- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Ionization yield measurement in a germanium CDMSlite detector using photo-neutron sources

M. F. Albakry1,2, I. Alkhatib3, D. W. P. Amaral4, T. Aralis5, T. Aramaki6, I. J. Arnquist7, I. Ataee Langroudy8, E. Azadbakht8, S. Banik9,10 et al.

C. Bathurst11, D. A. Bauer12, L. V. S. Bezerra1,2, R. Bhattacharyya8, M. A. Bowles13, P. L. Brink14, R. Bunker7, B. Cabrera15, R. Calkins16, R. A. Cameron14, C. Cartaro14, D. G. Cerdeño4,17, Y.-Y. Chang18, M. Chaudhuri9,10, R. Chen19, N. Chott13, J. Cooley16, H. Coombes11, J. Corbett20, P. Cushman21, F. De Brienne22, M. L. di Vacri7, M. D. Diamond3, E. Fascione20,2, E. Figueroa-Feliciano19, C. W. Fink18, K. Fouts14, M. Fritts21, G. Gerbier20, R. Germond20,2, M. Ghaith20, S. R. Golwala5, J. Hall23,24, B. A. Hines25, M. I. Hollister12, Z. Hong3, E. W. Hoppe7, L. Hsu12, M. E. Huber25,26, V. Iyer9,10,*, A. Jastram8, V. K. S. Kashyap9,10, M. H. Kelsey8, A. Kubik23, N. A. Kurinsky14, R. E. Lawrence8, M. Lee8, A. Li1,2, J. Liu16, Y. Liu1,2, B. Loer7, P. Lukens12, D. MacDonell1,2, D. B. MacFarlane14, R. Mahapatra8, V. Mandic21, N. Mast21, A. J. Mayer2, H. Meyer zu Theenhausen27,28, É. Michaud22, E. Michielin1,2, N. Mirabolfathi8, B. Mohanty9,10, J. D. Morales Mendoza8, S. Nagorny20, J. Nelson21, H. Neog21, V. Novati19, J. L. Orrell7, M. D. Osborne8, S. M. Oser1,2, W. A. Page18, R. Partridge14, D. S. Pedreros22, R. Podviianiuk29, F. Ponce7, S. Poudel29, A. Pradeep1,2, M. Pyle18,30, W. Rau2, E. Reid4, R. Ren19, T. Reynolds3, A. Roberts25, A. E. Robinson22, T. Saab11, B. Sadoulet18,30, I. Saikia16, J. Sander29, A. Sattari3, A. Scarff1,2, B. Schmidt19, R. W. Schnee13, S. Scorza23,24, B. Serfass18, D. J. Sincavage21, C. Stanford15, J. Street13, F. K. Thasrawala28, D. Toback8, R. Underwood20,2, S. Verma8, A. N. Villano25, B. von Krosigk27,28, S. L. Watkins18, O. Wen5, Z. Williams21, M. J. Wilson27,3, J. Winchell8, K. Wykoff13, S. Yellin15, B. A. Young31, T. C. Yu14, B. Zatschler3, S. Zatschler3, A. Zaytsev27,28, E. Zhang3, L. Zheng8, and S. Zuber18

  • 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z1, Canada
  • 2TRIUMF, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 2A3, Canada
  • 3Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A7, Canada
  • 4Department of Physics, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, United Kingdom
  • 5Division of Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
  • 6Department of Physics, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA
  • 7Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, D.C. 99352, USA
  • 8Department of Physics and Astronomy, and the Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
  • 9School of Physical Sciences, National Institute of Science Education and Research, Jatni - 752050, India
  • 10Homi Bhabha National Institute, Training School Complex, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai 400094, India
  • 11Department of Physics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA
  • 12Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA
  • 13Department of Physics, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, South Dakota 57701, USA
  • 14SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory/Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA
  • 15Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA
  • 16Department of Physics, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275, USA
  • 17Instituto de Física Teórica UAM/CSIC, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
  • 18Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
  • 19Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208-3112, USA
  • 20Department of Physics, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada
  • 21School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA
  • 22Département de Physique, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec H3C 3J7, Canada
  • 23SNOLAB, Creighton Mine #9, 1039 Regional Road 24, Sudbury, Ontario P3Y 1N2, Canada
  • 24Laurentian University, Department of Physics, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 2C6, Canada
  • 25Department of Physics, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado 80217, USA
  • 26Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado 80217, USA
  • 27Institute for Astroparticle Physics (IAP), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
  • 28Institut für Experimentalphysik, Universität Hamburg, 22761 Hamburg, Germany
  • 29Department of Physics, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota 57069, USA
  • 30Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
  • 31Department of Physics, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California 95053, USA

  • *Corresponding author. vijayiyer@niser.ac.in
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 105, 122002 – Published 17 June, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.122002

Abstract

Two photo-neutron sources, Y88Be9 and Sb124Be9, have been used to investigate the ionization yield of nuclear recoils in the CDMSlite germanium detectors by the SuperCDMS collaboration. This work evaluates the yield for nuclear recoil energies between 1 and 7 keV at a temperature of ∼ 50 mK. We use a geant4 simulation to model the neutron spectrum assuming a charge yield model that is a generalization of the standard Lindhard model and consists of two energy dependent parameters. We perform a likelihood analysis using the simulated neutron spectrum, modeled background, and experimental data to obtain the best fit values of the yield model. The ionization yield between recoil energies of 1 and 7 keV is shown to be significantly lower than predicted by the standard Lindhard model for germanium. There is a general lack of agreement among different experiments using a variety of techniques studying the low energy range of the nuclear recoil yield, which is most critical for interpretation of direct dark matter searches. This suggests complexity in the physical process that many direct detection experiments use to model their primary signal detection mechanism and highlights the need for further studies to clarify underlying systematic effects that have not been well understood up to this point.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (63)

  1. J. Lewin and P. Smith, Astropart. Phys. 6, 87 (1996).
  2. R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 95, 082002 (2017).
  3. D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D 9, 1389 (1974).
  4. A. Drukier and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2295 (1984).
  5. D. Akimov et al., Science 357, 1123 (2017).
  6. J. Lindhard et al., Kgl. Danske Videnskab. Selskab. Mat. Fys. Medd. 33, 14 (1963), http://gymarkiv.sdu.dk/MFM/kdvs/mfm%2030-39/mfm-33-14.pdf.
  7. A. P. Horsfield, A. Lim, W. M. C. Foulkes, and A. A. Correa, Phys. Rev. B 93, 245106 (2016).
  8. K. W. Jones and H. W. Kraner, Phys. Rev. A 11, 1347 (1975).
  9. M. J. Penn, B. L. Dougherty, B. Cabrera, R. M. Clarke, and B. A. Young, J. Appl. Phys. 79, 8179 (1996).
  10. W.-Z. Wei and D.-M. Mei, J. Instrum. 12, P04022 (2017).
  11. K. W. Jones and H. W. Kraner, Phys. Rev. C 4, 125 (1971).
  12. C. E. Aalseth et al. (CoGeNT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 88, 012002 (2013).
  13. R. Xi-chao et al. (CDEX-TEXONO Collaboration), Nuclear recoil quenching factor measurement for HPGe detector, Application of Germanium Detector in Fundamental Research, Tsinghua University (2011), https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/78fe/0f27e647cdfb17b6a7f12907e3e3b0cf724f.pdf.
  14. Y. Messous et al., Astropart. Phys. 3, 361 (1995).
  15. Z. Ahmed et al. (CDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 131302 (2011).
  16. D. C. Moore, A search for low-mass dark matter with the cryogenic dark matter search and the development of highly multiplexed phonon-mediated particle detectors, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, California, 2012.
  17. C. Chasman, K. W. Jones, H. W. Kraner, and W. Brandt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 1430 (1968).
  18. T. Shutt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 3425 (1992).
  19. A. Benoit et al. (EDELWEISS Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 577, 558 (2007).
  20. Sattler, F. L. Vook, and J. M. Palms, Phys. Rev. 143, 588 (1966).
  21. L. Baudis, J. Hellmig, H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Y. Ramachers, J. W. Hammer, and A. Mayer, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 418, 348 (1998).
  22. E. Simon et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 507, 643 (2003).
  23. B. J. Scholz, A.  E. Chavarria, J.  I. Collar, P. Privitera, and A.  E. Robinson, Phys. Rev. D 94, 122003 (2016).
  24. E. Armengaud et al. (EDELWEISS Collaboration), J. Instrum. 12, P08010 (2017).
  25. J. I. Collar, A.  R.  L. Kavner, and C.  M. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 103, 122003 (2021).
  26. D. Barker and D.-M. Mei, Astropart. Phys. 38, 1 (2012).
  27. R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 164105 (2013).
  28. R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 041302 (2014).
  29. R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 071301 (2016).
  30. R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 99, 062001 (2019).
  31. A. Wattenberg, Phys. Rev. 71, 497 (1947).
  32. A. E. Robinson, Phys. Rev. C 94, 024613 (2016).
  33. R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 99, 062001 (2019).
  34. R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 041302 (2014).
  35. B. Neganov, V. N. Trofimov, and V. Stepankin, J. Low Temp. Phys. 93, 417 (1993).
  36. P. Luke, J. Beeman, F. S. Goulding, S. E. Labov, and E. H. Silver, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 289, 406 (1990).
  37. A. E. Chavarria et al., Phys. Rev. D 94, 082007 (2016).
  38. R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 97, 022002 (2018).
  39. W. Hampel and L. P. Remsberg, Phys. Rev. C 31, 666 (1985).
  40. J. A. Bearden and A. F. Burr, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 125 (1967).
  41. H. Chagani et al., J. Low Temp. Phys. 167, 1125 (2012).
  42. D. S. Akerib et al. (CDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 82, 122004 (2010).
  43. J. Allison et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 835, 186 (2016).
  44. T. Koi, in 18th GEANT4 Collaboration Meeting (2013), https://indico.cern.ch/event/250021/contributions/1574074/.
  45. E. Mendoza and D. Cano-Ott, Neutron library g4ndl4.6: Validation and computing performance, geant4 Hadronic Meeting (2020), https://indico.cern.ch/event/886823/contributions/3754986/attachments/1990745/3318882/G4NDL46_G4HMFeb2020_v01.pdf.
  46. E. Mendoza and D. Cano-Ott, Update of the evaluated neutron cross section libraries for the geant4 code (2018), https://www-nds.iaea.org/publications/indc/indc-nds-0758/.
  47. GEANT4, Low energy nuclear data package (2020), https://geant4-userdoc.web.cern.ch/UsersGuides/PhysicsReferenceManual/html/hadronic/LEND/lend.html.
  48. GEANT4 Hadronic Physics Working Group Meeting, Neutron library g4ndl4.6: Validation and computing performance (2020), https://indico.cern.ch/event/886823/contributions/3754986/attachments/1990745/3318882/G4NDL46_G4HMFeb2020_v01.pdf.
  49. A. Koning and D. Rochman, Nucl. Data Sheets 113, 2841 (2012), special Issue on Nuclear Reaction Data.
  50. D. Rochman and A. Koning, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 169, 68 (2011).
  51. S. Antman et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. 40, 272 (1966).
  52. R. Pehl, F. Goulding, D. Landis, and M. Lenzlinger, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. 59, 45 (1968).
  53. F. E. Emery and T. A. Rabson, Phys. Rev. 140, A2089 (1965).
  54. J. Lindhard and M. Scharff, Phys. Rev. 124, 128 (1961).
  55. J. Lindhard, V. Nielsen, and M. Scharff, Approximation Method in Classical Scattering by Screened Coulomb Fields: Notes on Atomic Collisions, 1, Matematisk-fysiske meddelelser (Munksgaard, 1968).
  56. J. Lindhard et al., Kgl. Danske Videnskab., Selskab. Mat. Fys. Medd. 33, 10 (1963), http://gymarkiv.sdu.dk/MFM/kdvs/mfm%2030-39/mfm-33-10.pdf.
  57. A. Savitzky and M. J. E. Golay, Anal. Chem. 36, 1627 (1964).
  58. K. Ramanathan et al., Phys. Rev. D 96, 042002 (2017).
  59. E. Schönfeld, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 49, 1353 (1998).
  60. F. James and M. Roos, Comput. Phys. Commun. 10, 343 (1975).
  61. B. L. Dougherty, Phys. Rev. A 45, 2104 (1992).
  62. T. Papp, M.-C. Lepy, J. Plagnard, G. Kalinka, and E. Papp-Szabó, X Ray Spectr. 34, 106 (2004).
  63. B. Lowe, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 399, 354 (1997).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 105, 122002– Published 17 June, 2022
  • Received 15 February 2022
  • Accepted 20 May 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2022 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation