1: \documentclass[amssymb,amsmath,aps,showpacs,floatfix,nofootinbib,showpacs,12pt]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{amssymb}
3: %\documentclass[amssymb,amsmath,aps,prl,showpacs,twocolumn]{revtex4}
4: %\draft
5: %\documentstyle[12pt,axodraw]{article}
6: %\usepackage{axodraw}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8: \usepackage{color}
9: \usepackage{soul}
10: \usepackage{latexsym}
11: \newcommand{\vev}[1]{\langle {#1} \rangle}
12: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lesssim}
13: \newcommand{\gsim}{\gtrsim}
14: \newcommand{\hin}{h_{inv}}
15: \newcommand{\pt}{p_T\!\!\!\!\!\! /\,\,}
16:
17: \def\gev{\rm GeV}
18: \def\ww{W^*W^*}
19: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
20: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
21: \def\ljj{\ell\nu jj}
22: %\def\ll{\ell\bar\nu \bar\ell \nu}
23: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
24: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
25: \def\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}
26: \def\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}
27: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
28: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
29: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
30: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
31: \newcommand{\fslash}[1]{{#1 \kern -0.7em/ \kern 0.1em}}
32:
33:
34: \begin{document}
35:
36: \voffset 1.25cm
37:
38: \title{ Constraints on the Dark Matter Annihilations by Neutrinos with
39: Substructure Effects Included}
40:
41: \author{Peng-fei Yin $^{1}$, Jia Liu $^{1}$, Qiang Yuan $^{3}$, Xiao-jun Bi $^{2,3}$ and
42: Shou-hua Zhu $^{1}$}
43:
44: \affiliation{$^{1}$ Institute of Theoretical Physics \& State Key
45: Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University,
46: Beijing 100871, China \\ $^{2}$ Center for High Energy Physics,
47: Peking University, Beijing 100871, China \\ $^{3}$ Key Laboratory of
48: Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese
49: Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, P. R. China}
50:
51: \date{\today}
52:
53: \begin{abstract}
54:
55: Dark matter (DM) annihilations in the Galaxy may produce high energy
56: neutrinos, which can be detected by the neutrino telescopes, for
57: example IceCube, ANTARES and Super-Kamiokande. The neutrinos can
58: also arise from hadronic interaction between cosmic ray and
59: atmosphere around the Earth, known as atmospheric neutrino. Current
60: measurements on neutrino flux is consistent with theoretical
61: prediction of atmospheric neutrino within the uncertainties. In this
62: paper, by requiring that the DM annihilation neutrino flux is less
63: than the current measurements, we obtain an upper bound on the cross
64: section of dark matter annihilation $ \left\langle {\sigma v}
65: \right\rangle$. Compared with previous investigations, we improve
66: the bound by including DM substructure contributions. In our paper,
67: two kinds of substructure effects are scrutinized. One is the
68: substructure average contribution over all directions. The other is
69: point source effect by single massive sub-halo. We found that the
70: former can improve the bound by several times, while the latter can
71: improve the bound by $ 10^1 \sim 10^4$ utilizing the excellent
72: angular resolution of neutrino telescope IceCube. The exact
73: improvement depends on the DM profile and the sub-halo concentration
74: model. In some model, IceCube can achieve the sensitivity of $
75: \left\langle {\sigma v} \right\rangle \sim 10^{ - 26} cm^3 s^{ - 1}
76: $.
77:
78:
79: \end{abstract}
80:
81: \pacs{13.15.+g, 95.35.+d, 95.55.Vj, 98.62.Gq}
82:
83: % 13.15.+g Neutrino interactions CODE:
84: % 95.35.+d Dark matter (stellar, interstellar, galactic, and
85: %cosmological)
86: %95.55.Vj Neutrino, muon, pion, and other elementary particle detectors; cosmic ray detectors
87: %98.62.Gq Galactic halos,
88: %YEAR: 2008
89:
90:
91: \maketitle
92:
93: \section{Introduction}
94:
95: Many astronomical observations indicate that most of the matter in
96: our universe is dark (see e.g. Ref. \cite{Jungman:1995df}). The
97: evidences come mainly from the gravitational effects of the dark
98: matter (DM), such as the rotation curves of spiral galaxies
99: \cite{Begeman:1991iy,Persic:1995ru}, the gravitational lensing
100: \cite{Tyson95} and the dynamics of galaxy clusters \cite{White93}.
101: The studies such as primordial nucleosynthesis \cite{Peebles71} and
102: cosmic microwave background (CMB) \cite{Spergel03} show that the DM
103: is mostly non-baryonic. Combining recent cosmological measurements,
104: for example from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP),
105: one could deduce precisely the relic density of DM, namely
106: $\Omega_{DM}h^2=0.1143\pm 0.0034$ \cite{Hinshaw:2008kr}. However,
107: the nature of dark matter is still unclear. In the literature there
108: is a ``zoo'' of particle candidates for DM \cite{Bertone04}, among
109: which the most popular candidate at present is the weakly
110: interacting massive particle (WIMP) such as the lightest
111: supersymmetric particle (LSP), lightest Kaluza-Klein particle (LKP)
112: $etc$.
113:
114: Search for WIMP in particle physics experiments is very important to
115: pin down the properties of the DM. Besides searching missing energy
116: signals at accelerator-based experiments, there are usually two
117: classes of methods to detect WIMP, namely direct and indirect ones.
118: The former method detects WIMP by measuring the recoil of heavy
119: nucleus in the detector and gives the most strong evidence for the
120: existence of DM. The latter one detects the DM self-annihilation
121: signals, which include neutrinos, photons, anti-matter particles and
122: so on. Among them neutrinos are one of the most attractive signals.
123: For the {\em low energy} neutrinos (say much less than 100 GeV),
124: their interactions with matter are highly suppressed by a factor at
125: least $Q^2/m_W^2$ with $Q$ the typical energy scale of the
126: interaction. The neutrinos are hardly energy loss and trajectory
127: deflection during their propagation, therefore they may carry the
128: information of the nature and distribution of the DM. However due to
129: the same reason, it is hard to capture such kind of {\em low energy}
130: and relatively low flux neutrinos. For the {\em high energy}
131: neutrinos (say around 100 GeV or higher), the interactions among
132: neutrinos and matter become much stronger. These neutrinos may keep
133: the information of the DM, and it is relatively easy to observe them
134: experimentally.
135:
136: One proposal of detecting the high energy neutrino signals is to explore the
137: locations close to us such as the center of the Sun or the Earth to
138: get enough neutrino flux. The DM particles are gravitational trapped
139: in the center of the Sun or Earth and produce neutrinos by
140: annihilation \cite{Liu:2008kz}. If the annihilation and capture
141: processes are in equilibrium, the neutrino flux are mainly
142: determined by the cross section of the DM and nuclei. Another
143: proposal is to detect the neutrino signals from DM annihilation in
144: the Milky Way (MW). Though the sources in the MW are farther than
145: the Sun, it is natural to expect that the larger amount of DM can
146: compensate the distance. Moreover the neutrino flux depends on the
147: DM annihilation rate and number density square, therefore the
148: regions with high density in the MW, such as the Galactic Center
149: (GC) or sub-halos, should be potentially excellent observational
150: targets.
151:
152: The GC is conventionally thought to be source-rich astrophysical
153: laboratory and has attracted many attention of astronomers. It is
154: also true for the DM indirect searches. Due to the weak interaction
155: of DM particles, the DM density at the GC is highly accumulated as
156: shown by detail simulations, which makes the GC a bright source of
157: DM annihilation. However, the complicated astrophysical environment
158: and various kinds of astrophysical sources make the GC a high
159: background site. In addition, the overlapping with bayonic matter
160: objects (e.g., the central massive black hole \cite{Gondolo:1999ef})
161: may also affect the DM distribution and increase the uncertainties.
162: It should be emphasized that the galactic sub-halos may be good
163: candidates as DM sources. Since the self-annihilation of DM is
164: square-dependent on the number density, the clump of substructure is
165: expected to effectively enhance the annihilation signal and plays a
166: role of the so-called ``boost factor'' \cite{bi06a,bi06b,yuan07}.
167: Furthermore as indicated by simulations, the spatial distribution of
168: DM sub-halos is tend to be spherical symmetric in the MW halo, which
169: may locate at a low-background site and effectively avoid the source
170: confusion in the galactic plane. The effects of DM sub-halos on the
171: flux of induced neutrino is what we try to investigate in this work.
172:
173: The neutrinos detected by high-energy neutrino telescopes such as
174: Super-Kamikande \cite{Desai:2004pq}, AMANDA \cite{Ahrens:2003fg}
175: etc. are thought to be mainly from atmospheric neutrinos. Here they
176: originate from the decay of hadrons which are produced by the strong
177: interactions of cosmic rays with atmosphere. Experimentally no
178: obvious excess has yet been observed. Then the measurements on
179: neutrino flux can be utilized to set bounds on the DM annihilation
180: cross section. As neutrinos are the most difficult to detect in the
181: DM annihilating final states, the authors of Ref.
182: \cite{Beacom:2006tt} and \cite{Yuksel:2007ac} assumed that the DM
183: annihilate solely into neutrinos. They calculated the extra-galactic
184: and the galactic neutrino fluxes, compared them with atmospheric
185: neutrino flux, and set an upper bound on the DM annihilation cross
186: section $\langle\sigma v\rangle$. However, the DM may annihilate
187: into final states other than neutrinos. In most of the DM models
188: there are several annihilation channels. Moreover high energy
189: neutrinos from the DM annihilation will lead to gauge bosons
190: bremsstrahlung \cite{Kachelriess:2007aj,Bell:2008ey} even in the
191: standard model (SM). The electromagnetic final states through
192: higher-order corrections are also inevitable \cite{Dent:2008qy}.
193: Therefore the assumption that DM annihilate into only neutrinos
194: gives the most conservative bound on DM annihilation cross section.
195:
196: In this paper we calculated the neutrino flux from the DM
197: annihilations in the MW including the contributions from sub-halos
198: by assuming that the DM annihilate into neutrinos only
199: \cite{Beacom:2006tt,Yuksel:2007ac}. By comparing the predicted flux
200: with the available atmospheric neutrino measurements, we set a very
201: strict constraint on the DM total annihilation cross section.
202: Compared to the previous studies, in this work we utilize the
203: angular resolution of the neutrino telescope to derive the stricter
204: constraints. Here the massive sub-halos can be treated as the
205: point-like sources. Based on our analysis we may observe the high
206: energy neutrino flux provided that precise angular resolution data
207: from ANTARES \cite{Pradier:2008iv} and IceCube \cite{Ahrens:2003ix}
208: is available. On the other hand if no excess flux out of atmospheric
209: neutrino is observed, an improved upper-bound of the annihilation
210: cross section and/or the exclusion of certain sub-halo models can be
211: obtained.
212:
213: This paper is organized as following. In Sec. II, we describe the
214: sub-halo models according to the N-body simulation results. In Sec.
215: III, we give the constraints on the dark matter annihilation cross
216: section. The conclusions and discussions are given in Sec. IV.
217:
218:
219: \section{Galactic DM distribution and substructure}
220:
221: The current knowledge of the DM spatial distribution is mostly from
222: the N-body simulation. Navarro et al. \cite{nfw97} firstly proposed
223: a universal DM profile (referred as ``NFW''). Based on their
224: simulation in a wide range of halo mass, the density of DM can be
225: written as \cite{nfw97}
226: \begin{equation}
227: \rho(r)=\frac{\rho_s}{(r/r_s)[1+r/r_s]^2}, \label{nfw}
228: \end{equation}
229: where $\rho_s$ and $r_s$ are the density scale and radius parameters
230: for a specific DM halo. Moore et al. \cite{moore98} gave another
231: profile with a more cusped inner slope compared with NFW as
232: \begin{equation}
233: \rho(r)=\frac{\rho_s}{(r/r_s)^{1.5}[1+(r/r_s)^{1.5}]}.
234: \label{moore}
235: \end{equation}
236: In addition, cored profile as
237: $\frac{\rho_s}{(1+r/r_s)[1+(r/r_s)^2]}$
238: \cite{burkert95,Salucci:2000ps} or cuspy profile with different
239: inner slope from NFW and Moore (e.g., \cite{diemand05}) were also
240: proposed in the literature. Reed et al. showed that even the inner
241: slope steepens with the decrement of the halo mass, instead of a
242: universal one \cite{reed05}. All these profiles give the same
243: behaviors $\sim r^{-3}$ at large radii, but show discrepancies in
244: the inner region of the halo. Precise determination of the DM
245: profile needs simulation with higher resolution and better
246: understanding of the DM properties such as the interaction with
247: baryonic matter. In this work we will adopt both NFW and Moore
248: profiles for the discussion. It should be noted that the central
249: density for NFW or Moore profile is divergent. In order to handle
250: the singularity, a characteristic radius $r_c$ is introduced within
251: which the DM density is kept a constant $\rho_{max}$ due to the
252: balance between the annihilation rate and the in-falling rate of DM
253: \cite{berezinsky92}. Typically we have $\rho_{max}=
254: 10^{18}\sim10^{19}$ M$_{\odot}$ kpc$^{-3}$ \cite{lavalle08}.
255:
256: \subsection{Determination of the profile parameters $r_s$ and $\rho_s$ }
257:
258: Following \cite{bullock01}, we use the virial mass $M_v$ of the halo
259: to determine the parameters $\rho_s$ and $r_s$. For a DM halo with
260: specified mass $M_v$, the virial radius $r_v$ is defined as
261: \begin{equation}
262: r_v=\left(\frac{M_v}{(4\pi/3)\Delta\rho_c}\right)^{1/3}, \label{rv}
263: \end{equation}
264: with the density amplifying factor over the background
265: $\Delta\approx200$ and the critical density of the universe
266: $\rho_c=139$ M$_{\odot}$ kpc$^{-3}$. The concentration parameter
267: $c_v$ (CP) is defined as
268:
269: \begin{equation}
270: c_v=\frac{r_v}{r_{-2}},
271: \label{cv}
272: \end{equation}
273: where $r_{-2}$ refers to the radius at which $\frac{{\rm d} \left(
274: r^2\rho \right)}{dr} |_{r=r_{-2}}=0$. It is shown that for NFW
275: profile $r_{-2}=r_s^{nfw}$ and for Moore profile
276: $r_{-2}=0.63\,r_s^{moore}$, so we have
277: \begin{equation}
278: r_s^{nfw}=\frac{r_v(M_v)}{c_v(M_v)},\ \
279: r_s^{moore}=\frac{r_v(M_v)}{0.63\,c_v(M_v)}.
280: \label{rs}
281: \end{equation}
282: Then $\rho_s$ can be derived just by requiring $\int\rho(r){\rm
283: d}V=M_v$. We can see that the profile of the DM halo is fully
284: determined provided that the $c_v - M_v$ relation is specified.
285:
286: Generally the $c_v-M_v$ relation is fitted from the numerical
287: simulation. Here we will use two toy models of Eke et al.
288: (\cite{eke01}, denoted by ENS01) and Bullock et al.
289: (\cite{bullock01}, denoted by B01), within which the DM halo forms
290: based on the cosmological background density field. The CP predicted
291: in these models increases with the decrement of the halo mass. Such
292: behavior is understandable in the frame of hierarchy structure
293: formation, i.e. smaller halo forms earlier when the universe is
294: denser than today. This behavior is confirmed at the cluster scale
295: \cite{buote07,comerford07}. However, other studies showed agreement
296: or disagreement with these two models, which indicate that we may
297: not achieve the final understanding of this topic at present (see
298: the discussion of Ref. \cite{lavalle08}). For the current work,
299: these models are regarded as reference ones. We use the fitted
300: polynomial form of the simulation at $z=0$ and extrapolate to low
301: masses \cite{lavalle08}:
302: \begin{equation}
303: \ln(c_v)=\sum_{i=0}^4C_i\times\left[\ln\frac{M_v}{M_{\odot}}\right]^i,
304: \label{lncv}
305: \end{equation}
306: with $M_{\odot}$ the mass of the Sun and
307: \begin{equation}
308: C_i^{ENS01}=\{3.14,-0.018,-4.06\times10^{-4},0,0\}
309: \label{cvens01}
310: \end{equation}
311: and
312: \begin{equation}
313: C_i^{B01}=\{4.34,-0.0384,-3.91\times10^{-4},-2.2\times10^{-6},
314: -5.5\times10^{-7}\}.
315: \label{cvb01}
316: \end{equation}
317:
318: Fig. \ref{cveps} shows $c_v$ as a function of the halo mass $M_v$
319: (see also Fig. 1 of Ref. \cite{cola06}). For the very low mass, it
320: is shown that $c_v$ becomes flat due to the fact that small objects
321: tend to collapse at the same epoch. It should be noted that ENS01
322: and B01 models are for distinct halos in the universe. For the
323: sub-halos within a host halo which is denser than the universe
324: background, as we will discuss in this work, it is expected to be
325: more concentrated than the distinct halos. In Ref. \cite{bullock01}
326: the simulation showed the sub-halos within a host halo indeed have
327: larger $c_v$ than the distinct ones with the same mass. The
328: simulation shows the $c_v$ of subhalo has
329: $c_v \sim M_v^{-0.3}$, which is steeper than the distinct
330: halo ($c_v \sim M_v^{-0.13}$). In Fig. \ref{cveps} we also show the
331: extrapolated results of $c_v$ for sub-halos with mass $10^6\sim
332: 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$. The other way to deal with the sub-halo is to
333: multiply the result for distinct one by an empirical factor (e.g.,
334: $\sim2$ in Ref. \cite{cola06}, in the following we denote this model
335: as $B01\times2$).
336:
337: \begin{figure}[!htb]
338: \begin{center}
339: \includegraphics{cv.eps}
340: \caption{Concentration parameter (CP) $c_v$ as a function of halo
341: mass $M_v$ at epoch $z=0$. }\label{cveps}
342: \end{center}
343: \end{figure}
344:
345: \subsection{The MW halo and substructure}
346:
347: The mass of the MW DM halo is about $1\sim2\times10^{12}$
348: M$_{\odot}$ determined from the rotation curve or kinematics of
349: tracer populations such as the stars, satellite galaxies and
350: globular clusters \cite{wilkinson99,sakamoto03,smith07}. A recent
351: work by Xue et al. showed that $M_v=\left( 0.93\pm0.25
352: \right)\times10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$ through an analysis of kinematics
353: of a large sample of SDSS halo stars \cite{xue08}. Here we adopt
354: $M_v=10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$ as the mass of the total MW halo. As shown
355: below, about $10\%\sim20\%$ of the mass will form substructures, so
356: the mass of the smooth halo is $0.8\sim0.9\times10^{12}$
357: M$_{\odot}$. A NFW profile is adopted for the smooth halo. Using the
358: B01 model, we find that\footnote{Here $10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$ is used
359: to calculate $r_v$ and $c_v$, while the density at the solar
360: location is scaled to match that of the mass of the smooth component
361: is $0.85\times10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$.} $r_v\approx205$ kpc,
362: $c_v\approx13.6$ and $\rho_{\odot}\approx0.34$ GeV cm$^{-3}$. This
363: configuration of the smooth halo is fixed in the following
364: discussion since we will focus on the substructure in the present
365: work.
366:
367: The survival of substructure in galactic halo was revealed by many
368: simulation groups
369: \cite{tormen98,klypin99,moore99,ghigna00,springel01,
370: zentner03,lucia04}. A recent simulation conduced by Diemand et al.
371: showed that the self-bound substructure could even be as light as
372: the Earth, with a huge number reaching $\sim10^{15}$
373: \cite{diemand05}. Simulations give the number density of sub-halos
374: an isothermal spatial distribution and a power-law mass function as
375: \begin{equation}
376: \frac{{\rm d}N}{{\rm d}M_{sub}\cdot4\pi r^2{\rm d}r}=
377: N_0\left(\frac{M_{sub}}{M_{host}}\right)^{-\alpha}
378: \frac{1}{1+\left(\frac{r}{r_H}\right)^2}, \label{number}
379: \end{equation}
380: where $M_{sub}$ and $M_{host}$ are the masses of sub-halo and host
381: halo ($10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$ here), $r_H$ is the core radius which
382: usually is a fraction of the virial radius of the host halo,
383: $\alpha$ is the slope of the mass function and $N_0$ is the
384: normalization factor. For a galactic host halo, $r_H$ was found to
385: be about $0.14\,r_v$ \cite{diemand04}. The slope $\alpha$ lies
386: between $1.7$ and $2.1$ in various works \cite{moore99,
387: ghigna00,helmi02,gao04,lucia04,shaw06}. Here we adopt $\alpha=1.9$
388: as in Ref. \cite{bi06a,cola06,yuan07}. The mass function of Eq.
389: (\ref{number}) is thought to be held in the mass range from the
390: minimal sub-halo with mass $\sim10^{-6}$ M$_{\odot}$ which is close
391: to the free-streaming mass
392: \cite{hofmann01,chen01,green05,diemand05}, to the maximum one about
393: $0.01\,M_{host}$ \cite{bi06a}. The normalization is determined by
394: setting the number of sub-halos with mass larger than $10^8$
395: M$_{\odot}$ is 100 \cite{lavalle08}. Finally in the inner region of
396: the host halo, strong tidal force tends to destroy the sub-halo and
397: the survival number should be cut down. We employ the ``tidal
398: approximation'' as in Ref. \cite{bi06a}. Under this configuration,
399: we find that the mass fraction of substructure is about $14\%$.
400:
401: \subsection{Astrophysical factor of the DM annihilation}
402:
403: The annihilation signal of DM particles relies on two factors: the
404: particle physical factor $W(E)$ (energy dependent) depending on the
405: particle property of DM, and the astrophysical factor $J(\psi)$
406: (spatial dependent) depending on the spatial distribution of DM. The
407: neutrino flux observed on the Earth (applicable also for $\gamma$)
408: can be written as
409: \begin{eqnarray}
410: \phi(E,\psi)&=&C\times W(E)\times J(\psi) \nonumber\\
411: &=&\rho_{\odot}^2R_{\odot}\times\frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{\langle
412: \sigma v\rangle}{2m_{\chi}^2}\frac{{\rm d}N}{{\rm d}E}\times
413: \frac{1}{\rho_{\odot}^2R_{\odot}}\int_{LOS}\rho^2(l){\rm d}l,
414: \label{jpsi}
415: \end{eqnarray}
416: where $\rho_{\odot}=0.34$ GeV cm$^{-3}$ is the local DM density and
417: $R_{\odot}=8.5$ kpc is the distance of the Sun from the GC, $\psi$
418: is defined as the angle between the observational direction and the
419: GC direction relative to the observer, $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ is
420: the average value of annihilation cross section times relative
421: velocity, $m_{\chi}$ is the mass of DM particle, ${\rm d}N/{\rm d}E$
422: is the production spectrum of $\nu$ per annihilation. The integral
423: path in Eq. (\ref{jpsi}) is along the line-of-sight (LOS). To
424: account for the contribution of substructures, we just need to
425: replace $\rho^2$ in Eq. (\ref{jpsi}) by
426: $\langle\rho^2\rangle=\rho_{smooth}^2+ \langle\rho_{sub}^2\rangle$
427: with \cite{yuan07}
428: \begin{equation}
429: \langle\rho_{sub}^2\rangle=\int {\rm d}M_{sub}\frac{{\rm d}N}
430: {{\rm d}M_{sub}\cdot4\pi r^2{\rm d}r}\left(\int_{V_{sub}}\rho_{sub}^2
431: {\rm d}V\right).
432: \label{averrho}
433: \end{equation}
434:
435: The average astrophysical factor within a solid angle $\Delta\Omega$
436: (e.g., the angular resolution of the detector) is defined as
437: \begin{equation}
438: J_{\Delta\Omega}=\frac{1}{\Delta\Omega}\int_{\Delta\Omega}J(\psi){\rm
439: d}\Omega .
440: \end{equation}
441: where $ J(\psi )$ is defined in Eq. (\ref{jpsi}). In Fig.
442: \ref{jpsieps} we show $J(\psi)$ as a function of $\psi$ and
443: $J_{\Delta\Omega}$ as a function of smooth angle $\Delta\Theta$,
444: which is the half angle of the cone centered at the direction of the
445: GC. Here $\Delta\Omega=2\pi(1-\cos\Delta\Theta)$. From the figures
446: we can see that the enhancement on $J(\psi)$ by substructures is
447: mainly at large angle, i.e., the direction deviation from the GC.
448: The contribution from sub-halos with Moore profile is about 8 times
449: larger than that of NFW profile (slightly different between various
450: concentration models). For ENS01 model the enhancement upon the
451: smooth component is very weak, while for the best combination
452: B01$\times 2$+Moore the boost factor can be as large as $\sim25$ at
453: the anti-GC direction. However, the enhancement of
454: $J_{\Delta\Omega}$ is not remarkable. For the halo-average
455: ($\Delta\Theta=180^{\circ}$) the best case gives $\sim 4$ times
456: boost as shown in the right bottom figure in Fig. \ref{jpsieps}.
457:
458: \begin{figure}[!htb]
459: \begin{center}
460: \scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics{jpsi_ENS01.eps}}
461: \scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics{jpsi_ENS01_mean.eps}}
462: \scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics{jpsi_B01.eps}}
463: \scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics{jpsi_B01_mean.eps}}
464: \scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics{jpsi_B01_2.eps}}
465: \scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics{jpsi_B01_mean_2.eps}}
466: \caption{$J(\psi)$ as a function of $\psi$ (left column) and
467: $J_{\Delta\Omega}$ as a function of smooth angle
468: $\Delta\Theta$---half angle of the smooth cone centered at the
469: direction of GC (right column). In each figure the smooth (solid),
470: smooth+sub(NFW) (dashed) and smooth+sub(Moore) (dotted) are shown.
471: For each column, from top to bottom, the figures correspond to the
472: concentration models as ENS01, B01 and B01 multiplying by a factor
473: of 2, respectively.} \label{jpsieps}
474: \end{center}
475: \end{figure}
476:
477: \subsection{DM substructure as point-like source}
478:
479: In the previous section the contribution from substructures is
480: averaged over the whole MW (see Eq. (\ref{averrho})). It should be
481: noted that for the few massive sub-halos this average is
482: unreasonable. In this case, the massive sub-halo should be more
483: appropriately treated as point-like source and may be identified by
484: high angular resolution detector such as the IceCube. This feature
485: can also be utilized to suppress the background.
486:
487: In our work, a Monte-Carlo method is adopted to produce sub-halos
488: with mass larger than $10^6$ M$_{\odot}$ according to the
489: distribution function Eq. (\ref{number}). For this distribution
490: function, we find $N(>10^6$ M$_{\odot})\approx6400$. In our
491: numerical simulation, totally 50 MWs are generated, and the ``tidal
492: approximation'' is adopted. For each sub-halo, we calculate the
493: value of $J(\psi)$ and average within the cone with half angle equal
494: to $1^{\circ}$. Then we count the cumulative number of sub-halos
495: with astrophysical factor larger than a specified value, as shown in
496: Fig. \ref{jpsisubeps}. The concentration models for ENS01, B01 and
497: B01-subhalo (see Fig. \ref{cveps}) are adopted. We can see that the
498: ENS01 model gives the smallest astrophysical factor, while the
499: result from B01-subhalo model is larger by orders of magnitude than
500: other models. From the figure we can see that the uncertainties of
501: density distribution in sub-halos are very large. Given the particle
502: factor of DM annihilation, we can get the number of sub-halos with
503: flux higher than a specified value, such as the sensitivity of the
504: detector. On the contrary, if no source is seen, it puts a
505: constraint on the DM annihilation cross section \cite{bi07}.
506:
507: \begin{figure}[!htb]
508: \begin{center}
509: \includegraphics{jpsi_sub.eps}
510: \caption{Cumulative number of sub-halos whose astrophysical factor
511: $>J_{1^{\circ}}$ as a function of $J_{1^{\circ}}$. The dashed
512: horizon line corresponds to the case that only one subhalo will be
513: observed. }\label{jpsisubeps}
514: \end{center}
515: \end{figure}
516:
517: \section{Constraint on dark matter
518: annihilation cross section from measurements of atmospheric neutrino
519: flux}
520:
521: The atmospheric neutrino comes from hadronic interaction between
522: cosmic ray and atmosphere around the Earth. The observed neutrino
523: flux is consistent with theoretical prediction within the
524: uncertainties \cite{Ahrens:2002gq,Ashie:2005ik}. The neutrinos from
525: the DM annihilation should not be larger than the measured flux of
526: the neutrino. Thus this requirement gives bounds on the DM
527: annihilation cross section provided that the astrophysical factor,
528: as discussed in the above section, is known. Actually in the
529: literature the constraints on the neutrino fluxes from cosmic
530: diffuse processes and the whole MW halo have been investigated in
531: Ref. \cite{Beacom:2006tt,Yuksel:2007ac}. In this work, influence on
532: neutrino flux by DM substructures will be scrutinized.
533:
534: We assume that DM particles annihilate into pairs of neutrinos
535: following Ref. \cite{Beacom:2006tt}. The spectrum of the neutrinos
536: per flavor is a monochromatic line with $ dN_\nu /dE_\nu =
537: \frac{2}{3}\delta (E_\nu - m_\chi )$, where $ m_\chi$ is the mass
538: of the DM particle. All neutrino flavors are equally populated and
539: the neutrino and anti-neutrino are added together. We require that
540: the average neutrino flux from DM annihilation should not exceed the
541: average atmospheric neutrino flux, which is taken from
542: \cite{Honda:2006qj}.
543:
544: We first consider the neutrino flux averaged over all directions
545: with smooth and sub-halo contributions. As shown by the left column
546: in Fig. \ref{jpsieps}, the sub-halo contribution to the neutrino
547: flux is insensitive to the direction \cite{bi06a}, while the smooth
548: contribution can vary by several orders of magnitude for GC and
549: anti-GC directions. The sub-halo contribution in anti-GC direction
550: is larger than that of the smooth one, but smaller in GC direction.
551: In other words, the neutrinos from anti-GC direction are mainly from
552: sub-halo DM annihilation.
553:
554:
555: Second, we investigate the effects on the neutrino flux from DM
556: sub-halo contribution. Massive sub-halo is more appropriately
557: treated as point-like source, as discussed above. We take smaller
558: angle cone to calculate the neutrino flux from such single sub-halo
559: and the atmospheric neutrino separately. The average neutrino flux
560: from sub-halo in this cone is required not to exceed the
561: atmospheric neutrino flux. Combined with the input astrophysical
562: factor, we can set bounds on the DM annihilation cross section. This
563: approach is obviously based on the excellent angular resolution of
564: the neutrino telescope. The angular resolution of Super-Kamiokande
565: is $ \delta \theta (E) \simeq 30^ \circ \times \sqrt {GeV/E}$
566: \cite{Ashie:2005ik}. For $ E
567: > 100GeV$ neutrino, the angular resolution can reach about $ 3^ \circ$ for
568: Super-Kamiokande, while $1^ \circ$ for IceCube \cite{Ahrens:2003ix}.
569: In our evaluation we adopt a $ 1^ \circ$ half-angle cone for
570: IceCube. Note that for IceCube, the candidate source should be in
571: the northern sky, and its threshold energy is $ 50GeV$
572: \cite{Ahrens:2003ix}.
573:
574: In order to obtain the constraint on the DM annihilation cross
575: section, we must input the astrophysical factor. We use average
576: neutrino flux in a cone $ \phi _{\Delta \Omega }$ by simply
577: replacing $ J(\psi )$ with $ J_{\Delta \Omega }$ in Eq.
578: (\ref{jpsi}). Since the DM induced neutrino is sharply peaked, we
579: average neutrino flux within the energy bin around $ E_\nu = m_\chi$
580: to compare with the atmospheric neutrinos. And the energy bin width
581: is taken as $ \Delta \log _{10} E = 0.3$ within the energy
582: resolution limits of the neutrino detectors Super-Kamiokande
583: \cite{Desai:2004pq,Ashie:2005ik}and IceCube \cite{Ahrens:2003ix}.
584: The $ J_{\Delta \Omega }$ used in sub-halo point source is taken
585: from Fig. \ref{jpsisubeps} when cumulative number equals to one.
586: Based on the astrophysical factor input this way, the derived
587: annihilation cross section gives the sensitivity that IceCube may
588: find at least one sub-halo. $ J_{\Delta \Omega }$ for different
589: sub-halo profiles and concentration models are given in Table.
590: \ref{table1}.
591:
592:
593: \begin{table}[htb]
594: \begin{tabular}{c|cc|ccc}
595: \hline \hline
596: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Halo average} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Point-like} \\
597: \hline
598: & smooth & smooth + subhalo & ENS01 & B01 & B01-subhalo \\
599: \hline
600: NFW & 3.0 & 4.1 & 5.3 & 28.9 & 12763.7\\
601: \hline
602: Moore & --- & 12.1 & 43.3 & 276.3 & 82110.2\\
603: \hline
604: \hline
605: \end{tabular}
606: \caption{$ J_{\Delta \Omega }$ for different sub-halo profiles and
607: concentration models. The values listed here correspond to the
608: cumulative number equal to $1$ as shown in Fig. \ref{jpsisubeps}.
609: The smooth contribution to $ J_{\Delta \Omega }$ is fixed to be NFW
610: profile. 'Halo average' means averaging contributions over the whole
611: MW halo. For the sub-halo contributions we choose the concentration
612: model of B01$\times$2, as shown in the bottom-right figure in Fig.
613: \ref{jpsieps}. ENS01, B01 and B01subhalo represent different
614: concentration models when considering DM substructure as point-like
615: sources. For point-like sub-halos, $ J_{\Delta \Omega }$ is averaged
616: in a $ 1^ \circ$ half-angle cone around the center of the sub-halo.
617: }\label{table1}
618: \end{table}
619:
620: From Table \ref{table1} we can see that $ J_{\Delta \Omega }$ is 3.0
621: for the smooth case. The sub-halo contribution with Moore profile is
622: 9.1, while only 1.1 for NFW profile. If one averages the
623: contributions over the whole sky, the sub-halo contribution can
624: enhance the neutrino flux slightly. As shown in Fig. \ref{jpsieps},
625: the enhancement of sub-halo is large at the anti-GC direction which
626: can reach about $ 100 \sim 1000$, but the enhancement at the GC
627: direction is small. Note that the flux from the GC is much larger
628: than that from the anti-GC, it is natural to expect the {\em
629: averaging} sub-halo contribution should not be significant.
630: Therefore the point-like sub-halo should be naturally more
631: important, as shown in Table \ref{table1}. For the different
632: concentration model ENS01, B01 and B01subhalo, $ J_{\Delta \Omega }$
633: is much larger than the average contribution, though the uncertainty
634: is very large. The numbers in different concentration models can be
635: understood from Fig. \ref{cveps}, which indicates that the large $
636: c_v$ corresponds to the large $ J_{\Delta \Omega }$. Virial radius $
637: r_v$ defined in Eq. \ref{cv} is the boundary that gravitational
638: force can sustain itself, and it is only related to virial mass $
639: M_v$ but not the mass distribution. The density profiles with NFW or
640: Moore distribution behave both like $ r^{ - 3}$ at large radii and $
641: r^{ - 1}$ or $ r^{ - 1.5}$ at small radii separately. The radius $
642: r_{ - 2}$ is a measure of the density profile $ \rho (r)$, namely
643: the dark matter distributes mainly within the region $ r < r_{ -
644: 2}$. Thus larger $ c_v$ means more dark matter concentrating in the
645: sub-halo center, which results in a larger $ J_{\Delta \Omega }$.
646:
647: Once the astrophysical factor is known, bounds on the dark matter
648: annihilation cross section $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ can be derived
649: by requiring the DM induced neutrino flux less than the measured
650: ones. In Fig. \ref{sigmavn} and Fig. \ref{sigmavm}, the upper bounds
651: on $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ are plotted for two DM profiles. Also
652: shown in the figures is $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ for the natural
653: scale of dark matter. The upper solid line correspond to the
654: constraints from $ 180^ \circ$ half-angle cone averaging
655: contributions. The other lines represent the sub-halo point source
656: with $ 1^ \circ$ resolution from the IceCube. The dashed,
657: dash-dotted and short-dashed lines are plotted with different
658: concentration models. The constraints from the whole halo average
659: are slightly improved compared with the smooth case in Refs.
660: \cite{Beacom:2006tt,Yuksel:2007ac}. For the sub-halo as the point
661: source, the constraints are significantly improved. Moreover the
662: upper bounds of $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ are about $10^{-23}\sim
663: 10^{-24}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$ for B01 model, and can even reach
664: $\sim10^{-26}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$ for B01-subhalo model. Such bound is
665: even lower than $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ for the natural scale which
666: can induce the correct relic density of DM.
667:
668: \begin{figure}[!htb]
669: \begin{center}
670: \includegraphics{sigmavn.eps}
671: \caption{The upper
672: bounds on the DM annihilation cross section $\langle\sigma v\rangle$
673: as a function of dark matter mass with NFW subhalo profile. The
674: upper solid lines represent the constraints from $ 180^ \circ$
675: half-angle cone average. The other lines represent constraints from
676: sub-halo point source with $ 1^ \circ$ resolution from the IceCube.
677: The dashed, dash-dotted and short-dashed lines are plotted for
678: different concentration models. The lower solid line corresponds to
679: $\langle\sigma v\rangle\sim3\times10^{-26}cm^3s^{-1}$ for the
680: natural scale to produce the correct thermal relic
681: density.}\label{sigmavn}
682: \end{center}
683: \end{figure}
684:
685: \begin{figure}[!htb]
686: \begin{center}
687: \includegraphics{sigmavm.eps}
688: \caption{Same with Fig. \ref{sigmavn} but with
689: Moore subhalo profile. }\label{sigmavm}
690: \end{center}
691: \end{figure}
692:
693: \section{Conclusions and discussions}
694:
695: In this paper, by requiring the DM induced neutrino flux less than
696: the measured ones, we give the improved upper bounds on the DM
697: annihilation cross section $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ with the DM
698: substructure effects included. Here we assume the DM particles
699: annihilate into neutrinos solely following the previous works. The
700: observed neutrino flux depends on the particle physical and
701: astrophysical factors. Thus we first investigate the astrophysical
702: factor. Several different DM profiles and sub-halo concentration
703: models are adopted based on the numerical simulations. Our studies
704: show that at the anti-GC direction, the enhancement factor of
705: sub-halos for B01$\times2$ model is about 3 and 25 for NFW and
706: Moore profiles respectively. While the whole-sky average ($halo\
707: average$, with cone half-angle $180^{\circ}$) does not have
708: prominent enhancement. The best case of our adopted models is only
709: $\sim4$ times larger than the smooth ones (see bottom-right figure
710: in Fig. \ref{jpsieps}). If we take the $30^{\circ}$ angular average
711: ($halo\ angular$ in Ref. \cite{Yuksel:2007ac}), there is almost no
712: enhancement, as can be seen in Fig. \ref{jpsieps}. This is because
713: the enhancement from sub-halos is spatially dependent on the MW
714: halo, instead of a universal one \cite{bi06b}. On one hand, the
715: smooth component increases more rapidly and dominates the
716: annihilation flux near the GC; on the other hand, the tidal
717: disruption on sub-halos is most effective close to the GC. Thus the
718: effect of substructures is not significant near the GC. In the cases
719: of $halo\ average$ and $halo\ angular$, the GC contributions are
720: included and play a dominant role in the total flux, therefore no
721: remarkable enhancement from sub-halos is found.
722:
723: In this paper we emphasize the important role of the massive
724: sub-halos (e.g., $M_{sub}>10^6$M$_{\odot}$). Since the number of
725: massive sub-halo is small, it should be regarded as the point-like
726: source. For the massive sub-halos, the high angular resolution of
727: neutrino detector can be utilized to suppress the atmospheric
728: neutrino background, thus the constraints on $\langle\sigma
729: v\rangle$ are expected to be improved. The angular resolution $\sim
730: 1^{\circ}$ for energy greater than $50$ GeV of the forthcoming
731: experiment IceCube is employed \footnote{ For Super-Kamiokande, the
732: resolution angle is $\sim 3^{\circ}$ for $E>100$ GeV and the
733: background is $9$ times greater.}. The neutrino signal flux in a
734: cone with half-angle $1^{\circ}$ is calculated and compared with the
735: atmospheric background in the same cone. We found that the
736: constraints on $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ are indeed improved
737: significantly. Note that the constraints are model-dependent. For
738: the moderate case B01+NFW, we find the upper bound of $\langle\sigma
739: v\rangle$ is about $10^{-23}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$. While for the
740: concentration model B01-subhalo, the bound can reach $10^{-26}$
741: cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$, which is even lower than $\langle\sigma v\rangle$
742: for the natural scale which can induce the correct relic density of
743: DM.
744:
745: It should be noted that DM can annihilate into final states other
746: than neutrinos. Thus the assumption that DM annihilates into only
747: neutrinos gives the most conservative bound on the DM annihilation
748: cross section and is independent of the particle properties of DM
749: particle.
750:
751: Neutrinos are thought to be an important complementary particles
752: for DM indirect searches besides $\gamma$-rays and charged
753: anti-particles. It is shown that the detectability of $\gamma$-rays
754: from DM sub-halos on GLAST is optimistic \cite{kuhlen08}. The
755: effects of subhalos on positrons \cite{cumber07, lavalle07} and
756: antiprotons \cite{lavalle08} are also investigated. The combination
757: and cross check of different kinds of signals will be very crucial
758: to identify the DM sources and investigate the properties of DM
759: particles.
760:
761:
762:
763: \section{ Acknowledgements}
764:
765: This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences Foundation
766: of China (Nos. 10775001, 10635030, 10575111, 10773011),
767: by the trans-century fund of Chinese Ministry of Education,
768: and by the Chinese Academy of Sciences under the grant No. KJCX3-SYW-N2.
769:
770:
771:
772:
773: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
774:
775: \bibitem{Jungman:1995df}
776: G.~Jungman, M.~Kamionkowski and K.~Griest,
777: %``Supersymmetric dark matter,''
778: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 267}, 195 (1996).
779: %%[arXiv:hep-ph/9506380].
780: %%CITATION = PRPLC,267,195;%%
781:
782: \bibitem{Begeman:1991iy}
783: K.~G.~Begeman, A.~H.~Broeils and R.~H.~Sanders,
784: %``Extended rotation curves of spiral galaxies: Dark haloes and modified
785: %dynamics,''
786: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 249}, 523 (1991).
787: %%CITATION = MNRAA,249,523;%%
788:
789: \bibitem{Persic:1995ru}
790: M.~Persic, P.~Salucci and F.~Stel,
791: %``The Universal rotation curve of spiral galaxies: 1. The Dark matter
792: %connection,''
793: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 281}, 27 (1996).
794: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/9506004].
795: %%CITATION = MNRAA,281,27;%%
796:
797: \bibitem{Tyson95} J. A. Tyson and P. Fischer, Astrophys. J. {\bf 446} 55
798: (1995).
799:
800: \bibitem{White93}
801: S.~D.~M.~White, J.~F.~Navarro, A.~E.~Evrard and C.~S.~Frenk,
802: %``The Baryon content of galaxy clusters: A Challenge to cosmological
803: %orthodoxy,''
804: Nature {\bf 366}, 429 (1993).
805: %%CITATION = NATUA,366,429;%%
806:
807: \bibitem{Peebles71}
808: P.~J.~E.~Peebles, {\it Physical Cosmology} (Princeton: Princeton
809: University Press) (1971).
810:
811: %% \bibitem{Davis85}
812: %% M.~Davis, G.~Efstathiou, C.~S.~Frenk and S.~D.~M.~White,
813: %``The evolution of large-scale structure in a universe dominated by cold
814: %dark matter,''
815: %% Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 292}, 371 (1985).
816: %%CITATION = ASJOA,292,371;%%
817:
818: \bibitem{Spergel03}
819: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.} [WMAP Collaboration],
820: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:
821: %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''
822: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 148}, 175 (2003).
823: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0302209].
824: %%CITATION = APJSA,148,175;%%
825:
826: \bibitem{Hinshaw:2008kr}
827: G.~Hinshaw {\it et al.} [WMAP Collaboration],
828: %``Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP\altaffilmark 1 )
829: %Observations:Data Processing, Sky Maps, \& Basic Results,''
830: arXiv:0803.0732 [astro-ph].
831: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.0732;%%
832:
833: \bibitem{Bertone04}
834: G.~Bertone, D.~Hooper and J.~Silk,
835: %``Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,''
836: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 405}, 279 (2005).
837: %%[arXiv:hep-ph/0404175].
838: %%CITATION = PRPLC,405,279;%%
839:
840: \bibitem{Liu:2008kz}
841: J.~Liu, P.~f.~Yin and S.~h.~Zhu,
842: %``Neutrino Signals from Solar Neutralino Annihilations in Anomaly Mediated
843: %Supersymmetry Breaking Model,''
844: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 77}, 115014 (2008) and references therein.
845: %%arXiv:0803.2164 [hep-ph]
846: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.2164;%%
847:
848: \bibitem{Gondolo:1999ef}
849: P.~Gondolo and J.~Silk,
850: %``Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center,''
851: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 1719 (1999).
852: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/9906391].
853: %%CITATION = PRLTA,83,1719;%%
854:
855: \bibitem{bi06a}
856: %\cite{Bi:2005im}
857: X.~J.~Bi,
858: %``Gamma rays from the neutralino dark matter annihilations in the Milky Way
859: %substructures,''
860: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 741}, 83 (2006).
861: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0510714].
862: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B741,83;%%
863:
864: \bibitem{bi06b}
865: %\cite{Bi:2006vk}
866: X.~J.~Bi, J.~Zhang, Q.~Yuan, J.~L.~Zhang and H.~Zhao,
867: %``The diffuse Galactic gamma-rays from dark matter annihilation,''
868: arXiv:astro-ph/0611783.
869: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/0611783;%%
870:
871: \bibitem{yuan07}
872: %\cite{Yuan:2006ju}
873: Q.~Yuan and X.~J.~Bi,
874: %``The Galactic positron flux and dark matter substructures,''
875: JCAP {\bf 0705}, 001 (2007).
876: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0611872].
877: %%CITATION = JCAPA,0705,001;%%
878:
879: \bibitem{Desai:2004pq}
880: S.~Desai {\it et al.} [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],
881: %``Search for dark matter WIMPs using upward through-going muons in
882: %Super-Kamiokande,''
883: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 083523 (2004)
884: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 70}, 109901 (2004)].
885: %%[arXiv:hep-ex/0404025].
886: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D70,083523;%%
887:
888: \bibitem{Ahrens:2003fg}
889: J.~Ahrens {\it et al.} [AMANDA Collaboration],
890: %``Muon track reconstruction and data selection techniques in AMANDA,''
891: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 524} (2004) 169;
892: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0407044].
893: %%CITATION = NUIMA,A524,169;%%
894: M.~Ackermann {\it et al.} [The AMANDA Collaboration],
895: %``Search for extraterrestrial point sources of high energy neutrinos with
896: %AMANDA-II using data collected in 2000-2002,''
897: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 077102 (2005).
898: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0412347].
899:
900: \bibitem{Beacom:2006tt}
901: J.~F.~Beacom, N.~F.~Bell and G.~D.~Mack,
902: %``General upper bound on the dark matter total annihilation cross section,''
903: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 99}, 231301 (2007).
904: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0608090].
905: %%CITATION = PRLTA,99,231301;%%
906:
907: \bibitem{Yuksel:2007ac}
908: H.~Yuksel, S.~Horiuchi, J.~F.~Beacom and S.~Ando,
909: %``Neutrino Constraints on the Dark Matter Total Annihilation Cross Section,''
910: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76}, 123506 (2007).
911: %%[arXiv:0707.0196 [astro-ph]].
912: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,123506;%%
913:
914: \bibitem{Kachelriess:2007aj}
915: M.~Kachelriess and P.~D.~Serpico,
916: %``Model-independent dark matter annihilation bound from the diffuse $\gamma$
917: %ray flux,''
918: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76}, 063516 (2007).
919: %%[arXiv:0707.0209 [hep-ph]].
920: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,063516;%%
921:
922: \bibitem{Bell:2008ey}
923: N.~F.~Bell, J.~B.~Dent, T.~D.~Jacques and T.~J.~Weiler,
924: %``Electroweak Bremsstrahlung in Dark Matter Annihilation,''
925: arXiv:0805.3423 [hep-ph].
926: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0805.3423;%%
927:
928: \bibitem{Dent:2008qy}
929: J.~B.~Dent, R.~J.~Scherrer and T.~J.~Weiler,
930: %``Toward a Minimum Branching Fraction for Dark Matter Annihilation into
931: %Electromagnetic Final States,''
932: arXiv:0806.0370 [astro-ph].
933:
934: \bibitem{Pradier:2008iv}
935: T.~Pradier and f.~t.~A.~Collaboration,
936: %``The ANTARES Neutrino Telescope: first results,''
937: arXiv:0805.2545 [astro-ph].
938: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0805.2545;%%
939:
940: \bibitem{Ahrens:2003ix}
941: J.~Ahrens {\it et al.} [IceCube Collaboration],
942: %``Sensitivity of the IceCube detector to astrophysical sources of high
943: %energy muon neutrinos,''
944: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 20}, 507 (2004).
945: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0305196].
946: %%CITATION = APHYE,20,507;%%
947:
948: \bibitem{nfw97}
949: %\cite{Navarro:1996gj}
950: J.~F.~Navarro, C.~S.~Frenk and S.~D.~M.~White,
951: %``A Universal Density Profile from Hierarchical Clustering,''
952: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 490}, 493 (1997).
953: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/9611107].
954: %%CITATION = ASJOA,490,493;%%
955:
956: \bibitem{moore98}
957: %\cite{Moore:1997sg}
958: B.~Moore, F.~Governato, T.~Quinn, J.~Stadel and G.~Lake,
959: %``Resolving the Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos,''
960: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 499}, L5 (1998).
961: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/9709051].
962: %%CITATION = ASJOA,499,L5;%%
963:
964: \bibitem{burkert95}
965: %\cite{Burkert:1995yz}
966: A.~Burkert,
967: %``The Structure of dark matter halos in dwarf galaxies,''
968: IAU Symp.\ {\bf 171}, 175 (1996)
969: [Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 447}, L25 (1995)].
970: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/9504041].
971: %%CITATION = ASJOA,447,L25;%%
972:
973: \bibitem{Salucci:2000ps}
974: P.~Salucci and A.~Burkert,
975: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 537}, L9 (2000).
976:
977: \bibitem{diemand05}
978: %\cite{Diemand:2005vz}
979: J.~Diemand, B.~Moore and J.~Stadel,
980: %``Earth-mass dark-matter haloes as the first structures in the early
981: %universe,''
982: Nature {\bf 433}, 389 (2005).
983: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0501589].
984: %%CITATION = NATUA,433,389;%%
985:
986: \bibitem{reed05}
987: %\cite{Reed:2003hp}
988: D.~Reed {\it et al.},
989: %``Evolution of the Density Profiles of Dark Matter Haloes,''
990: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 357}, 82 (2005).
991: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0312544].
992: %%CITATION = MNRAA,357,82;%%
993:
994: \bibitem{berezinsky92}
995: %\cite{Berezinsky:1992mx}
996: V.~S.~Berezinsky, A.~V.~Gurevich and K.~P.~Zybin,
997: %``Distribution of dark matter in the galaxy and the lower limits for the
998: %masses of supersymmetric particles,''
999: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 294}, 221 (1992).
1000: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B294,221;%%
1001:
1002: \bibitem{lavalle08}
1003: %\cite{Lavalle:1900wn}
1004: J.~Lavalle, Q.~Yuan, D.~Maurin and X.~J.~Bi,
1005: %``Full Calculation of Clumpiness Boost factors for Antimatter Cosmic Rays in
1006: %the light of \LambdaCDM N-body simulation results,''
1007: Astron.\ Astrophys.\ {\bf 479}, 427 (2008).
1008: %%arXiv:0709.3634 [astro-ph].
1009: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0709.3634;%%
1010:
1011: \bibitem{bullock01}
1012: %\cite{Bullock:1999he}
1013: J.~S.~Bullock {\it et al.},
1014: %``Profiles of dark haloes: evolution, scatter, and environment,''
1015: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 321}, 559 (2001).
1016: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/9908159].
1017: %%CITATION = MNRAA,321,559;%%
1018:
1019: \bibitem{eke01}
1020: %\cite{Eke:2000av}
1021: V.~R.~Eke, J.~F.~Navarro and M.~Steinmetz,
1022: %``The Power Spectrum Dependence of Dark Matter Halo Concentrations,''
1023: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 554}, 114 (2001).
1024: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0012337].
1025: %%CITATION = ASJOA,554,114;%%
1026:
1027: \bibitem{buote07}
1028: %\cite{Buote:2006kx}
1029: D.~A.~Buote, F.~Gastaldello, P.~J.~Humphrey, L.~Zappacosta, J.~S.~Bullock, F.~Brighenti and W.~G.~Mathews,
1030: %``The X-Ray Concentration-Virial Mass Relation,''
1031: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 664}, 123 (2007).
1032: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0610135].
1033: %%CITATION = ASJOA,664,123;%%
1034:
1035: \bibitem{comerford07}
1036: %\cite{Comerford:2007xb}
1037: J.~M.~Comerford and P.~Natarajan,
1038: %``The Observed Concentration-Mass Relation for Galaxy Clusters,''
1039: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 379}, 190 (2007).
1040: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0703126].
1041: %%CITATION = MNRAA,379,190;%%
1042:
1043: \bibitem{cola06}
1044: %\cite{Colafrancesco:2005ji}
1045: S.~Colafrancesco, S.~Profumo and P.~Ullio,
1046: %``Multi-frequency analysis of neutralino dark matter annihilations in the
1047: %Coma cluster,''
1048: Astron.\ Astrophys.\ {\bf 455}, 21 (2006).
1049: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0507575].
1050: %%CITATION = AAEJA,455,21;%%
1051:
1052: \bibitem{wilkinson99}
1053: %\cite{Wilkinson:1999hf}
1054: M.~I.~Wilkinson and N.~W.~Evans,
1055: %``The Present and Future Mass of the Milky Way Halo,''
1056: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 310}, 645 (1999).
1057: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/9906197].
1058: %%CITATION = MNRAA,310,645;%%
1059:
1060: \bibitem{sakamoto03}
1061: %\cite{Sakamoto:2002zr}
1062: T.~Sakamoto, M.~Chiba and T.~C.~Beers,
1063: %``The Mass of the Milky Way: Limits from a Newly Assembled Set of Halo
1064: %Objects,''
1065: Astron.\ Astrophys.\ {\bf 397}, 899 (2003).
1066: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0210508].
1067: %%CITATION = AAEJA,397,899;%%
1068:
1069: \bibitem{smith07}
1070: %\cite{Smith:2006ym}
1071: M.~C.~Smith {\it et al.},
1072: %``The RAVE Survey: Constraining the Local Galactic Escape Speed,''
1073: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 379}, 755 (2007).
1074: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0611671].
1075: %%CITATION = MNRAA,379,755;%%
1076:
1077: \bibitem{xue08}
1078: %\cite{Xue:2008se}
1079: X.~X.~Xue {\it et al.},
1080: %``The Milky Way's Rotation Curve to 60 kpc and an Estimate of the Dark Matter
1081: %Halo Mass from Kinematics of ~2500 SDSS Blue Horizontal Branch Stars,''
1082: arXiv:0801.1232 [astro-ph].
1083: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0801.1232;%%
1084:
1085: \bibitem{tormen98}
1086: G.~Tormen, A.~Diaferio and D.~Syer, Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf
1087: 299}, 728 (1998).
1088:
1089: \bibitem{klypin99}
1090: %\cite{Klypin:1997fb}
1091: A.~A.~Klypin, S.~Gottlober and A.~V.~Kravtsov,
1092: %``Galaxies in N-body Simulations: overcoming the overmerging problem,''
1093: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 516}, 530 (1999).
1094: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/9708191].
1095: %%CITATION = ASJOA,516,530;%%
1096:
1097: \bibitem{moore99}
1098: %\cite{Moore:1999nt}
1099: B.~Moore, S.~Ghigna, F.~Governato, G.~Lake, T.~Quinn, J.~Stadel and P.~Tozzi,
1100: %``Dark Matter Substructure Within Galactic Halos,''
1101: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 524} (1999) L19.
1102: %%CITATION = ASJOA,524,L19;%%
1103:
1104: \bibitem{ghigna00}
1105: %\cite{Ghigna:1999sn}
1106: S.~Ghigna, B.~Moore, F.~Governato, G.~Lake, T.~Quinn and J.~Stadel,
1107: %``Density profiles and substructure of dark matter halos: converging results
1108: %at ultra-high numerical resolution,''
1109: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 544}, 616 (2000).
1110: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/9910166].
1111: %%CITATION = ASJOA,544,616;%%
1112:
1113: \bibitem{springel01}
1114: %\cite{Springel:2000qu}
1115: V.~Springel, S.~D.~M.~White, G.~Tormen and G.~Kauffmann,
1116: %``Populating a cluster of galaxies - I. Results at z=0,''
1117: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 328}, 726 (2001).
1118: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0012055].
1119: %%CITATION = MNRAA,328,726;%%
1120:
1121: \bibitem{zentner03}
1122: %\cite{Zentner:2003yd}
1123: A.~R.~Zentner and J.~S.~Bullock,
1124: %``Halo Substructure And The Power Spectrum,''
1125: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 598}, 49 (2003).
1126: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0304292].
1127: %%CITATION = ASJOA,598,49;%%
1128:
1129: \bibitem{lucia04}
1130: %\cite{DeLucia:2003xe}
1131: G.~De Lucia {\it et al.},
1132: %``Substructures in Cold Dark Matter Halos,''
1133: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 348}, 333 (2004).
1134: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0306205].
1135: %%CITATION = MNRAA,348,333;%%
1136:
1137: \bibitem{diemand04}
1138: %\cite{Diemand:2004kx}
1139: J.~Diemand, B.~Moore and J.~Stadel,
1140: %``Velocity and spatial biases in CDM subhalo distributions,''
1141: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 352}, 535 (2004).
1142: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0402160].
1143: %%CITATION = MNRAA,352,535;%%
1144:
1145: \bibitem{helmi02}
1146: %\cite{Helmi:2002ss}
1147: A.~Helmi, S.~D.~M.~White and V.~Springel,
1148: %``The phase-space structure of a dark-matter halo: Implications for
1149: %dark-matter direct detection experiments,''
1150: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 063502 (2002).
1151: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0201289].
1152: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,063502;%%
1153:
1154: \bibitem{gao04}
1155: %\cite{Gao:2004au}
1156: L.~Gao, S.~D.~M.~White, A.~Jenkins, F.~Stoehr and V.~Springel,
1157: %``The subhalo populations of LCDM dark haloes,''
1158: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 355} (2004) 819.
1159: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0404589].
1160: %%CITATION = MNRAA,355,819;%%
1161:
1162: \bibitem{shaw06}
1163: %\cite{Shaw:2005dy}
1164: L.~Shaw, J.~Weller, J.~P.~Ostriker and P.~Bode,
1165: %``Statistics of physical properties of dark matter clusters,''
1166: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 646}, 815 (2006).
1167: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0509856].
1168: %%CITATION = ASJOA,646,815;%%
1169:
1170: \bibitem{hofmann01}
1171: %\cite{Hofmann:2001bi}
1172: S.~Hofmann, D.~J.~Schwarz and H.~Stoecker,
1173: %``Damping scales of neutralino cold dark matter,''
1174: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 083507 (2001).
1175: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0104173].
1176: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D64,083507;%%
1177:
1178: \bibitem{chen01}
1179: %\cite{Chen:2001jz}
1180: X.~l.~Chen, M.~Kamionkowski and X.~m.~Zhang,
1181: %``Kinetic decoupling of neutralino dark matter,''
1182: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 021302 (2001).
1183: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0103452].
1184: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D64,021302;%%
1185:
1186: \bibitem{green05}
1187: %\cite{Green:2005fa}
1188: A.~M.~Green, S.~Hofmann and D.~J.~Schwarz,
1189: %``The first WIMPy halos,''
1190: JCAP {\bf 0508}, 003 (2005).
1191: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0503387].
1192: %%CITATION = JCAPA,0508,003;%%
1193:
1194: \bibitem{bi07}
1195: %\cite{Bi:2007pr}
1196: X.~J.~Bi,
1197: %``Constraining supersymmetry from the satellite experiments,''
1198: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76}, 123511 (2007).
1199: %%[arXiv:0708.1206 [astro-ph]].
1200: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,123511;%%
1201:
1202: %---------ref
1203: \bibitem{Ahrens:2002gq}
1204: J.~Ahrens {\it et al.} [AMANDA Collaboration],
1205: %``Observation of high energy atmospheric neutrinos with the Antarctic Muon
1206: %and Neutrino Detector Array,''
1207: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 012005 (2002).
1208: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0205109].
1209: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,012005;%%
1210:
1211: \bibitem{Ashie:2005ik}
1212: Y.~Ashie {\it et al.} [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],
1213: %``A measurement of atmospheric neutrino oscillation parameters by
1214: %Super-Kamiokande I,''
1215: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 112005 (2005).
1216: %%[arXiv:hep-ex/0501064].
1217: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,112005;%%
1218:
1219: \bibitem{Honda:2006qj}
1220: M.~Honda, T.~Kajita, K.~Kasahara, S.~Midorikawa and T.~Sanuki,
1221: %``Calculation of atmospheric neutrino flux using the interaction model
1222: %calibrated with atmospheric muon data,''
1223: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 75}, 043006 (2007).
1224: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0611418].
1225: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D75,043006;%%
1226:
1227: \bibitem{kuhlen08}
1228: %%\bibitem{Kuhlen:2008aw}
1229: M.~Kuhlen, J.~Diemand and P.~Madau,
1230: %``The Dark Matter Annihilation Signal from Galactic Substructure: Predictions
1231: %for GLAST,''
1232: arXiv:0805.4416 [astro-ph].
1233: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0805.4416;%%
1234:
1235: \bibitem{cumber07}
1236: %%\bibitem{Cumberbatch:2006tq}
1237: D.~T.~Cumberbatch and J.~Silk,
1238: %``Local dark matter clumps and the cosmic ray positron excess,''
1239: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 374}, 455 (2007).
1240: %%[arXiv:astro-ph/0602320].
1241: %%CITATION = MNRAA,374,455;%%
1242:
1243: \bibitem{lavalle07}
1244: J.~Lavalle, J.~Pochon, P.~Salati and R.~Taillet,
1245: Astron.\ Astrophys.\ {\bf 462}, 827 (2007).
1246:
1247:
1248: \end{thebibliography}
1249:
1250:
1251:
1252:
1253: \end{document}
1254: