For the B10 WIMP paper (see e.g. currently last draft from Oct30th,
2001) it seems appropriate to update the final figure (fig.11).
It compares
the obtained AMANDA muon flux limit with the other relevant experiments.
I compiled the information neccessary,
i.e. contacted those who were directly involved in the WIMP analysis
from SuperK, Baksan and MACRO.
All information given here has been double checked with them.
Since the information might be relevant for upcoming WIMP-related papers
or reviews, I collected it on a webpage.
(Note that e.g. the Baksan reference is taken wrongly
in many other publications over the last years, see below).
What's the issue ?
1. Comparison as done now is partially wrong,
since different experiments
use different normalisation for presenting the data.
The correction is quite trivial
(except for Amanda with a fixed angular cone),
but needs proper handling and a comment in the paper:
Flux limits are given with correction for all experimental cuts, but
some experiments/papers do not correct for the efficiency in defining the
angular search bin. In these cases the flux limit is reported for 90% of
the true flux only, i.e. it is easily corrected by a factor of 1.00/0.90.
(Btw, our paper is not the first making this mistake when comparing).
2. Not all data cited in the current draft are the
most recent ones; in addition one citation is incorrect.
Detailed discussion for the experiments:
SuperK
1. Flux limit is given for 90% only, apply the correction 1.0/0.90 for the fluxes given by them (also stated in the paper).2. Reference
Currently cited in draft:
A.Okada et al., Proc. 30th Conf.High Energy Physics, Osaka, 2000 & astro-ph/0007003.
Authors insists on not citing this, but the recent paper from ICRC2001:
A.Habig (for SuperK), ICRC2001 & hep-ex/0106024.--> taking this reference is absolutely reasonable.
(Another publication is in preparation with higher statistics on scale of weeks (?), we'll be informed when submitted).
MACRO
1. Flux limit is given for 100%, no correction is needed (also stated in the paper).2. Reference:
Currently cited in draft:
M.Ambrosio et al., Phys.Rev.D90(1999), 082002.Slightly newer data are available in T.Montarulli, "Neutrino Astronomy and Indirect Search for WIMPs", Proc. of Ojuda Int. Workshop, 2001 (http://www.df.unibo.it/oujda/) - but not on astro-ph or spires, no plan to put the paper there. The conference proceedings are also not on the web.
--> I suggest taking the Phys.Rev. reference, as it is now.
Baksan
1. Flux limit is given for 100%, as stated in the paper. No correction needed.2. Reference:
Currently cited in draft:
O.Suvorova, Proc. Ringberg Castle, 1999 & hep-ph/9911415.This is not the original data presentation from 1996, but a 3 years delayed review of 4 different experiments.
Cross checked with Olga Suvorova and S.Mikheyev, they both ask for citing the original presentation, which is in a Proceedings volume of a 1996 conference:
M.Boliev et al (BAKSAN), Baksan Neutralino Search,Dark Matter in Astro- and Particle Physics (1997), edited by H.V.Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and Y.Ramachers (Singapore World Sci.) p. 711-717.
Since difficult to find elsewhere, I obtained a copy from the authors, please find it here.--> taking Boliev et.al. is the correct choice.
AMANDA
1. Flux limit is given for varying efficieny vs. wimp-mass (estimated range from 40% to 90% as M_x rises), but not cleary stated in the paper (Oct.30th draft). This needs change and precise definitions in the text.
Compiled: R.Wischnewski, 21.12.2001.