stevens, “Detecting a heavy neutrino elec- 1307.6554. tric dipole moment at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B777, 246 [27] B. Batell, R. Essig, and Z. Surujon, “Strong Constraints (2018), 1710.06894. on Sub-GeV Dark Sectors from SLAC Beam Dump [49] T. Sj¨ostrand,S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. De- E137,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171802 (2014), 1406.2698. sai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and [28] Y. Kahn, G. Krnjaic, J. Thaler, and M. Toups, P. Z. Skands, “An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,” Com- “DAEDALUS and dark matter detection,” Phys. Rev. put. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015), 1410.3012. D91, 055006 (2015), 1411.1055. [50] A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, [29] B. A. Dobrescu and C. Frugiuele, “GeV-Scale Dark Mat- “Parton distributions for the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C63, ter: Production at the Main Injector,” JHEP 02, 019 189 (2009), 0901.0002. (2015), 1410.1566. [51] P. Adamson et al., “The NuMI Neutrino Beam,” Nucl. [30] P. Coloma, B. A. Dobrescu, C. Frugiuele, and R. Harnik, Instrum. Meth. A806, 279 (2016), 1507.06690. “Dark matter beams at LBNF,” JHEP 04, 047 (2016), [52] R. Acciarri and et. al., “Long-Baseline Neutrino Facil- 1512.03852. ity (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Exper- [31] P. deNiverville, C.-Y. Chen, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, iment (DUNE) Conceptual Design Report Volume 2: “Light dark matter in neutrino beams: production mod- The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF,” 2 (2015), elling and scattering signatures at MiniBooNE, T2K and 1512.06148, URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.06148. SHiP,” Phys. Rev. D95, 035006 (2017), 1609.01770. [53] C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), “Review of [32] M. Pospelov and Y.-D. Tsai, “Light scalars and dark pho- Particle Physics,” Chin. Phys. C40, 100001 (2016). tons in Borexino and LSND experiments,” Phys. Lett. [54] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), “Review of B785, 288 (2018), 1706.00424. Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D98, 030001 (2018). [33] G. Magill, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov, and Y.-D. Tsai, [55] J. B. Birks, “Scintillations from Organic Crystals: Spe- “Dipole portal to heavy neutral leptons,” (2018), cific Fluorescence and Relative Response to Different Ra- 1803.03262. diations,” Proc. Phys. Soc. A64, 874 (1951). 10

[56] J. Conrad, “https://indico.fnal.gov/event/11326/ Overview,” AIP Conf. Proc. 785, 3 (2005), [,3(2005)], contribution/1/material/slides/0.pdf,”. hep-ex/0503054. [57] D. Whittington, “https://indico.fnal.gov/event/ [63] R. Acciarri et al. (ArgoNeuT), “Demonstration of MeV- 12089/session/3/material/slides/0?contribId=11,”. Scale Physics in Liquid Argon Time Projection Chambers [58] R. Harnik, Z. Liu, O. Palamara, in progress. Using ArgoNeuT,” (2018), 1810.06502. [59] R. Harnik, “https://indico.fnal.gov/event/18430/ [64] E. Cortina Gil et al. (NA62), “The Beam and detector session/8/contribution/17/material/slides/0. of the NA62 experiment at CERN,” JINST 12, P05025 pdf,”. (2017), 1703.08501. [60] J. Cai et al., “https://indico.fnal.gov/event/16205/ [65] C. Ahdida et al. (SHiP), “The experimental facility for contribution/2/material/0/0.pdf,”. the Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS,” [61] A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE DM), “Dark (2018), 1810.06880. Matter Search in Nucleon, Pion, and Electron Channels [66] J. H. Yoo (milliQan), “The milliQan Experiment: from a Proton Beam Dump with MiniBooNE,” (2018), Search for milli-charged Particles at the LHC,” (2018), 1807.06137. 1810.06733. [62] L. Miramonti, “European underground laboratories: An