Addendum to "On an unverified nuclear decay and its role in the DAMA experiment''

TL;DR

This paper defends the original claim that DAMA's background levels are likely underestimated, emphasizing the need for a large modulation fraction in interpreting their signal, and clarifies discrepancies in background analysis.

Contribution

It provides a rebuttal to DAMA's critiques, reaffirming that background estimates are likely too low and highlighting the importance of modulation fraction in dark matter detection.

Findings

DAMA's reported background levels are likely underestimated.

The original claim of a large modulation fraction remains valid.

Discrepancies in background analysis are identified and explained.

Abstract

We reply to the critiques of our paper arXiv:1210.5501 by the DAMA collaboration which appeared in arXiv:1210.6199 and arXiv:1211.6346. Our original claim that the observed background levels are likely to require a large modulation fraction of any putative signal holds. In fact, in light of DAMA's recent comment our claim is further corroborated. We identify the source of the discrepancy between our own analysis and DAMA's claimed levels of unmodulated background. Our analysis indicates that the background in the signal region as reported by DAMA is indeed likely underestimated.