SciPost Submission Page
Latest observations on the low energy excess in CRESST-III
by G. Angloher, S. Banik, G. Benato, A. Bento, A. Bertolini, R. Breier, C. Bucci, L. Canonica, A. D'Addabbo, S. Di Lorenzo, L. Einfalt, A. Erb, F. v. Feilitzsch, N. Ferreiro Iachellini, S. Fichtinger, D. Fuchs, A. Fuss, A. Garai, V. M. Ghete, S. Gerster, P. Gorla, P. V. Guillaumon, S. Gupta, D. Hauff, M. Ješkovský, J. Jochum, M. Kaznacheeva, A. Kinast, H. Kluck, H. Kraus, A. Langenkämper, M. Mancuso, L. Marini, L. Meyer, V. Mokina, A. Nilima, M. Olmi, T. Ortmann, C. Pagliarone, L. Pattavina, F. Petricca, W. Potzel, P. Povinec, F. Pröbst, F. Pucci, F. Reindl, J. Rothe, K. Schäffner, J. Schieck, D. Schmiedmayer, S. Schönert, C. Schwertner, M. Stahlberg, L. Stodolsky, C. Strandhagen, R. Strauss, I. Usherov, F. Wagner, M. Willers, V. Zema
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Leonie Einfalt · Dominik Fuchs · Valentyna Mokina |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09375v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | Sept. 7, 2022, 2:17 p.m. |
| Submitted by: | Fuchs, Dominik |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
| Proceedings issue: | 14th International Conference on Identification of Dark Matter (IDM2022) |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
Abstract
The CRESST experiment observes an unexplained excess of events at low energies. In the current CRESST-III data-taking campaign we are operating detector modules with different designs to narrow down the possible explanations. In this work, we show first observations of the ongoing measurement, focusing on the comparison of time, energy and temperature dependence of the excess in several detectors. These exclude dark matter, radioactive backgrounds and intrinsic sources related to the crystal bulk as a major contribution.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Strengths
Report
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2022-10-6 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2207.09375v1, delivered 2022-10-06, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.5838
Report
The proceedings are very well-written, supported by convincing plots. The content is highly relevant for the community. I thus recommend publication and I wish the collaboration all the best for their further investigations.
I have only one short question and two minor fixes. None of which requires my re-evaluation.
Requested changes
Sec. 3 * Just a question. The authors say "The threshold at which we trigger the filtered data is defined by the choice of accepting one noise trigger event per one kg day of exposure, following". I assume this was evaluated using random noise traces? And if so, how was the accidental appearance of true low energy physics pulses dealt with? An extra sentence for clarification would be nice but I wouldn't insist on it because this threshold really is a mere choice. In the end what matters is the actual turn-on curve as determined and presented by the authors. * "The dark grey curve shows the survival probability of valid events after all selection criteria were applied to the data." This sentence refers to Fig. 2b but that figure seems to be missing that curve. It only shows the respective histogram to which one could fit a function resulting in the mentioned PDF. So I'd suggest the authors to either add the curve to the figure or remove the sentence from the text.
Sec. 4 * Typo close to the end of the section: "In the bottom of figure Fig. 5, " -> "In the bottom of Fig. 5"
Author: Dominik Fuchs on 2022-10-17 [id 2931]
(in reply to Report 1 on 2022-10-06)Thank you a lot for your comments. We will implement these minor points and resubmit in the next days. Just to answer your question about the threshold determination: Yes, we use a large set of randomly drawn empty noise traces. We also apply some selection criteria that remove any pulses from this data set.