abstract: We attempt to estimate the uncertainty in the constraints on the spin independent dark matter-nucleon cross section due to our lack of knowledge of the dark matter phase space in the galaxy. We fit the density of dark matter before investigating the possible solutions of the Jeans equation compatible with those fits in order to understand what velocity dispersions we might expect at the solar radius. We take into account the possibility of non-Maxwellian velocity distributions and the possible presence of a dark disk. Combining all these effects, we still find that the uncertainty in the interpretation of direct detection experiments for high ($>$`<!-- -->`{=html}100 GeV) mass dark matter candidates is less than an order of magnitude in cross section.
author: Malcolm Fairbairn[^1]; Tom Douce; Jace Swift
title: Quantifying Astrophysical Uncertainties on Dark Matter Direct Detection Results.

# Introduction

Many separate pieces of evidence exist pointing towards the existence of approximately 7 times as much dark matter as baryonic matter in the Universe, for example, galactic rotation curves , clusters of galaxies , lensing studies and the growth of structure .

At the time of writing though, we still do not know what the precise particle nature of the dark matter is. A class of leading candidates for dark matter are weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) which are charged under the standard model weak force. These models are favoured because they lead to a thermal relic abundance roughly compatible with the observed density of dark matter required to explain astrophysical observations without the requirement of fine tuning of the dark matter mass.

There are three ways of looking for WIMP dark matter particles, the first is to create them directly in colliders, and researchers at the LHC are working hard to do this . The second way is to look for the standard model particles created when WIMP dark matter annihilates with itself in space, producing high energy gamma rays and cosmic rays, research into which is being spear-headed by the Fermi gamma ray telescope. The third way is to look for the elastic collisions of dark matter particles with nuclei in purpose built underground detectors.

In order for different dark matter direct detection experiments to compare constraints with each other they have to assume a particular halo model and the one they generally use is known as the Standard Halo Model (SHM). This model is one of the simplest possible solutions of the Jeans equation but as we shall discuss in more detail, we do not expect the density profile or the velocity distribution of the dark matter in a real galaxy like our own to follow this and in fact there is an uncertainty in the local density and a large amount of uncertainty in the velocity distribution of dark matter.

There are many different analyses which have taken this into account - large combined analysis data packages contain various assumptions which take *some aspects* of this uncertainty into account. Those uncertainties are usually only presented in the large combined analyses taking into account all the errors on other quantities including those from particle physics and constraining particular models of particle physics such as various versions of the constrained minimal supersymmetric standard model. They don't necessarily present how the constraint on the cross section changes as a function of mass.

We would like to estimate the error on the cross section in an independent way such that it can be understood and used by an independent researcher who comes up with a theory that makes a particular prediction for the dark matter-nucleon scattering cross section.

The dark matter direct detection experiment with the leading constraint on the dark matter nucleon cross section at the time of writing is the XENON-100 experiment, the constraint for dark matter particles of mass $M_{dm}\sim 200$ GeV being around $X\times 10^{-44}$cm$^2$ . This actually places constraints on a class of SUSY models known as the focus point. Many collider phenomenology theorists are interested in a realistic estimate of what the errors are on this result, independent of a particle theoretical framework. The experimental errors have already been quantified by the XENON team, so what remains is the uncertainty due to astrophysical unknowns.

First we will make the simplifying assumption that the bulk of the dark matter halo is spherical. This neglects many aspects of the distribution of dark matter which we might expect to exist such as the oblate/prolate nature of the halo and axisymmetry , although we don't expect these effects to change the conclusions a great deal since the constraints on the local dark matter density are mainly based on observations in the inner part of the galaxy where baryons will have increased the symmetry of the halo. We will consider the possible presence and effect of a dark disk .

Unlike many previous analyses we also focus on the whole mass regime rather than concentrating on the low mass one. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the event rate in detectors at very low mass ($M_{dm}<15 GeV$) because the uncertainties in the velocity distributions of dark matter become most pronounced in the high velocity tails, which are the only regions of phase space which allow a low mass dark matter particle to give rise a signal in direct detection experiments. There are many papers attempting to explain the discrepancy between the DAMA annual modulation signal and the XENON100 constraint, so we will not attempt to add to this debate on this occasion. We are simply interested to understand what the latest constraints are really telling us in terms of numbers on the dark matter-nucleon cross section.

In section we will introduce the standard halo model and the equations for dark matter direct detection and reconstruct our version of the XENON100 constraint. After that in section we will discuss the constraints and reconstruction of the density profile of the Milky Way Galaxy. This section will be a poor mans reconstruction of the careful analysis of Catena and Ullio with some small differences but we are not only interested in the density of dark matter in the solar neighborhood, but also the density profile as a function of radius as this affects the solution of the Jeans equation. Section will address these solutions and explain why this adds another level of uncertainty to the problem as it changes the velocity dispersion in the solar system. We will also discuss the effects of non-Gaussianity of the velocity distribution.

In section we will explain our procedure for combining the various astrophysical uncertainties and present results. In section we investigate the effect a dark disk has on the uncertainty in the signal before finally in section we will reflect upon our analysis and the results while suggesting possible future studies.

Such an estimate on the error associated with dark matter direct detection is almost subjective, since it involves estimating something that we cannot observe directly. The particular uncertainties that any researcher will focus on might be slightly different (see e.g. ), this is our best attempt to estimate these uncertainties.

# Direct Detection of Dark Matter

Since we expect dark matter to be moving with velocities of the order of $10^{-3}$c in the solar system, and for their masses to be around 10 GeV - 1 TeV the typical recoil velocity in a direct detection experiment will be in the keV energy range.

One can define a differential rate $$\label{drde}
\frac{{\rm d} R}{{\rm d}E}(E) =
             \frac{\sigma
             \rho}{2 \mu^2 m_{dm}}
             A^2 F^2(E)   \int_{|{\bf v}| \geq v_{{\rm min}}}
            \frac{f({\bf v})}{v} {\rm d}^3 {\bf v}     \,,$$

where $E$ is the recoil energy, $\sigma$ is the dark matter nucleon cross section, $m_{dm}$ is the dark matter mass, $\mu= (m_{\rm p} m_{dm})/(m_{{\rm p}}+ m_{{dm}})$, $A$ is the atomic mass number of the target nuclei which enters due to the quantum mechanical coherence effect of all the nuclei lying within the Compton wavelength of the dark matter particle. $F(E)$ is the nuclear form factor of the target nuclei and $\rho$ is the local density of dark matter. Throughout this work we will use the Helm form factor, uncertainties in nuclear form factors can also change significantly the interpretation of dark matter direct detection experiments. The function $f({\bf v})$ is the (appropriately normalised) dark matter velocity distribution and $v_{min}$ is the minimum velocity which could create a recoil of energy $E$, which depends upon $M_{dm}$ and the mass of the nucleus rather than the proton.

The velocity distribution function $f({\bf v})$ is defined in the rest frame of the galaxy, relative to which we are moving at velocity $v_{circ}$ as we circle the centre of the galaxy at a couple of hundred kilometres per second (more discussion with regards to this precise value later). $f({\bf v})$ is truncated at the escape velocity $v_{esc}$ corresponding to our position in the Milky Way.

The overall rate of events depends therefore not only on $\sigma$ and $m_{dm}$ as we would expect but also on $\rho$, $f({\bf v})$, $v_{circ}$ and $v_{esc}$. We have limited information about these quantities based upon incomplete astrophysical data and incomplete theoretical knowledge in the form of both analytical and numerical solutions of the collisionless Boltzmann equation (i.e. idealised solutions of the Jean's equation and N-body simulations of galaxies).

In order to even begin to estimate the values of these parameters, we start by making some simplifying assumptions. The first is that the phase space distribution of dark matter and the gravitational potential of the galaxy are both spherically symmetric in position space. This is clearly far from a perfect assumption at small radii as we know that our galaxy is very much a disk, however we do not expect the dark matter to form a disk as readily as the baryonic component of the Galaxy since it cannot experience pressure or lose energy, so it is much less prone to forming viscous conglomerates which re-distribute angular momentum, like disks. We will however later look at the possibility of a dark disk.

Dark matter direct detection experiments need to compare their results with each other and they therefore have an agreed industry standard known as the "Standard halo model". This model is an example of a spherically symmetric solution along with a number of further simplifying assumptions. The first is that the halo has a density profile $\rho\propto r^{-2}$ which would lead to a constant rotational velocity if the gravitational potential of baryons were neglected. The second is that the velocity distribution is precisely a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution and is isotropic in all directions. It can be verified that in order to solve equation () in the light of these assumptions, the velocity dispersion $\sigma=v_{circ}/\sqrt{2}$ is a constant which does not change with radius and the standard value of $v_{circ}=220$kms$^{-1}$ is usually chosen. This solution of the Jeans equation is known as the isothermal sphere for obvious reasons. The only caprice the conservative dark matter experimentalists usually allow themselves is a variation of the escape velocity to see how sensitive their constraints are to this quantity which is not well defined for this solution.

While we do not know in detail the real distribution of dark matter in the Galaxy, we do not expect the isothermal sphere to be a good approximation. N-body simulations of dark matter suggest that density profiles usually take the form of a profile which is indeed denser in the centre of the galaxy but the density rises more slowly at low radii and steeper at larger radii .

We shall look at how we can model the density of dark matter in a more realistic way then we shall see what implications this has for the velocity dispersion of dark matter. Having done that we will estimate how this would effect the event rate in direct detection experiments.

# Density Profile of Dark Matter

If the dark matter is distributed smoothly in the galaxy in a similar way to that suggested by N-body simulations, the density in the solar system is remarkably well constrained to be around $\rho\sim 0.2-0.4$ GeV cm$^{-3}$. Recent studies agree with this and the most detailed study to date constrains the dark matter density very tightly .

## Substructure and Graininess

In this work we will be assuming that the distribution of dark matter is smooth. This is not obvious as it has been shown theoretically and in simulations that there are halos within halos down to objects which are roughly the size of the solar system . It has been estimated however that these substructures will be tidally disrupted as they pass through halos the size of the Milky Way such that one can view the density distribution as being essentially entirely smooth to one part in ten thousand . This fits with beautiful results from N-body simulations where objects similar to caustics are clearly visible in phase space close to the virial radius of halos, but deep in the centre of dark matter halos (where we lie) so many streams are overlapping and so much tidal interaction has occurred that the density is essentially completely smooth .

## The Einasto Profile

In the authors assume that the dark matter distribution is spherical, but take into account the non-sphericity of the baryonic disk. They look at both Einasto, NFW and Burkert functions for the density profiles of dark matter. In this work we will only use the Einasto profile since it is the one which seems to fit N-body simulations most closely and can give rise to relatively cuspy and cored profiles. The Einasto profile takes the following form $$\rho(r)=\rho_{-2}\exp\left[-\frac{2}{\alpha}\left(\left\{\frac{r}{r_{-2}}\right\}^\alpha-1\right)\right]$$ and there are therefore three free parameters, the radius $r_{-2}$ at which the logarithmic derivative of density $\gamma=d\ln\rho/d\ln r$ is equal to $-2$ and the density at that radius $\rho_{-2}$. The third parameter is the power $\alpha$ which sets how quickly $\gamma$ varies as a function of $r$. We will consider two situations, the first is to allow all three parameters to vary independently in order to fit the data. The second situation is when we will constrain the relationship between the parameters using data from cosmological simulations.

## Concentration parameter inspired by cosmological simulations

This latter situation takes into account the fact that one expects smaller halos which form earlier in the history of the Universe to retain some memory of the density of the Universe when they dropped away from the Hubble expansion and collapsed. Smaller halos therefore are expected to possess denser, more compact cores and the concentration parameter, namely the ratio between the virial radius of each halo $r_{vir}$ and the scale radius ($r_{-2}$ in the case of the Einasto profile) is a function of mass . In particular we will follow the work of Duffy et al where they parametrise the concentration parameter $c$ in the following way $$\frac{r_{vir}}{r_{-2}}=c=A\left(M/M_{pivot}\right)^B\left(1+z\right)^C
\label{duffy}$$ where $z$ is redshift which we will set to zero and the parameters $A,B,C$ and $M_{pivot}$ are taken from reference . We will look at both situations where the parameters of the Einasto profile are set to fulfill equation () and when they are not. The relationship in equation () is anyway only meant to indicate the central value of the concentration parameter as a function of mass for a large ensemble of halos. The shape of individual halos will depend upon their history.

## Baryonic contraction

The role of baryons in affecting the distribution of dark matter in halos is as controversial as ever. For a long time it has been known that adiabatic contraction of the dark matter halo occurs when baryons lose energy and sink into the centre of the galaxy, pulling in dark matter after them . The importance of considering the shape of dark matter orbits was first pointed out in and tested to be a much better approximation than using circular orbits in work such as . This effect enhances the density of dark matter in the central region of the galaxy and makes the logarithmic density gradient $\gamma$ steeper throughout the region of the galaxy where baryons dominate the gravitational potential.

More recently it has been shown that the non-adiabatic feedback which follows such contraction can eject dark mater from this central region and actually decrease the central density . While we expect this to be very important for indirect detection for the annihilation of dark matter at the centre of the galaxy, it will have a lesser effect upon the dark matter at the solar radius where such effects should be less pronounced - for Milky Way size halos the authors of found that dark matter is ejected to form a core of size $\sim 2$kpc, much smaller than the 8.5 kpc radius of the sun. The precise shape of the mass profile in the galaxy will however effect the solutions of the Jeans equations that will determine the phase space distribution and direct detection signal in the solar system. It is rather difficult to include adiabatic contraction in one of the Monte Carlo Markov Chains since they take significantly more time than any of the other algorithms involved in each step of the chain. For this reason we note that we are not critically sensitive to the central density of dark matter in the Milky Way since baryons dominate the potential at small radii and point out that the Einasto profile contains the freedom to model quite different shaped halos.

## Fitting the gravitational potential

In order to fit the baryonic and dark matter contributions to the gravitational potential, we again follow quite closely the analysis of with some simplifications. We model the baryonic disk of the galaxy as an exponential disk such that the surface density $\Sigma_*(r)=\Sigma_{*0}\exp{-r/r_{d}}$ with a cut-off at 15kpc following observations while we treat the galactic bulge as a point mass at the origin.

We then fit the terminal velocities in the disk which involves taking into account the non-sphericity of the baryonic distribution. We fit the Solar Radius $R_{\odot}$ and the value of $\Sigma_{*}(r_\odot)$ and the total mass within 1.1kpc $\Sigma_{tot}(r_\odot)$. We then fit the total mass within 50kpc and the total mass within 100kpc as well as the SDSS data of reference , where like we allow the velocity anisotropy parameter $\beta_*$ of the stellar population in that study to vary. We also use the same data as Ullio and Catena to fit the local disk density in baryonic matter and in total .

The results of the fit can be seen in figure and show reasonable agreement with other estimates in the literature (). Any differences might be explained by the fact that we don't use precisely the same data set as Ullio and Catena (we do not include the proper motions) and that our definition of the disk size is slightly different. These results should not be taken too seriously on their own - the purpose of this paper is not to present a definitive estimate of the local dark matter density, but rather to estimate the magnitude of typical uncertainties in the direct detection signal.

# Velocity Distribution of Dark Matter

Once we have obtained a density of dark matter and baryons which fits the available data we need to look at what values of the velocity distribution are consistent with that density profile. In order to do that we need to solve the collisionless Boltzmann equation, the moments of which are solutions to a differential equation known as the Jeans equation

## Jeans Equation

If we make the assumption of spherical symmetry for the distribution of mass, we can then write down the equation for the second moment of the collisionless Boltzmann equation for dark matter known as the Jeans equation $$\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(\rho\sigma_r^2\right)+\frac{2\beta\sigma_r^2}{r}=-\frac{GM(r)}{r^2}
\label{jeans}$$ where $\rho$ is the density of dark matter as a function of radius, $\sigma_r$ is the dispersion of the component of the dark matter velocity parallel to the line between the point in question and the centre of the galaxy, the velocity anisotropy parameter $\beta$ is $$\beta=1-\frac{\sigma_t^2}{\sigma_{r}^2}$$ where $\sigma_t$ is the velocity dispersion perpendicular to $\sigma_r$. Of course this assumption of spherical symmetry does not take into account the baryonic disk which we would expect to change the velocity distribution of dark matter somewhat. In particular one might expect that the disk would lead to an increase in the velocity dispersion in the $z$ direction perpendicular to the disk due to gravitational focusing (and a corresponding increase in density ). However since in this work we are interested in the uncertainties in the expected signal rather than making a robust prediction of the signal itself we will continue by neglecting this asymmetry as solutions of the Jeans equation taking into account the shape of the disk potential would be significantly more complicated.

We cannot directly observe the velocity distribution of dark matter since we have not yet actually detected any dark matter. At this stage therefore we move away from those quantities which can be fit by comparison with observations to those parameters which we cannot measure. In particular the solution of the Jeans equation depends not only upon the gravitational mass as a function of radius which we can estimate and compare wit observations, but also upon the velocity anisotropy of dark matter which cannot be measured. The only insight we have into the likely values of this parameter comes from theory, both analytical and numerical considerations. A researcher who tries to look at the kind of velocity distributions chosen from random orbits which can fit a given density profile will quickly convince themselves that the degeneracies are too large to give any kind of indication of what the velocity profile should be as a function of radius. we are therefore forced into the situation where the best we can do is choose some functional form for $\beta(r)$ which is not too restrictive while not having too many parameters. We therefore assume the following ansatz for $\beta(r)$ $$\beta(r)=\frac{\beta_0+\beta_\infty(r/r_\beta)^\eta}{1+(r/r_b)^\eta}$$ where $\beta_0$ is the value of $\beta$ at the origin, $\beta_\infty$ is its value at large $r$, the parameter $r_b$ is the radius of switchover between these two regimes and the power $\eta$ determines the rate of switchover. We cannot observe the velocity anisotropy parameter so we choose $\beta_0$ and $\beta_\infty$ randomly for each solution of the Jeans equation chosen using the weighting $\beta=1-x_1/x_2$ where $x_1$ and $x_2$ are both random numbers between one and zero. We assume some kind of relationship between $r_b$ and the $r_{-2}$ parameter of the Einasto profile, but allow some give in this, in particular we say that $$r_\beta=r_{-2}10^{1.5x-0.75}$$ where again, $x$ is a random number between zero and one. Finally we assume that $\eta$ is a random number between zero and four, with a flat distribution.

It would certainly be valid to argue that these choices are somewhat arbitrary, however they are chosen to try and mimic the output from N-body simulations to some degree, in particular the relationship between $r_\beta$ and $r_{-2}$. In fact $\beta$ profiles as a function of radius can often be more complicated, however we hope that our choices will to some degree be a reasonable reflection of the uncertainties in the solution of the Jeans equation for a given mass profile.

## Non Maxwellian Velocity Distributions.

Once we have solved the Jeans equation, we have the second moment of the radial and tangential velocity distribution. It is usually then assumed that this corresponds to the second moment of a Maxwellian (Gaussian) velocity distribution with a particular escape velocity. However, this is not what is observed to happen in real simulations, where dark matter distributions are smooth, but are not generally speaking Gaussian in shape.

A moments thought shows that this is not a complete surprise. The criteria for a Maxwell Boltzmann distribution is that the gas is in thermal equilibrium with itself and that it is an ideal gas (no finite size of particles or long range interactions). While we expect the chemical potential and finite size effects to be irrelevant for dark matter in the kind of densities encountered in the solar system, there is clearly a long range potential involved, namely gravity. Also the cross section for dark matter scattering off itself has been tightly constrained by observations such as the bullet cluster and will be irrelevant in thermalisation of dark matter. The only thermalising force is therefore gravity, so we really shouldn't expect the dark matter to follow Gaussian distributions.

Indeed, it has been known for a long time that dark matter simulations don't give rise to Maxwellian distributions . There are a number of ways one can model a non-Gaussian profile of velocities. One well-motivated choice would be the Tsallis distribution but in this work we consider instead the phenomenological distribution of reference where the velocity distributions follow the form $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N_r}\exp\left[-\left(\frac{\tilde{v}_r^2}{f_r^2}\right)^{\omega_r}\right] \nonumber\\
\frac{2\pi v_t}{N_t}
\exp\left[{-\left(\frac{\tilde{v}_t^2}{f_t^2}\right)^{\omega_t}}\right]
\label{nong}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_r$ and $\omega_t$ represent the non-Gaussianity in the radial and tangential direction respectively[^2]. These gives rise to profiles of non-Gaussian shape as can be seen in figure .

It was observed in reference that the parameter $\alpha$ is different in the $R$ and $T$ directions so following that work we assign random values to the two parameters in the following range: $0.5<\alpha_T<1$ and $0.75<\alpha_R<1.25$ which hopefully will parametrise our ignorance of the precise shape of the dark matter density profile appropriately.

# Calculating the Direct Detection Rate

We have shown above the different factors affecting the density and velocity of dark matter in the solar system. We will fit the density profile to the data using a Monte Carlo Markov chain and for each density profile added to the chain in this way we will then generate ten random velocity distributions.

For each density and velocity distribution generated we therefore would like to calculate the corresponding rate in an experiment and for the purposes of this work we will look at the leading experiment at the time of writing, namely the XENON100 experiment . To obtain the constraints from equation () we first integrate it to obtain a cumulative rate as a function of energy and then we compare that with the cumulative rate in the XENON100 detector using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. This is not quite what the XENON100 team did as they have their own Bayesian analysis chain, but for the purposes of estimating the errors due to uncertainties in astrophysical parameters it is sufficient. Our simple analysis takes into account only the following:- the fiducial mass of the detector (48 kg) the exposure time (100.9 days) the energy range (8-44 keV) and the fact that the target is made of Xenon.

We try to take into account the uncertainty in the relationship between observed and actual recoil energy due to our incomplete knowledge of the scintillation yield of Xenon, using the data presented in the XENON100 paper. We do this in the following way - we transform the errors presented in figure 1 of reference into errors on the energy for a given observed recoil, eight in total. We then draw a random number from a Gaussian distribution and vary all the energies either up or down according to this energy varying distribution, which changes the $v_{min}$ in the calculation of $dR/dE$. Again, this is designed to take into account the magnitude of this effect while we leave the rigorous statistics to the much more experienced XENON100 team. Note however this approach assumes the errors are not strictly speaking independent and that the scintillation yield will be consistently higher or lower than the centre of the distribution, as opposed to oscillating or jumping around. This seems like a reasonable assumption.

We also note that the XENON100 analysis does take into account one of the astrophysical uncertainties - namely the escape velocity and when we look at the uncertainty in the cross section for XENON100 we will take this into account, using the values they obtain from reference , i.e. ($544^{+64}_{-46}$)km s$^{-1}$.

# Results

In this section we will present our results. First of all we will present our simple re-analysis of the XENON100 data and our estimate of the uncertainty in its constraint.

## XENON100 with the Standard Halo Model

Figure shows the different constraints on the WIMP-nucleon cross section obtained in the standard halo model while allowing the escape velocity and the scintillation yield to vary as explained in the text. The constraints are reasonably consistent with those presented in the XENON100 paper but are slightly different. This is not surprising given the simplified nature of our analysis compared to that carried out by the experimental team. Since this paper is not a re-analysis of the precise bound from XENON on the dark matter-nucleon cross section but rather the uncertainties introduced due to astrophysical uncertainties, this is acceptable.

Presumably the 90% confidence level quoted in the XENON100 paper will correspond in spirit to the lower 90% bound of the equivalent distribution found by their team.

On the right hand side of figure we have plotted the relative spread in the XENON100 constraint on the cross section from uncertainties in the escape velocity and in the scintillation yield. It is plain to see that at low energies, the uncertainty diverges. We do not plot the region below about 12 GeV as for low escape velocities there is no signal at all capable of giving rise to a constraint from the XENON detector so the upper part of the distribution diverges to infinity.

## Our Spherical Halo Model

We calculated the exclusion limits for the different dark matter distributions obtained in section and . In figure we plot the constraints on the cross section that are obtained in this way.

We found that as expected the spread in the constraint on the cross section obtained for different dark matter masses varies quite a lot for different velocity and density distributions, but not a huge amount. Although the change can be larger than 100% the constraint on the cross section does not appear to vary more than a factor of a few at high masses. This is quite surprising given the large amount that the velocity distribution changes, but for high mass wimps, the whole of the distribution is inside the region which can give rise to a signal, so the dependence on the velocity phase space is reduced.

The profiles where the density is constrained to respect the concentration parameter according to equation have less of a spread in density than the density profiles which are completely free to vary. Because of this, the difference between the right hand side of the plots in figure and the standard halo model plots in figure are a good measure of the impact of allowing the velocity distributions freedom to vary upon the rate at direct detection experiments.

# The addition of a Dark Disk

A significant contribution to the direct detection signal could be due to the presence of a dark disk - an enhancement in the density of dark matter which is aligned with the baryonic disk and either co-rotating or lagging behind . We have tested this by doing the same fits to the density which we described in section but including an additional disk of dark matter with a thickness of 1.1kpc in order to estimate its effect upon the direct detection rate. Clearly given the discrepancy between the overall surface density of the disk and what can be seen in stars there is some room for such a disk, although figure shows that it cannot be extremely significant relative to the local dark matter in the smooth spherical halo, we find it to be typically possible to find a disk some significant fraction of the local dark matter density, but always less than the local dark matter density.

The velocity distribution of this disk is also unknown, although it is clear that its velocity distribution will be less than the velocity distribution of the halo dark matter in order for it to remain bound to the disk . We model the velocity distribution as being isotropic in the rest frame of the dark disk and of magnitude $50$km s$^{-1}<\sigma<120$km s$^{-1}$. The lag behind the motion of the solar system we vary between zero and 150 km s$^{-1}$, both parameters chosen from a flat distribution. We then calculate the event rate inside the detector for this case of a dark disk.

The effect of this inclusion of a dark disk is shown in figure which clearly shows that the effect of the dark disk is more pronounced at high masses, as shown in reference . This is easy to understand as the velocity of the disk dark matter relative to the solar system will be much less than those velocities which can exist in the main body of the halo.

Still we do not find that the allowable density of dark disk is enough to radically change the results from dark matter direct detection experiments. We therefore estimate the results presented by the XENON100 team are probably right to an accuracy within less than an order of magnitude.

# Conclusions

There are many different collaborations currently designing, building and running dark matter direct detection experiments. Unlike the energy and spatial distribution of, for example, neutrinos from the sun, dark matter is very far from being in thermal equilibrium, is non relativistic and owes its motion to the feeble gravitational force of all the matter in the local Universe as it makes its journey across the galaxy. Following others, in this work we have tried to estimate the density of dark matter in the galaxy and then used that density to make estimates of the possible kinds of velocities dark matter could have in the solar system.

We have shown that the inclusion of uncertainties in density and velocity distributions both create an effect upon the rate of events in direct detection experiments and that these uncertainties are largest at lower velocities. The purpose of this work is not to focus on the low mass regions but to investigate the errors due to astrophysical uncertainties upon searches for high mass dark matter particles.

We find that for a smooth spherical halo, taking into account all the possible uncertainties in the density distribution and the Jeans equation one can only increase the uncertainty in the bounds from direct detection experiments by a factor of a few. In order to try and maximise the uncertainty, we have included the presence of a dark disk but have seen that given a very pronounced dark disk is incompatible with tracers of the local density of the Galaxy, this again can only increase the uncertainty by another factor of a few, leading to an overall uncertainty which is still less than an order of magnitude.

We believe that these estimates are pretty robust and that the only way they could be very wrong is if the current understanding of the smoothness of the local distribution of dark matter is wildly incorrect. We haven't included uncertainties in nuclear form factors which would be an additional source of error but our conclusion is that the astrophysical uncertainty in the direct detection rate for high mass candidates is less than an order of magnitude.

# Acknowledgments

MF is grateful for funding provided by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council. This work was instigated by a question asked to MF by Graham Ross in December 2011 and is a complicated way of showing that the answer MF gave at the time was about right.

[^1]: E-mail address: email@example.com

[^2]: we have changed the notation from reference from $\alpha$ to $\omega$ to avoid confusion with the $\alpha$ in the Einasto profile


abstract: Blockchains have recently generated explosive interest from both academia and industry, with many proposed applications. But descriptions of many these proposals are more visionary projections than realizable proposals, and even basic definitions are often missing. We define "blockchain" and "blockchain network", and then discuss two very different, well known classes of blockchain networks: cryptocurrencies and Git repositories. We identify common primitive elements of both and use them to construct a framework for explicitly articulating what characterizes blockchain networks. The framework consists of a set of questions that every blockchain initiative should address at the very outset. It is intended to help one decide whether or not blockchain is an appropriate approach to a particular application, and if it is, to assist in its initial design stage.
author: Ephraim Feig
IEEE Life Fellow
title: A Framework for Blockchain-Based Applications

# Introduction

Blockchain has been heralded as "a foundational technology: It has the potential to create new foundations for our economic and social systems". People claim that blockchain will streamline the electronic health records process ; will "add greater visibility and efficiency across the entire supply chain to deliver higher value to your customers and trading relationships"; will track ownership of real estate ; may "disrupt the insurance industry and change the way we share data, process claims and prevent fraud"; "could revolutionize the Internet of Things" .

There are no explicit description of the blockchains in the cited applications. But the blockchains of cryptocurrencies are well understood. As Satoshi Nakamoto writes , they are needed to enable "electronic transactions without relying on trust." A complete, immutable public record of transactions is not a design goal in cryptocurrencies. Quite the contrary, cryptocurrency purists would prefer no record at all, to strengthen identity-hiding. Nakamoto wrote that, as was well known already , "To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be publicly announced." The public ledger is the price to pay in order to enable cryptocurrency with integrity.

What exactly is the trust that Nakamoto was referring to in his paper? In an online forum he writes,"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts."

The central bank and fiat currencies issues that Nakamoto bemoans pale in comparison to their analogues in the cryptocurrency world. Anybody can create a cryptocurrency (there are over 1,500 of them ) and even the most established ones will fork at the whims of their creators . As for banks' abuses, relative to total currency volume, they pale in comparison to Ponzi schemes by cryptocurrency exchanges . As for draining accounts, cryptocurrencies lose by a wide margin . The concern that we have to trust banks to hold and transfer funds is genuine, but mostly in cases where the transfer is prohibited by some legal authority. The big advantage cryptocurrencies offer is identity-hiding, and only to those who are able to cover their tracks . To gain this advantage, Bitcoin needed a blockchain with proof-of-work (PoW). The cost for this advantage today (3/1/2018) is estimated at 791 KWh of electricity consumed per transaction , slow batch-processing of transactions, plus the loss of such standard payment services as fraud protection and loss recovery.

The enormous costs of operating the Bitcoin network are recognized, and new types cryptocurrencies are being deployed to deal with them. Those that use proof-of-stake (PoS) instead of PoW are emerging , and Ethereum is expected to implement its version in the near future. PoS adds an escrow component to the network , bringing it a little closer to standard payment systems, while still bypassing central authority. Blockchains for applications other than currencies go even further in conforming to standard trust models. Permissioned-blockchains have been suggested for enterprise applications, in which "participants need to obtain an invitation or permission to join. The access control mechanism could vary: existing participants could decide future entrants; a regulatory authority could issue licenses for participation; or a consortium could make the decisions instead." Moving even further from trust averse systems, we have private networks that are not only permissioned but also restrict who can see the blockchain.

Git may be the most successful blockchain platform and has been operational over a decade. It is the most popular version control system. While it is used primarily for team development of software, it can be used to maintain any set of text-based records. The software that powers Bitcoin is developed on Git as an open source project. Every branch of a Git repository is a blockchain with commits as blocks. Peers are software developers, and they all should maintain the master branch of the repository. Git is permission-based, and consensus is based on trust; there is no mining or proof-of-anything. Git blockchains of open-source projects are visible to the public; private repositories restrict who can see them.

Unlike Bitcoin, where forking is an inadvertent, uncommon event, with Git, branching is modus operandi. Unlike Bitcoin, where forks are abandoned upon acceptance of a longest blockchain, in Git, branches are frequently merged. And strikingly, unlike Bitcoin, where there is total aversion to central authority, even though Git is a peer-to-peer system, Git projects are almost always used in conjunction with some Git hosting service such as GitHub, Bitbucket, Perforce or CloudForge .

People disagree whether or not Git branches are blockchains because there have been only few definitions proposed in this new field, and these have not been consistent. We like the approach in , where the term "blockchain" refers to a data-structure, and the term "blockchain network" refers to how that data structure is deployed. We also want the definitions sufficiently broad so as to include cryptocurrencies and Git branches, which operate in totally different trust environments.

**Definition:** A *blockchain* is a sequence of blocks of data in which each block, other than the first, is cryptographically linked to its predecessor.

Cryptographic linking is well understood . We are not specifying how the blocks are cryptographically linked. Bitcoin linking is described in and Git linking in .

**Definition:** A *blockchain network* is a peer-to-peer network in which peers collaborate to achieve a common goal by using a blockchain.

The Bitcoin system is a blockchain network. A Git repository is a blockchain network, with the master branch as the blockchain used in collaboration. While Git peers often fork the blockchain by creating new branches, they collaborate using the master branch and strive to merge their other branches with it. In general, we do not insist that peers all maintain identical or complete blockchains, or that the network maintain an immutable blockchain, though these may be the common goal in some applications.

# Background

Bitcoin and Git blockchains have a fundamental data structure in common- blocks connected by cryptographic hashes- and a fundamental difference- the presence or absence of proof-of-work (PoW). Both cryptographic hashing and PoW have been studied a long time before the word blockchain was introduced. It is instructive to see how they were deployed and then ask, why all of a sudden, the two of them combined are generating so much enthusiasm?

The idea of chaining blocks of data together with cryptographic hashes has been around since the late 1970's. By 1982, when Ralph Merkle's patent was granted, cryptographic protocols were already evolving . The data structure named after him, the Merkle Tree, found utility in peer-to-peer systems in which peers all needed to share identical data . Any change in the data would be very quickly detected. In most cases, when a change is detected, there is recourse, the change can be undone. Peers who want the change can accept it; peers who do not want the change, can undo it. If peers cannot reach consensus, they can diverge along distinct paths.

The Bitcoin blockchain is a binary Merkle Tree in which every right branch contains only one leaf, considered as a sequence from left to right. Every Bitcoin block stores transaction data as a Merkle Tree. Therefore, any change is easily detectable. But a bitcoin transaction is irreversible, and there is no remedy to a double spend. Therefore, to preserve Bitcoin's integrity, Nakamoto had to introduce PoW. Fortuitously, PoW also provided the mechanism for disseminating new bitcoins and incentivizing peers.

PoW was introduced by C. Dwork and M. Naor in 1992 to combat email spam. More generally, PoW can be used to deter people from doing undesirable things by making them very expensive. PoW was proposed to mitigate distributed denial-of-service attacks . In 2003, PoW was proposed to provide incentives in peer-to-peer systems . The particular PoW used in Bitcoin is a variant of Adam Back's Hashcash , proposed in 1997, which requires finding a nonce that yields a hash with some leading 0's.

Until Bitcoin, PoW did not gain any significant traction. A study of its original proposed application, spam prevention, concluded that PoW "does not work" . With Bitcoin, things changed. There were users who insisted on a payment system in which participants hide their identities, and for them, the gains outweighed the costs.

# Blockchain Network Dynamics

The blockchain networks of cryptocurrencies and Git are characterized by the following activities:

1.  Developers create and deploy the network.

Once the network is deployed,

1.  Users input data into the network

2.  Peers propose blocks to add to the blockchain

3.  Peers validate proposed blocks

4.  Peers strive to reach consensus

They are also different in two fundamental ways:

1.  Whether or not there are irreversible inputs

2.  Whether or not the blockchain is immutable

And in all cases,

1.  Peers are incentivized to perform

We see three types of participants: developers, users and peers. While developers play a critical role, they are not part of the framework. The framework relates to the steady-state network once it is operational.

With cryptocurrencies, peers are users but most users are not peers. Most users just input transactions. When they receive payments, they have no interaction with the blockchain. The blockchain being public, everybody can be a user by just looking at it. However, one cannot use the blockchain to prove payment to a particular payee because one cannot force a payee to provide proof of received payment. There is a whole class of users who analyze cryptocurrency blockchains to catch illegal behavior such as money laundering and tax evasion. These include US departments DEA, FBI, ICE, IRS and SEC .

In Git, users who enter data into the blockchain are also peers. They input snippets of code and together they create and maintain some desired code. Git users who are peers do not hide their identities, but quite the opposite, seek recognition for their contributions. Another set of users take the code and deploy it.

In Bitcoin, after a peer succeeds a PoW, it will propose a block comprising a set of transactions, the size limited by the Bitcoin protocol. The Bitcoin incentives are such that the peer will validate the block before proposing it to the network. Almost always, even though all peers are working hard on their proofs, only one gets to propose a block (in the rare case of a fork, two or more peers will each propose a block) and the other peers will validate it. Immediately afterwards, the peers start all over again, work on their proofs, and when a peer succeeds, it proposes a new block of transactions. One can see the enormous costs here, as at every cycle, all the peers' duplicate efforts are essentially wasteful but necessary to maintain the integrity of the system.

In Git, a block is a commit, with data describing changes made to the code. These changes take the form of additions to and deletions from the code. There are no size limitations to a commit. Several peers may simultaneously submit blocks of code that they have been working on individually, and all of these may be added to the blockchain.

In Bitcoin, validation involves a fixed, deterministic set of rules and is accomplished automatically, without human intervention. Peers validate that payers have sufficient funds to cover their payments, and to do so, they have to verify that the bitcoins used for payment are still in circulation. As Nakamoto pointed out , "The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions." This is why a Bitcoin peer needs the entire blockchain.

In Git, validation is more nuanced and involves human activity. There are no fixed, deterministic rules that specify validity for a block. When a new block is proposed to add to the master branch, peers must check that it does not crash the code. In order to do that, they must have the entire code. This is why a Git peer needs the entire master branch. Peers cannot guarantee that a block does not crash the code; they can only say they tested it sufficiently and are comfortable with proceeding forward; if a bug is later found, somebody will probably fix it. They may also validate that the proposed code actually does what the user wrote in the message part of the commit that it should do, and that what it does is desirable.

Consensus in Bitcoin is automatic. Peers choose the candidate blockchain of greatest height. The Bitcoin protocol with its PoW guarantees that, as long as peers possessing a majority of the hash power in the network validate truthfully, then asymptotically, the blockchain with greatest height will be valid. Note that it is a majority of hash power in the network, not a majority of peers, that is necessary for users to trust the Bitcoin network. If there is no consensus, the blockchain may fork and peers may continue with either or both branches of the fork.

Consensus in Git is not automatic. Peers are structured with hierarchical authority. They may know each other, converse with each other, and often defer to peers with the most significant contributions. Git uses an interesting form of PoS; the stake includes a peer's reputation, permission level, and membership in the development team. As with Bitcoin, if no consensus is reached, the project may fork and peers may continue as they choose.

Bitcoin transactions are irreversible. Once a payment is made, there is no recourse. With Git, if a user commits a block with a subtle bug that the peers did not catch, somebody can fix that bug in a later commit. This is not an uncommon Git event.

The Bitcoin blockchain is practically immutable. With Git, by design, one can rewrite history .

Cryptocurrency peers are incentivized with mining rewards and transaction fees. Git peers on open-source projects are rewarded by getting the code they desire and by recognition. On closed projects, peers are often salaried software developers.

# The Framework

The framework is a set of questions that ask for specifics relating to blockchain network dynamics. It should be used at the conceptual stage, before development, of a blockchain-based application.

**Who are the users?** Do users have a task that current systems not handle well? Do they want to do something that they could not have done without a blockchain? Are they primarily concerned that their data is at risk? Are they anticipating reduced costs? What performance expectations, like transaction latency, do they expect? Will users have access restrictions to the blockchain? Will there be one blockchain for several classes of users or several blockchains, each for one class of users?

**What data do users input?** Do users enter blobs (large data sets) or transactional data with pointers to blobs that are stored elsewhere? Will there be one blockchain for several types of transactions or several blockchains, each for a particular type of transaction?

**Are any inputs irreversible?** For these, what are the potential liablilities?

**Who are the peers?** Who can become a peer? How many peers are necessary? What is a desirable number of peers? Who are the initial peers? How much trust is there amongst the peers? Will peers have access restrictions to the blockchain? Are some peers also peers in other blockchain networks?

**How do peers create blocks?** How many transactions or contracts or whatever go into a block? When are blocks formed? Do blocks have size limitations? Is the data in the blocks structured or unstructured or both? Do peers have to process data before putting it in a block?

**What do peers validate?** Do peers validate that the data satisfies certain conditions aside from syntactical constraints and/or proof-of-something? Is validation deterministic or do peers sometimes have to make judgement calls?

**How do peers validate?** What information do peers need in order to validate? Do they need the blockchain to be able to validate? Do they need the entire blockchain? Can peers communicate with each other during validation?

**How do peers reach consensus?** What is the trust model? Can peers communicate with each other during the consensus process?

**Is the blockchain immutable?** If so, what are the potential liabilities?

**How are peers incentivized?** Do peers compete for rewards? Do users compete to get peers to service their inputs?

# Discussion

People have recently become enamored with avoiding reliance on trust. More accurately, they think they can create distributed networks of untrusting peers that are more trustworthy than individuals or organizations. They think that complete histories of records, even personal ones, should be on public display, with identities hidden. They want contractual or compliance obligations automatically validated without third party intervention. They see blockchain as the driving technology enabling all this.

As we have seen, the core technologies behind blockchain have been known for decades. Cryptographic linking of data is used in peer-to-peer file sharing such as BitTorrent and data and software distribution . They do not need proof-of-work because any tampering could be quickly detected and dealt with. Things changed with Bitcoin, where double spending, even if detected immediately, could not be undone. Bitcoin introduced a novel twist, combining cryptographic linking with proof-of-work, and after percolating for several years, the concept is now generating tremendous excitement.

Git shows that blockchains can be successful in environments of trust. It makes sense, then, not to restrict the definition of blockchain to any particular trust model. Different trust models will lead to different validation and consensus protocols. Open source projects that are hosted on GitHub provide examples of trust-based consensus practices. For example, see the instructions to prospective peers relating to consensus in Bitcoin Core . Contrast that with the instruction to peers of the Git platform software .

When designing a business application, one should ask, where in the application do fraud or accidental errors happen? In many cases, they hardly ever happen to the data once it is stored, but typically happen during data entry. In such cases, validation may require some level of trust. For example, in supply-chain applications, if peers are not actually present when transactions occur (like boxes loaded on a truck), how will they validate that data entered are true records of what happened?

Immutability, a requirement in almost all currently proposed blockchains, can be a liability. For example, with a public blockchain, if a secret key is compromised, then all immutable records associated with that key are permanently exposed. With standard systems, if a password is compromised, records associated with that password are exposed until the password is changed. Relaxing the requirement for immutability may be an appropriate choice for some blockchain-based applications.

Irreversibility, which is considered an advantage in certain applications, can also be a liability. With Bitcoin, a payer cannot even use the blockchain to prove who is the payee. If a bitcoin owner loses a private key, the coin associated with it is permanently lost. There is no equivalent to a password-reset in Bitcoin. It is estimated that millions of bitcoins are already lost forever .

# Conclusion

Blockchain-based applications other than cryptocurrencies and Git are at a very early stage, and there is clearly enormous enthusiasm to explore and create them. We foresee a spectrum of trust models evolving, and blockchain networks with validation and consensus protocols corresponding to them. We defined blockchains and blockchain networks, expanding the usual definition by not requiring immutability. We looked at two motivating examples with polar opposite trust models- Bitcoin and Git. By considering their common properties, we created a framework to compel concreteness in discussing proposed blockchain-based applications and to guide in their early design stages.