Review on Indirect Dark Matter Searches with Neutrino Telescopes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

universe-1421866-peer-review-v1

Referee report: 

This non-technical review gives a brief overview of neutrino telescopes and their roles in dark matter indirect detections. The constructions of the four existent neutrino telescopes are introduced as well as their current ability to place limits, within the popular WIMP model, on the spin-dependent WIMP-nucleon scattering cross sections as a function of DM mass.  

The presentation is clear, and review is well-structured.  

There are a few small discomforts in the text: 

Q1.  A clearer presentation is needed in line 19-22: 

"Some of these models propose changes in the gravitation theory [3], instead of assuming the existence of a new kind of particles, although in this review we will focus on the first scenario.”  

Q2. line 228: “in some relevant case.” should be “in some relevant cases?”

Q4. line 236: “In the close future,…” should be “in the near future,…?”

Overall the article can be recommended for publication if the journal does not require more technicality to be presented in reviews.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your comments. Here my answers:

------------------------------------------------

 A clearer presentation is needed in line 19-22: 

"Some of these models propose changes in the gravitation theory [3], instead of assuming the existence of a new kind of particles, although in this review we will focus on the first scenario.”  

--> I realise that where it says "first scenario", it should say "latter scenario". I guess this is why it didn't sound clear. Thanks for pointing out. I have also rephrase a bit the sentence for better clarity,

"Some of these models propose changes in the gravitation theory [3]. Others, instead, assume the existence of a new kind of particles. In this review we will focus on the latter scenario."

-------------------------------------------------------

 line 228: “in some relevant case.” should be “in some relevant cases?”

---> Done

------------------------------------------------------

 line 236: “In the close future,…” should be “in the near future,…?”

---> Done

Thanks again for you time.

JD

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes current status and future prospect of indirect dark matter search using neutrino telescope. I feel that this manuscript is sound and appropriate for publication in this journal. 

However, in spite of being a review paper, contents and tones are leaning to one side.  I think review paper considers all neutrino telescopes as equally important detectors. Too much emphasize about ANTARES detector compared with Icecube for certain parameter regions is not good for review paper, I think. I don't have any information about sensitivities from upgraded Icecube, HyperK, and other future projects, but, only giving sensitivity from KM3Net seems to be incomplete for review paper. 

Comparison with other type of searches including direct detection experiments and collider production should be very careful because there are strong model-dependences in such comparison. All those searches are complementary as author said in the paper but, explicit comparison should include model dependences with reduced tones. 

There are a few line by line points below. 

Page 1 

Title : suggest "Review on Indirect Dark Matter searches ... "  

line 7-8: suggest to changes "Considering models of dark matter densities in the Sun and Galaxy center, neutrino telescopes have put the best limits  on WIMP-proton spin-dependent cross section." or other similar words 

line 17: that is should be -> that it should be

line 39: Ref[7] seems not describe all types of neutrino telescope. Maybe this concept is for "GIANT neutrino telescope?". I think that Borexino, SNO, Kamiokande etc are also very important neutrino telescope.

line 69-70: .. a surface array for cosmic rays, called .. as a veto. -> .. a surface array, called .. as a veto for cosmic rays. 

line 76: close parentheses

line 98: suggest " A popular candidate of particle dark matter is WIMPs.." 

page 4

line 146. suggest " .. compared with direct search experiments assuming aforementioned model" 

line 146-147 : It can ... -> In this scenario, the neutrino telescope (in particularly IceCube) offer the best present limit on WIMP-proton spin-dependent cross section" 

line 162: .. long lived mediators, can escape from the Sun, and can decay.." or other changes

line 200-201: This explains why .. I would like to suggest to remove this sentence. 

line 223: they -> IceCube experiment

line 229-230: in the world for WIMP-proton spin-depedent cross section. 

line 230-231: Emphasizing the strengths of the ANTARES experiment compared with IceCube is not a good description at conclusion part for the review paper. I think it is better just state of current limits here. Maybe author can emphasize the world best limit region at high mass case. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.