Week 11’s summaries look at neutrino cosmology, dark matter direct detection and the infamous DAMA signal, and novel production mechanisms for hot heavy dark matter.
#1 2003.03354: What will it take to measure individual neutrino mass states using cosmology? by Maria Archidiacono, Steen Hannestad, and Julien Lesgourgues
Making some minimal but rather reasonable assumptions about neutrino physics, cosmology provides the tightest upper limits on the sum of the neutrino masses Mnu. These are approaching the theoretically interesting level of 0.1 eV, the minimum value allowed by the inverted hierarchy (IH). Recall that in the IH one has one light eigenstate and two heavy ones, whereas for the normal hierarchy (NH) one has two light eigenstates and one heavy one. However, if Mnu is large enough, the masses of the three eigenstates look basically the same, with both NH and IH being well approximated by the so-called degenerate hierarchy (DH) where the mass of each eigenstate is m=Mnu/3. Cosmological limits are usually derived modelling the mass ordering following the DH, even if current upper limits on Mnu mean that the DH approximation is no longer mathematically correct. The reason is that current cosmological data is to very good approximation sensitive only to Mnu and not to how the latter is distributed along the three eigenstates, as long as this distribution is not performed in an unphysical way (e.g. putting all of the mass in one eigenstate and keeping the other two massless). To give a concrete example, the predictions for cosmological observables in a NH/IH cosmology with Mnu=0.15 eV are equivalent within observational errors to those of a DH cosmology with Mnu=0.15 eV equally distributed among three eigenstates with m=0.05 eV each, but not to those of a cosmology with one massive eigenstate with m=0.15 eV and two massless eigenstates (see e.g. Appendix A and Appendix B of my paper 1701.08172 for more discussions on the matter). But one very interesting question which inevitably has crossed the mind of anyone who has worked on neutrino cosmology, including yours truly, is whether cosmology will ever be sensitive to the individual neutrino mass eigenstates? Note that this question is related to, but differs in a subtle way, from the question of whether cosmology will be sensitive to the mass hierarchy (a quick answer to the latter question is that cosmology is sensitive to the mass hierarchy through parameter space volume effects, and will only be able to determine the hierarchy if it is normal and Mnu is sufficiently smaller than 0.1 eV). A proper way of phrasing the question is: given a DH cosmology with a certain value of Mnu, how big are the differences in cosmological observables if I were to keep the same value of Mnu but assume either NH or IH? In other words, how good is the DH approximation even in the regime where it is formally (i.e. mathematically) incorrect?
Archidiacono et al. address this question in this week’s paper. I particularly enjoyed reading Section 2, which discusses in extreme detail the physics underlying the minuscule changes in cosmological observations when moving from DH to NH (or DH to IH) at a fixed value of Mnu. To understand the overall scale, note that we are speaking of sub-% changes in the total energy density (see e.g. Figure 2b). The most important differences between DH, NH, and IH at a fixed value of Mnu occur at a redshift of about 100, when the heaviest eigenstate(s) for NH (IH) start going non-relativistic but the three equal-mass eigenstates of the DH are still relativistic. This enhances the overall energy density, and hence the expansion rate of the Universe, at the sub-% level. A larger expansion rate means that Hubble friction is also larger, and this slows down the growth of cold dark matter (DM) perturbations by a tiny amount. In other words, at a given values of Mnu, there is slightly less power for NH/IH relative to DH, because of the slightly enhanced Hubble friction. This is visible as a 0.4% depletion in the matter power spectrum on very small scales. Archidiacono et al. then go on to check whether these effects might be visible in future surveys. Naively it appears like this 0.4% effect is above observational errors for future measurements of the galaxy power spectrum from e.g. Euclid (see e.g. Figure 7a). However, once one factors in realistic complications about non-linear modelling (scale-dependent galaxy bias, non-linear RSD, baryonic feedback, and so on), which complicate even %-level determinations of the galaxy power spectrum, such small changes become basically unobservable. Therefore, this paper confirms the rule I talked about in my Week 9 post that a paper with a question in the title always has a negative answer. The only hope for cosmology to be sensitive to the individual neutrino mass eigenstates seems to be from possibly very futuristic post-SKA 21-cm surveys, such as the Fast Fourier Transform Telescope, but there is very good reason to be skeptical.
It is worth noting that there have been earlier papers from up to 15 years ago which also tried to address the same question of this week’s paper, or variants thereof (see e.g. hep-ph/0403296, astro-ph/0511735, 0907.1917, 1003.5918, and 1205.6172). Nonetheless, I still strongly believe this work is very timely and worth pursuing, for three reasons. The first is that the numerical precision of Boltzmann codes has significantly improved between then and now, and since we are talking about sub-% effects, it is imperative that numerical noise be below this level. The second is that we now have a better understanding of the physical effects underlying cosmological observables. The third is that we now have a much better understanding of what will be realistically achievable in future CMB and large-scale structure surveys, whereas these earlier papers at times made over-optimistic assumptions about future experimental specifications. Overall, this week’s paper is a must read for anyone interested in neutrino cosmology. Hannestad and Lesgourgues are two authorities in the field, and I personally place them in the top 5 of world experts on neutrino cosmology (if you are curious, the other 3 people in my top 5 are Yvonne Wong [Y^3W], Licia Verde, and Sergio Pastor). Lesgourgues in particular is one of those rare experts who understands the physics behind every tiny squiggle in whatever cosmological observation you can think of (I very enjoyed working with both Maria and Julien in our earlier work 1807.04672, on neutrino cosmology of course!).
#2 2003.03340: Annual modulations from secular variations: not relaxing DAMA? by Andrea Messina, Marco Nardecchia, and Stefano Piacentini
Recall in my Week 6 post I discussed about DAMA, the controversial dark matter (DM) direct detection experiment which for years has been seeing an annual modulation signal consistent with a DM origin, which yet is excluded by all other experiments. I also discussed the proposal put forward by Buttazzo et al. in 2002.00459 that DAMA’s findings might be the result of a poor analysis method, failing to account for a possible slowly-varying background rate, and subtracting the averaged rate over the period of an year, which exactly corresponds to the period of the DM signal one is looking for. In other words, computing the residuals by subtracting the average of the total rate over each data-taking cycle can lead to a spurious modulation in the residual rate. Buttazzo et al. then went ahead to perform a chi2 test checking whether DAMA’s observations were better fit by a dark matter cosine modulation or a slowly varying background rate, finding that the latter could not be safely excluded. However, one might argue that the simple chi2 approach therein followed might be a bit rough, and that more sophisticated statistical methods might be better suited to address the question.
In this week’s paper, Messina et al. address the question of robustly comparing three competing models to explain the DAMA signal: a pure-cosine model (COS) which is what one would expect for a DM-induced signal, a pure-sawtooth model (SAW) which is what one would expect for a spurious modulation produced by a linearly varying background, and a combination of the two. The most natural tool to address a model comparison issue is that of Bayesian statistics, and in particular that of the Bayes factor (related concepts you might have heard of include Bayesian evidence, marginal likelihood, and posterior odds). The Bayes factor is a formalization of Occam’s razor, and tends to penalize more complex models (i.e. models with more parameters) if the improvement in fit is not large enough to justify the increased model complexity. What Messina et al. find is that when considering the most informative dataset (DAMA/LIBRA Phase II), the COS model is very strongly favoured over the SAW model, with Bayes factor ranging between 10^6 and 10^8. Of course, when computing Bayes factors, prior choices always play an important role, but Messina et al. have worked in a way which has been able to mostly isolate the effect of prior choices, which they estimate contributes at most about 10^2 to the Bayes factor, making their conclusions safe against prior choices. Overall, however, Messina et al. agree with the earlier important point made by Buttazzo et al. that a possible time-dependent contribution to the background should be included in the model fit, and they propose a simple way to do so, as well as discussing possible ways to minimize biases due to the time interval over which the background subtraction is performed. Therefore, no solution to the DAMA puzzle yet, with the mystery just thickening. I guess we’ll have to wait for SABRE in order to (hopefully) clear up this confusion.
#3 2003.04936: Dark matter as a heavy thermal hot relic by Thomas Hambye, Matteo Lucca, and Laurent Vanderheyden
While the so-called “WIMP miracle” remains an attractive reason for thinking about DM as a relic which was once in thermal equilibrium with the SM, living at the GeV-TeV scale, the failure to observe signs of BSM physics at the LHC and in direct detection experiments (indirect detection experiments remain controversial, as I have discussed in my Week 10 post) means that one should seriously consider the possibility that DM might live at a much higher energy scale. In the usual WIMP miracle scenario, DM was initially in thermal equilibrium with the SM, before freezing out when the relevant interactions dropped below the expansion rate of the Universe. Another relevant possibility, however, is that DM might never have been in thermal equilibrium with the SM, but only with a so-called hidden sector, i.e. a sector of additional particles and forces which couples to the SM only gravitationally or at most through feeble interactions (the idea of hidden sector is one I hold very dear, as my first ever paper 1409.7174 - which I also happen to consider the best paper I ever wrote - is precisely on the topic of hidden sector DM). In general, the hidden sector will have a temperature T’ different from the temperature of the visible sector T. In this context, various scenarios have been studied wherein the correct relic abundance of DM is produced via decoupling of hidden sector interactions while non-relativistic. However, the case of DM production via hidden decoupling while relativistic has not been given much attention. It is nonetheless interesting to investigate this scenario. In the usual relativistic decoupling scenario, where DM was in thermal equilibrium with the SM, one needs DM at the ~10 eV scale to reproduce the correct relic abundance, which however is completely excluded by large-scale structure considerations, as such a relic would wash out too much structure on small scales.
Can relativistic DM decoupling work for hidden sector DM, and can it raise the allowed DM mass range? In this week’s paper, Hambye et al. set out to address the above question. What they basically find is that when taking into account all relevant constraints (e.g. structure formation or perturbative unitarity constraints), the DM can be as heavy as a few PeV (recall P=10^15), an intriguing scale because it could have something to do with the very high-energy neutrinos seen by Icecube. Basically the way this works is that to get the right relic abundance of DM one can trade a higher DM mass for a lower T’/T ratio. Hambye et al. then consider two setups to show that this actually works, one based on two Dirac fermions (one heavier - the DM - and one lighter) interacting through a heavy scalar, and another one based on a Dirac fermion coupling to a dark photon (something which shares many common features with the model I studied in 1409.7174, especially when a kinetic mixing interaction is turned on). They show that indeed in both scenarios one can get DM as heavy as a few PeV (if T’/T is as small as 10^-5). There are various ways in which these scenarios can be tested, which are briefly discussed towards the end of the paper. Unless I missed something, what is not discussed is how the required values of T’/T<1 are generated, but that presumably depends on the details of (asymmetric) reheating after inflation, so one might as well take the required value of T’/T as an initial condition, and move the question of how such a value was generated in first place to the construction of an UV-complete model incorporating both DM and a sensible inflation mechanism. Overall, I have to say this was a very clear and well-written paper!