AG-2026.03-1408·hep-ph
Discriminating Dark Matter Origins with Directional Detection
Authors
- Nicole F. Bell
- Chiara Lisotti
- Jayden L. Newstead
- Ciaran A. J. O'Hare
- Iman Shaukat Ali
Abstract
Scenarios where dark matter is boosted to relativistic velocities provide a promising probe of sub-GeV dark matter. Cosmic-ray upscattered and supernova-produced dark matter generate relativistic fluxes peaked toward the Galactic Centre, an anisotropy that offers a strong directional signature and is not mimicked by any terrestrial or cosmic background. We determine how many directional recoil events are required in a gas time-projection chamber to distinguish various scenarios for the origin of dark matter particles arriving in the solar system, which are otherwise indistinguishable without directionality. We find that standard halo dark matter particles can be distinguished from boosted populations with as few as $\mathcal{O}(20)$ events under reasonable track reconstruction performance and background conditions.
Submitted
11 March 20263 months ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2603.10434
Summary
By measuring the direction of dark matter collisions in a detector, researchers can tell apart normal dark matter from exotic sources like cosmic rays and supernovae—requiring only ~20 events to do so.
- Boosted dark matter from cosmic rays or supernovae points back toward the galactic center, creating a directional fingerprint that standard dark matter doesn't have.
- Gas time-projection chambers can exploit this geometry: by tracking which way particles recoil, they can identify the dark matter's origin with surprisingly few detections.
- This directional approach solves a key problem in dark matter detection: multiple origins produce similar energy signals, but only directionality can tell them apart.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.