DARWIN dark matter wimp search with noble liquids Laura Baudis University of Zurich (on behalf of the DARWIN Consortium) darwin.physik.uzh.ch DM 2012 Marina del Rey, February 24, 2012 The Consortium R&D and design study for a next-generation noble liquid facility in Europe 3rd darwin meeting, Nikhef, Amsterdam, September 2011 DARWIN - DM 2012- Laura Baudis darwin.physik.uzh.ch A total of 25 groups from ArDM, DarkSide, WARP, XENON Europe: UZH, INFN, ETHZ, Subatech, Mainz, MPIK, Münster, Nikhef, KIT, TU Dresden, Israel: WIS, USA: Columbia, Princeton, UCLA, Arizona SU Evolution XENON1t: 3l Setup @ CERN 2.4 t (1 t fid) (R&D charge readout) XENON100: ?4@A@#B8CD#E+'FG#H#1223 ?4@A@#B8CD#E+'FG#-26#1223 161 kg (62 fid.) DARWIN: XENON10: 20 tons LXe/LAr (10 t fid) 22 kg (5.4 fid) (indicative masses*) LAr-TPCs: Scale up DARWIN - DM 2012- Laura Baudis 20 tons LXe/LAr ~ 10 tons in the central, background- ArDM @ CERN free region 6m3 @ CERN 3l Setup --> LSC @ CERN (~1t LAr; (R&D toward non Greinacher HV- evacuated vessels, (R&D charge charged particle readout) Devise, large area readout, test beam exposure !"#$ %&'()*+, $ -.#/0')*#1223 4*&5+#/0')*&6#78*9(,)+#:5);&'<)=> purification, ...) in 2012) WARP: 2.3 l DarkSide: (*optimal masses for LAr/LXe to be WARP: 55 kg (33 fid.) determined in the study; 140 kg ArDM: 850 kg here MC sketch) 1 kton @ CERN ArgonTube P32 @ JParc @ Bern (full engineering demonstrator (~0.4 t LAr; (long drift up towards very large Pi-K test to 5 m, LAr-detectors with beam) HV-system, stand alone short purity) baseline physics program) Lukas Epprecht June 11th 2011 33 Comparison: XENON1T and DARWIN DARWIN - DM 2012- Laura Baudis XENON1T DARWIN (LXe part, 20 tons in total) Physics Motivation, I Definitive test of the CDM-WIMP hypothesis, complementary to the LHC pMSSM (19 parameters at the weak scale) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.3572v3 arXiv:1109.5119 [hep-ph] CMSSM CMSSM p(θ | CMS) p(θ | CMS) 10 42 68% BCR 95% BCR 10 42 68% BCR 95% BCR -4 DARWIN - DM 2012- Laura Baudis 4 excluded bei XENON 1043 Xenon 2011 1043 < 0.13 -6 2 ~ 1 event kg-1 year-1 h 0 1 ∼ 2 χ 2 44 44Ω 2 2 10 10 h -8 0 1 χ ∼ cm cm Ω in in 0 SI SI ⇥ 45 ⇥ 45 10 excludedlog 10 -10 p) [pb] for bei LHC-2 0 1 ∼ χ ( 46 46σξ -12 10 10 ~ 1 event ton-1 year-1 -4 68%, 95%, 99.7% CL preferred regions log -14 1047 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1047 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 4000 600 800 0 200 4000 600 800 χ∼ mass χ∼ mass DM mass in1 GeV MDM in1 GeV 2 FigureFigure 7: 4: MarginalizedThe (MDM, ⇥SI 2D) plane posterior in the CMSSM. densities In of theΩ lefth panel(left) we and show rescaled the global spin-independent fit: the yellow regions surrounded by continuous contours are the best fit including the Xenon100 and scatteringLHC data, cross at 68 section, 95, 99.7% offconfidenceprotons levels (right) for 2 versus d.o.f. The LSP red mass (blue).Forthelatter,onlypoints regions surrounded by withdashedΩh2 contours< 0.13 are are the taken corresponding into account. regions now The excluded grey by andXenon black100 contours (LHC). In the enclos rightethe68% panel we show points with ∆⇤2 < 42, colored according to the DM annihilation mechanism. andThe 95% red Bayesian dots in the credible upper region regions, excluded respectively. by the Xenon100 correspond to the “well-tempered” neutralino, green via the heavy Higgs resonance, cyan via neutral Higgses with tan β-enhanced Acknowledgementscouplings, blue via slepton co-annihilations, magenta via stop co-annihilations. naturalness (see [53, 54] for a recent analysis). Technically, this is achieved as follows: when Weplotting thank theJ. Hewett⇤2 as function and T.of one Rizzo or two for parameters, discussions we minimize on “SUSY it with witho respectut to Prejudice” all other and re- latedparameters. technical The issues. fit is mainly Moreover, driven we by the thank DM abundance F. Mahmoudi and by and the apparent K.Williamsforhelpwith anomaly in the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, and agrees with the fits in [40, 41, 55]. Given interfacingthat it mightHiggsBounds not be a real,andM.M¨uhlleitnerforfixing anomaly, we also show regions at relativelySUSYHIT high confidence.Thisworkwassup- levels. portedWe in keep part the by nuclear the U.S. matrix Department elements and of the Energy DM local under density Grant fixed to No their.DE-FG02-97ER41022 default values in Micromegas, as already discussed in the previous section. and by IN2P3 under grant PICS FR-USA 5872. 5.2 The CMSSM results ReferencesFig. 4ashowsourglobalCMSSMfitfortheDMmassMDM and spin-independent DM-nucleus cross section ⇥SI measured by Xenon100 experiment. The yellow regions surrounded by con- tinuous contours are the best fit regions including the Xenon100 and LHC data, at 1, 2and [1]3⇥ G.level F. (68 Giudice,, 95, 99.7% J. confidence Phys. Conf. levels Ser. for 2110 d.o.f).,012014(2008),arXiv:0710.3294. We also show, as red regions surrounded by dashed contours, the previous best-fit regions at the same confidence levels now excluded [2]by S.Xenon P. Martin,100 at more hep-ph/9709356. than 3⇥. Obviously, such excluded regions lie around the Xenon100 exclusion bound at 90% confidence level (the continuous curve in the figure). Within the CMSSM, thermal freeze-out of neutralino DM can reproduce the observed DM [3]cosmological D. J. H. Chung abundanceet according al.,Phys.Rept. to a few qualitatively407,1(2005),hep-ph/0312378. distinct mechanisms, that correspond to di⇥erent fine-tunings. To interpret this result we therefore discriminate such distinct cases, [4]plotting H. Bachacou, in Fig. 4b theBSM points Results of the CMSSM from parameter LHC,talkatLepton-Photon2011,22–27Aug. space (also imposing a reasonably good 2011, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India. 9 [5] G. L. Kane, C. F. Kolda, L. Roszkowski, and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D49,6173 (1994), hep-ph/9312272; H. Baer, M. Brhlik, Phys. Rev. D53,597(1996),hep-ph/9508321. [6] D. Alves et al.,arXiv:1105.2838. 12 MIGUEL PATO et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 083505 (2011) TABLE II. The parameters used in our analysis, with their separately.COMPLEMENTARITY Contours in the OF figure DARK delimit MATTER regions DIRECT of joint... PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 083505 (2011) prior range (middle column) and the prior constraint adopted 68% and 95% posterior probability. Several comments are TABLE III. The marginalized percent 1 accuracy of the DM Empty: fixed astrophysics Filled: incl. astrophysical uncertainties (rightmost column) are shown. See Secs. IV and V for further in order here. First, it is evident that the Ar configuration is details. mass reconstruction for the benchmarks m 25; 50 GeV is ¼ less constrainingshown. The figures than Xe between or Ge brackets ones, which refer to can scans be wheretraced the Parameter Prior range Prior constraint backastrophysical to its smaller parametersA and larger were marginalizedEthr. Moreover, over (with it is priors also as apparentin Table that,II while), while Ge the is the other most figures effective refer to target scans for with the the 10 log10 m=GeV (0.1, 3.0) Uniform prior p benchmarksfiducial astrophysical with m setup.25; 250 GeV, Xe appears the best log ð =pb Þ 10; 6 Uniform prior 10ð SI Þ ðÀ À Þ ¼ = GeV=cm3 (0.001, 0.9) Gaussian: 0:4 0:1 for a WIMP with m 50 GeV (seePercent below1 foraccuracy a detailed 0 ð Þ Æ ¼ v0= km=s (80, 380) Gaussian: 230 30 discussion). Let us stress asm well25 that GeV the 250 GeVm WIMP50 GeV ð Þ Æ ¼ ¼ v = km=s (379, 709) Gaussian: 544 33 proves very difficult to constrain in terms of mass and cross Figure of merit esc ð Þ Æ Xe 6.5% (14.3%) 8.1% (20.4%) section due to the high-mass degeneracy explained in 1 k (0.5, 3.5) Uniform prior Ge 5.5% (16.0%) 7.0% (29.6%) Sec. ArII. Taking into account 12.3% the (23.4%) differences in 14.7% adopted (86.5%) valuesXe andGe procedures, our3.9% results (10.9%) are in qualitative 5.2% agree- (15.2%) þ Xe Ar Ge Xe+Ge Ge Xe Xe+Ge Ar Ge Xe+Ge Xe Ar Xe+Ge+Ar 0:4 0:1 GeV=cm3 1 : (16) mentXe withGe Ref.Ar [27], where3.6% a study (9.0%) on the supersymmet- 4.5% (10.7%) Xe+Ge+Ar Xe+Ge+Ar 0 þ þ ¼ Æ ð Þ rical framework was performed. However, it is worth mχ=25 GeV mχ =50 GeV mχ =250 GeV There are several other recent results that determine 0, noticing that the contours in Ref. [27] do not extend to FIG. 3 (color online). The figure of merit quantifying the both consistent [60] and somewhat discrepant [61] with our highmodel masses uncertainties as ours for are the dominated 250 GeV by benchmark—this0 and v0, and, once is adopted value. Even in light of these uncertainties, we take likelymarginalized because the over, volume they at blow high up masses the constraints in a supersym- obtained relative information gain on dark matter parameters for different Eq. (16) to represent a conservative range for the purposes with fixed Galactic model parameters. This amounts to a targets and combinations thereof is shown. The values of the metrical parameter space is small. figure of merit are normalized to the Ar case at m 250 GeV of our study.