Arxiv:1208.6426V2 [Hep-Ph]

arXiv:1208.6426v2 [hep-ph] 9 Sep 2012 ula netite ntesi-eedn tutr fun structure spin-dependent the in uncertainties Nuclear ain.Eprmnssc sCM-I[,8,XENON10 8], [7, CDMS-II as re- such collabo- Experiments experimental negative other rations. the by searches with However, in conflict obtained sults background. in are expected observations the these over [6] excess an lhuhtelte sntes orcniewt the with CaWO exper- reconcile uses CRESST-II to which the easy [5] iment, Finally, effect not result. modulation is DAMA/LIBRA annual latter WIMPs an the light observed although very also towards in and point excess [4] could irreducible that an with data reported collaboration, their target, CoGeNT germanium the a Similarly, de- [3]. DAMA/LIBRA that upgraded tector target the NaI by a confirmed on an later rate was observed recoil which the in [2], modulation a collaboration annual DAMA of the detection the of is the case This with (WIMP). particle compatible massive be weakly-interacting could that nals situation. present objective, exciting very this decades of a with to last number construction leading the large under in currently A are data or (for [1]). taking Ref. detector been have a e.g. experiments of see, nuclei review, target recent a off by Universe recoils the its of detecting component elusive but abundant this b a utDr Scholar MultiDark Fellow MultiDark nfc,sm xeiet aecamdptnilsig- potential claimed have experiments some fact, In observe to aim (DM) matter dark of searches Direct 1 2 nttt eFıiaT´rc,UMCI,UiesddAut´ F´ısica Universidad Teórica, de UAM/CSIC, Instituto eatmnod F´ısica Autónoma Teórica, d de Universidad Departamento 3 colo hsc n srnm,Uiest fNottingham, of University Astronomy, and Physics of School oteeatcsatrn rs-eto ssizable. is cross-section scattering c uncertai elastic those these the in of to stud especially effect uncertainties, the and astrophysical that DM of find of We that detection properties. hypothetical DM a the assuming for yr, germaniu for kg illustrated 300 is cen of method a The with nucleus. parameters, specific structure the three spin of the variations of as parametrization uncertainties va a reconstructed propose the d We spin-de in a variations section. the to in describe lead parameters can that nuclei (DM) models target matter nuclear different dark that the show of determination the in esuyteeetta netite ntencerspin-de nuclear the in uncertainties that effect the study We .INTRODUCTION I. .G Cerdeño G. D. 4 satre,as reported also target, a as 1 , 2 .Fornasa M. , detection 3 .H Huh J.-H. , nm eMdi,Cnolno -84,Mdi,Spain Madrid, E-28049, Cantoblanco, Madrid, de onoma stencennme squared, number con- scales nucleon SI its the cross-section as WIMP-nucleus The and total couplings the vector quarks. to or tribution with scalar particle from DM stems describing term a Lagrangian of the interaction in the terms different from inate tign osrit on constraints stringent cross- elastic WIMP-nucleon the section, of components SD and nuclei. heavy for dominates typically term spin. SI DM the the and Thus, function momentum a angular nuclear only total is the nuclei of con- off cross-section total the its to and tribution couplings axial-vector from originates h EO10dt 1]ta xld Icross-sections SI exclude that above [11] data XENON100 the ietdtcineprmnshv enpoie by neutrons, with provided cross-section been (SD have from [17] bounds XENON experiments leading Re- detection the WIMPs. contribution, direct light SD for reanalysis the dominate low-energy garding which the [8], and CDMS-II [9] of XENON10 as well as a esprtdi w opnns spin-independent components, two (SI) in separated be can for look to [16]. order results in negative with performed modulation been annual reanalysis has a data Moreover, CDMS signals of CoGeNT. WIMP or with regions DAMA/LIBRA the compatible EDEL- in with space tension and parameter strong the CDMS in of of are [15] combination data a WEISS and [14], [13], KIMS SIMPLE [12], EDELWEISS 11], [10, XENON100 [9], ard atbac,E209 ard pi and Spain Madrid, E-28049, Cantoblanco, Madrid, e osrit r omlyepesdi em fteSI the of terms in expressed normally are Constraints h lsi cteigcosscino IP ffnuclei off WIMPs of cross-section scattering elastic The ssweetesi-eedn contribution spin-dependent the where ases σ uso h Mms n cteigcross- scattering and mass DM the of lues 0 I N SI, rlvleaddvainta eedon depend that deviation and value tral nvriyPr,N72D ntdKingdom United 2RD, NG7 Park, University n eo eetr iha exposure an with detectors xenon and m σ SI ucin htalw st ra these treat to us allows that functions σ 1 edn tutr ucino specific of function structure pendent , SI 2 n pndpnet(SD) spin-dependent and , te a esmlri mltd to amplitude in similar be can nties ,a ≈ igasre fbnhakpoints benchmark of series a ying edn tutr ucin have functions structure pendent n .Peiró M. and , and rc eeto xeiet We experiment. detection irect 2 × tosfrdrc akmatter dark direct for ctions σ 10 SD − epciey odt,temost the date, To respectively. , 8 bframs rud5 GeV, 50 around mass a for pb σ SI 1 , 2 ,b r hs bandfrom obtained those are A 2 hra h Dterm SD the whereas , IFT-UAM/CSIC-12-86 σ 0 D N SD, FTUAM-12-101 hc orig- which , σ D n SD, ) 2 and COUPP [18] and PICASSO [19] (SD cross-section and [40]. with protons, σSD,p) but indirect detection experiments We observe that the effect of nuclear uncertainties in such as SuperKamiokande [20] and IceCube [21], as well SD structure functions can lead to variations in the re- as searches for mono-jet [22, 23] and mono-photon plus constructed DM mass and SD elastic cross-section, the ef- missing energy in Tevatron [24] and LHC [25–27] lead fect being more important in those scenarios in which the to even more compelling constraints on σSD,p. Larger SD term in the WIMP-nucleus cross-section is the main and more sophisticated direct detection experiments are contribution to the total detection rate. In such cases currently under development that will be able to explore uncertainties in the spin-dependent structure functions the DM parameter space with unprecedented sensitivity. are similar in amplitude to those induced by astrophys- This is the case, for example, of the SuperCDMS and ical uncertainties in the DM halo parameters, although XENON1T collaborations, which aim at the construc- the latter also affect the SI component. tion of 1 Ton scale detectors based on germanium and The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we in- xenon, respectively. troduce the formalism used to compute the recoil event In the light of this promising experimental situation, rate, emphasizing the role of SD interactions. We con- it seems plausible that the DM can be discovered in the centrate on the case of a germanium detector, introduce near future in direct detection experiments. In such an the models available in the literature that describe the event, the study of the signal rate and spectrum (differ- spin-dependent structure function and comment on their ential rate) can be used to determine some of the DM differences. Sec.III describes the generation of the simu- properties, namely its mass, mχ, and elastic scattering lated data for a set of benchmark models, and the imple- cross-section [28–30]. The precision of this reconstruction mentation of the scanning algorithm to probe the phe- is very sensitive to the characteristics of the detector and nomenological parameter space. In Sec.IV we show the is affected by uncertainties in the parameters describing reconstruction of DM parameters for each benchmark the DM halo, as well as in the nuclear form factors. As- scenario, using different nuclear models for the SD struc- trophysical uncertainties have been widely discussed in ture function and investigating how this alters the pre- the literature [31–34] and they are known to introduce dictions for the DM properties. In Sec.V we present a significant errors in the determination of the mass and parametrization of the SD structure function that allows scattering cross-section of DM. Regarding nuclear uncer- us to systematically account for uncertainties when scan- tainties, those in the SI form factor have been argued to ning over our parameter space, and we apply the method be relatively small [35]. The effect of variations in the to the cases of germanium and xenon detectors. Our SD form factors has not been previously addressed and conclusions are summarised in Sec. VI. constitutes the objective of this work. We consider the hypothetical future observation of a DM candidate in a direct detection experiment II. NUCLEAR UNCERTAINTIES IN DIRECT and, sampling over the three-dimensional space of DARK MATTER DETECTION SI SD (mχ, σ , σ ), we investigate how the reconstruction of these quantities is affected by nuclear uncertainties in the The differential event rate for the elastic scattering of spin-dependent structure function of the target nucleus. a WIMP with mass mχ off a nucleus with mass mN is In order to do so, we propose a description of structure given by functions based on three parameters, which enlarge the vesc dR ρ0 dσ parameter space sampled, and allow us to incorporate = vf(v) (v, ER) dv, (1) dER mN mχ Zvmin dER uncertainties in a consistent and systematic way. This provides a general method, applicable to any detector where ρ0 is the local WIMP density and f(v) is the target. We particularize our analysis for the case of a ger- WIMP velocity distribution in the detector frame nor- manium detector (such as, e.g., SuperCDMS), for which malized to unity. The integration over the WIMP veloc- we consider the spin-dependent structure functions pro- ity v is performed from the minimum needed to induce 2 vided by the analysis of various groups [36–38], and for a recoil of energy ER, vmin = mN ER/2µN , to the es- xenon detectors (such as, e.g., the future XENON1T), for cape velocity, vesc, above whichp WIMPs are not bound which we use the structure functions derived in Ref. [39] to the Milky Way. The WIMP-nucleus elastic scatter-

ing cross-section, dσ/dER, is expressed as a function of 3 the recoil energy, and µN = mN mχ/(mN + mχ) is the tribution function ρA(x), reduced mass. The total event rate is calculated by in- −iqx 3 FSI (q)= e ρA(x)d x , (3) tegrating Eq. (1) over all the possible recoil energies in a Z window deﬁned by a threshold energy ET and a maximal 1 where q = √2mN ER is the momentum transfer. The energy Emax, both depending on the experiment . In general, the WIMP-nucleus cross-section is sepa- Fermi distribution is assumed for the nucleon distribu- rated into a SI and a SD contribution, as follows: tion, 1 dσ m ρA(x) , (4) N SI,N 2 SD,N 2 ∝ 1 + exp[(r RA)/a] = 2 2 σ0 FSI (ER)+ σ0 FSD(ER) , − dER 2µ v N 1/3 (2) where RA = (1.23A 0.6) fm, A is the nucleon num- − SI,N SD,N ber and a =0.5 fm the surface thickness of the nucleus. where σ0 and σ0 are the SI and SD WIMP- nucleus cross-sections at zero momentum transfer. Although other parametrizations can be found in the lit-

FSI (ER) and FSD(ER) are the SI and SD form factors erature, the Wood-Saxon form factor provides a good de- that account for the coherence loss which leads to a sup- scription of the nuclear structure for energies in the range pression of the event rate for heavy WIMPs or heavy between 1-100 keV, typical of WIMP scatterings. It has nuclei. The differential rate, dR/dER, depends on the been shown in Ref. [35] that the differences in the SI form recoil energy ER through the form factors and the mini- factors due to small deformations of the nuclei can be mal velocity vmin(ER). safely neglected. In fact, we have explicitly checked that The total number of recoils, as well as their distribu- this is indeed the case when using realistic nuclear den- tion in energy, are affected by uncertainties in the nuclear sity profiles obtained from a state-of-the art mean field form factors (both SI and SD) and in the parameters de- calculation. Thus, throughout this paper we consider the scribing the DM halo (usually referred to as astrophysical form factor in Eq. (3) with no associated uncertainty. uncertainties). Determining the impact of these is cru- cial to understand the capability of a DM experiment to B. Uncertainties in the SD form factors reconstruct the properties of the WIMP. The role of astrophysical uncertainties has been widely On the other hand, the effect of uncertainties in the addressed in the literature. They are known to signifi- SD form factors has not been addressed in the literature. cantly affect the reconstruction of both the mass and The SD contribution to the WIMP-nucleus differential scattering cross-section of the DM [31, 33, 43–46] Since cross-section in Eq.(2) can be expanded as a function the subject of our work is to study the effect of nuclear of the WIMP couplings to the matrix elements of the uncertainties from the form factors, we do not include axial-vector currents in protons (ap) and neutrons (an), astrophysical ones. We therefore consider a fixed model 2 for the the DM halo, namely the Standard Halo Model dσ 16 GF mN (J + 1) = 2 −1 dER πv J with a escape velocity of vesc = 544 km s , a central SD −1 2 2 velocity v = 230kms [47–51], and a local dark matter (ap Sp + an Sn ) F (ER) , (5) 0 h i h i SD density ρ =0.4 GeV cm−3 [52–55]. 0 where J is the total spin of the nucleus and S ( S ) is h pi h ni the proton (neutron) spin averaged over the nucleus. The 2 SD form factor FSD(ER) = S(ER)/S(0), is commonly A. Uncertainties in the SI form factors expressed as a decomposition into isoscalar (a0 = ap+an) and isovector (a1 = ap an) couplings, Regarding SI interactions, the so-called Woods-Saxon − 2 2 form factor is the Fourier transform of the nucleon dis- S(q)= a0S00(q)+ a0a1S01(q)+ a1S11(q), (6) where q is the momentum transfer. The quantities

S00(q), S11(q) and S01(q) are the spin-dependent struc-

1 In order to take into account the energy resolution of the detec- ture functions (SDSFs), and are computed using nu- tor, the differential rate is convoluted with a Gaussian, whose clear physics models, whereas the couplings ap and an standard deviation is a function of the recoil energy, as done in (and consequently a0 and a1) are specific of the parti- Ref. [41]. cle physics model for DM and are computed from the 4 diagrams describing the WIMP-nucleon interaction. In and in the choice of the nuclear interaction potential, but order to continue with a model independent approach we both reproduce the value of the magnetic momentum of 73 assume a specific relation between ap and an, and con- Ge. The SDSFs in both cases can be expressed as a sider the cases2 a /a = 1. Under this assumption, function of the adimensional quantity u, related to the p n ± Eq.(5) reduces to momentum transfer as u = (qb)2/2, where b is the oscil- 1/6 2 lator size parameter, b = A . 64 GF mN 2 ap 2 a S00(q); =1 , dσ v (2J+1) p an The SDSFs for the R-and D-models are plotted as a =  (7) 2 function of u in Fig. 1 by means of red dashed and solid dER SD  64 GF mN 2 ap 2 a S11(q); = 1 . v (2J+1) p an − red lines, respectively. The left (right) panel refers to the  case a /a = 1 (a /a = 1). The vertical, black dashed The SDSFs S00(q) and S11(q) can be calculated using p n p n − a shell-model (ShM) description of the atomic nucleus, lines indicate the values of u that correspond to the where the nuclear spin properties are obtained by the WIMP search window that we use in our analysis, from wave functions of a few valence nucleons, those which do a threshold energy of 10 keV, to an energy of 100 keV not cancel out the spin of the nucleus in pairs. In par- (as currently done in CDMS-II). The dotted blue lines indicate a gaussian approximation (see Eq. (8) below). ticular, S00(q) and S11(q) are related to the transverse electric and longitudinal projections of the axial current. Finally, the blue areas represent the regions spanned by To calculate these quantities in the ShM, the nucleons are a family of curves, obtained by a parametrization which placed in energy levels according to the exclusion princi- interpolates between the R- and D-models that will be ple, assuming a particular interaction between nucleons introduced in Sec. V. (typically a harmonic oscillator potential) and including The two SDSFs differ in the zero momentum value as many excited states as possible, making this kind of (the R-model being larger for the whole energy range of calculation very difficult. interest for direct detection), and also in the shape at ShM calculations are generally more reliable for heavy large energies. They both start as decreasing power-laws nuclei than for light ones. The same holds for nuclei at low-energy flattening out as u increases. However the close to magic numbers, elements featuring closed shells transition happens sooner for the R-model (around u = being more easily modeled. An example is 19F, that has 0.5) than for the D-model. The slope for the D-model is 9 protons and 10 neutrons, thus only one proton above a also slightly steeper than for the R-model, especially in magic number. On the other hand, the nucleus of 73Ge is S11(q). As we will see in Sec. IV these differences play much more difficult to model since it has 32 protons and an important role when determining the DM parameters. 41 neutrons, the nearest closed shell being the one with There are finally some nuclei for which ShM compu- 28 nucleons. In this case, deviations of the real nucleus tations of their form factors are not available. In these from the ShM should be expected, as well as differences cases an approximation was introduced in Ref. [56] that in the results when different ShMs are used. In the first works well in the low momentum transfer regime, but part of the paper we consider the case of germanium, for fails towards larger values of q, which the only natural isotope that contributes to the − q2R2 4 SD cross-section is 73Ge. Sij (q)= S(0) e , (8) 73 In the case of Ge, various ShM calculations are avail- where R, is an effective radius, measured in fm, which able in the literature. We consider two different, com- can be written as, monly used parametrizations, from Ressel et al. [37] and Dimitrov et al. [38], to which we refer as R- and R =0.92 A1/3 +2.68 0.78 (A1/3 3.8)2 +0.2 . (9) D-models, respectively. They differ in the methodology − q −

III. DETERMINATION OF WIMP PROPERTIES 2 This is equivalent to reducing by one the dimensionality of our parameter space, assuming a relation between σSD,p and σSD,n. Our analysis can easily be extended to consider the full four- We consider a set of benchmark scenarios (BM1, BM2 SI SD,p SD,n dimensional parameter space (mχ, σ , σ , σ ), but and BM3) listed in Table I, that deﬁne the phenomeno- SI SD this renders the discussion more cumbersome. Furthermore, par- logical DM parameters (mχ, σ , σ ). These bench- SD,n SD,p ticle models for DM generally predict |σ |≈|σ |. marks are consistent with possible particle physics mod- 5

−1 −1 10 10 =100 keV =100 keV R R E E 00 11

S −2 S −2 10 10 =10 keV =10 keV R R E E

−3 −3 10 10 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 u u

FIG. 1. Spin-dependent structure functions as a function of u, in the case of ap/an = 1 (left panel) or ap/an = −1 (right panel). The solid (dashed) red lines correspond to the D-model [37] (R-model [38]) and the dotted blue line indicates the gaussian approximation of Eq. (8). The blue region covers the area spanned by the family of curves in Eq. (14). The vertical black dashed lines indicate the WIMP search window used in the analysis.

SI SD SI SD mχ [GeV] σ [pb] σ [pb] λ λ λ SuperCDMS experiment in SNOLAB [57]. For the con- BM1 100 10−9 10−5 37.2 36.4 0.8 sidered exposure this means a total of 0.02 background − − BM2 50 10 9 10 5 42.1 41.2 0.9 events in each of the energy bins considered (i.e., we are − − BM3 100 10 9 10 3 79.6 36.4 43.2 almost dealing with a background free experiment). We assume that this background is flat (energy independent). TABLE I. Phenomenological parameters defining the three The simulated energy spectra for the three benchmark benchmark models. We include the predicted total number points can be seen in Fig. 2, where the solid red line cor- of recoil events, λ, as well as the number of events (calculated responds to the results when the D-model is used and the using the R-model) λSI (λSD) due to SI (SD) interactions, dashed red line is obtained for the R-model. Practically for the experimental setup described in the text. no difference is observed for benchmarks BM1 and BM2. This happens because for these two benchmark points els for DM3. We then assume the observation of a DM the main contribution to the total detection rate is due signal in a given direct detection experiment. The differ- to SI interactions. On the contrary, in BM3 the SD con- ential rate is computed for each benchmark point follow- tribution is important and we observe how the predicted ing Eq. (1), and used to derive the total number of events rate is significantly higher for the R-model than for the λ. D-model. This is a consequence of the higher value of S11 We first particularize our analysis for the case of a ger- for the R-model in the whole energy range (see Fig. 1). We treat the quantities λ as the experimental in- manium detector with a total exposure of ǫ = 300 kg yr. { i} This could, e.g., correspond to the 1 Ton phase of Super- formation from which DM parameters have to be recon- CDMS, operating for a whole year with an efficiency of structed. Our analysis is based on the Bayes theorem, 30%. We define the energy window for WIMP searches which determines the posterior probability distribution (pdf) p(Θ D) of a set of parameters Θ (for which a prior in the range ET = 10 keV and Emax = 100 keV, and | calculate the number of events λ in a series of energy probability is assumed p(Θ)) from a set of experimental { i} bins E , E + ∆E with ∆E = 5 keV. We also include a data D, encoded in the likelihood function p(D Θ) (or { i i } | background with a rate of 4 10−8 days−1 kg−1 keV−1, (Θ)), × L which is of the order of the background expected for the p(D Θ)p(Θ) p(Θ D)= | . (10) | p(D)

3 In particular, the three benchmarks can be obtained within the The evidence p(D) in the denominator of Eq. (10) is a context of neutralino DM in the general Minimal Supersymmet- function of only the experimental data. For our purposes ric Standard Model. it works as a normalization factor and can therefore be 6

8 BM1 12 BM2 20 BM3 R model 10 R model R model 6 D model D model D model 15 8 4 6 10 Counts Counts Counts 4 2 5 2

0 0 0 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 E (keV) E (keV) E (keV) R R R

FIG. 2. Predicted DM spectra for benchmarks BM1, BM2 and BM3 (from left to right) for the experimental setup described in the text. The solid and dashed red lines correspond to the predictions using the R- and D-model for the SDSF, respectively.

The vertical dashed line indicates the energy threshold ET . ignored. The pdf in Eq. (10), in principle, depends on value of 0.02. the priors p(Θ) and different choices of priors can affect The results of our scans are plotted in the next sections the shape of the final pdf. However, should this hap- by means of one- or two-dimensional plots. When the pen, it would mean that the experimental data are not probability for a subset of the original Θ is considered, constraining enough and do not dominate the final prob- one can account for the presence of the hidden parame- ability distribution. Residual prior dependence can be ters in two different ways: seen, e.g., in Refs. [58–60]. Our scans are performed with by marginalizing over them, obtaining the pdf for MultiNest 2.9 [61, 62] interfaced with our own code for • the j-th parameter integrating over all the others the computation of the number of recoil events and the likelihood. Scans are performed with 20000 live points p(Θj D)= p(Θ D) dΘ1... dΘj−1 dΘj+1 dΘn ; (12) and a tolerance of 0.0001. | Z | In our case, for a given benchmark point the experimental data is D = ( λ ) and a scan of the parame- by maximizing over them, obtaining the so-called i • SI{ }SD ter space Θ = (mχ, σ , σ ) is performed. The ranges profile likelihood 5 SI −12 −6 considered are mχ =1 10 GeV, σ = 10 10 pb, SD −8 − − (Θj )= max (Θ) . (13) and σ = 10 1 pb. Logarithmic priors are assumed L Θ1,...,Θj−1,Θj+1,Θn L − for the three variables since the range scanned is quite large spanning up to eight orders of magnitude. The profile likelihood is usually more sensitive to small The likelihood (Θ) is calculated for each point in the fine-tuned regions with large likelihood, while the inte- L scan, computing the number of recoil events Ni in the gration implemented for the pdf accounts for volume ef- i-th bin, and comparing it with the prediction of the fects. Thus, a parameter space characterized by a com- benchmark model in the same bin, λi, assuming that plicated likelihood function may result in different pdf each experimental data follows an independent Poisso- and profile likelihood distributions for the same param- nian distribution, eter. In the following we will present plots for both the

λi Ni(Θ) the pdf and the proﬁle likelihood since they have diﬀer- Ni(Θ) e (Θ) = . (11) ent statistical meanings and they provide complementary L λi! Yi information.

The number of recoil events Ni in the i-th bin are ob- It was recently pointed out in Ref. [34] that the method tained integrating Eq. (1) between Ei and Ei + ∆E, and outlined here is aﬀected by an intrinsic statistical limita- including a certain number of background events bi. The tion associated with the fact that only one set of simu- latter is included as a nuisance parameter in our scans, lated data is obtained for each benchmark point. In our following a Poissonian distribution function with a mean work we do not incorporate this eﬀect, since we want to 7

−7 −7 −7 BM1 BM2 BM3

σSD = 0 σSD = 0 σSD = 0 −8 −8 −8 /pb) /pb) /pb)

SI −9 SI −9 SI −9 σ σ σ log( log( log( −10 −10 −10

−11 −11 −11 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 log(mχ/GeV) log(mχ/GeV) log(mχ/GeV)

SI FIG. 3. Two-dimensional profile likelihood in the plane (mχ, σ ) for benchmarks BM1, BM2 and BM3, from left to right, assuming in the reconstruction that σSD = 0. The inner and outer contours are 68% and 99% confidence level regions, respectively. The yellow dot indicates the benchmark values in each case, and the encircled yellow cross marks the positions of the best-fit point. isolate the variations due to nuclear uncertainties. Fur- to observe is that the reconstruction of these two pa- thermore, our benchmark points are in regions with good rameters is good for benchmarks BM1 and BM2, since coverage (see Figs.2 or 4 in Ref.[34]) and the number of in these cases the SI contribution is the dominant term events is relatively large. in the detection rate. This is obviously not the case in BM3, where SD interactions play a more important role. For this benchmark point, ignoring the SD contribution IV. RESULTS term leads to an overestimation of the SI independent cross-section of approximately a factor two (in order to We begin by considering the three benchmarks BM1, account for the total detected rate). BM2 and BM3, with the total rate and energy spectrum Another feature that can be observed, and is consistent of nuclear recoils as given in Table I. For concreteness we with the existing literature, is that the goodness of the consider explicitly the case a /a = 1, which implies p n − reconstruction is very dependent on the mass of the DM looking at only the S component of the SDSF, accord- 11 candidate [28, 29] (see also Refs. [34, 41, 42]). In partic- ing to Eq.(7). Other choices of a /a lead to qualitatively p n ular, we can see how in benchmark BM1 the 99% confi- similar results (but then a linear combination with the dence level contours are open for heavy WIMPs, whereas other components, S and S also appears). We em- 00 01 this is not the case for BM2 and BM3. In principle, phasize at this point in that a full analysis can be done increasing the DM mass makes the recoil energy spec- without fixing this ratio and including a fourth param- trum flatter, as a consequence of the dependence of vmin eter in the scan, however this makes it more difficult to which enters through the reduced mass. Thus one ex- isolate the effects of uncertainties in the SDSF. pects to produce a worse fit to the recoil spectrum as we As a first exercise in parameter reconstruction, we scan more massive DM candidates. In benchmarks BM2 assume (as it is often done) that the SD contribution and BM3 this is the reason why heavy masses are dis- is vanishing and we attempt to reconstruct the WIMP favoured, however in BM1 the number of events in each mass and SI cross-section from the experimental data (of energy bin is too low to pick up this tendency and very course, this assumption is not made when preparing the massive DM candidates can still produce good fit to the simulated data from the benchmark points). data. The presence of a flat background also enhances The resulting two-dimensional profile likelihood for this effect. On the other hand, the contours do not ex- these quantities4 are given in Fig. 3. An obvious thing tend to low WIMP masses because particles with masses

4 Note that, since we are scanning over only two parameters, there is no need of marginalization or maximization. 8 below m 30 40 GeV produce a much steeper spec- the pdf. This happens because the good agreement with χ ∼ − trum. Notice finally that the assumption σSD = 0 leads the data is produced only in a small volume of the three- to a lower limit for the SI cross-section that allows us to dimensional parameter space and the integration in the reconstruct the value of σSI up to approximately a factor third dimension decreases the corresponding value for the 5 (for a fixed value of DM mass). pdf 5. An unbiased reconstruction of DM parameters, how- The plots in the first column of Figs.4 and 5 repre- ever, has to include the possibility that σSD = 0. In sent the reconstruction of the WIMP mass and SI cross- 6 fact, when we allow for a non-negligible SD contribution section, and they can therefore be compared with the to the WIMP scattering cross-section, we find that a new leftmost plot of Fig. 3. We observe that σSI can now be degeneracy in the parameter space arises: the same de- arbitrarily small as long as the σSD is large enough to tected rate can be explained by a DM with either pure reproduce the observed DM rate and that the assump- SD or pure SI interactions or, in general, a given com- tion σSD = 0 leads to over constrained contours. The SD bination of both as we see from Eqs.(1) and (2). This form factor (that results for both R-and D-models of the implies that the closed contours in Fig. 3 can extend to- SDSF) is steeper than the SI form factor. Thus, in prin- wards arbitrarily small values of σSI . It is when we ac- ciple using the information from the energy spectrum it knowledge this possibility that uncertainties in the SDSF would not be possible to properly fit BM1 data with only play a non-trivial role, as they affect the total rate and SD interactions (large values of the WIMP mass provide energy spectrum of WIMP recoils. in this case a better fit, since they would correspond to a Choosing germanium as a case study, we consider flatter energy spectrum). However, the number of recoils the two calculations, R- and D-models, for the SDSF events in the high energy bins is too small to be sensitive of 73Ge (the isotope that contributes to the SD cross- to those differences. section) that were introduced in Sec. II B, performing the Similarly, there is no lower bound for the SD cross- Bayesian inference for both SDSFs. Strictly speaking, we section. This is evidenced in the second column of both have to select one SDSF from which the simulated data Figs.4 and 5, where σSD is plotted as a function of the for a given benchmark is generated and, then, one SDSF WIMP mass. As commented above, when trying to fit for the computation of the likelihood in Eq. (11) at the the energy spectrum of a point dominated by SI interac- moment of the scan. The two choices are independent, tions (such as BM1) in terms of axial interactions, we get leaving us with four possibilities of combining the two better results for large WIMP masses, due to the SDSF SDSFs. In particular, we can either use the same (R- being steeper. The trend is evident in the pdf plots where or D-) model for the generation of the simulated experi- larger values of masses are associated to a brighter pdf mental data and for the parameter reconstruction or we than lower masses, but the small number of events pre- can generate the data with one model and perform the vents this tendency to have any significant effect on the reconstruction with the other one. This last possibility shape of the contours. gives an idea on how sizable the mis-reconstruction of Finally, the degeneracy in the reconstruction of the SI DM parameters can be if we use an incorrect model for and SD contributions for a given set of experimental data the SDSF, this is, one different to the real one. We per- is clearly evidenced in the third column of Figs. 4 and 5, form this computation for the three benchmark points. where σSD is plotted versus σSI and the resulting com- The results for the first benchmark, BM1, are displayed patible regions show an “inverse L” pattern. The lower in Fig. 4 (profile likelihood) and Fig. 5 (pdf). The four left corner of the plot is empty since both the SD and rows correspond to the possible combinations of SDSFs SI cross-section are too small to produce the simulated and we indicate which model is used in the generation number of nuclear recoils, however, as stressed in the of data and in the calculation of the likelihood in the scan. Comparing the distribution of the profile likeli- 5 hood with that of the pdf, we can observe the effect of The contours in the two-dimensional plots for the profile likelihood look smoother than for the pdf. This occurs, in particu- maximization versus marginalization. There are regions lar, when integrating over regions with an almost flat likelihood, of the parameter space that are contained in the 99% where it is difficult to obtain uniform sampling. The resulting confidence level contour of the profile likelihood which pdf can present unphysical structures. The fact that the back- are however left out of the credible interval contours of ground is included as a free parameter in the scan introduces additional fluctuations. 9

−7 −1 −1 BM1 BM1 Data: R / Scan: R −2 Data: R / Scan: R −2 −8 −3 −3 /pb) /pb) /pb) SI −9 SD −4 SD −4 σ σ σ log( log( −5 log( −5 −10 −6 −6 BM1

Data: R / Scan: R −11 −7 −7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 −11 −10 −9 −8 −7 σSI log(mχ/GeV) log(mχ/GeV) log( /pb)

−7 −1 −1 BM1 BM1 Data: D / Scan: D −2 Data: D / Scan: D −2 −8 −3 −3 /pb) /pb) /pb) SI −9 SD −4 SD −4 σ σ σ log( log( −5 log( −5 −10 −6 −6 BM1

Data: D / Scan: D −11 −7 −7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 −11 −10 −9 −8 −7 σSI log(mχ/GeV) log(mχ/GeV) log( /pb)

−7 −1 −1 BM1 BM1 Data: D / Scan: R −2 Data: D / Scan: R −2 −8 −3 −3 /pb) /pb) /pb) SI −9 SD −4 SD −4 σ σ σ log( log( −5 log( −5 −10 −6 −6 BM1

Data: D / Scan: R −11 −7 −7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 −11 −10 −9 −8 −7 σSI log(mχ/GeV) log(mχ/GeV) log( /pb)

−7 −1 −1 BM1 BM1 Data: R / Scan: D −2 Data: R / Scan: D −2 −8 −3 −3 /pb) /pb) /pb) SI −9 SD −4 SD −4 σ σ σ log( log( −5 log( −5 −10 −6 −6 BM1

Data: R / Scan: D −11 −7 −7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 −11 −10 −9 −8 −7 σSI log(mχ/GeV) log(mχ/GeV) log( /pb)

SI SD FIG. 4. Two-dimensional profile likelihood for the reconstructed parameter space (mχ, σ , σ ) in benchmark model BM1. In the first and second rows the model used for the SDSF in the simulated experimental data and in the scan for parameter reconstruction is the same (R-model in the first row and D-model in the second). In the third row the D-model is used for the simulated data and the R-model for the parameter reconstruction and the reverse is done in the fourth row (see the captions of the different panels). The inner and outer contours are 68% and 99% confidence levels, respectively. The yellow dot indicates the benchmark value of the parameters, while the yellow encircled cross denotes the position of the best-fit values. 10