Phenomenological aspects of the dark matter stability origin

Phenomenological aspects of thedark matter stability originThomas HambyeUniv. of Brussels (ULB), BelgiumUniv. Autonoma Madrid & IFT, SpainThe Dark Universe Conference, Heidelberg, 07/10/2011

DM is astonishingly stable!τ DM > τ U ∼ 10 18 secτ DM 10 26 secin most models not to producee + , ¯p, γ, ... fluxes larger than observedin many models: stability assumed by hande.g. ad hoc symmetry ...Z 2origin of the exceptional DM stability????determines the basic DM model structure with specific phenomenologygood criteria to classify the DM models

Types of stabilization mechanisms• Gauge symmetry stabilization:• Pseudo-Goldstone setup (suppressed by heavy scale)••••• .....- extra unbroken gauge group- lightest fermion of a secluded gauge sector- remnant global symmetry of a GUT symmetry- accidental symmetry from broken gauge symmetry- ...- axion- pseudo-majoron, ...- ...Just tiny couplings: KeV right-handed neutrino, gravitino, ...KK parity in Universal Extra Dimension models (assuming orbifold,...)Servant, Tait 06’, ...U(1) B ′ in technicolor modelsGudnason, Kouvaris, Sannino 06’, ...DM stability from a flavour symmetry Hirsch, Morisi, Peinado, Valle 10’

Remnant global subgroup of GUT: R-symmetryMohapatra 86’, Martin 92’R m =(−1) 3(B−L) R-symmetry is a Z 2 subgroup ofU(1) B−La subgroup of SO(10)if U(1) B−L (or SO(10) ) is a gauge symmetry and is brokenonly by vev of fields with even B-L: R-symmetry remains as an exact symmetry10, 45, 54, 120, 126, 210, ...conserved byUV physics toohigh energy explanation of R-symmetrynot experimentally testable (directly)but severely constrains the GUT modelAulakh, Melfo, Rasin, Senjanovic 98’Aulakh, Bajc, Melfo, Rasin, Senjanovic 01’.....

DM stability in non-susy SO(10) setupsnon-susy U(1) B−L (or SO(10) ) gauge theories brokenby only even B-L field vev also leaves a symmetrySM fermions are in the 16 of SO(10) which is B-L oddSM Higgs doublet is in the 10 of SO(10) which is B-L evenZ 2the lightest component of an extra B-Lodd scalar SO(10) representation is stable16, 144, ...the lightest component of an extra B-Leven fermion SO(10) representation is stable10, 45, 54, 120, 126, 210, ...Kadastik, Kannike, Raidal 09’ Frigerio, TH 09’45 or 54 fermion representation: DM is theneutral component of a fermion triplet Σ + , Σ 0 , Σ −relic density requires m DM ≃ 2.7 TeVCirelli, Fornengo, Strumia 06’stabilization mechanism “fixes” the DM mass

DM stability in non-susy SO(10) setupsnon-susy U(1) B−L (or SO(10) ) gauge theories brokenby only even B-L field vev also leaves a symmetrySM fermions are in the 16 of SO(10) which is B-L oddSM Higgs doublet is in the 10 of SO(10) which is B-L evenZ 2the lightest component of an extra B-L the lightest component of an extra B-Lodd scalar SO(10) representation is stable even fermion SO(10) representation is stable16, 144, ...10, 45, 54, 120, 126, 210, ...Kadastik, Kannike, Raidal 09’ Frigerio, TH 09’can drive electroweak GUT unification45 or 54 fermion representation: DM is theneutral component of a fermion triplet Σ + , Σ 0 , Σ −relic density requires m DM ≃ 2.7 TeVCirelli, Fornengo, Strumia 06’stabilization mechanism “fixes” the DM mass

DM stability from accidental symmetry: DM decayif DM stable from accidental low energy symmetry we expect itto decay from new physics UV interactions in same way as protonintriguing coincidence: a GUT scale induced dim 6 operatorcosmic ray fluxes from DM decayof order the observed onesprobe GUT scale physics??Eichler; Nardi, Sannino, Strumia; Chen, Takahashi,Yanagida; Arvanitaki, Dimopoulos et al.; Bae, Kyae;Hamagushi, Shirai, Yanagida; Arina, TH, Ibarra, Weniger; ...

0.20 ∘ ∘ 0.10 ∘ ∘ •• • • • • ∘ • ∘ • • •0.05• ∘ • • ∘e e e e E e 2 dJdE e cm 2 str s 1 GeV0.02Hidden vector: no reason 0.050 that the custodial sym.0.050not violated• PAMELA 08∘ HEAT 949500 AMS01 CAPRICE 94••∘1 5 10 50 100 500 1000Energy GeV••m ••••DM = 300 GeV Λ =2.9 · ∘10 15∘GeV•10 5 ∘• HESS e e Γ∘ ••∘• HESS e e Γ∘ Prel. Fermi EGBG∘ Prel. Fermi b10 °∘10 6 ∘ ∘0.20 10 7 •∘ ∘ •0.10 ∘ •∘ 10 8•• • • • • ∘ • ∘ ∘ ∘∘• • •0.05• • •10 0.0290.1 1 10 100 1000 10 4Energy GeV•E 3 e cm 2 str s 1 GeV 2 E 2 dJdE cm 2 str s 1 GeVe e e E 3 e cm 2 str s 1 GeV p2 p 1 5 10 50 100 500 10001 10 100 1000operator C Energy GeV ••∘Energy GeV•m •••Figure 1: Predictions DM =1.5 TeV Λ =1.2 · 10for case A, 16 ∘ GeVbenchmark Figure 2: 1, Like withFig. τ DM 1, =1.7 but for × 10 case 28 s(Λ A, benchmark =2.9 × 2, with τ DM = 1.1 × 10 27 s(Λ =∘•10 15 ∘∘GeV). The upper panels show the3.7 positron × 10 15 0.01 ∘•∘•5 10 6 GeV). fraction The (left) yellow andband the total shows electron the uncertainty + in the anti-proton flux due to∘∘∘0.001 positron flux (right) compared with experimental the ∘ propagation data. model Dashed parameters. lines show the adoptedE 2 dJdE cm 2 str s 1 GeVoperator A & B1 10 51 10 65 10 8Energy GeV5 10astrophysical 7background, solid lines are background + dark matter signal (which overlap∘10 4 the background 1 10 in this plot). The lower excluded left panel and shows the anti-matter the gamma-ray fluxes signal can from be sizeable. dark7∘matter decay, whereas the lower right panel shows the ¯p/p-ratio: background (dashedline) and 1 10 overall 8100.1 1flux (solid 10 lines, 100 1000 again 10identical with 6background).4 1 8∘0.20 •∘ ∘0.020 ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ •0.10 ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ • ∘ •• ••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • •• ∘• • • ∘ • ∘ • • FERMI ∘ ∘∘• • •0.05• • ∘0.010• ∘ HESS 2009 ∘ HESS 2008 PPBBETS ATIC1,20.02 0.005 ∘∘ AMS01 BETS∘ HEAT94951 1 5 10 10 50 100 100 500 1000 1000operator ∘ A &EnergyBEnergy GeV GeV ••• •••∘m DM = 600 GeV Λ =3.7 · 10 15 GeV∘0.01 ∘•1 10 5 ∘•∘•5 10 6← τ DM =1.6 · 10 27 sec∘∘0.0500.001 ∘1 ∘10 6∘ ∘0.20 ∘ ⋆ ∘∘ ∘ ⋆⋆ 5 10 7 10 4 PAMELA⋆ IMAX19921 10 7 •∘0.020 ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ •0.10 ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ 10 5 ∘ • ∘ ••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • ∘ HEAT2000 • • • CAPRICE19985 10 8∘∘ ∘•• • ∘ • ∘ • • ∘∘∘ ∘∘• • •0.05• • 0.010• ∘ CAPRICE1994 BESS2000 ∘ BESS1999 1 10 8 10 60.020.005∘0.1 11 2 10 5 10010 20 1000 5010 4 100∘Energy kin. Energy GeV GeV∘1 1 5 10 10 50 100 500 1000operator D∘Energy Energy GeV GeV •••m •••DM = 600 GeV Λ =1.5 · 10 16 ∘ GeV∘ 0.01∘∘•1 10 5 ∘•∘•5 10 6 ∘∘0.001 ∘1 ∘10 6 ∘∘ ∘ ⋆ ∘∘ ∘ ⋆ ∘ 5 10 710 4⋆1 10 710 55 10∘82 5 10 20 50 1000.1 1 10 100 1000kin. Energy GeV10 4Energy GeVE 2 dJdE cm 2 str s 1 GeVe e e pp3.3 Positron ∘ fluxC. Arina, T.H., A. Ibarra, C. Weniger 10’by the renormalizable Lagrangian, the three A µ i components are degenerate inare absolutely stable. Nevertheless, since this SO(3) global symmetry is accidA smoking gun DM decay signal: intense γ-ray linesin the UVexpects in the Lagrangian the existence of non-renormalizable operators suppa large scale Λ which break the custodial symmetry. The complete list of operdimension smaller or equal than six which lead, after the spontaneous symmeing of SU(2) HS and SU(2) L × U(1) Y , to the breaking of the SO(3) custodialreads:dim 6 operators:CaseFigureD.4: LikeThisFig.operator,1, butseeforEq.case(2.7),C, Here is particularly we will briefly interesting discuss since theitpredictions induces a kinetic for the anti-matter fluxes concentrating onFigure benchmark 5: Like4, Fig. with1, τ DM but= for1.6 case × 10 D, 27 s(Λ benchmark =∘mixing 1.2 × 10between 16 the U(1) Y of hypercharge case D, and since onethis of the operator hiddenfeatures SU(2) gauge two-body bosons.Ibarra,2, withTran 07’;τ DM Ishiwata,= 6.7Matsumoto,× 10 26 Morois(Λ08’;=decay ∘GeV).into fermions pairs due to effective1.5 × 10 16 GeV).Buchmuller, Ibarra, Shindou, Takayama, Tran 09’;As a result two-body decay modes into kinetic leptonmixing and quark between pairs hidden are allowed, sector and in contrast the hypercharge Choi, Lopez-Fogliani, U(1) Y . Munoz, The de correspondingAustri 09’+ ∘ − + − ¯∘E 3 e cm 2 str s 1 GeV 2 E 3 e cm 2 str s 1 GeV 2 ∘ 0.020 ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘1 ∘ ∘ ∘ (A)••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • ∘ ∘• • •∘∘0.010Λ D µφ † φ D 2 µ H † H, ∘ 1 (B)0.005 ∘Λ D µφ † φ H † D 2 µ H,∘ 11 (C) 10 100 1000∘Energy GeVΛ D µφ † D 2 ν φ F µνY ,0.01 ∘0.050 ∘0.001 ∘0.02010 4p p∘ 0.0105 pp∘0.005 10 6∘∘ ∘ ⋆ ∘∘ ⋆ ⋆ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • ∘∘ ∘• • • ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘1 2 5 10 20 50 100 kin. Energy GeV∘ ∘ ⋆ ∘∘ ⋆ ⋆ (no astrophysical background!)10 5Annihilation: Bergstrom, Ullio, 97’ 98’;Bern, Gondolo, Perelstein 97’;10 6(D)1Λ 2 φ† F a µν5τ a2 φF µνY .1 2 5 10 20 50 100kin. Energy GeVall give 2-body radiative decaysmonochromatic γ-raysin particular offthe galactic plane!DM smoking gun!!Bergstrom, Bringmann, Eriksson, Gustafsson 04’, 05’; Boudjema,Semenov, Temes 05’; Jackson, Servant, Shaughnessy, Tait, Taoso 09’, ...one tree level exception: Dudas, Mambrini, Pokorski, Romagnoni 09‘Decay: Buchmuller, Covi, Hamagushi, Ibarra, Tran 07’;

Dark Matteras aPseudo Goldstone Bosonstability: pseudo-Goldstone decay suppressed by large spontaneous breaking scale2 examples: - AxionGoldstone boson of U(1)spontaneously broken atU(1) explicitly broken at axion gets a massPQPQΛ QCDΓ(a → γγ) ∝ 1/Λ n PQ very long lifetimeΛ PQ- DM Majoron

The pseudo-Goldstone stabilization mechanism: Majoron casedecay width suppressed by large seesaw scaleChikashige, Mohapatra, Peccei 81’•globalU(1) B−L spontaneous breaking scale driven by L=2 scalar fieldU(1) B−L breaking scaleφL ∋−Y ij N Ri L j H − 1 2 c ijφN Ri N Rj〈φ〉 ≡f− 1 2 M Nij N Ri N Rj e iθ/f − 1 2 c ij φ ′ N Ri N Rj e iθ/fφ =(φ ′ + f) e iθ/fM Nij = c ij fMajoron• Majoron as DM:Akhmedov, Berezhiani, Senjanovic, Tao 93’• Majoron needs to be massive Planck effects breaks explicitely the global U(1) B−L sym.• Majoron needs to be stable it couples only to SM through suppressed ν − N R mixingΓ(θ → νν) ∝ (m ν /M N ) 4 ∝ (m ν /f) 4Γ(θ → e + e − ) ∝ α W (m ν /M N ) 4 ∝ α W (m ν /f) 4decay suppressed by naturally large seesaw scale• Majoron needs to have the observed relic density ???Singlet-triplet DM extension:Berezinsky, Valle 93, Lattanzi, Valle 07’,Bazzocchi, Lattanzi, Riener-Sorensen,Valle 08’,Esteves, Joaquim, Joshipura, Romao, Tortola, Valle 10’

A new pseudo-Goldstone DM frameworkFrigerio, TH, Masso, 11’in addition to provide the naturally large stabilizing scale the seesawalso provide:Lcan- the source of explicit symmetry breaking ofm DM- the interactions producing the DM relic density- with a justification for scalar DM at low scale with a mass radiatively “stable”a possibility of a direct link between DM mass and DM relic density

Seesaw interactions Higgs portal θθHH † interactions DM massConsider a global sym. with charges for the not the usualU(1) B−L ≠ N i U(1) B−Lsuch that some of seesaw interactions break explicitely U(1) B−LhL αh××θY 1αN 1 N 2×M 1j M j2N jY 2α×θcollective breaking of global symmetry à la Hill and Ross ‘88Q X N 1= −1, Q X N 2=1,Q X φ =2,Q X ν =1L ∋ λ θθ H † Hλ = 1 M 12 (M 11 + M 22 )4π 2 f 2Y 1α Y 2α log Λ2µ 2logarithmic onlym 2 θ = λv 2 = 1 M 12 (M 11 + M 22 ) m D 1α m D 2α4π 2 f 2log Λ2µ 2mass not quadraticallysensitive to the cutoffthe Majoron DM gets a mass proportional to the electroweak scale

A pseudo-Goldstone one to one link between DM relic density and massFrigerio, TH, Masso, 11’L ∋ λ θθ H † HDM mass: m 2 θ = λ v 2 DM at the electroweak scale or belowDM relic density from: θθ↔ HH †a Goldstone boson has no scalar potentialno massno scalar interactionboth induced by explicit sym. breaking:direct link between DM mass and relic densityif dominated byscalar interactions

DM relic density from the Higgs portal:L ∋ λ θθ H † H2 regimesm 2 θ = λv 2large λ coupling: freezeout small λ coupling: freezeinof DM annihilation of DM pair creationθθ → hh, W W, ZZ, f ¯f hh, W W, ZZ, f ¯f → θθ and h → θθn DMsn DMsHall, Jedamzik,March-Russell, West 09’10 5 0.01 0.1 1 1010 710 910 11m DM = 55 GeV (m h = 120 GeV)Farina, Pappadopoulos, Strumia 10’z = m h /T10 130.01 0.1 1 10 100m DM =2.7 MeVz = m h /TFrigerio, TH, Masso, 11’γ eqn eqθ H10 610 9h → θθWW → θθ10 1210 15t¯t → θθ10 1810 21b¯b → θθhh → θθZZ → θθz = m h /T

Freezein - freezeout transition0.23Ω DMFreezeinFreezeoutm DM =2.7 MeVm DM = 55 GeVλHall, Jedamzik,March-Russell, West 09’NB: - if reheating temperature very high and φNN couplings large enoughthe relic density can be produced also from NN → θθ pair production- to avoid generation of a DM tadpole, the easiest way is to assume CP symmetry

Compilation of constraintstoo largeΓ(θ → e + e − ) ∝ α W m θ m 2 em 2 νM 2 /f 2Frigerio, TH, Masso, 11too largeΓ(θ → νν) ∝ m θ m 4 ν/f 4 Ω DM h 2 =0.11 ± 0.01g ≡ M Nfg10.0110 4NN → θθfrom experimental constraintstudy on:Γ(DM → νν) :Palomares-Ruiz 08’Γ(DM → e + e − ):Bell, Galen, Petraki 10’see also E. Fernandez-Martinez talkm ν =0.05 eV10 610 8M N = 10 7 GeVM N = 10 10 GeVM N = 10 13 GeV10 9 10 7 510 0.001 0.1m Θ GeVm DM =0.15 KeVm DM =2.7 MeVh → θθ, W W → θθ, ...m θ (GeV )f > M P lanckunique value if T reheating

Summary•The origin of particle DM stability is a fundamental question!Each UV or low energy scenario requires a very specific pattern in term of type ofparticle needed, energy scale, ..., which leads to a specific phenomenology- long range dark force- intense flux of cosmic rays, γ-lines,...- GUT specific realizations- specific DM mass- relic density/DM mass link- ....• Pseudo-Goldstone setup: seesaw interactions assuming a U(1) flavour symmetry:- can provide the explicit breaking sourcem DM- generate the DM relic densitym DM ∝ v EW- with a one-to-one link between m DM and Ω DM m DM =2.7 MeV- that can be probed by DM → νν and DM → e + e − searches

Backup

DM stability in non-susy SO(10) setups: scalar caseadd a16 scalar representation:DM is a combination of a scalar doublet and a scalar singletKadastik, Kannike, Raidal 09’direct detection:inert doublet7similar phenomenologywith additional constraint:m DM 100 GeVnot for DAMA, CoGeNTσ N SI (cm 2 )Σcm 210 4210 4310 4410 4510 4610 4710 4810 1 10 2 10 3 10 410 41 M DM GeVXenon10CDMS II combinedCDMS II projectedXenon100SCDMS 25 kgSCDMS CXenon1Tm DM (GeV)Huitu, Kannike, Raccioppi, Raidal 10’+ long lived DM partners at LHC

DM stability in non-susy SO(10) setups: fermion caseadd a 45 or 54 fermion representation:DM is the neutral component of a fermion triplet Σ + , Σ 0 , Σ −Frigerio, TH 09’advantage that the DM triplet candrive gauge coupling unificationas in split susy but without susylow energy pheno is as for a generic fermion triplet:- relic density requires- σSI N ∼ 10 −45 cm 2m DM ≃ 2.7 TeVCirelli, Fornengo, Strumia 06’- indirect detection: - too many antiprotons for explaining excess of Pamela- DM DM → γγ expected to give γ-lines with a ratethan can be probed at atmospheric Cerenkov telescopesHisano et al 04’; Cirelli, Franceschini, Strumia 08’e +

DM stability from unbroken U(1) gauge groupas for thee − : stable because lightest charged particle under a U(1)the simple adjunction of a new QED structurefor a single fermion gives a viable DM candidate!!L = L SM + L QED′Ackerman, Buckley, Carroll, Kamionkowski 08’Feng, Tu, Yu 08’; Feng, Kaplinghat, Tu, Yu 09’Foot at al. 06’-10’L QED′ = ψ e ′(i/∂ − e /A γ′ − m e ′)ψ e′e ′ −e ′ ±relic densitye ′ +>γ ′γ ′e ′ ±stableα ′ m e′e ′ −>>γ ′depends onm e ′, α ′ , ξ ≡ T γ ′/T γFeng, Kaplinghat, Tu, Yu 09’

DM stability from accidental symmetry: Minimal Dark Matteras thep +in the SMCirelli, Fornengo, Strumia 06’Cirelli, Strumia, Tamburini 07’without adding any new gauge group, largerenormalizable interactions with SM fields due to(or dimension-5)SU(2) LSU(2) Lmultiplet cannot have anygauge invariancea fermion quintuplet, septuplet, ... a scalar septuplet, nonuplet, ...m DM = (9.6 ± 0.2) TeVσN SI =1.2 · 10 −44 cm 2nice fit of Pamela e + excesstotal flux fluxe + + e −¯pe positron fractione e HEAT 949530CAPRICE 94AMS01 MASS 91PAMELA 08 10 31Background?10 1 Energy in GeVFERMI 2009HESS 2008 09ATIC2PPBBETSEC ◽◽◽ ◽ ◽ ◽ ◽ ◽ ◽ 10 2 ◽ ◽ E 3 e e in GeV 2 cm 2 s srpp10 310 410 2 p kinetic energy in GeVPAMELA 08 background?prefers an isothermalprofile for compatibilitywith galactic center anddwarf galaxy γ flux0.31 10 10 2 10 3 10 4Energy in GeVBoost ⩵ 50(large Sommerfeld resonanceBoost ⩵ 5010 310 10 2 10 3 10 41 10 10 2 10 3 10 4( mron fraction. The positron fraction from MDM Figure galactic 7: Sum annihilations of electrons DM too high for HESS cutoff) ( m DM high enough to avoidis comatafrom PAMELA and previous experiments. annihilations We have taken is compared a boost factor the of data from ATIC, PPB-BETS, MDMECannihilations, and previouscompared experiments, low toenergy the recentexcess)PAMELA data. We have assumed the same boostand positrons. The flux of electrons Figure 8: and Antiprotons. positrons fromThe MDM antiproton over proton ratio (at top of the atmosphere) fromboost + need of ∼ 50 astro boost)e show the DM signal (the lines) and the total plus e + fraction the datapoints when summed from HESS to the and FERMI. The main result factor (solid as for linepositrons and shaded (B = area) 50). isThe main result (solid line and shaded area) is computed10 5

NHidden vector: relickdensityArelic density from thermaliη, H Hh Afreezeouti l il ismall Higgsportal regimeA iA i ilarge Higgsportal regimem η (GeV)m η (GeV)η, hA iNN k kHN jl iN kHAl η, AhiA il H ∗ iN jH(a) (a)Figure 1: 1: One-loop diagW, ZA iη, η, hhl l HA ∗ iHη, η, h hAH iη, η,Figure1: 1: One-loop diagrams contributing to the toasymmetry the asymmetry η from hV ithe fromN η∗k the decay. N k decay.NV ji NN j ∆ kjLFigure AN k 2: Annilation processes N k with no DM particle N k in the final state.Hη, h i A η, hA iη, h iη,H l A l iVhi AHiW, Z l A iVW, Zl lA ii i if fFigureFigure2:2:Annilatiη, η, h h(a)This asymmetry λ φ = 10 −1is given by the interference of η, the h η, ordinary h tree level decay with η, h the η, 3 h (a)A iinvolving another (virtual) right-handed neutrino and give This asymmetry is given byη, iFigureη, hAA1: This asymmetry is given byi One-loop diagrams η, h contributing W, Z Aη, h A to the asymmetry from ithediagramsNFigure k decay. 1:of Fig. 1: One-loop ¯fiVη, hi A diag1. The firstA diagrams of Fig. 1. The first tε Nk = 1 i ∑ Im[(Y N Y † η,N )2 kj ] h iW, Z AV i i¯f√[]∑involving another (virtual)8πinvolving another (virtual) rj i |(Y A xjN ) ki | 2 1 − (1 + x j ) log(1 + 1/x j ) + 1/(1 − x j ) , (5)A iη, h A iη, h ih, ηηV iη, hA iiVh, ηA iη, η, h hVA W, i Z A ih, ηA iη, hfFigure 2: Annilation λ φ = processes 10 −4 with no DM particle in the final state.Figure 2: Annilationη, processes h with no DM particle in the final η, state.ηhε Nk = 1 ∑ Im[(Ywhere x j = MN 2 j/MN 2 k. The third diagram A ih, η, hof Fig. 1 which was already displayed without η,∑ε 8πj i |(Nk = 1η, hηg ∑ Im[(Y NThis asymmetry is given calculations by φthe interference Ref. [10] involves of theaordinary virtual triplet tree level and isdecay a newwith contribution. the 3 Calculating ∑A iη, h itAwe i obtainη, hAA8πj i |(Yiη, h iW, Z A i¯fdiagrams This asymmetry mof Fig. 1. The is given first two by diagrams the interference are the ordinary of the ordinary vertex andtree Aself-energy A η, h Awhere x j = MN 2 j/MN 2 k. Theε ∆ Nwhere calculations x j = Min N 2 j/M Ref. N 2 k= − 1∑iVlevel decay i diagrams ηwithη, h Vthe i3V (GeV)A iη η, η, hinvolving diagramsanother of Fig. (virtual) 1. The first right-handed two diagrams neutrinoj Im[(Y are theN) andordinary ki (YgiveN ) klh,(Y∆ ∗) vertex ηh, ηilµ] ( and∑2πi |(Y N ) ki | 2 1 − M self-energy diagrams∆2 ) h, ηinvolving another (virtual) right-handed neutrino and giveM Nk MN 2 log(1 + MN 2 k/M∆ 2 ) . (6)Figure 2: Annilation processes with no DM particle kin the final state.[10] . The invFigure 2: Annilatioε Nk = 1 ∑ Im[(Y N Y † N )2 kj ] √[A ] A AV ki A iV k Acalculations kVA iVA kj∑it we obtain Figure in Ref. 2: [10] Annilatio invo8π Note that the tree level decay width is not affected by the existence of the triplet:j Thisi asymmetry |(Y xjN ) ki | 2 1 − (1 + x j ) log(1 + 1/x j ) + 1/(1 − x j ) , (5)ε Nk = 1 ∑ Im[(Y N Y † N )2 kj ] √[VA k]∑ is given by the interference of the ordinary tree level it decay we obtain with the 38πε ∆ N k= − 1∑diagrams of Fig. 1. The first two diagramsΓ j Im[Nk = 1∑2πε ∆ N k= − 1∑8π M are the ∑ordinary N k|(Y N ) ki | 2 vertex and self-energy diagrams.This asymmetry(7)is given bywhere x j = M involving another (virtual) right-handed neutrino and give Thisj Im[(idiagramsasymmetryof Fig.is1.givenThe firstbyN 2 j/M 2 j i |(Y xjN ) ki | 2 1 − (1 + x j ) log(1 + 1/x j ) + 1/(1 A k − x j ) , (5) AV jkjN k. The third diagram of Fig. 1 which was VA already displayed withoutj A j η, tcalculations where x diagrams ∑From the decay of the triplet to two leptons an asymmetry can also be produced. It is2πgiven byε Nkthe= 1 ∑ Im[(Y N Y † N )2 kj∑]involvingof another Fig. 1. (virtual) The firstritwj = inM Ref. [10] involves a virtual triplet and is a new contribution. CalculatingN 2 j/MN 2 k. The third diagram of Fig. 1 which was already displayed η, h V Awithout k jη, η, h√[involving] η, hit another (virtual) rigcalculations we obtain in Ref. [10] involves a virtualinterference 8π of the tree level process with the one-loop vertex Note diagram, thatgiventhe tree level decj i |(Y triplet and xjN ) ki | 2 1is − a(1 new + x j ) contribution. log(1 + 1/x j ) + Calculating1/(1 − x j ) , (5)it we obtain in Fig. 2, involving a virtual right-handed neutrino [10]. Note that with Note one that tripletε the Nkalone = tree 1 ∑ Im[(Y Nlevel ∑decaε ∆ there is no self-energy diagram, and therefore without at least one right-handed neutrino 8πwhere xno asymmetry j = MN 2 j/McanN 2 be k. The third diagram of Fig. 1 which was already displayedε without j i |(Y NNk = 1 ∑ Im[(YN Nk= − 1∑j Im[(Y N) ki (Y N ) kl (Y∆ ∗) ilµ] (Figure Figure∑2π∑i |(Y N ) ki | 2 1 − M 3: 3: Annilation processes∆2 )with a DM particle in inthe thefinal final staM Nk M 2 log(1 + MN 2 k/M∆ 2 ) . (6)produced. At least N ktwo triplets are necessary in order to produce8πε ∆ calculations an asymmetry in Ref. without [10] right-handed involves a virtual neutrinos, tripletin and which is acase newthe contribution. asymmetry comes Calculating j i |(Y NN k= − 1∑two DM to one DM particle annihilationj Im[(Y N) ki (Y N ) kl (Ycase ∆ ∗) ilµ] in ( left-right∑fromNote that the tree level2πitself-energy we decay obtainwidth i |(Y N is) ki not| 2 1 − M 2 and SO(10) models,∆Maffected Nkby the existence M 2 log(1 + MN 2 k/M 2 both )∆ ) ordinary and supersymmetric).case in left-right and SO(10) models, both. ordinary (6) and supersymmetricthe asymmetry from Fig. 2 we obtain:of the triplet: where xdiagrams 1 MeVthe asymmetry Nas was 10 −3 .A iηη, hV iV iN kHl llη, η, hηηf¯f

Hidden vector: direct detectionV iV iη×hNNFigure 8: Obtained spin independent cross-section on nucleon σ SI (An → An) versus M A ,in agreement with the constraint 0.091 < Ωh 2 < 0.129. Small λ m regime (10 −7 < λ m 10 −3 on the right. The colorcaption is as in Figs. 6 and 7. The thick (dashed) black curve is the CDMS (Xenon10)upper bounds at 90% C.L.. The dotted-dashed curve is the recent published CDMS-IIupper bound, at 90% C.L.

Monochromatic γ-ray lines: a smoking gun for DMDM DM → γγ , γZannihilation leads to a monochromatic γ-ray line(not expected in astrophysics background)e.g. obtained at one loop levelrather suppressedBergstrom, Ullio, 97’ 98’;Bern, Gondolo, Perelstein 97’;Bergstrom, Bringmann, Eriksson, Gustafsson 04’, 05’;Boudjema, Semenov, Temes 05’;Jackson, Servant, Shaughnessy, Tait, Taoso 09’, ...one tree level exception: Dudas, Mambrini, Pokorski,Romagnoni 09‘e.g. needs for large boost factor or a TeV DM massBut what about a γ-ray line from DM decay?????has been considered from gravitino decay through R-parity violationBuchmuller, Covi, Hamagushi, Ibarra, Tran 07’;Ibarra, Tran 07’; Ishiwata, Matsumoto, Moroi 08’;Buchmuller, Ibarra, Shindou, Takayama, Tran 09’;Choi, Lopez-Fogliani, Munoz, de Austri 09’

Lagrangian the existence of non-renormalizable operators suppressed bywhich break the custodial symmetry. The complete list of operators withDimension-6 operators breaking the custodial symmetryler or equal than six which lead, after the spontaneous symmetry breakandSU(2) L × U(1) Y , to the breaking of the SO(3) custodial symmetry(A)(B)(C)(D)1Λ D µφ † φ D 2 µ H † H, (2.4)1Λ D µφ † φ H † D 2 µ H, (2.5)1Λ D µφ † D 2 ν φ F µνY ,0.20 (2.6)1Λ 2 φ† Fµνa τ a 2 φF µνY •∘ ∘ •0.10 ∘ . •∘ •• • • • •(2.7)∘ • ∘ ∘ ∘∘• • •0.05• • •examples of branching ratios:operator A & B51 10Benchmark ηη hη hh γη Zη 7γh Zhe e e 0.02all give 2-body decay to γh1 - 0.09 - 0.04 0.02Fermi 0.65 excesses 0.20 and moreover the PAMELA 1 measurements 0.19 on 0.81 the antiproton-to-proton0 02 - 0.04 0.62 0.002 0.0031 10 810 61 10 100 1000 100.15 0.181 2 5 10 20 50 100ratio set very stringent constraints on possible 2∘new sources 0.22 of 0.78 kin. antiprotons. Energy GeV0 Interestingly, 03 - 0.04 0.80 3 × 10 −6 0.002 0.0003 even if the 0.16 scale Λ is increased in order to 3 avoid an0.23 antiproton 0.77 excess, 0 the generically 0Figure 4: present Like Fig. gamma-ray 1, butlines for can casestill C, bebenchmark intense4enough 4, 0.028 with to be τobserved DM 0.79= 0.041 1.6 in experiments, × 10.1427 s(Λ due =∘Table 2: Branching Ratios for Case A.1.2 × 10 16 to the enormousoperator sensitivity of dark C matter line searches.GeV).This is Table illustrated 3: Branching Figs. 1Ratios and 2, for where Casewe C, show including the predictions benchmark for the point positron 4 whicThe Fermi-LAT observations of the region |b| > 10 ◦ plus a 20 ◦ × 20 ◦ channels square around∘Benchmark fraction, total Zηelectron with Zhplus h inpositron the γη final W flux, state. Wantiproton-to-proton − ν¯ν e + e − fraction uū and d¯d gammaraythan a few timesthe Galactic center constrain the dark matter lifetime to be longer0.0501 flux for 0.01 two generic 0.005scenarios, 0.04 namely 0.02the benchmark 0.09 0.39 points0.29 1 and 20.15defined in10 28 s at energies below 200 GeV [67], which is taken into account Tab. in 1. These the results choices shown of0.20 parameters can successfully reproduce the observed dark matter2 0.019 0.004 0.036 0.014 0.072 0.35 0.39 0.12for benchmark point 1 (see Fig. 1), where the line is around 110 GeV. Thus present∘ •∘ •0.10 ∘ ∘• abundance and are consistent with all present laboratory constraints.0.020 We also show in the ∘experiments can probe values of the scale of custodial symmetry breaking close to • the∘ ∘ ∘3 0.22 0.0002 0.73 0.0005 0.003 0.016 0.018 0.005operator D∘∘ •∘ ••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • ∘ • • • •plots for the positron fraction the results from PAMELA [9], HEAT [56], ∘ CAPRICE [57]∘ ∘•e e 0.05∘ ∘ ∘ ∘∘orm 2 str s 1 GeV 2 γη ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • ∘ ∘• • • ∘∘ ∘ ∘1 5 10 50 100 500 10001 10 100 10001 Energy GeV 300 GeV 0.55 1090 GeV 30 GeV∘Energy150 GeV GeV ≈ 0••• •••∘2 600 GeV ∘ 0.6 2000 GeV 30 GeV 120 GeV ≈ 0•1 10 5 ∘0.01 ∘•∘•5 10 3 14 TeV 12 2333 GeV 500 GeV 145 GeV ≈ 06 ∘∘41550 GeV ∘2.1 1457 0.001 GeV 1245 GeV 153 GeV 0.251 10 6∘∘5 10 7∘ ∘ ⋆ ∘∘ ∘ ⋆ 10 4⋆Benchmark Zη γη Zh γh5 10 810 5∘Energy GeVE 2 dJdE cm 2 str s 1 GeVC. Arina, T.H., A. Ibarra, C. Weniger 09’E 3 e cm 2 str s 1 GeV 2 Benchmark M A g φ v φ M η M h sin βTable 1: Benchmark points used for the calculation of cosmic-ray signatures. pp0.0500.0200.0100.005∘0.010∘∘

∘ ∘ 0.020∘ •0.10 ∘ • ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘∘ ∘ 0.020∘ •away from the0.10disk. ∘∘ ∘ •∘ •∘ • • • • ∘ • Flux of monochromatic ∘∘ ∘∘• • •0.05• • ∘ ∘∘ ∘∘• ∘-rays For this• reason they ••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • could be misident ∘∘∘ •• • • • • • • ∘ • FERMI0.010∘ ∘ ∘∘• • • • • ∘ ∘ HESS 20090.05extragalactic • 0.010∘γ gamma-ray background (although they can be•PAMELA 08∘ HESS 2008 ∘HEAT 949500 PPBBETS∘ ATIC1,20.02 AMS01scale anisotropy, see Ref. [43]). In this work we will show p0.02 0.005 ∘∘∘AMS010.005 CAPRICE 94 BETS∘ HEAT9495∘gamma-ray flux in the region 0 ≤ l ≤ 360 ◦ , 10 ◦ ≤ |b| ≤ 90 ◦ , we e e E 2 e dJdE e e cm 2 str s 1 GeV1 5 10 50 100 500 1000Energy GeVE 3 ee cm e 2 str es 1 GeE 2 dJdE cm 2 str s 1 GeVE 3 e cm e e 2 str e s 1 p pGeV 2 1 1 5 10 10 50 100 500 1000∘Energy GeV GeV ••∘operator A & B•• ••••operator A & B• •••∘m∘ DM = 300 GeV Λ =2.9 ∘ · 10 15 GeVm DM = 600 GeVΛ =3.7 ∘· 10 15 GeV ← τ DM =1.6 · 10 27 sec•10 5 ∘∘HESS e e ••0.01•∘• Γ1 10 5 ∘0.01 ∘HESS e e •∘• Γ∘∘∘• Prel. Fermi EGBG5 10 60.050 Prel. Fermi b10 °∘0.050∘∘10 6 ∘ ∘∘0.0010.001 3.2 Gamma-ray ∘ lines1 10 60.20∘ 0.20∘ ∘ ∘ ⋆ 7∘∘ ∘ ⋆⋆ • ∘ 5 10 7∘10 4 •0.10 ∘∘10 4 • ∘ ∘ ∘ •0.020 ∘ ∘∘ ∘ 0.020∘ •0.10 ∘ ∘ ∘ PAMELA•∘ •∘ • ⋆IMAX19921 10 7⋆• • • ∘ • ∘ 10 8∘ ∘∘• • •0.05• • ∘ • ∘••••••••••••••• ∘ ∘ ∘• • •The existence of• • • •• two-body ∘ • •∘ ∘• • • • •decay modes• •with gamma-ray∘ • ∘ ∘• 10 5∘ HEAT2000 0.010∘ ∘∘• • • • • ∘ li∘0.055 10 CAPRICE1998∘8 ∘ •0.010 10 5 ∘generic prediction ∘of hidden vector CAPRICE1994 dark matter models. ∘∘ W BESS2000 BESS19990.020.02 0.005 ∘0.005 ∘possible operator separately, Eqs. (2.4)-(2.7).10 910 60.1 1 10 100 1000 10 4 1 10 810 60.1 1 1 2 10 5 100 20 1000 50 1010041∘∘Energy GeV∘Energy kin. Energy GeV GeV∘1 5 10 50 100 500 10001 1 5 10 50 100 500 10001Energy GeV ••∘Energy GeV••∘operator C• •••operator D• •••∘∘m DM =1.5 TeVΛ =1.2 ∘· 10 16 GeVm DM = 600 GeV Λ =1.5 · ∘ 10 16 GeV•1 10 5 ∘0.01 ∘•∘••∘•5 10 6∘∘•5 10 6 ∘∘∘0.001 ∘∘1 10 6∘1 10 6∘∘5 10 7∘ ∘∘ ⋆ 5 10 7∘∘∘ ∘ ⋆ 10 4 1 10 7⋆1 10 75 10 85 10 10 85∘1 10 80.1 1 10 100 1000 10 4Energy GeVCase A and B. In cases A and B, Eqs. (2.4) and (2.5), theigure 1: Predictions for case A, benchmark Figure12: 101, 5 with τ DM =1.7 × 10 28 0.01 ∘Like Fig. 1, but for case s(Λ A, =2.9 benchmark × 2, wi0 15 ∘either into two scalar particles (ηη, hη, hh) or into a gaugeGeV). The upper panels show the 3.7 positron × 10 15 fraction GeV). The (left) yellow and the bandtotal shows electron the uncertainty∘+ 0.001 (γη, γh, Zη, Zh). Whether the dark matter particle decays positron flux (right) compared with experimental the propagation data. model Dashedparameters.lines show the adopted∘particles or into a gauge boson and a scalar particle∘10 depends4 strophysical background, solid lines are background + dark matter signal (which overlap ⋆ In bothhe background in this plot). The lower excluded cases,left paneland the shows the fragmentation the anti-matter andgamma-ray fluxes decaysignal canfrom be of sizeable. the Higgs bo10dark5∘boson could produce a sizable flux of electrons, positrons andatter decay, whereas the lower right panel shows 1 10 10the ¯p/p-ratio: background (dashed8610 60.1 1 1 2 10 5 100 20 1000 50 1010041the electrons and positrons produced∘kin. Energy Energy GeV GeVin fragmentations canno∘ne) and overall flux (solid lines, again identical with background).E 2 dJdE cm 2 str s 1 GeVfor searching gamma-ray lines from dark matter decay [55].E 2 dJdE cm 2 str s 1 GeVp p3.3 Positron fluxE 3 e cm 2 str s 1 GeE 3 e cm 2 str s 1 GeV 2 p pp pC. Arina, T.H., A. Ibarra, C. Weniger 09’1

DM stability from accidental symmetry: Weakly interacting stable pionsQCD interactions conserve G-parity:ρ → ππ but−+ −−pions would be stable if there were only QCDbut G-parity is not conserved byρ → πππweak interactions (V − Ahypercharge interactionsBai, Hill 10’structure)assume a new QCD structure with new quarksψwithno hyperchargevector weak interact.G-parity is exactly conservedπ 0′ W +ψ L = doubletψ R = doublettheπ 0′is stable and is a WIMPπ 0′π +′>W −m DM = 100 GeV − 2 TeVσ SIN ∼ 10 −45 cm 2but dim-5 operators breaking G-parity are allowedDM decay would be too fast

Other naturally stable DM candidates• DM stability from small couplings (suppressed by heavy scale)and/or small DM mass:- axion- KeV right-handed neutrino- gravitino- ...• KK parity in Universal Extra Dimension models (assuming orbifold,...)• .....P. Sikivie’s talkF. Bezrukov’s talkServant, Tait 06’, ...• U(1) B ′ in technicolor modelsGudnason, Kouvaris, Sannino 06’• DM stability from a flavour symmetry Hirsch, Morisi, Peinado, Valle 10’

More Backup

Relic densityjH ∗• T m V :in thermal equilibrium with SM thermal bath•N T < m V : n eq.V ∼ e−m V /Tk kN kkN annihilation kkfreeze out (WIMP)l l H ∗ H l il iN jl iN kHl iN kl lHHl i ∗∆ Lto two real(c)η:l iN k NHkl ll lHH H(b)(a)H ∗ H ∗N j N j(a)l i l il iN k N kl iλ mgHφ H ∗l l l H ∗l H ∗∆ L l l lN j N jHH(c)(b) (b)l il l Hwith at least one ∗NSM part. in final kstate:N jN kl lH(c)H ∗ H ∗∆ L ∆ LFigure (b) 1: 1: One-loop diagrams contributing l l to tothe H ∗asymmetry from the N H H ∗k decay.N kH HFigure Figure 1: One-loop 1: One-loop diagrams N j diagrams contributing to the to the asymmetry ∆ L from from the the N k Ndecay.k decayN kN kN kη, hiη, h Ag iη, η, h A iη, h iφ(+λ φ ) η, hH A Vl lHl λiiW, Z AV m , g φ , ...Al i lηA iη, h A iη,Ah iη, hA iη, h A η, h iη, hη, hηA i A iW, ZW, ZA i AA iiV iηiif(a)η, η, hhW, Z A i (a) fη, (b) η, h(c) η, hAη, hη, η i ihη, h η, hη, hη, hA iA i A iFigure Figure 1: One-loop 1: One-loop diagη, η, hhA Figure 1: One-loop diagrams contributing to the asymmetry from the N k decay.i iη, η, hhA i η, hA A iη, A V ¯fiA η, hη, AhAW, i Z A iη, h i iW, Z AV ii¯fiη, η, h¯fV iV iA AA iη, h iW, Z Aηηη VA iiη, h iW, Z AA iiη, h A iη, h ih, ηAη, i hA Vh, i Aη, h Aiη, η ηh AV i W, iZ A ih, η η, h2: η, hno DM η, hη, η hη, h η, hAV in the h, ηFigure 2: Annilation processes with no DM particle in ithe final state.with subsequent decay of Figure ηFigure to2: Annilation 2: processes processes with with no DM no DM particle particle in the in the final final state. state.A iη, h A iη, hAA η, h iW, Z AViThis given the of the i tree A iAV iη, ηhη, AV hiA iη, hThis SM asymmetry particles isviagiven h −by the η mixing interference of the ordinary tree h, ηlevel decay with h, ηh, ηthe 3grams contributing to the asymmetry from the N k decay.V iA iV iV iVA iV µ1,2,3l l l l(a) (a)H ∗∗N j jion processes with no DM particle in the final state.the interference of the ordinary tree level decay with the 3two diagrams are the ordinary vertex and self-energy diagramswith due to couplingwith due to couplingη h :V i η :l l ∗l H ∗N jj l il iN kl lH(c)l il il ll l(a)N j

Relic density: additional new type of contributionnon abelian trilinear gauge couplings:F a µνF µνa ∋ ε ijk ∂ µ A iν (A µ j Aν k − A ν j A µ k )do not lead to any V idecay even if trilinear(carries 3 ≠ indices)but induces two DM to oneDM particle annihilation≠from the Z case 2V iA i iA V j jη, η, hA k A kVA iVA jA jA kV kV kV kV kη, hη, η, hη, hFigureFigure3:3:AnnilationAnnilationprocessesprocesseswithwitha DMDMparticleparticle ininthethefinalfinalstate.state.no dramatic effect for the freeze out (same order as other diagrams)

Small Higgs portal regimeλ m 10 −3(but larger than∼ 10 −7to have thermalization with the SM bath)V i V i → ηη , V i V j → V k η dominantdepend only ong φ , v φ , λ φwithm V = g φv φ2 , m η ≃ √ 2λ φ v φm V (GeV)λ φ = 10 −4ifλ φalso small:σ annih. ∼ g4 φm 2 V∼ g2 φv 2 φm V ∝ g 2 φ (∝ v 2 φ)1 MeV m DM 25 TeVg φ

Small Higgs portal regimeλ m 10 −3(but larger than∼ 10 −7to have thermalization with the SM bath)V i V i → ηη , V i V j → V k η dominantdepend only ong φ , v φ , λ φwithm V = g φv φ2 , m η ≃ √ 2λ φ v φm V (GeV)λ φ = 10 −1ifλ φlarge:g φ

Large Higgs portal regimem η (GeV)large hidden sec-λ m 10 −3 large η − h mixing tor - SM mixingcan lead to the rightΩ DMeven for maximal mixingproduction at LHC ofjustas for the Higgs in the SM butwith possibly a larger massηm V (GeV)pace leading to 0.091 < Ωh 2T parameter constraint:ifm h = 120 GeV< 0.129 for the large λ m regimeif m η = m hm η < ∼ 240 GeV (3σ)or larger if nonmaximal mixingm h = m η < 154 GeV (3σ)

Hidden vector: direct detectionV iV iη×hNNLog(ViN → ViN) (cm 2 )can saturate the experimental bound easilym V(GeV)Figure 8: Obtained spin independent cross-section on nucleon σ SI (An → An) versus M A ,in agreement with the constraint 0.091 < Ωh 2 < 0.129. Small λ m regime (10 −7 < λ m 10 −3 on the right. The colorcaption is as in Figs. 6 and 7. The thick (dashed) black curve is the CDMS (Xenon10)

Hidden vector: cosmic ray fluxesoperator A & Bm DM = 300 GeVΛ =2.9 · 10 15 GeVe +e e e • • • •• ∘0.20 ∘ ∘ 0.10 ∘ ∘0.05∘ • ∘•• ∘ • • • •0.02•∘••e + 0.050 + e −E 3 e cm 2 str s 1 GeV 2 0.020 ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • ∘ ∘• • • ∘0.010∘ ∘ 0.005 ∘γE 2 dJdE cm 2 str s 1 GeV1 5 10 50 100 500 1000Energy GeV ••• •••∘∘•∘•∘•5 10 6 ∘∘1 10 6∘∘5 10 71 10 75 10 8∘1 10 100 1000∘Energy GeV¯p 0.01 ∘p p∘∘0.001∘10 410 5⋆∘ ∘ ⋆ ∘ ∘⋆ 1 10 5 Energy GeVγe +e e e 0.20 •∘ ∘ •0.10 ∘ •∘ •• • • • • ∘ • ∘ ∘ ∘∘• • •0.05• • •0.021 5 10 50 100 500 1000Energy GeV ••• •••∘∘•1 10 5 ∘•∘•5 10 6 ∘∘1 10 6 ∘5 10 7∘ 1 10 75 10 81 10 80.1 1 10 100 1000 10 4Energy GeVE 2 dJdE cm 2 str s 1 GeVe + 0.050 + e −E 3 e cm 2 str s 1 GeV 2 ¯pp p∘∘0.0200.0100.0050.01 ∘∘0.001 ∘10 41 10 80.1 1 10 100 1000 10 4∘∘∘10 61 2 5 10 20 50 100kin. Energy GeVFigure 2: Like Fig. 1, but for case A, benchmark 2, with τ DM = 1.1 × 10 27 s(Λ =3.7 × 10 15 GeV). The yellow band shows the uncertainty in the anti-proton flux due to ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ∘ ••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • ∘ • ∘∘• • • ∘ ∘∘∘the propagation model parameters.∘excluded and the anti-matter fluxes can be sizeable.∘1 10 100 1000∘Energy GeV10 510 6⋆3.3 Positron fluxHere we will briefly discuss the predictions for the anti-matter fluxes concentrating oncase D, since∘ ∘ this operator features two-body decay into fermions pairs due to effective ⋆ ∘ ∘kinetic ⋆ mixing between hidden sector and the hypercharge U(1) Y . The correspondingbranching ratios are listed in Tab. 4. In the cases with lower dark matter mass, them DM =1.5 TeVbranching ratio into hard leptons (and in particular electrons) is sizable. Namely, in thelimit M A ≫ M Z the inverse decayΛ =1.2rate·into10 16 chargedGeVlepton pairs is given bykin. Energy GeV( ) 4 ( ) 4 ( )1 2 5 10 20 50 100operator C

What about the non-perturbative regime of this model?SU(2)Hidden Sect.confines automatically ifT.H., M. Tytgat, arXiv:0907.1007Λ SU(2) >> v φdynamicalscaleperturbativebreaking scalebut the custodial symmetry remains exact in this case too‘t Hooft ‘98φ confines: boundstates are eigenstates of the custodial sym.:- scalar state: S ≡ φ † φ singlet of SO(3) expected the lightest- “charged” vector state:- “neutral” vector state:V µ+ ≡ φ † D µ ˜φ}Vµ− ≡ ˜φ † D µ φVµ 0 ≡ φ† D µ φ − ˜φ † D µ ˜φ√2SO(3) tripletstable DMcandidates!

Relic density in the confined regimestrongly interactive massive particle (SIMP)annihilation cross section cannot be calculated perturbativelyV iV iσ annih. ∼ASSΛ 2 SU(2)A = 10 − 50(V i h)+ ...V i Sif S − h mixing isexpected do-minant channel:λ mlarge (for large )m DM ≃ 20 − 120 TeVconfining non-abelian hidden sector coupled to the SMthrough the Higgs portal: perfectly viable DM candidate

Expected spectrum (in a similar case)vector states e.g. expected heavier than scalar ones:1.00.8m* H= 120 GeVm/g 320.60.4vector0.2scalar64 348 332 30.0208.0 210.0 212.0 214.0 216.0 218.0T*/GeV1.2m* H= 180 GeVKajantie, Laine. Rummukainen, Shaposhnikov ‘961.0m/g 320.80.60.440 3 vector32 3 vector

Possible effects on Electroweak Symmetry Breakingcontribution of the vev of the hidden scalar tothe Higgs mass term:L Higgs portal = −λ m φ † φH † H∋−λ m v 2 φH † Hgives a contribution to the Higgs vev:v 2 ∝ λ mλ Hv 2 φ ∝ m 2 DMgives a hint for the m DM versus v WIMP coincidencesee also T.H, M. Tytgat, arXiv 0707.0633, (PLB 659)

Collective breaking of a U(1) flavour symmetrycollective breaking of global symmetry à la Hill and Ross ‘88consider flavour symmetry (instead of ) U(1) B−LU(1) Xinduces a mass only if several M Nij ≠0θexample: N Q X 1,2 :N 1=0Q X N 2=1Q X φ =2M N =allowed by U(1) X( )M11 M 12M 12 M 22 e iθ/fexplicitfrom U(1) X SSBU(1) Xbreakingm 2 θ ∼ 1 M 11 M 12 M 22 M 218π 2 f 2ln Λ2 if any of M ij =0weµ 2 recover an exact U(1)N 1M 11×× ×M 12 M 21M 22N 1N 2 N 2×θ θlogarithmic onlymass not quadratically sensitive to the cutoff

Inducing the pseudo-Goldstone-Higgs portalFrigerio, TH, Masso, 11other possible realization of collective breakinginvolving both Majorana and Dirac terms:hL αh×Y 1α×N 1 N 2×M 1j M j2N jY 2α×θθHiggs portal: λ = 1 M 12 (M 11 + M 22 )4π 2 f 2L ∋ λ θθ H † HY 1α Y 2α log Λ2µ 2m 2 θ = λv 2 = 1 M 12 (M 11 + M 22 ) m D 1α m D 2α4π 2 f 2log Λ2µ 2example: Q X N 1= −1, Q X N 2=1,Q X φ =2,Q X ν =1NB: - to avoid generation of a DM tadpole, the easiest way is to assume CP symmetry- if reheating temperature very high and φNN couplings large enoughthe relic density can be produced also from NN → θθ pair production

Phenomenological aspects of thedark matter stability originThe Dark Universe Conference, Heidelberg, 07/10/2011

Examples of specific phenomenologyderiving fromgauge symmetry stabilization mechanisms

Dark Matteras aPseudo Goldstone Bosonstability: pseudo-Goldstone decay suppressed by large spontaneous breaking scaleΛ2 well-known examples: - AxionGoldstone boson of U(1)spontaneously broken atU(1) explicitly broken at axion gets a massPQPQΛ PQΓ(a → γγ) ∝ 1/Λ n PQ very long lifetimeΛ PQ- DM Majoron

Summary•The origin of particle DM stability is a fundamental question!Each UV or low energy scenario requires a very specific pattern in term of type ofparticle needed, energy scale, ..., which leads to a specific phenomenology- long range dark force- intense flux of cosmic rays, γ-lines, ...- GUT specific realizations- specific DM mass- relic density/DM mass link- ....• Pseudo-Goldstone setup: seesaw interactions assuming a U(1) flavour symmetry:- can provide the explicit breaking source m DM- generate the DM relic density m DM ∝ v EW- with a one-to-one link between m DM and Ω DM m DM =2.7 MeV- that can be probed by DM → νν and DM → e + e − searches