Cited by 66Dark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaCosmology and Gravitation Theories

The impact of baryons on the direct detection of dark matter

Open access
Kelso, Chris, Savage, Christopher, Valluri, Monica, Freese, Katherine, Stinson, Gregory S., Bailin, Jeremy·2016·Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics

Abstract

The spatial and velocity distributions of dark matter particles in the Milky Way Halo affect the signals expected to be observed in searches for dark matter. Results from direct detection experiments are often analyzed assuming a simple isothermal distribution of dark matter, the Standard Halo Model (SHM). Yet there has been skepticism regarding the validity of this simple model due to the complicated gravitational collapse and merger history of actual galaxies. In this paper we compare the SHM to the results of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of galaxy formation to investigate whether or not the SHM is a good representation of the true WIMP distribution in the analysis of direct detection data. We examine two Milky Way-like galaxies from the MaGICC cosmological simulations (a) with dark matter only and (b) with baryonic physics included. The inclusion of baryons drives the shape of the DM halo to become more spherical and makes the velocity distribution of dark matter particles less anisotropic especially at large heliocentric velocities, thereby making the SHM a better fit. We also note that we do not find a significant disk-like rotating dark matter component in either of the two galaxy halos with baryons that we examine, suggesting that dark disks are not a generic prediction of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations. We conclude that in the Solar neighborhood, the SHM is in fact a good approximation to the true dark matter distribution in these cosmological simulations (with baryons) which are reasonable representations of the Milky Way, and hence can also be used for the purpose of dark matter direct detection calculations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/071

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For direct detection experiments, the poorly constrained effect of baryons on the tail of the DM velocity distribution can lead to an even higher uncertainty.

    “For direct detection experiments, the poorly constrained effect of baryons on the tail of the DM velocity distribution can lead to an even higher uncertainty”

    From The milky way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2 (2020) · cites this paper as Kelso et al. 2016

    Section 4.1 says high-velocity-tail deviations may be simulation artifacts and, if confirmed, would affect direct detection most for light dark matter. The paper also says its simulations lack enough high-speed particles to study the tail in detail. It does not establish that baryons’ effect on the tail causes an even higher uncertainty; the Discussion instead reports only minor changes to inferred constraints in its baryonic simulations. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kelso, C., Savage, C., Valluri, M., Freese, K., Stinson, G. S., & Bailin, J.
Affiliations
  • University of North Florida (US)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (DE)
  • University of Alabama (US)
Venue
Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics
Published
2016-08-31
Volume
2016
Issue
08
Pages
071-071
ISSN
  • 1475-7508 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-7516
OpenAlex
W2253774009
Cited by
65
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of North Florida Digital Commons (University of North Florida) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0908346, AR-12837, NAS 5-26555)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DESC0007859)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NAS 526555, 526555, NNX15AK79G)
  • University of Michigan (DE-SC0007859)
  • University of Utah
  • Space Telescope Science Institute (NAS5- 26555, 5-26555, 26555)
  • Vetenskapsrådet
  • Stockholms Universitet
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
Keywords
dark matter direct detection, Standard Halo Model, baryonic feedback, Milky Way dark matter halo, WIMP velocity distribution, halo shape, cosmological hydrodynamical simulations, MAGICC

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review