With a week of delay, due to my recent travels to Norway, my Week 10 arXiv summaries are out! This week’s papers are all more or less related to dark matter, covering the particle physics, gravitational waves, and cosmology side of the story. Enjoy, and note that Week 11’s summaries are out too!
#1 2002.12370: Spurious Point Source Signals in the Galactic Center Excess by Rebecca Leane and Tracy Slatyer
For about a decade now, the FERMI Gamma-Ray Space Telescope has been seeing an excess of gamma-rays with energy in the GeV range around the Galactic Center (for one of the first papers on the subject see e.g. 1010.2752 by Hooper and Goodenough). This origin of this Galactic Center Excess (GCE) has been the subject of an ongoing debate for the past decade, basically dividing the community as to whether it might be a sign of annihilating dark matter (DM), or whether it calls for a more mundane explanation, for instance in the form of faint point sources (PSs) such as millisecond pulsars. The main difference between DM and PSs explanations of the GCE is essentially the variance of the signal: a signal originating from DM is expected to be quite smooth, whereas a signal originating from PSs can have a relatively large pixel-to-pixel variance. Of course, telling apart the two hypotheses requires a good understanding of all background components, for which there are various so-called templates. The now standard analysis method in the field is the so-called non-Poissonian template fitting (NPTF), which led Lee et al. in 2015 to conclude that the PSs hypothesis was preferred over the DM one (the results were independently confirmed at about the same time using a wavelet decomposition by Bartels et al.). However, last year Leane and Slatyer showed (using simulated data) that unmodeled source populations could bias the results of an NPTF analysis and incorrectly attribute a DM signal to PSs. Note that this is not a problem with NPTF per se, rather a warning that one has to be careful to use the correct templates, especially for the background components (this is of course a general concern, which extends to many fields including cosmology!).
In this week’s paper, Leane and Slatyer re-examine the data keeping in mind this issue that some of the components might be mismodeled. In particular what they do is to split the excess signal templates (for the DM and PS hypotheses) into Northern and Southern components: in other words, they allow for more freedom to account for possible asymmetries between North and South. Surprisingly, when doing so the previous evidence for PSs completely disappears. The data appears to want a strong asymmetry between North and South in the excess signal, with the former being twice as bright as the latter. What I find really interesting is the test Leane and Slatyer then perform analyzing the data in the old “North-South-symmetric” way, and allowing for the smooth DM template amplitude to go negative (which is unphysical, and is generally cut off by an appropriate prior). And surprise, the data does indicate a negative amount of smooth contribution to the GCE! If there is anything to learn from history, it is that recovering unphysical values for certain parameters is usually a powerful diagnostic for systematics. A nice example comes from early beta decay experiments in the 90s, which were trying to place upper limits on the electron antineutrino mass, but were finding a best-fit negative squared mass (see e.g. PRL 67 (1991) 957): this was later understood to be due to systematics. I think one has to be very careful as to how to interpret Leane and Slatyer’s results. The way I read their results, is that they are not saying that a DM origin of the GCE is a better fit to the data than PSs. What they are saying instead is that unmodeled systematics (in this case North-South asymmetry) might mimic a spurious PS origin for the GCE. From a heuristic point of view, mismodeling increases the data-to-model variance, and recall that PSs do something very similar, so your analysis might want to re-absorb part of the bad modeling into spurious PSs. For more technical details, one can and should read the long companion paper 2002.12371.
There is a final twist in that the same day this paper appeared, 2002.12373 also appeared claiming that the 2019 Leane and Slatyer results were at least partly due to diffuse mismodeling (pointing the finger in particular the use of p6v11 Fermi diffuse model), and that when this is taken into account a PSs explanation for the GCE is once more favoured. To see how all these results can be reconciled, one should note that 2002.12373 showed that the evidence for PSs was more robust to certain systematics (and the fact that there seems to be diffuse mismodeling actually agrees with the findings of the 2019 Leane and Slatyer results), while 2002.12370 in some way shows that there is a new systematic one should worry about. In other words, diffuse mismodeling is not the end of the story. One much less relevant “anecdotal” aspect I couldn’t help noticing is the strong Melburnian presence in both 2002.12370 and 2002.12373, as all three Leane, Slatyer, and Rodd (whose PhD advisor was in fact Slatyer) have at some point in their academic life passed through the University of Melbourne, as has yours truly (in fact Rodd was my QFT TA, and his exam was…very hard!).
#2 2002.12811: Detecting dark matter around black holes with gravitational waves: Effects of dark-matter dynamics on the gravitational waveform by Bradley Kavanagh et al.
If DM is cold and collisionless as the standard lore goes, adiabatic growth around black holes (BHs) can lead to the formation of sharp overdensities commonly referred to as “spikes”. Through the merger of BHs with other objects, which generally produces gravitational waves (GWs), one might then hope to infer something about DM spikes (and therefore hopefully something about the DM properties) if the presence of the spike affects the GW waveform. This was the idea behind 1301.5971 and 1408.3534 by Eda et al., who studied the so-called de-phasing mechanism. In short, what happens is that the DM spike exerts a drag force (dynamical friction) on the compact object merging with the BH, which causes the object’s inspiral onto the BH to occur more rapidly. The net result is that the GW waveform with and without DM spike grow gradually out of sync, picking up phase at a different rate (it’s not just that they are out of phase, but the amount by which they are out of phase changes with time). However, these two papers by Eda et al. assumed that the DM spike was non-evolving. Is this a good approximation?
This week’s paper by Kavanagh et al. addresses precisely this question. The key issue is whether or not the work done by dynamical friction exceeds the DM spike binding energy. If the answer is “yes”, then the approximation of a static spike is an unrealistic one. Unfortunately, it turns out that the answer is indeed “yes”, meaning that previous works overestimated the de-phasing effect. In fact, what happens is that the DM spike responds dynamically to the energy injected by dynamical friction, resulting in an overall depletion of the spike density near the compact object which is merging with the BH (in essence, the compact object scatters DM particles within the spike and sends them flying off). The net result is that the inspiral occurs more slowly than in the static spike case, and the overall de-phasing signal becomes smaller. Kavanagh et al. study this for so-called intermediate mass-ratio inspirals, where a stellar-mass compact object merges with a BH with mass of 10^3-10^5 solar masses. While overall the signal is reduced compared to the original static spike calculation, it still looks like a future experiment such as LISA might be able to see such a signal (although the authors themselves leave a complete study, which would include more realistic N-body simulations following among the other things the angular momentum of DM particles in the spike, to future work). In that case, it would be very interesting to see whether from a future detection of such a de-phasing signal one could learn something about the particle nature of DM (although my guess is that in the near future it would be very hard to learn anything beyond some very basic properties of the spike).
#3 2002.12931: Compensated Isocurvature Perturbations in the Galaxy Power Spectrum by Alex Barreira et al.
In a multi-component system such as the Universe, where various species contribute to the matter/energy density, perturbations can be essentially of two types: adiabatic/curvature perturbations, corresponding to relative fluctuations in the energy density of the system which induce spatial curvature inhomogeneities, and isocurvature/entropy perturbations, corresponding to fluctuations in the relative number densities of different species which keep the total density homogeneous (the difference between energy density and number density is key here). It turns out that current CMB data is consistent with most of the perturbations being of the adiabatic type, as one would expect from the simplest models of inflation, with isocurvature perturbations contributing at most about 2%. However, there is a sub-class of isocurvature perturbations which elude CMB constraints: these are the so-called compensated isocurvature perturbations (CIP), first studied by Gordon and Lewis in astro-ph/0212248. Besides in multi-field inflation models such as the curvaton model, CIP can also emerge due to pre-recombination interactions between photons and baryons (see e.g. 1009.1393). The “compensated” bit refers to the fact that fluctuations in the baryons compensate opposite sign fluctuations in the cold DM, so that the total matter distribution is unchanged, and potentials are unaffected at linear order. CIP thus affect the CMB only at second order, which is why current CMB constraints on CIP are extremely weak, and allow for the amplitude of the CIP power spectrum to be 10^5 times that of the adiabatic power spectrum! However, CIP are expected to affect the galaxy overdensity field at linear order, meaning that galaxy surveys could be used to substantially improve CMB-only constraints on CIP.
In this week’s paper, Barreira et al. go on to show that this is indeed the case. Making some simplifying assumptions, they show that CIP which are correlated with the adiabatic modes provide an extra contribution to the large-scale galaxy power spectrum which scales as k^-2 (for uncorrelated CIP the scaling is instead k^-4). This is both a curse and a blessing, because these are exactly the type of scalings one also expects on large scales if primordial non-Gaussianity of the local type is present, see the original paper by Dalal et al. 0710.4560 pointing this out (for other types of non-Gaussianity the large-scale k-dependence is always milder than in the local case). It is a curse because in principle this means that the amplitude of local primordial non-Gaussianity, usually denoted by fNL, is expected to be completely degenerate with the amplitude of CIP if one were to jointly fit for both (i.e. one cannot distinguish the two). Barreira et al. show nonetheless that one can break this degeneracy by appropriately selecting one’s galaxy sample and/or by including CMB information on fNL. On the other hand, it is a blessing because it means that current galaxy surveys (which can provide constraints on fNL with an uncertainty of about 50), can provide almost equally competitive constraints on the amplitude of CIP (improving by 3-4 order of magnitude over the CMB limit)! Simplifying a bit (but not too much), galaxy constraints on local primordial non-Gaussianity could in principle be directly translated into CIP constraints simply by replacing fNL with the amplitude of CIP fluctuations up to an order unity factor. While this week’s paper makes a few simplifying assumptions (e.g. neglecting RSD, or assuming that the CIP auto-power spectrum is just a re-scaled version of the adiabatic power spectrum), it sends a message which is at the same time simple, valuable, and had not been appreciated before. There is a lot of information to be gained from future galaxy surveys and better constraints on CIP are among these.